Darwin's theory

J C

endacl wrote: »

Good thing there's not very many of them about!

Please stop misquoting me.

I never posted this ... yet you deliberately changed it to give the impression that I did
here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92599894&postcount=1137
Quote:-
"Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they ignore their geological training for the most part, choosing to interpret some aspects of the geological evidence while ignoring other, less convenient aspects ... based on their erroneous belief that the Earth is very young indeed."

... not only are you confusing your beliefs and your science ... you are now confusing your posts with my posts - and not in a good way.:eek:

Wibbs

And again what about Neandertals and homo Erectus and all other archaic humans? How do they fit into your Adam and Eve story?

5uspect

J C wrote: »

Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they believe the Earth is very young indeed ... based on the geological evidence.

And yet you provide no peer reviewed evidence to support this and allude to some sort of conspiracy where the poor auld creationist geologist/scientist must hide their views for fear of losing their jobs.

Doctor Jimbob

5uspect wrote: »

And yet you provide no peer reviewed evidence to support this and allude to some sort of conspiracy where the poor auld creationist geologist/scientist must hide their views for fear of losing their jobs.

Here's an article that refutes that view, for J C's benefit: note the last section, titled 'The pitfalls of exclusion' http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/creationism-creeps-mainstream-geology

endacl

What if....?

nozzferrahhtoo

catallus wrote: »

To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

No poetry or speculation at all

Nice of you to summarise your first paragraph in your second! Probably easier to read and rebut your own work than reply to a post from me I guess.

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

And again what about Neandertals and homo Erectus and all other archaic humans? How do they fit into your Adam and Eve story?

Just fully Human races within the Human Race.

Wibbs

catallus wrote: »

To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

No poetry or speculation at all

Or Catallus, one could argue from another angle and imagine a god, a cosmic force existed and brought all of this complexity into being and knew intelligent species would emerge and grow from this system to question, to seek answers to this complexity and try to explain it. If a deity existed, surely that would be what it would seek? For it's "children", those who got the point of asking the universal questions, using their "god given" intellect and senses to find answers, to become fully aware, rather than be mired in primitive thinking and stasis. Any parent would look to their kids to question, explore the world and grow up, so why wouldn't some posited deity not feel the same way?

Doctor Jimbob

Wibbs wrote: »

Or Catallus, one could argue from another angle and imagine a god, a cosmic force existed and brought all of this complexity into being and knew intelligent species would emerge and grow from this system to question, to seek answers to this complexity and try to explain it. If a deity existed, surely that would be what it would seek? For it's "children", those who got the point of asking the universal questions, using their "god given" intellect and senses to find answers, to become fully aware, rather than be mired in primitive thinking and stasis. Any parent would look to their kids to question, explore the world and grow up, so why wouldn't some posited deity not feel the same way?

It does seem a lot more likely than a deity who would put loads of evidence contracting the fact that he created us just so he could say 'HA! Tricked you, have fun in hell sucker'

Brian Shanahan

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Including Creation Science ?

Creation science is like invisible rainbow-coloured unicorns. Neither has an existence outside of one's imagination, and neither has any relevance or reference to reality.

Capt'n Midnight

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

When you are right, you are right.
Its science that keeps having to change its position. Does that not completely undermine is claim to objective scientific reason ? "Here, this is the definitive answer. For now. But I will have a new difinitive correct answer for you next year".

You've just failed science, forever.

The whole point of science is that no position is final. Any scientific theory can be overturned by evidence.

Science doesn't know everything, that's why it's on going.

Just look at the taste map of the tongue which used to adorn most schools science books.
Now debunked.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they believe the Earth is very young indeed ... based on the geological evidence.

So two conventionally qualified geologists differ by a factor of four hundred and fifty thousand and you go with the guy who isn't using instruments?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Here's an article that refutes that view, for J C's benefit: note the last section, titled 'The pitfalls of exclusion' http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/creationism-creeps-mainstream-geology

Yes, there was an interesting geological field trip to the Giants Causeway recently ... good to see such respect for pluralism of ideas and theories within Geology.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Yes, there was an interesting geological field trip to the Giants Causeway recently ... good to see such respect for pluralism of ideas and theories within Geology.

Since you accept that such inclusiveness occurs, surely you'll now have no issue sharing your qualifications with us? :pac:

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

Just fully Human races within the Human Race.

You do realise how very different to modern humans Homo Erectus was? And how their behavior was?

Neandertals, though close to us, were most definitely not us. Forget that BS that you could give them a haircut and shave and stick them in a pair of jeans and a shirt and they would pass unnoticed among us(a notion held by many current scientists BTW). You would know you were dealing with something "other", something not quite us.

They were a clever people that survived and often thrived in very harsh landscapes for longer than we have been around, but they didn't come close to us in what is modern human thought(actually neither did we for most of our history). The entirety of examples of pre modern human abstract thought would comfortably fit in the glovebox of a car. One square metre of a layer of modern human habitation in a French cave would bring forth artifacts that would exceed the abstract expression of all the evidence of the previous million years of archaic humans all over the world. Put it another way, daft though it may be to the modern mind, no Neandertal would have come up with Zeus, or Shiva, or Moses.

TL;DR? Nope, nil pointe, try another answer, cos that one's crap and without any debate behind it.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

So two conventionally qualified geologists differ by a factor of four hundred and fifty thousand and you go with the guy who isn't using instruments?

