Free Republic

Bush departed Washington for his meetings with Fox as an emotional election-year dustup over immigration — what he called the "topic du jour" — continued to rage in the U.S. capital.

The topic du jour???

No wonder he's selling us out, he doesn't even view illegal immigration as anything more than a political football.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush rejoined UNESCO in 2003.

Hmmn. Open borders, globalizing everything. Sounds very conservative.

Wow, he's gone. Wonder why the Mods did that? /sarc

Indeed. He DARED to question Dubya. We can't have that.

What's the deal with keyword monitoring/deleting? Why is this suddenly an issue?

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the government does not have to release.....unanimous decision

So much for conservative appointments differing when the chips are down.

While you apparently wanted to give the impression that you wrote the above passage yourself, in fact for the most part it is clearly "borrowed" without credit from other sources.

No, I wasn't trying to "appear" like I was the author. Geez Ichneumon, did I say I was an expert? No I clearly said I was not one. You try to paint me as intellectually dishonest. That is not true. I wasn't aware this was a research paper, demanding footnotes, I thought we were in an internet discussion! Of course I searched and did a cut and paste. You smirk and ooze condescension at my "contributions" which only show that I digested the info. I am impressed with RA, he is an intelligent man that seems to be fair minded. I try to be fair minded. I spent quite a bit of time at pro-evolution websites and read their best criticisms to formulate my response sir.

Are you about to tell me you don't rely on other people's arguments when they seem to express it well? If so, then you are quite the articulate fellow on many subjects.

When I said: "For all the chest-beating and things you may have heard the Bible says..." I was trying to ensure we didn't degenerate into something not quoted from the text.

In any case, congratulations. My HUGE secret is exposed! I actually use the internet to find information to help me express myself.

Oh good, I am pleased you were able to answer tonight.

In scanning your reply, you post:

That still does not reconcile the obvious errors in the order given in Genesis. For example:

Gen 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:14 - And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years

I assume you are pointing out that plant life could not exist in the absence of the light provided by celestial bodies?

This is an apparent contradiction in the text to be sure. A closer inspection shows that our planet and the sun where formed the first day. (3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.)

You quoted v12 and v14 which were presented as occurring on the 3rd and 4th days respectively. In general sequence terms this preserves the logic flow, that is to say, light was in place before life appeared.

For the moment we'll let the more esoteric language arguments slide, because only creationists would care, but there is also an explanation involving differences in Hebrew tenses and our English translations of such that addresses timing of the conclusion of events listed in Genesis. Additionally, there is also a theological argument involving sequencing to show the superiority of Yahweh over the local gods that would have made sense to the target audience, but that seems a bit weak to build an argument around.

The next interesting point you make is:

However, the order does not fit the observed data. Foe example, first generation stars would not have planets, yet they certainly would be emitting electromagnetic energy.

Let me make sure I understand your position. Are you suggesting that the description of a planetary body being created at the same time as the parent star is the issue?

An aside...I was pleased to see someone who has even heard of the Magellan spacecraft. I spent two years of my life on that one, and relatively few people are even aware of it or its contributions to science.

It looks like a boar hunter's photo taken over a freshly downed kill.

Yes, it really does. Hehehe.

Looking forward to receiving your book. Finally bought it yesterday on Amazon.

Many years in the future, these sites will be preserved, historic landmarks of American space exploration history.

The space craft, their exploration vehicles and the surrounding sites will be protected and preserved.

Cool. Will they be tourist attractions? Maybe the local Martian mall built next to the Brit crash site can be called Dead Beagle Boutique or something.

"Assuming it is genuine, it's deeply humiliating to show Saddam in this way, and will lead to a bad anti-American reaction in the Arab street,"

Does the spectre of the 'Arab Street' cause anyone else here to chuckle? Puhleese!

Thanks for the link, I did already look him over when I arrived home. I think I'll allow RadioAstronomer to describe himself as an EXPERT or not however.

In the world of Aerospace, which it would appear we both are, an expert is called a Principal Investigator and is usually connected with a Univeristy. So please don't ascribe to RA what he may not credit himself with, K?

HINT: It is not a random coincidence that his screen name is "RadioAstromomer"....

Yes, I thought about his screen name on the drive home and realized he may actually know a thing or two...;^)

(He threw me with the part about taking a test...visualized him as a smart-aleck 20 year old in college...oh well, ASS-sumptions and all.)

Anyway. I look forward to a wonderful banter!

How much and to what level of big bang cosmology, general relativity, stellar evolution, and planetary formation are you familiar with?

I need to know to gauge my response.

OIC, another learn-ed one.

Your original post said: I do agree with you that it certainly does not fit the observed evidence.

