Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Happy birthday, Earth - Creation occurred 6,010 years
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 24, 2006

Posted on 10/24/2006 1:33:25 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan


How old is the world?

Most people would say: "Nobody knows."

But the author of the book frequently described as the greatest history book ever written, said the world was created Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. – making it 6,010 yesterday.

In the 1650s, an Anglican bishop named James Ussher published his "Annals of the World," subtitled, "The Origin of Time, and Continued to the Beginning of the Emperor Vespasian's Reign and the Total Destruction and Abolition of the Temple and Commonwealth of the Jews." First published in Latin, it consisted of more than 1,600 pages.

The book, now published in English for the first time, is a favorite of homeschoolers and those who take ancient history seriously. It's the history of the world from the Garden of Eden to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Of course, there will be those who disagree with Ussher's calculations of time – especially evolutionists who need billions of years to explain their theory of how life sprang from non-life and mutated from one-celled animals into human beings.


Ussher's arrival at the date of Oct. 23 was determined based on the fact that most peoples of antiquity, especially the Jews, started their calendar at harvest time. Ussher concluded there must be good reason for this, so he chose the first Sunday following autumnal equinox.

Although the autumnal equinox is Sept. 21 today, that is only because of historical calendar-juggling to make the years come out right.

If you think this is a startling fact – an actual date for Creation – you haven't seen anything until you've pored through the rest of Ussher's "Annals of the World." It's a classic history book for those who believe in the Bible – and a compelling challenge for those who don't.

The new edition of "Annals" is one of the most significant publishing events of the 21st century.

In this masterful and legendary volume, commissioned by Master Books to be updated from the 17th-century original Latin manuscript to modern English and made available to the general public, is the fascinating history of the ancient world from the Genesis creation through the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.

Find out:

Ussher traveled throughout Europe, gathering much information from the actual historical documents. Many of these documents are no longer available, having been destroyed since the time of his research.

Integrating biblical history (around 15 percent of the text is from the Bible) with secular sources, Ussher wrote this masterpiece. Considered not only a literary classic, but also an accurate reference, "The Annals of the World" was so highly regarded for its preciseness that the timeline from it was included in the margins of many King James Version Bibles throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

"The Annals of the World" is a necessary addition to any church library, pastor's library, or any library – public or personal. The entire text has been updated from 17th-century English to present-day vernacular in a five-year project commissioned by Master Books. Containing many human-interest stories from the original historical documents collected by Ussher, this is more than just a history book – it's a work of history.

Special features:

About the book:



TOPICS: Books/Literature; History; Religion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 next last
To: XeniaSt
Is it by chance?

No. Apologetics.

151 posted on 10/24/2006 5:56:31 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Is it by chance?

No. Apologetics.

You might want to read all the words in the excerpt.
b'shem Y'shua
152 posted on 10/24/2006 6:10:45 PM PDT by Uriel-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

Has this been published in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal?


153 posted on 10/24/2006 6:13:26 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
You might want to read all the words in the excerpt.

I have a better story:


The Creation of Men and Women

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.

The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.


154 posted on 10/24/2006 7:08:22 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; JTHomes
I mean the evidence is so beyond overwhelming there isn't really much we can do except laugh at these people. For goodness sakes, we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation of the world.

Shhhh, don't confuse the anti-science people with pesky facts.

155 posted on 10/24/2006 8:14:56 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
How old is the world? Most people would say: "Nobody knows."

No, not "most", the only people who would say that would be those who are ignorant of the vast amount of independent cross-confirming evidence that indicates it's about 4.6 billion years old.

156 posted on 10/24/2006 8:17:03 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Alter Kaker; JTHomes
For goodness sakes, we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation of the world.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster touched those trees with His Divine Noodly Appendages, and they sprouted tree rings to confound the unbelievers.

157 posted on 10/24/2006 8:18:56 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; Conservative Coulter Fan
You need to learn to read. The article I posted was a rebuttal to your rebuttal. Let me guess... you didn't read either piece.

