Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[AndrewC]

I eventually grew tired of your baseless accusations.

Baseless!!!?? The guy was an imposter by your admission. I also provided the clues..... sports fans!

[AndrewC]

This was a very pleasant thread for more than 4,000 posts.

It becomes unpleasant when a member of your gang is called on a misrepresentation.

[VadeRetro]

Next step: "This thread has been pulled. Reason: Flame war."

[PatrickHenry]

Before the thread is pulled, let it be known ... I'm Sparticus!

[AndrewC]

And just who are the people that bring up the thread pulling subject? Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink.

HINT: Their names rhyme with VadeRetro and PatrickHenry.

[viaveritasvita]

"Darwinism means: 'No life after death; no ultimate foundation for ethics; no ultimate meaning for life; no free will.' The only reason anyone believes in such things, is that people have not yet grasped the full implications of Darwinism." Colson

[VadeRetro]

Baseless!!!?? The guy was an imposter by your admission.

You were telling me it was me. You're still calling him "my shill" (4642), implying not only that I knew at the time that No-Kin was fake, but that I was actively complicit in the deception. This is absurd.

No-Kin's real identity confessed in Freepmail to me months later, long after that account had been outed and banned. I would have hesitated to approach the mods--risking getting the Freeper involved banned over such a prank--had I in fact appreciated such a risk. Figuring No-Kin as real, I tended to discount the possibility. Happily, they didn't ban the person anyway.

I said it was a revelation because it was. No-Kin had blown it. I thought I knew the creos by then but I had missed a biggie. Holy Warriors don't criticize each other before the evil, satanic foe. Period. Not even a nitpick.

Maybe I was too used to being corrected by Nebullis, donh, Physicist, et al. when my layman-level understanding crosses a line and mucks up a point. When that happens, I tend to take it at face value and not as a sign they're not who they claim. Anyway, I got the point after the mods confirmed that No-Kin was somebody's alter-ego.

The point being that the other side not only never corrects each other, they can't do that. Nobody can be publicly acknowledged as an embarrassment. Not even you. Not even gore3000, which may or may not be worse.

[Nebullis]

That you would continue to play that No-Kin is C-sider is not funny. It's...

Yeah, that was a bit harsh. Things can get a bit too personal on these threads.

[VadeRetro]

You saw something to which I was blind. It was a biggie. Don't blame you for being a bit amazed.

Out for the night.

[betty boop]

If consciousness is just a function of complexity or massive memory, why would that info be a subject to "worry about"?

That's a big "IF", tpaine. What if consciousness is not a function of anything else, or constituted by parts of anything else? What if it were something more akin to, say, electromagnetism?

On the other hand if what you write here is correct, then there'd be nothing to worry about on that particular score. So long as science is done honestly and rigorously, we have to let the chips fall where they may. But the point is, science really hasn't seriously studied the issue, but acts as if it had; i.e., that is, it acts as if it knows what consciousness is. Either that, or treats it as a "non-issue."

What I meant by my remark that I thought you had a rather low opinion of man could have been far better expressed by saying: You seriously underestimate this marvel called consciousness.

[viaveritasvita]

g3k: Thank you for posting in color - makes it easier to read cut and paste posts.

Did someone just mention ICR....

The Green River (GR) oil shales have provided one of the most used arguments for "millions of years." Take a specimen of the shale and slice it open perpendicular to the normal bedding, so that you look at the rock's internal characteristics from the side. You will see a multitude of tiny laminations, alternating light and dark. Each par is called a varve usually interpreted as representing a yearly cycle of deposition, with the darker, coarser layer the summer deposit, and the lighter, finer layer from the winter. In the GR shale deposits up to 6 million varves are found. Does this prove 6 million years?

Actually, in no location do all the varves exist. The total is derived by correlating sequences from several locations, arranging the partial records in consecutive order. Obviously, conclusions are subjective.

The real question is, does each varve unequivocally represent one year? Definitely not, for several reasons. Studies have shown that varve counts vary between individual locations in modern glacial lakes. Sometimes, the number of laminae covering a historically dated level was more than the elapsed years. One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. In the GR shale a 35% variance in number occurred between two "instantaneous" volcanic ash falls. Researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year.

There's also evidence it happened rapidly. Numerous fossils are found in the GR formation. Catfish in abundance are found, looking much the same as they did when alive. The thickness of their bodies transgresses several layers. Obviously, a fish carcass, even if it did get to the bottom of a lake would not remain undecayed and unscavenged for several years, slowly being covered by seasonal deposits.

Even more remarkable are an abundance of bird fossils. In spite of their low density, bird fossils are copiously present here. If these sediments are from the bottom of a calm lake, as required by the standard varve interpretation, how could myriads of bird fossils be present? Bird carcasses don't lie on the bottom of a lake. What happened?

