Posted on 04/20/2008 6:09:13 PM PDT by Soliton
Ben Stein was just on Fox News with Geraldo. He was asked If ID versus Evolution was a "left, right thing". He responded,"No, It's an atheist versus a non-believer thing". Stein inadvertantly admitted that ID is a religious argument, not science!
Darwin maybe the greatest natural scientist in history. Ever wonder why ancient ruins are always underground? Darwin wrote a huge monograph in which he demonstrated that earthworms were responsible for much of it. He backed it up with careful experimental evidence. In another book, he did the same for the formation of atolls. His thing was identifying discrete natural phenomena and applying scientific method to explain it. He at no time wanted to promote atheism or eugenics.</p?
That would include einstein and Jefferson.
If you don’t like Al Stewart, that’s okay.
He’s the only songwriter that has made me go research some historical trivia mentioned in his songs, and I was a history major in undergrad.
He’s just too smart to be popular. If you don’t like him, then there’s one more CD on the shelf for me to buy. Plus, I’m all about folks having different tastes.
I hate spinach.
Respectfully, what is faith for then?
The 6,000 - 10,000 estimated age of the earth is largely based on dates from the biblical genieologies. Though it is impossible to come up with an exact date because Hebrew geniologies often telescope (ie skip less important people).
There are several scientiffic measurements that we use to support a young earth but none that would give a precise date and they are subject to many of the same objections that we have to radioactive dating. We mainly use them to simply show that uniformitarianism cuts both ways. As to radioactive dating most forms of that would give a much older age for the earth. However, we point to the inconsistancies that occur when radioactive dating techniques have been used on objects with known dates. We also reject the uniformitarian assumptions behind radioactive dating. In other words, radioactive dating only works if you presume a constant rate of change and a certain starting ratio between the two isotopes that you are measuring. Since we weren’t there to observe the starting ratios and since there is some evidence (radio halo’s for example) that the decay rate may not have always been constant, we actually don’t put much faith at all in radioactive dating techniques.
The 6,000 - 10,000 estimated age of the earth is largely based on dates from the biblical genieologies. Though it is impossible to come up with an exact date because Hebrew geniologies often telescope (ie skip less important people).
There are several scientiffic measurements that we use to support a young earth but none that would give a precise date and they are subject to many of the same objections that we have to radioactive dating. We mainly use them to simply show that uniformitarianism cuts both ways. As to radioactive dating most forms of that would give a much older age for the earth. However, we point to the inconsistancies that occur when radioactive dating techniques have been used on objects with known dates. We also reject the uniformitarian assumptions behind radioactive dating. In other words, radioactive dating only works if you presume a constant rate of change and a certain starting ratio between the two isotopes that you are measuring. Since we weren’t there to observe the starting ratios and since there is some evidence (radio halo’s for example) that the decay rate may not have always been constant, we actually don’t put much faith at all in radioactive dating techniques.
How do you account for the fossil record?
Have you seen this site?
Non-YEC FReepers who don't know about it might find it interesting as well.
Largelly through the flood. Where huge numbers of people and animals were buried rapidly under tons of sediment. The exact type of conditions that lead to rapid fossilization. Which we see when there are animals that are fossilized with food that is still undigested in their system. I think there is even a fossil where the animal appears to have been fossilized in the act of giving birth (though I would need to check to be certain that I am remembering this correctly). Certainly the flood would help account for the fact that you find fossils of tropical type plants and animals in regions that are now extremely cold and fossils of sea type animals in areas that are now mountains and thousands of feet above sea level.
Please elaborate. I've never heard of a radio halo, and I've never heard a coherent theory why radioactive decay isn't constant. Arguments that the pre-Noah Flood earth had lots of clouds is not a serious argument.
You might as well argue that it had lots of rainbows and unicorns. Give me some science.
Does PMS and 'roid rage exist in your world? Hormones are chemicals. They are the source of emotions. Emotions are the carrot and stick along with pleasure (endorphins) and pain that helps drive positive evolutionary behavior absent discretionary memes.
No, I actually hadn’t seen that website. I like to go to www.answersingenesis.org and I also find the research materials and books put out by the Institute for Creation Research to be very valuable. There is another organization which put out a whole series of semi-technical magazines (I think they were called the Creation Science Quarterlies) and those are also a really valuable resource.
Dog Gone,
Mr Chapin is an honest gentleman who sincerely believes what he says. Please be gentle with my friend :-).
Wouldn’t the fossils be all mixed together, rather than laid out in layers?
We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.-—Charles Darwin
This is not a direct allusion to human genocide, but human control in the direction of species development is mentioned. With Humans as an aside as a controlled species by other humans of course...
>> Respectfully, what is faith for then?
That all you know and believe is true along with the tenets you base other truths, is in fact true. The absence of faith is equivalent to the absence of cognizance.
lol, you are a very bright person, you can figure it out.
Maybe it's better if I don't. It looks an awful lot like someone trying to say something that don't want to go on record as having actually said. It's an election year, and I'm about at the end of my tolerance limit for that kind of thing already.
How gentle do you want me to be?
I mentioned unicorns.
I stand corrected! :-)
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.