Posted on 01/08/2004 7:21:37 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
How old is the Grand Canyon? Most scientists agree with the version that rangers at Grand Canyon National Park tell visitors: that the 217-mile-long chasm in northern Arizona was carved by the Colorado River 5 million to 6 million years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I gotta go. I wish you well.
"God cares about people and all activities that people participate in. If you are doing an activity that does not glorify God or is in contravention of His moral laws, then that is Sin. He has laid down certain moral laws and requires obedience."
Here is where we part ways. No, I don't think he really cares about cribbage, xbox, file sharing, or driving over the speed limit. Nor do I agree that any activity that does not glorify God is equal to Sin. It seems obvious, even from the Bible, that some of man's activities neither glorify God nor sin against Him. And no, I don't see any textual basis for the claim that he has the guiding hand of predetermination on each and every human activity.
What brand, again?
Can you not read my name "Andrewc" at the top of the profile page? Did you not get there by either clicking on "Andrewc" in a post or by entering it into the search box? I put those names of banned posters as a reminder and homage. You are very "liberal" with your name-calling and groundless accusations but short on evidence.
Frankly, you are making a laughingstock out of yourself when you challenge evidence with nothing but your own words. I have given you links to the Blue-letter Bible and you give nothing but your lousy thoughts. Now here is another Hebrew Bible with the same words. The first is the tetragrammaton and the second is adon.
Finally, you are pretty arrogant to place yourself above about 400 years of scholarship that use "lord" as a translation of adon. What are we to expect, a lugsoul version of the Bible?
First, you are linking me to an online bible. Which, by its very nature, cannot be used in making any point on this issue. Second, while adon may well be used in some today, the prevalent use in and shortly after Biblical times was adonai. Third, while adon is translated as "lord," that doesn't mean it means "lord", any more than de nada means "you are welcome." And the meaning of 'lord' that was prevalent at the time that word was adopted in the KJV did not even exist in the Levant in Biblical times, and the legal and political connontations of that word were alien to the culture to which you ascribe that word. Get a grip.
The Hebrews did not "name" God. He reveals His name to them
You have displayed a truly amazing repertoire of galling ignorance. Not one substantiation for your arguments. You are certainly a maroon deserving of complete avoidance. I suppose you gave Clinton advice on the word "is".
So I herewith announce my intention to Abandon Thread!
Genesis 15:2. First used by Abraham, who had a whole new understanding revealed to him by the Lord
It certainly seems that way when you embed large passages of other people's writings into your own posts without any sort of demarcation (quotes, indents, attributions, etc.) separating your words from those of others, and in fact construct segues to smooth and obscure the transitions.
Geez Ichneumon, did I say I was an expert? No I clearly said I was not one.
Beside the point.
You try to paint me as intellectually dishonest. That is not true.
I demonstrated that you plagiarized. I carefully avoided speculating on your reasons for doing so. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, in fact.
There are interesting theories on why creationists do this so much, and rely on quotations (or misquotations) so often, but that's too lengthy a topic to get into right now. Suffice to say that many of them do not rely upon presumptions of intellectual dishonesty.
But the point remains that your post was specifically in response to a request for you to describe what *your* level of knowledge was about certain topics. RA's question was, "How much and to what level of big bang cosmology, general relativity, stellar evolution, and planetary formation are you familiar with?" He even mentioned his reason for asking in order to clarify what sort of answer he wanted: "I need to know to gauge my response." He wanted to know so that he wouldn't waste your time giving too much introductory material if you already knew it, or losing you at the start by skipping ahead too much.
So I'm still unclear as to exactly why you felt it apropos to cut-and-paste a few passages of what *other* people had written concerning those fields. It makes sense to cut-and-paste material (*with* attribution) to support an argument, but you weren't asked to make any sort of argument. How does cutting-and-pasting other people's writings help in indicating *your* level of knowledge?
The appearance is that you were hoping that a technical-sounding passage including terms such as "the so-called critical density", "Planck time", "one part in 10 to the 60", and "field equation of general relativity", would give the impression that you were well versed in cosmological and quantum physics. But again, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Feel free to explain what the true motivation was for this inclusion in response to a question about your own personal level of knowledge.
I wasn't aware this was a research paper, demanding footnotes, I thought we were in an internet discussion!
Proper credit does not require footnotes.
Of course I searched and did a cut and paste.
As do I at times. The difference is that I don't blend it into my own paragraphs and leave the impression that I wrote it, and I name the author and/or provide a link to the original source.
You smirk and ooze condescension at my "contributions" which only show that I digested the info.
I only remarked that the passage, "suggests intelligent design. What?!? Yeah" didn't add much to the large paragraph you pasted into your post. I wasn't sure why you felt that inserting it mid-sentence into the paragraph (again, without demarcation) improved it any.
And it hardly does much to "show that you digested the info".
I am impressed with RA, he is an intelligent man that seems to be fair minded.
Yes he is.
I try to be fair minded. I spent quite a bit of time at pro-evolution websites and read their best criticisms to formulate my response sir.
Out of curiosity, how much time had you spent on those sites *before* the start of this thread?
Are you about to tell me you don't rely on other people's arguments when they seem to express it well?
I of course adopt other people's observations or findings this is how we all learn. I do not however appropriate how they "express it". If I like how they express it and feel that it explains/argues a point in a current discussion better than I could craft my own words to address the point, I specifically quote their words and give proper credit. I have no interest in trying to give the impression that I myself was the one who was able to express it that well.