Further evidence against the uniformitarian, calm lake model comes from the nature of the sediments. The dark summer layer is organic rich, a commercial source of oil today. Organic material does exist in modern lakes, but a huge lake without disruptive storms or variable river input, year after year for six million years? Surely some things cannot be.

On the other hand, numerous examples of catastrophic deposits, hurricane debris, 90 mph mudflows at Mt. St. Helens, and lab experiments, have documented rapid formation of multitudes of "varves." A detailed understanding of past, unobserved events is hard to construct, but in general, the GR varved deposits support the global flood of Noah's day model much better than the uniformitarian, long age model. John D. Morris

[PatrickHenry]

End-of-session placemarker.

[viaveritasvita]

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

U.S. Supreme Court
February 29, 1892. Justice Josiah Brewer, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226.

Anyone care to discuss what the Supreme Court meant by "our institutions?"

[VadeRetro]

Maybe I was too used to being corrected by Nebullis, donh, Physicist, et al. when my layman-level understanding crosses a line and mucks up a point. When that happens, I tend to take it at face value and not as a sign they're not who they claim.

OK, I did wonder about you for your first few months! ;)

[AndrewC]

I said it was a revelation because it was. No-Kin had blown it. I thought I knew the creos by then but I had missed a biggie. Holy Warriors don't criticize each other before the evil, satanic foe. Period. Not even a nitpick.

Bull. He was suspect because he acted the shill. He thought he was so good he appeared within a short period of you mentioning the imposter comment by jennyp. He was wrong. If he is still on this forum under another name you should apologize to medved and strive to have him allowed back on Free Republic.

[viaveritasvita]

"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness...it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measure for the encouragement thereof."
Continental Congress, 1778
Journals of Congress (1823), Vol III, p 85, October 12, 1778

Anyone care to comment on what the Continental Congress meant by the States taking "the most effectual measure for the encouragement [of true religion]?"

[Nebullis]

It's a sobering thought, but the human genome does not appear to be particularly complex. The Bible, I'd warrant, has nearly as much information content as any of our genomes.

And neither have much more than a lowly termite. Sobering, indeed.

Thanks for the explanation.

[Nebullis]

I guess one can look at information content independently of meaning or phenotype.

It doesn't seem to be very useful, does it?

Thanks for your posts, Doctor Stochastic.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You get an upper limit on "useful" information content. That's why it's called channel capacity. A noisy transmitter or receiver reduces the actual information transfer. The limit is on the number of messages, not the content. With a channel capacity of (for example) 8 bits, one could point at 256 books or 256 pictures. The relevant number is 256 not the content of the books. Of course one could not point to one of 257 books.

[viaveritasvita]

Sentis wrote (in post 4292) "Having been brought up a Southern Baptist which means i have read that...Book More times than I like to think of before my 18th birthday...."

It's funny, I was brought up Catholic and, while many Catholics are true Christians and generally the Catholic church is to be commended for its good works, I broke with them because I believe their doctrine is seriously flawed; yet another case of hijacking the original into a counterfeit (you can read one small and recent proof of this, which I think shows the leftie liberalism that has invaded the Catholic Church and is only the tip of the iceberg, in the headlines of 2002).

Since then, I studied many of the world's religions and almost all the Christian denominations. I think the So. Baptists have their doctrine down as close as it gets to Biblically sound. I do have problems with some of the So. Baptists' application with that doctrine.

I generally prefer the non-denominational, expository-type teaching. I'm not a member of any church because there is no Biblical mandate to join a particular church -- I'm a member of the worldwide Church of Jesus Christ by virtue of my belief and have been blessed with several good Christian friends with whom I fellowship on a regular basis. I do attend church most every Sunday and read the Bible regularly.

I wondered if, since you said you read the Bible apparently several times before your 18th birthday, if you can really say that you actually read it. I only wonder because I, too, said I read it, but what that actually meant was that I read bits and pieces, I listened to the priests' sermons, I observed people who professed to be Christians, etc., forming my own doctrine and opinion of Christianity based on these bits and pieces. I never read it cover to cover for myself as an adult.

When I finally decided it was important to read this Book that has made such an impact on world history from day one, I bought the Life Application Study Bible and read every single word of the commentary. I then read the Bible, Genesis to Revelation, AND the commentary. To say it was an eye-opener is an understatement. I was stunned at the amount of mis-information and strange interpretations and counterfeit Christianity to which I'd been subjected for years!! I'm just asking that you re-look at your statement that you've read the Bible.

I urge you to look to Jesus Christ only for the Truth; His followers will only disappoint you as we are human. Don't take anyone's word for it; read it for yourself. Don't take bits and pieces of it; read it cover to cover.