MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf ^

[fishtank]

PDF file.

[Elsie]

The only problem comes when they actually examine the doctrine of sin and find that death came before sin in evolution, therefore what need is there of salvation, if death (both physical and spiritual) is not a result of sin?

Agree....

It'll really get ya wondering which is right, and then...............

[Terriergal]

are you going to read what I wrote or insist I was talking about species and not subspecies?

[Elsie]

...merely factual or logical criticism and rebuttal shall never be considered "obscene or belittling."

It appears that the 'agreement' is about as good as the ones the US Gov't made with the Indians!

[Terriergal]

More and more I'm noticing that the 'agreement' will be subject to just as much 'interpretation' as the rules of the forum already are. Only with less definitive retribution for violating them, and more cooks to stir the pot.

[Right Wing Professor]

Thus, a "willing" should never be more harsh with another poster than he would want to be treated himself were the situation reversed.

OK, I take back the 'blowhard'; although I'd rather be called a blowhard than a liberal.

[Lurking Libertarian]

you have no idea what obstructions may be out there to slow the travel of the light emerging

If something is slowing the speed of light, then the universe is older than we had calculated, not younger.

[Elsie]

However, people who are not signed on to the agreement are subject to the abuse button ...

Uh...

So are the signers...........

[Terriergal]

It'll really get ya wondering which is right, and then...............

You get to the precipice between despair and hope. No one likes to be there. Hope requires that you turn your back on all you know, on your self-sufficiency, on your high image of yourself. That or despair. Who in their natural mind wants to make that choice? Therefore people instinctively avoid going there.

[SengirV]

I wonder how big they were when first hatched? And how fast they grew? Hm....

I can see it now, Noah sneaking from nesting site to nesting site stealing eggs/young of T-Rex, Allosaurus, Albertosaurus, Velociraptor, etc.. That would be more of a story than sitting in a boat for 40 days.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Then while you're telling us all about the extinction of the trilobytes later, I'll sit and chuckle about the coelacanth.

The coelocanths of today are not the same species as the fossil coelocanths that had been thought extinct. They are not even the same genus. Their existence is thus powerful evidence for evolution.

[Right Wing Professor]

Thus, a "willing" should never be more harsh with another poster than he would want to be treated himself were the situation reversed.

OK, I take back the 'blowhard'; although I'd rather be called a blowhard than a liberal.

[Terriergal]

I think I did read that it said those who agree would not hastily hit the abuse button on each other - they would let the *other* side of the argument reprimand their own, or something.

[Terriergal]

I'd rather be called a blowhard than a liberal.

You got a great point there! ;-)

[Terriergal]

I can see it now, Noah sneaking from nesting site to nesting site stealing eggs/young of T-Rex, Allosaurus, Albertosaurus, Velociraptor, etc.. That would be more of a story than sitting in a boat for 40 days.

Remember how the story says the animals came to him? (no you probably never read it...) If they did that I can't see how much more miraculous it would be to take eggs from a dinosaur nest.

[Terriergal]

It's also quite possible that many species had been extinct by that time.

[Right Wing Professor]

For Young Earth Creationists, the real miracle was required when the animals disembarked in what is now modern Turkey, and the poor duck-billed platypus and Koala had to make it across deserts, ocean straits, and jungles to Australia, in time to be discovered by modern humans - to say nothing of the flightless parrots and kiwis who had to get a further 1000 miles across the Tasman Sea to New Zealand.

[Terriergal]

We cannot, therefore, turn down Theology, simply because it does not avoid being poetical. All world views yield poetry to those who believe them by the mere fact of being believed. And nearly all have certain poetical merits whether you believe them or not. This is what we should expect. Man is a poetical animal and touches nothing which he does not adorn.

There are, however, two other lines of thought which might lead us to call Theology a mere poetry, and these I must now consider. In the first place, it certainly contains elements similar to those which we find in many early, and even savage, religions. And those elements in the early religions may now seem to us to be poetical. The question here is rather complicated. We now regard the death and return of Balder[referred to earlier on the page linked to below] as a poetical idea, a myth. We are invited to infer thence that the death and resurrection of Christ is a poetical idea, a myth. But we are not really starting with the datum "Both are poetical" and thence arguing "Therefore both are false". Part of the poetical aroma which hangs about Balder is, I believe, due to the fact that we have already come to disbelieve in him. So that disbelief not poetical experience, is the real starting point of the argument. -- CS Lewis (A somewhat theistic evolutionist)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Actually, it is not as fluid as it might first appear. The Language Restraint clause is part of the Guidelines to achieving the first Principle - which is basically a do unto others as you would have then do unto you statement.

To a Fundamentalist Christian like myself, the Principle is like the Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37-40) and the Guidelines are like the Ten Commandments and other parts of the Law and the Prophets.

Thus, the first and most important thing for a complying poster is to make sure whatever he is saying or doing does not go beyond what he would find acceptable in the reverse situation. The second step is to make sure he is not going beyond what is acceptable to all of the willing, i.e. the Guidelines such as Language Restraint.

Again, using the Fundamentalist Christian parallel, the first question is whether what I am about to say or do is out of love of God or my neighbor, and the second question is whether it is acceptable under all the rest of the Law and the Prophets.

[Terriergal]

From the same page:

After that it is hardly worth noticing minor difficulties. Yet these are many and serious. The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defence. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God? -- CS Lewis

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for recanting the subject word! Indeed, I would not want to be called a liberal either.