You're right, he didn't. He knows just enough to be able to cut-and-paste from kooky creationist sites, but not enough to read and understand and determine whether they're valid, or whether they're full of horse manure, much less read and understand the primary scientific literature on the subject and the rebuttals to the creationist nonsense.

158 posted on 10/24/2006 8:19:13 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
filthy creationist/ID lies to children.

Wow!! The hostility is fantastic. It reminds me of when feminist law students would go ballistic and resort to mere ad hominem attacks when their view points were criticized. I love it.

Anyway, it is amazing that creationism is now viewed as "filthy". What is filthy is when children are taught that they are nothing more than highly evolved animals. We certainly can't expect them to behave in any other way when that is what they think they are. But I really don't think actual debate is going to happen here anyways.

159 posted on 10/24/2006 8:20:55 PM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan; Names Ash Housewares
Radiocarbon Assumptions and Problems

Congratulations, son, your meanderings about alleged radiocarbon problems does absolutely nothing whatsoever to address, much less refute, the article on the age of the Earth that you thought you were "rebutting", because nothing in that article is based on radiocarbon dating.

Care to try again after you have the slightest clue what in the hell you're talking about, and aren't just randomly flinging information that you don't understand in the hopes that it might have some relevance in some manner to the material you don't want to have to think about?

160 posted on 10/24/2006 8:21:44 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

The sound of helium filling up the balloon, of course.


161 posted on 10/24/2006 8:22:03 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 10th Mountain Division 2nd BCT Soldier fighting in Mahmudiyah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

As shown by many postings of their material by Creationists on this site.


162 posted on 10/24/2006 8:22:19 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

After retiring from Los Alamos, Dr. Baumgardner now serves as professor of geophysics and space physics at the Institute for Creation Research.


163 posted on 10/24/2006 8:24:43 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Not overlooked, rather ignored.


164 posted on 10/24/2006 8:26:26 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Clump; WildHorseCrash
[filthy creationist/ID lies to children.]

Wow!! The hostility is fantastic.

Yes, spreading lies is guaranteed to tick people off. That's why Michael Moore gets a hostile reaction too.

It reminds me of when feminist law students would go ballistic and resort to mere ad hominem attacks when their view points were criticized.

Actually, it reminds me of how people respond to the cynical lies of liberals and communists, and for the same reasons.

I love it.

You "love it" when people tell giant lies, and other people get upset over the rape of truth? You're a sick guy.

Anyway, it is amazing that creationism is now viewed as "filthy".

Learn to read, son. When they tell lies -- and they tell a lot of them -- the lies are what's filthy. Feel free to disagree and defend the telling of lies, if you wish, but don't expect me to sign up.

What is filthy is when children are taught that they are nothing more than highly evolved animals.

Nobody teaches this. You should stop lying yourself. It is true that biology correctly teaches that we are the result of evolutionary processes, and that we are animals (we're not plants or bacteria, for pete's sake, we're animals just like we're mammals and vertebrates and so on), but nobody teaches schoolkids that we are "nothing more" than that, because of course we are more than "just animals".

We certainly can't expect them to behave in any other way when that is what they think they are.

Kids aren't as stupid as to misunderstand their biology classes as badly as, well, as you have.

But I really don't think actual debate is going to happen here anyways.

Not if you can't keep up your end of the discussion, no.

165 posted on 10/24/2006 8:30:00 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Trees lie.

Not all of them. Some stand. Some live in stands, just like baseball fans.

166 posted on 10/24/2006 8:31:06 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

The Pyramids show no high water marks.


167 posted on 10/24/2006 8:32:13 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Not overlooked, rather ignored.

Apparently, the MODS now approve posting of advertising in the Chat Forum, but not the News Forum.

168 posted on 10/24/2006 8:36:34 PM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; be4everfree

[rock-encrusted hammer]

There are stalactites in the crypt under the Lincoln Memorial. Not terribly big, but growing.


169 posted on 10/25/2006 2:04:06 AM PDT by Virginia-American (Don't bring a comic book to an encyclopedia fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
When we invent the Time Machine, what happens if we set the dial too far back? What if we went back in time before there was time? My brain is tired just thinking about it.

