Posted on 06/17/2007 6:54:37 PM PDT by Rodney King
gotta run right now- but I’ll post motre evidences later- don’t talk bout me behind my back while I’m gone lol
Don't forget according to Flood geology the walls of the Grand Canyon were mud at the time.
LOL. I truly wish that folks could talk in these forums face to face. I think alot of the prickliness that happens here would be diminished if we could sit down over a beer and interact in a manner that shows that we don't take ourselves nearly as seriously as we appear to on the internet.
Self effacing humor is one of the best ways to keep conversations civil, in my opinion, and I commend you for it.
Thanks.
DoP
I am not a young earth advocate, nor have I read ICR stuff in a while, but I remember reading Henry Morris's book long long ago, and I don't remember that being true. Have things changed in that camp?
You do talk/write up a storm.
Creationists commonly claim all strata from Precambrian times all the way up to into the Tertiary are Flood strata. If they’re claiming differently for the Grand Canyon, they’re contradicting themselves and creating a problem—those are fossiliferous strata, so when were they laid down if not in the Flood? (Non-catastrophic fossilization is verboten.)
I’ll take that as a compliment. :-D
I don't know about the creationists (young earth types) as I have been out of these wars for some time, and am not really current on who is saying what anymore.
I do believe that the creation (including the "mannishness of man" to steal a phrase) has fairly strong arguments for the existence, power, and morality of the Creator. I myself am far more concerned that we discuss the "big picture" before getting down to "this argues for that" -- which is where alot of the energy is spent.
My concern is that modern man operates largely on unverified and unverifiable and self-contradictory assumptions about the very nature of the universe, our interaction with it, and how we process our perceptions of that universe.
Further, the biblical christian is either an absolute loon or he is correct in asserting that men do NOT analyze data about this issue in an objective manner. The biblical assertion is that we will deliberately lie to ourselves rather than face the concept that we are answerable to a sovereign judge against whom we are in cosmic rebellion. We will consciously and unconsciously skew the data we have to escape such an uncomfortable position.
This assertion often enrages members of the scientific community, who, if they have a religion, it is that of objectivism. Usually the retort comes in one of two responses: "religious people do that too!" (and, I will have to admit this is true... I have seen Christians lie and misrepresent data) or "how dare you make such an assertion!"
Greg Bahnsen's PhD dissertation on the willing practice of self deception by people is a good read on this if you can get through all the normal academic crap that comes in a dissertation. Willing self deception is quite common as a trait among people. Just for the record, too, I have seen tons of it in the religious community. I am not arguing that "only" the irreligious practice it with regard to creation. I am starting from the premise, though, that the person who at his heart seeks to avoid confrontation with the Christian God will willingly believe a lie rather than face something he doesn't want to see.
That point seems to be neglected by many in the ID community --maybe because they instinctively recognize it will anger some. Then they pull it out later in the debate, and try to assert it, leaving the skeptic understandably infuriated, like they are playing a shell game. I prefer to get that point out in the open from the get - go.
How could it be anything else?
BTW, you don’t need to look down, but your shoe is untied.
Where do you get this? Have you ever cracked a paleontology book in your life?
Here's something I'm reading in a current Nature article:
Placentals represent most living mammals (1,135 out of 1,229 genera) and are found on all continents and in all oceans10. Placentals and their extinct stem lineage constitute the Eutheria. More than 4,000 extinct eutherian genera have been named that represent the 65 million years of the Cenozoic, and the majority of these have been assigned to modern placental lineages11. In contrast, only about 40 eutherian genera are known from the 80 million years of the Cretaceous4, 6, 11.
Let me repeat that.
Placentals represent most living mammals (1,135 out of 1,229 genera) and are found on all continents and in all oceans10. Placentals and their extinct stem lineage constitute the Eutheria. More than 4,000 extinct eutherian genera have been named that represent the 65 million years of the Cenozoic, and the majority of these have been assigned to modern placental lineages11. In contrast, only about 40 eutherian genera are known from the 80 million years of the Cretaceous4, 6, 11.
Look at this. There are almost four times as many extinct eutherian genera as living ones. This leads you to a couple of ridiculous conclusions:
And I haven't even checked reptiles and birds yet, that was just what I happened across. :-)
Please show me where the bible mentions the word “species”..... It is strangely missing from mine.
To whom is your post directed, and if to me, please clarify your request.
Three billion years down, 12 billion to go! If only the age of the earth would move in the right direction. . .
Unlike you, I have no pressing need to have the universe be any particular age. :-D
I posed the question to a couple of people who I thought had made that case.
Post #457 admitted to me that nothing would make him question the events of the Bible, and that my assertion that the Earth is older than 6,000 years is also based on faith; faith in computer models and science. I guess I got the answer that I expected to get, although it is no less shocking to me that there are people who go through life thinking this way. I even had another Freeper tell me the other day that there is no such thing as the fossil record; there are just a bunch of bones in the ground and no one knows how they got there.
The original article was Joseph Farah making a case against evolution. I like Joe and he's well minded on role of government and society, but I have to question a man's sanity and critical thinking skills when he starts talking about dinosaurs and man living together, pterodactyls living in Africa, and dragons being based on real-life creatures.
It seems that these types of people think that the entire fields of paleontology, zoology, and geology are secular conspiracies designed to destroy Christianity.
Feel free to start from any premise you like.
I start from the observation that there have been thousands of religions, most of them contradictory in significant aspects. Within the Judeo-Christian orb there are numerous supplemental revelations, all of which look silly to those that do not accept them as genuine. One or more of them may be true, but I suppose each and every one of us must die before we find out who guessed right, who was born lucky, and who followed the right mentor.
Science and methodological naturalism are unique in human history. Science looks the same to a Buddhist, an atheist, a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Roman, a Greek. the scope of science is narrower than that of religion and philosophy, but the results are trusted by a much broader constituency. Eventually, even creationists accept the findings of science. It sometimes takes centuries, but eventually everyone admits that the earth circles the sun.
SHH! They're not supposed to know that!
I've had discussions with people who could talk me under the table on the details of 9/11 who thought that the entire thing was a Bush-Cheney engineered conspiracy; there were no hijackers, the buildings were blown up, and no plane hit the Pentagon.
People have written entire books on how the moon landings were faked.
There are people on this board who think that anyone who believes the Earth is older than 6,000 years is seeking to deny God's existence.
To quote Jonah Goldberg, arguing with them misses to the point. The point is we shouldn’t have to argue with crazy people.
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.