Okay, here's a little info to kick it off:

1. Big Bang Cosmology/General Relativity VS. What the Bible says:

The first suggestion that laid the groundwork for the 'Big Bang Theory' was by none other than Albert Einstein. His field equation of general relativity predicted an expanding universe. Whether our universe will expand forever or eventually collapse is still debated among cosmologists. In either case, the actual density of matter in our universe is within a factor of ten of the so-called critical density, the point of exact balance between permanent expansion and eventual contraction. But to be so close to this critical density after some 20 billion years of expansion suggests intelligent design. What?!? Yeah, there must have been precise tuning in the earliest moments of the Big Bang for it to work at all. At 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang, for instance--the so-called Planck time--the density must have been equal to the critical density to one part in 10 to the 60. If it had been ever so slightly higher, the universe would have collapsed quickly and there would have been no opportunity for life to form. On the other hand, had the density been ever so slightly smaller, the universe would have expanded rapidly and no galaxies, stars, or planets would have formed. Again, no life. Thus, life is the result of fine tuning the density of matter-energy at the Planck time to one part in 10 to the 60!8 But it was the result of an accident, eh?

Are you about to tell me this contradicts the Biblical account? Not really. For all the chest-beating and things you may have heard the Bible says, in reality the Hebrew word used to refer to the astronomical universe is shamayim. That word is used in conjunction with the phrase 'stretch out' several times in the Old Testament.

The concept being that the cosmos is not static and used with the verb natah as an active participle form indicates that the process is ongoing.

IOW, the Bible does not contradict the OBSERVABLE phenomenon of an expanding universe. (And in fact, an expansion that is accelerating.) Whether or not this began as a 'big bang' or some other way is not particularly relevant. God certainly could have empolyed this method to create the universe.

I like this quote regarding the idea of the 'big bang.' In Parade magazine, February 4, 1996, Marilyn vos Savant had a reader who expressed this view as follows: "I assume that you, like most intellectual types, are not a religious person. So what do you think of the Big Bang theory." Ms vos Savant responded: "I think that if it had been a religion that first maintained the notion that all the matter in the entire universe had once been contained in an area smaller than the point of a pin, scientists probably would have laughed at the idea."

Silly but typical. Assume the data is valueless because of the viewpoint of the speaker, but I digress.

2. You queried: How much and to what level ….. stellar evolution, and planetary formation are you familiar with?

I won't claim to be an expert, as I'm sure neither are you, but I am fortunate to be continuously exposed to these concepts via my employer. I work for a company that built several science instruments for Hubble (visible spectrum), produced an infared spectrum telescope called Spitzer and helped built an X-Ray telescope called Chandra. So, we get to be exposed to some very cool stuff as a result. Are you going to propose that the Bible claims all creating on the part of God is over? Therefore viewing new stars being formed is somehow a contradiction? Ha!

Anyway, I'll stop guessing where you are going with this and just read your post. It's nearly 7 PM here and my wife is going to shoot me. I will check back from home. Later.

The party says it wants to increase its share of the black vote in the next election to 25 percent. Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, stated recently that this push is a "top, top priority." One wonders how Gillespie and his party expect to achieve such a lofty goal when his party has such an abysmal record on many fundamental black issues.

Yes it's a wonderful thing that the Democrats freed the slaves, appointed Clarence Thomas to the highest court in the land, Have meaningful posts like National Security Advisor and Secretary of State filled by Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell... Oh wait, my bad.

Wrong party.

It's a good thing the Democrats didn't try to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Oh wait a tick...they did!

Well at least the demonRats gave the blacks voting rights...right? NO? Dang...

Great post

We're being NAFTA'd from all sides.

Just wait'll FTAA kicks in.

I do agree with you that it certainly does not fit the observed evidence.

Oh really? How so? Be specific please.

And ignorant restatings of what you "heard" do not count.

Straightening out that misunderstanding of yours is only the first step in leading you through all the evidence which, taken *together* leads to the inescapable conclusion that evolution is the best explanation for the history of life on Earth.

Thank you so much. I really love it when an evolutionist gets high and mighty. You are a virtual fountain of condescension and are only engaging in what is an inevitable response at some point. (e.g. when you disagree, sink to insults.)

I will allow that much of what is bandied around by most people is flawed on either side of this discussion.

Since you are so wise in the ways of science, perhaps you could further elucidate me. Where would you place the trilobite, taxonomically speaking? Would this ancient creature be near the bottom due to its age, or near the top due to its complexity?

Nice list dude. It proves absolutely nothing, but nice list.

Basically you just restated that things "appeared" fully formed and functional. This "proves" EVOLUTIONARY processes how?

The link you provided is the same one that PatrickHenry gave me, and like I said, I'm reading through the voluminous thing now.

What is your definition of species?

You are obviously driving at the commonly understood notion of sexual reproduction being the standard. If two creatures are capable of producing fertile offspring they are of the same species. Even if they look wildly different but can produce fertile offspring. Yes?

So if ring thing 'A' can not reproduce with ring thing 'Z' they are different species according to this definition.

The fact that ring thing 'A' can reproduce with, say, 'D' through 'S' or something along those lines, whereas 'Z' also can do the same thing, indicates that 'A' and 'D' through 'S' are the same 'species' whereas 'Z' and 'D' through 'S' are.....in any case it would appear that 'A' AND 'Z' can reproduce with at least ONE common link in the ring orgy. Are they then different species, or is something else going on here?