I'm thinking all of us are here because our ancestors came from the future and couldn't get back. This means that all of us are related and that our descendants will evenually meet up with our ancestors. Hopefully our descendants can keep our ancestors from messing with time machines so we don't begin the vicious circle yet again.

170 posted on 10/25/2006 2:22:14 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (The Program is Morally Good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan; Borges
While Calvin's Geneva was certainly run like a totalitarian state, it was tiny and you were allowed to leave.

Not so in Cromwell's Britain.

171 posted on 10/25/2006 4:00:40 AM PDT by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan; Borges
I would also point out that the revolutionary theorist Rousseau was a Genevan who, although he rejected Calvin's theology, idolized the strict totalitarianism and regimentation of Calvin's administrative policies.

His model for a total state, which was implemented by the Committee Of Public Safety during The Reign Of Terror of 1793/1794, was derived from his admiring reflection on Calvin's Geneva.

Calvin was the tutor of Rousseau, who was the tutor of Robespierre, who was the tutor of Blanqui who was the tutor of Lenin.

The conservative historian Paul Johnson discusses some of the aspects of this heritage in his book Intellectuals.

172 posted on 10/25/2006 4:10:43 AM PDT by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

But Rosseau's ideas about education still with us and highly influential. I think he went to his grave thinking that David Hume was trying to have him killed. Or something like that.


173 posted on 10/25/2006 7:55:57 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Borges
But Rosseau's ideas about education still with us and highly influential.

Indeed, the Western tradition of state-run public schooling derives from Rousseau's reimagining of Plato.

Interestingly, state-funded schooling began in the US specifically as an anti-Catholic measure by Gaelophobic Northeastern Congregationalists.

174 posted on 10/25/2006 8:01:52 AM PDT by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Didn't the Puritans have some form of public education. In any case Jefferson and Horace Mann talked about the benefits of it.


175 posted on 10/25/2006 8:11:25 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Didn't the Puritans have some form of public education.

Certain communities in the Massachusetts colony had "common schools" endowed by general subscription to supplement the expensive private schools that already existed.

In any case Jefferson and Horace Mann talked about the benefits of it.

Jefferson theorized about public education. Horace Mann was a former teacher who agitated for more comprehensive public education in the MA statehouse in the 1830s. When the legislation he sponsored to establish a statewide board of education was successful, he resigned his seat and became the first superintendent, in 1839 or thereabouts. That BofE was only a standards body for MA schools, not a schools administrator. Mann fought to expand its power and authority.

At first he didn't get much traction, but ten years later - when there were tens of thousands of Irish immigrants in MA in the aftermath of the mid-40s famine and Catholic priests and nuns were setting up dozens of already quite excellent Catholic parish schools - public opinion began to go Mann's way very quickly.

The left wing of the MA Whigs, which included Mann, and which would subsequently break off and become the anti-Irish Native American (Know Nothing) Party were successful in getting a new statewide, state-funded education system modeled directly on the Prussian state education system.

The Prussian system itself, of course, was championed and strengthened by a young Bismarck who saw in it a counterbalance to the highly successful and popular Jesuit-run schools of Catholic Germany.

It was the only truly lasting policy initiative of the Know Nothings, and they openly promoted it as a necessary measure to prevent the rising tide of "Popery."

Massachusetts became the model for the nation and MA-style public schools became standard over the course of the following quarter-century.

Today's public schools may be nearly useless for education purposes, but they still fulfill their original mission of disagreeing with the Pope about everything.

176 posted on 10/25/2006 8:39:06 AM PDT by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Learn to read, son.

Don't take that condescending tone with me. As an attorney I have had plenty to read. Granted, it is usually not done with the purpose of winning pointless arguments on web bloggs.

I looked at your page, and all the "research" you have done. It seems that you are an expert on everything, so I will just leave this thread be.

177 posted on 10/25/2006 8:51:00 AM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Don't get caught in the trap of arguing with people committed to their religion of secular humanism. Or better yet, "don't cast your pearls before swine." Pity them, because "there is a way that seems right to man, but in the end it leads to death."
178 posted on 10/25/2006 8:55:16 AM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Ask Rather!