If so, then you are quite the articulate fellow on many subjects.
Why thank you. Just a few of my "greatest hits", presented to show various methods by which other people's works can be properly attributed when included in a post:
Discussion of the theory of cosmic ray bursts causing global cooling and mass extinctionsAnd not a footnote among them (except when quoting someone else's).Why the star Eta Carinae may someday fry the Earth
Rebuttal to RaceBannon's scattershot anti-evolution essay, part 1
Rebuttal to RaceBannon's scattershot anti-evolution essay, part 2
Discussion of the evolution of the Krebs metabolic cycle
Support for the assertion that biologists overwhelmingly accept evolution
Information on the biochemical evolution of the blood-clotting mechanism
Evolution of the woodpecker's tongue, and the mammalian eye
Refutation of the lie that Reagan blocked sanctions on Iraq when Saddam gassed the Kurds
Rebuttal to the assertion that the stability of some species is contrary to Darwinian predictions
A detailed list of 50+ transitional fossils marking the evolutionary path between fish and elephants
Rebuttal to some of the more wild/incorrect JFK conspiracy claims
Three papers on current abiogenesis research
Overview of a remarkable memory model which exhibits many of the known attributes of human memory
Rebuttal to misstatements about SJ Gould, and fossils answering several creationist challenges
Refutation of a creationist's claim that neither Gould nor Darwin did any actual research
Punctuated equilibrim is not a departure from Darwin's original theory
Two papers on assembly of proteins by means of non-protein means
Reviews of two "classical music as applied to goofy pop culture" albums
Response to Behe's "Irreducible Complexity", and the Contingency argument
Musings on creationist probability calculations, and references to abiogenesis papers
A reflection on "drama queens"
Critique of Michael Cremo's "evidence" for 10-million+ year old "modern" man
More JFK conspiracy nonsense addressed
Addressing misconceptions that there are still lots of "sealed" JFK records
Critique of the book of Enoch in regards to astronomical accuracy
Musings on the identity of the biblical "Behemoth" and "Leviathan"
Explanation of why shared endogenous retroviruses are extremely strong evidence for common descent
References to the eternally predicted (from 1840 onward) but slow to arrive "death of evolution"
Why lists of "people who doubt evolution" don't matter
Discussion with a thoughtful creationist
Specific comparison of a gene as found in humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans
A modest proposal to a creationist
Further discussion of the modest proposal
Exposition on the Dodo (and its evolutionary history)
Rebuttal to various creationist errors concerning the Grand Canyon
I find a big hole in ICR's "Carbon 14" paper
Critique of a new-agey "resonance theory of thought"
Description of one of the many ways that sexual reproduction can arise from asexual origins
On the origins and temperament of Rottweilers
Why the Piltdown hoax wasn't so obviously a hoax at first
How to learn to not flinch while shooting a gun
More updates on abiogenesis research
Rebuttal to Ashby Camp's attack on talk.origins (a favorite of creationists)
Yes, Virginia, there is calibration of carbon-dating
Rebuttal to creationist attacks on the "peppered moth" example
Review of "Godel, Escher, Bach"
Musing on the original of the esthetic sense
What's wrong with Setterfield's "c-decay" notion (a favorite of creationists)
Epistemology as it concerns the ICR "carbon-dating" paper
On the induced rearrangement of genetic material
The anti-federalist Framers were influential and right on many points
Overview of a paper on the evolution of army ants
Yes, a transistor really is two diodes back to back
On the Cambrian fauna and the rise of phyla
Critique of Lee Spetner's anti-evolution arguments
A ton of links to papers on genetic algorithms
Cladograms of dino-to-bird evolution
Why Danny Glover is despicable
A defense of talk.origins against ill-conceived attacks
Details of Dawkins' "methinks it is like a weasel" evolutionary program
The original fish-to-elephant post, plus dino-to-bird details
(Note the one in red, it pertains directly to points raised on this thread)
And so on. And yes, all of the arguments, wording, and calculations are my own, except where I have indicated otherwise. The only thing I don't always directly credit are illustrations linked from other sites, because it's easy for the reader to do a "properties" check and see which site/page they came from.
When I said: "For all the chest-beating and things you may have heard the Bible says..." I was trying to ensure we didn't degenerate into something not quoted from the text.
How about when you said, "ignorant restatings of what you 'heard' do not count"? Isn't this a plea to develop an argument from original sources instead of simply "ignorantly" relying on someone else's claims that you haven't checked yourself?
In any case, congratulations. My HUGE secret is exposed!
Just please don't do it again.
I actually use the internet to find information to help me express myself.
Finding information "to help you express yourself" is no problem. We all do that, of course. The problem is going beyond "helping" you express *yourself*, and simply appropriating wholesale other people's expressions in a way that obscures the fact that it *is* someone else's.
Part of the answer, obviously, is that none of the people you named made any contributions to biology (except Kepler, who found the Fibonacci sequnce in the placement of leaves on stems [phylotaxis]).
In fact, the most famous pre-Darwin biologist, Linnaeus, who invented our present-day system of classifying plants and animals, removed the statement that no new species can arise from later editions of his Systema Naturae See here or here.
If I'm not mistaken he also said:
If I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I should have done so.
Something tells me this is not a coincidence.
I can't believe that no one has yet pointed out that I followed this introduction with *three* reasons, conveniently numbered. *blush*
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.