Posted on 10/10/2003 2:23:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 10/10/2003 2:27:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
She needs to be here to be able to accept the award for the most opuses (OK, Vade, opera) posted by a single person in a 24 hour period. Effdot seems to be mounting a serious challenge, though.
Thank you very much, but I let God be my guide. There is more to this world than any single location and I try not to inflate my importance in any location. I call myself a creationist because I believe what the Bible states, "God created". My particular belief is of no importance and I have endeavored to keep it out of certain discussions to avoid Ad Hominem.
I dunno. I would like to see the results of a Turing Test performed on that particular poster first before making such an assumption.
Andrew,
Next time a Baumgardner article comes up and someone accuses him of dishonesty because of the 150 million year thing, you can post this.
Just got it in my personal email and XXX could have gotten the same if XXX was interested in the truth.
Dear ****,
I apologize for my delay in responding to your email. I just today checked the globalflood.org mail for the first time in about a month. I appreciate your efforts to defend my work and my character.
As far as the quote on the LANL website is concerned, I'm not sure which website it is, but it is reporting results that appeared in a 1998 Science paper on which I am the fourth of six authors (Bunge et al, "Time Scales and Heterogeneous Structure in Geodynamic Earth Models," Science, 280, 91-95, 1998). Let me emphasize that if one makes the uniformitarian assumptions that 'the present is the key to the past' (Lyell) and 'all things continue ust as they were form the beginning of creation' (2 Peter 3:4), then present estimates for mantle viscosity most definitely yield times on the order of 150 million years for lithospheric slabs to sink to the core-mantle boundary. On the other hand, as I have been stressing for many years now, the mantle is vulnerable to episodes of catastrophic runaway subduction as a consequence of the stress and temperature weakening that occurs in silicate materials. Decades of laboratory experiments have established these weakening properties beyond any reasonable doubt. When this weakening physics is included in a mantle dynamics calculation, the slabs can sink through the mantle in a matter of a few weeks. I have reported these findings not only in creationist venues but also in the mainstream geophysics community, for example, at the 1994 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco.
Almost all my peers know of my focus on the possibility of mantle instability and runaway slab subduction. In Los Alamos, almost everyone is aware of my positions on these matters. (See the set of letters to the editor of the Los Alamos Monitor on the http://globalflood.org website.) I allow my uniformitarian colleagues to use the TERRA code, and they frequently include me as a coauthor on the papers that report their research. These papers set forth the assumptions behind the calculations, including the simple deformation law for silicate that does not allow for the possibility of runaway behavior. I concur that with such assumptions the calculated results follow. If one is inclined to debate these matters, I say the focus should be on the physics that indicates mantle instability is genuine and on the observational data that point unmistabably to the fact a major tectonic catastrophe has occurred in the earth's not so distant past.
I hope this helps--
John
No you wouldn't. Several of us on the evo side are theistic evolutionists.
I think that people who worry about such things have lots of time on their hands.
If you want to drop it, drop it.
I am not Christain either, but intolerence of Constitutional Freedon of Religion - or even from it - is something I care deeply about.
One tactic I have seen the most combative and dogmatic Christains relish in is that of the "beleagered underdog."
Everyone not like them is actively and and stridently against them and their beliefs. Christianity is "under attack to be rubbed out." And a "take no prisoners" attitude towards others becomes justified to these people.
The U.S. Constitution is there to protect minority views against the whims and caprice of the majority. When you make it a de facto nessesity to accept Christain dogma and to view it as the historical religion of this country, you go against the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
That some view any diversity of religion as an insult and assault on Christianity, and to call followers to arms against those "unfaithful" is very unConstitution thinking indeed.
The ones I have seen go from here were generally projectors of the "we are oppressed, though we are the saviors of America" crowd. They seldom engage in lively discussion and debate and are tedious to deal with.
I am a person of Wicca who would not tolerate oppression of Christains or those of any other faith. Conversely, if someone thumps the Bible too hard and weaponlike, I am not of mind to turn my back to them.
Their words and actions do not inspire trust. I was raise Catholic, and derived many good things from my old faith, and I am glad Christains are among us.
But I never liked eternally upset and angry Christains would lived only to battle the 'heathen' amoung them. And I never will.
Demand infantile obsessions - indulgences ... claiming anti repression establishment - parental dysfunctionalism injuries --- reparations !
Premature alzhimers from chemical abuse !
Isn't this all a liberal thing !
I'd agree with you, if I'd seen much of that around here.
The closest I've come to seeing all that, actually, is the obsession some people have with creationism.
Yes, they can. You're saying that all conservatives are social conservatives. They aren't. Some are fiscal conservatives.
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.