179 posted on 10/25/2006 9:17:35 AM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Clump
It reminds me of when feminist law students would go ballistic and resort to mere ad hominem attacks when their view points were criticized.

It isn't an ad hominem attack to point out that real scientists don't debate creationists becase the former believe the latter are frauds, kooks, and publicity whores out to do harm if, as is the case, that actually is the reason they do not debate them. (Although I did add some gratuitous stuff about Hamm, just for fun...)

Anyway, it is amazing that creationism is now viewed as "filthy".

I wrote that the lies are filthy, not creationism. Was this law school you attended an ABA-accredited institution?

But I really don't think actual debate is going to happen here anyways.

It could. But what kind of debate will it be when some of the creationists ignore the millions of data points which support evolution, in favor of an absurd belief in the literal truth of the Genesis stories?

180 posted on 10/25/2006 11:57:56 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
I am a practicing lawyer in Texas. My bar # is 24053497 if you want to look it up on the State Bar of Texas web site. One must graduate from an ABA accredited law school to become licensed in TX. But I'll bet you already know that.

Also, several of my friends are practicing medical doctors, and they believe creationism makes more sense than evolution, as far as explaining our origins. One of them is one of the most respected oncologists in the Texas panhandle, and the other is a pathologist that also greatly admired and respected. Yes, they both graduated from accredited medical schools. No, they are not kooks or charlatans. No, they are not pushing books or videos to old widows on fixed incomes. Any more questions?

181 posted on 10/25/2006 12:17:16 PM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Clump
I am a practicing lawyer in Texas. My bar # is [XXXXXX] if you want to look it up on the State Bar of Texas web site. One must graduate from an ABA accredited law school to become licensed in TX. But I'll bet you already know that.

I know, it was a joke. (Although I give you credit, not many people are willing to put personal identifying information out there where anyone can get a hold of it. Some would call that foolish...)

Also, several of my friends are practicing medical doctors, and they believe creationism makes more sense than evolution, as far as explaining our origins. One of them is one of the most respected oncologists in the Texas panhandle, and the other is a pathologist that also greatly admired and respected.

Well, good for them. Of course, being medical doctors, without more, establishes diddly squat in terms of credibility on this issue.

Moreover, I'd be willing to bet that their opinions on this issue has nothing to do with any medical training and education they received and everything to do with their religious convictions. The only question is: which flavor of Christian are they? Curious minds want to know... (I'm betting Baptist.)

Yes, they both graduated from accredited medical schools. No, they are not kooks or charlatans. No, they are not pushing books or videos to old widows on fixed incomes.

I'm sure their pillars of the community. Fine, upstanding men (and/or women). But that doesn't make their opinions on the question of the origins of our favorite African Great Ape, H. sapiens, scientific or even reasonable.

Nor does it change the fact that there are charlatans out there who are preying on the ignorance and/or religiosity of people like your friends. Those charlatans know, or should know, that what they're peddling as scientific fact is, at best, religious dogma and, at worst, nonsensical lies.

Any more questions?

Sure. (This is a serious question, one which I've yet to get any Biblical literalist to answer.) If the Bible said, "all cats reproduce by laying eggs" would you believe it to be factually true? And if not, why not.

182 posted on 10/25/2006 1:15:28 PM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan; SunkenCiv
I got "The Annals of the World" as a birthday present last year, and to my surprise, one of the maps on the CD was mine! It was this one, which I made in 1997 to show how the Middle East looked in 300 B.C.

I believe it was included to show the four the four kingdoms that Alexander's empire broke up into, to fulfill a prophecy in Daniel 8. Well, to make a long story short, I managed to track down the programmer responsible, and persuaded him to give me credit in the next edition of the work (I wasn't in it for the money, since we're both creationists).

183 posted on 10/25/2006 1:27:23 PM PDT by Berosus ("There is no beauty like Jerusalem, no wealth like Rome, no depravity like Arabia."--the Talmud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clump; WildHorseCrash
... Also, several of my friends are practicing medical doctors, and they believe creationism makes more sense than evolution, as far as explaining our origins. One of them is one of the most respected oncologists in the Texas panhandle, and the other is a pathologist that also greatly admired and respected. Yes, they both graduated from accredited medical schools.

