Posted on 02/26/2006 9:12:24 PM PST by ibme
Bamboo never really dies. I've witnessed it chopped down, burned for weeks with kerosene, shot with a silver bullet, exposed to garlic and the rising sun on Easter, stake driven through its heart -- and 20 years later it's back again, big as ever.
You seem to be assuming quite a bit. Namely that conditions were the same then as they are now. As for the Immune system.. if you cannot die and creation exists to promote life rather than promoting it's end.. the immune system becomes pretty useless other than as a vehicle for reparing physical damage due to trauma - like a fall.
Again, it seems like your positions are being offered as excuses and nay-saying. It doesn't appear you've really thought through them.
Now that's about the funniest thing I've seen posted.
No kidding. The neighbor has bamboo. At least he has to work more than I do to keep it out of the yard.
I did consult with a Chinese Expert; he said that the Ancient Chinese remedy was to move.
/pun alert
...And that's why they called him Arty Johnson!
/pun alert
A little humor there. See, "evos" have a sense of humor too!
[Very little--ed.]
I hate to say this but bamboo spreads underground. I'd move before the property values drop.
Thats the spirit..
See just upthread, my previous post regarding a global flood. There is no evidence for such a flood in my field of research.
The creationist websites all deal (poorly) with fossils and geology. My post deals with soils. This is a much more difficult problem for the global flood than geology or fossils, as the time frame is in the 4,000-5,000 year range.
[Or, as we say, Sedimentary, my dear Watson!]
But not more than about 18 inches (I'm limeston, the bamboo is lucky to get 6 inches.) The rhyzomes can be severed (and will die, even if not dug up) with at mattock. (And even the stems (being green) seem susciptle to roundup. (Not 2-4-d unfortunately, it's a grass.)
Soils don't present any particular problem to the flood story. Sorry. Assumptions about them might; but, that's another matter. And before opining about how creationists deal with geology, need I remind you that it takes "millions of years" for fossils, stellagtites, etc to form - er, oops, actually does not. Fossils can form in a week. Stellagtites and Stellagmites can form to incredible sizes in just a few years.
Incredible meaning the size of a house in one instance.
The problem isn't with their capacity, it is with evo rhetoric that is constantly disproven.. like the fossil forests thing which was self evident before St. Helens but became even more difficult to maintain the evo nonsense after. One is in the making at the bottom of Spirit lake even now.
As I've always noted, evidence gives Creationists no problem. The disagreement is always with the Evo spin put on the evidence.
How could God extend His grace (unmerited favor) to perfect human beings? Therefore, God was pleased to allow the fall, that both His grace and His power could be revealed to all. In no way did He cause sin. Man did, when he still had truly free will.
Why are some saved and others passed by? That's God's business. He is not unjust, nor will he punish or reward all equally. That is New Testament teaching, and it accords with reason per the little stamp of sense of justice we all bear (Rom. 1).
You did not address a single point that I raised in my post about soils and the global flood story.
There are a lot of details in my post. You should address at least some of them to have any credibility on this issue.
I know the answers are not in the creation websites, as they have not deigned to deal with soils (preferring the more glamorous geology and fossils), but still there is data there that cannot be waved away.
How about addressing just one point: mtDNA continuity between populations in the western US from before 5,000 years ago to after 4,000 years ago (spanning the reported age of the global flood).
If there is this continuity in mtDNA, the global flood cannot have occurred as reported in the bible.
My original post also deals with several other lines of evidence. You really should try to address the data if you are going to argue convincingly.
[And I do appreciate your polite approach--though we disagree. It is more than we see from some others on these threads.]
Again, the soils have zero to do with it. The central point of contention is your dating methodology for starters. Given that it is unreliable to say the least, the only thing you can point to is bodies in the dirt. You can't really tell us "when" they are from in time. In many cases, you can't even tell us how they got there. Bones and bio-matter will lay in the open and rot to nothing long before they will fossilize unless they are buried quickly and specific conditions exist to promote fossilization. Given that you can't date a fossil, you have to date where you find it. And you can't really do that without assuming a great deal about where you find it.
In short, with everything you say riding on "dating" methods, your bottom line problem becomes proving the dating methodology works before we can discuss it further. You cannot do so. The rest of the argument is useless unless we can have any amount of confidence in the dates. We can't. They're all based upon assumptions that cannot be proven.
Wouldn't it cause the property to chute up?
My post involves soils! Dirt! We are dealing with the recent past, and can date things using several different methods. Just the artifact styles, and their changes through time, are good, solid evidence. The changes in fauna and flora are pretty good too. Radiocarbon dating in this time period has been calibrated against tree-rings (counted one at a time back to 12,000+ years). And you have not even addressed the mtDNA.
Sorry, but you seem to be stuck in a rut on these fossils. Who cares about old fossils.
I am posing data to you that deals with the dirt under your feet and how it got there. And this data includes the record of humans who lived in the US for the past 10,000- ??,000 years.
This is all long before the age posited for a global flood, so you have to address one simple question -- where is the evidence of the flood? Likwise, why do we have a continuous occupation for 10,000+ years in the western US (fauna, flora, artifact styles, mtDNA, human settlement and subsistence patterns, etc.), and no evidence for a disruptive global flood?
Don't try to get the answers from the creationist websites, as they are not there. My data is from the research I have done, and my colleagues have done before me going back 100 or more years.
Don't you think if there was evidence of a flood we would have found it? My colleagues found the channeled scablands of eastern Washington, and figured out how they got there -- and it wasn't global.
Give us a little credit. I'm 35 years into this, and I could get rich if I found evidence and could prove a global flood--but its not there.
Ugh OH!.. I feel a prayer rising up from within me.. I'm grabbing the arms of my chair.. HERE IT COMES>>>.
And youre still trying to default in your dating methodologies. I do not agree with your stance. Sorry. You may accept it blindly or otherwise. I do not. Carbon dating does not give accurate readings for young things. If we can't trust it on young things, I would not dare trust it on anything old. The only way that 14C dating can work is if you know the precise saturation level in the atmosphere at the time specific in which the thing being dated existed. Further, you would have to know the precise amount of contamination the item had been subjected to over time in order to have a clue whether an accurate date could be derived. You don't have such knowledge. You assume the numbers hoping blindly that they're right. Blind assumption is anything but a reasonable one. Sorry.. er, actually, no, I'm not.
</p>
But then I'd have to give the source of THAT editorial! ;^)
400 bump
I'd rather be loved, for I am quite pitiful already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.