They're both conventional geologists ... so they both use the same instruments ... its how they interpret the results that differs.:)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Since you accept that such inclusiveness occurs, surely you'll now have no issue sharing your qualifications with us? :pac:

One Swallow doesn't make a summer.:)

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

You do realise how very different to modern humans Homo Erectus was? And how their behavior was?

Some women have complained to me that Homo Erectus is very much alive and prowling in various night-clubs throughout the land!!:):D

Capt'n Midnight

A young monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to helping the other monks in copying the old canons and laws of the church by hand. He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies, not from the original manuscript.

So, the new monk goes to the head abbot to question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up. In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies.

The head monk says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son." So, he goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts are held as archives in a locked vault that hasn't been opened for hundreds of years.

Hours go by and nobody sees the old abbot. So, the young monk gets worried and goes down to look for him. He sees him banging his head against the wall and wailing and he is crying uncontrollably.

The young monk asks the old abbot, "What's wrong, father?" With a choking voice, the old abbot replies, "The word was CELEBRATE!"


Lots of stuff will have been lost in translations of the Bible. For example http://biblehub.com/ephesians/6-5.htm The meanings and nuances of words and phrases change in English , and Greek and Aramaic. New linguistic , cultural and archaeological discoveries give new insights into what was written down too so even the Muslim approach of keeping the Koran in the original language doesn't guarantee you will retain all the original insights.

And even then you have to wonder did they pick the right Gospels at the Council of Nice.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they believe the Earth is very young indeed ... based on the geological evidence.

Like Kurt Wise?

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

Doctor Jimbob

obplayer wrote: »

Like Kurt Wise?

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

"Later, as a sophomore in high school, he took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and cut out every verse which could not be interpreted literally if scientific determinations on the age of the earth and evolution were true. He pursued this task with a flashlight under the covers of his bed for several months; at the end, he had removed so much material that "with the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two."[7] Wise decided to reject evolution instead of Biblical literalism"

Well that's completely rational.


Edit: I just realised the beauty of this. The bible literally falls apart in the face of scientific evidence.

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

Some women have complained to me that Homo Erectus is very much alive and prowling in various night-clubs throughout the land!!:):D

Ha ha and all that, but doesn't begin to answer the question. If you can describe the morphological range of Erectus(or Neandertals) and how that fits within modern human morphology(it doesn't) then maybe you can come back with a workable debate point. I suspect you can't and will just add in more flim flam and self delusion to cover up the cracks in your very shaky house of cards.

catallus

The only "flim-flam" on display on this thread is the stubborn and inhuman totalitarianism and intolerance being spouted by those who cling to the coat-tails of genius.

Wibbs

catallus wrote: »

The only "flim-flam" on display on this thread is the stubborn and inhuman totalitarianism and intolerance being spouted by those who cling to the coat-tails of genius.

Empty retort that still doesn't answer the questions posed.

catallus

In fairness Wibbs, your question is one for specialists, let's face it. None of those things were even on the Ark. So it's nonsensical in the context of the thread.

Doctor Jimbob

catallus wrote: »

In fairness Wibbs, your question is one for specialists, let's face it. None of those things were even on the Ark. So it's nonsensical in the context of the thread.

A trait shared with all life. 10 points if you can guess why :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

"Later, as a sophomore in high school, he took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and cut out every verse which could not be interpreted literally if scientific determinations on the age of the earth and evolution were true..

WTF ???

All the bibles I've ever seen were printed on both sides of the page.

Also most of the bible has nothing that contradicts evolution once you get past Genesis except the bit about the Leviathan(s) so that description of the exercise was complete hogwash

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote: »

Well done ... that must deserve an 'F' mark in Creation Science ... keep studying though ... and you could end up like me.:)
Now there is a thought, for every ambitious young Evolutionist out there!!!:D

you keep using the phrase "creation science" as if it that makes it a science

you might as well call it creation scientology

osarusan

This thread reminds me of a line from Coetzee's novel Disgrace: They circle around him like hunters who have cornered a strange beast and do not know how to finish it off.

obplayer

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

WTF ???

All the bibles I've ever seen were printed on both sides of the page.

Also most of the bible has nothing that contradicts evolution once you get past Genesis except the bit about the Leviathan(s) so that description of the exercise was complete hogwash

From their own website...

"Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution. Wanting this to be as fair as possible, and giving the benefit of the doubt to evolution, I determined to read all the verses on both sides of a page and cut out every other verse, being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that."

"For me to reject evolution would be for me to reject all of science and to reject everything I loved and dreamed of doing.
The day came when I took the scissors to the very last verse—nearly the very last verse of the Bible. It was Revelation 22:19: “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” It was with trembling hands that I cut out this verse, I can assure you! With the task complete, I was now forced to make the decision I had dreaded for so long.
With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. However, at that moment I thought back to seven or so years before when a Bible was pushed to a position in front of me and I had come to know Jesus Christ. I had in those years come to know Him. I had become familiar with His love and His concern for me. He had become a real friend to me. He was the reason I was even alive both physically and spiritually. I could not reject Him. Yet, I had come to know Him through His Word. I could not reject that either. It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."


Read it and weep.

http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-days