The opinions of medical doctors about evolution are about as useful and informed as the opinions of paleontolgists about oncology. Both are highly specialized fields of study, professionals in one don't usually study the other.

Also, it is quite possible that research into the evolution of multicellular life could shed great light on what goes wrong in various cancers.

No, they are not kooks or charlatans. No, they are not pushing books or videos to old widows on fixed incomes. Any more questions?

Only the professional ID-ists and creationists, the ones who profit from DI, AiG, etc. fit that profile. Other ID-ists and creationists are often their victims.

184 posted on 10/25/2006 2:23:13 PM PDT by Virginia-American (Don't bring a comic book to an encyclopedia fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
If the Bible said, "all cats reproduce by laying eggs" would you believe it to be factually true?

It doesn't. But if it did, I would think that when it was written people called chickens cats:)

As for your concern about my personal information . . . well, there is no such thing as keeping personal information private anyway. But thanks.

I only posted it because I doubt you really thought I was a lawyer anyway. The so called academic elite in this country have sufficiently demonized and belittled evangelicals for so long that people now think we are idiots. I just post to say that there are plenty of smart people that subscribe to the THEORY of creation. I really don't care if people disagree with me. I just get tired of being talked down to like I am just a toothless brainless drone. I have actually read up on the topic, and it is my OPINION that there is room for discussion on this topic without resorting to condescending personal attacks. As far as I know, evolution is still a theory, is it not?

My pathologist friend was explaining to me some things about the human body that blew my mind the other day. He told me numerous examples of internal body parts that depend on one another. He said that there are so many things that cannot exist apart from another, that he could not begin to fathom how such distinct and complex organs could come into existence on their very own at all, let alone simultaneously. I was trying to follow him, and it was admittedly tough to keep up. I got the point he was making though.

He said that just one living cell occurring by chance is about as likely as a tornado hitting a scrap yard, and creating a 747 ready to take off. I'm not a scientist, but I know those are not good odds. Anyway, I am not throwing flame bait, just asking for your side to be a little less condescending. We are people too.

185 posted on 10/25/2006 2:25:38 PM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

"I saw it in a Jack Chick tract, So it must be true!" placemark


186 posted on 10/25/2006 2:45:09 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Clump

Sometimes I fail to see the futility in arguing over such matters, but I'll heed the advice.


187 posted on 10/25/2006 3:53:14 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Clump

A number of physicians and other professionals in my hometown are thoroughly Christian, one even does a Christian radio program in his spare time, and I would have to say I know where you are coming from as far as your colleagues and their religious beliefs.


188 posted on 10/25/2006 3:59:49 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I could just as easily respond that you know how to cut and paste evolutionist garbage. You express prejudicial language like, "full of horse manure," and you merely offer inadequate, vague notions because you don't seem to read any more heavily than I do other than your ability to mount antagonizing language and sneering tones...or in essence...pretend you have a monopoly on science and like the world that believed that a flat earth was a scientific fact...attack any contrary idea. You seem to view science more like an ideology.


189 posted on 10/25/2006 4:07:53 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

No, there are serious doubts about how reliable radio carbon dating and tree ring data can be, but I suppose in as far as we encounter "anti-science" people who don't want to be bothered by "peasky" facts...they tend to have no healthy skepticism whatsoever and they absolution drives their supposed science...i.e., "we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation."


190 posted on 10/25/2006 4:11:55 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
I could just as easily respond that you know how to cut and paste evolutionist garbage.

Sure you could, if you wanted to avoid the facts and dishonestly describe well-established science as "garbage". Do you want to do that?

You express prejudicial language like, "full of horse manure,"

That's not "prejudicial language", that's my deeply considered opinion after following this issue very closely for over three decades.

and you merely offer inadequate, vague notions because you don't seem to read any more heavily than I do

Say what? I'm very familiar with the science that's being distorted by the creationists. I've written thousands of detailed debunkings of their twaddle. I've read tens of thousands of primary research articles. Don't tell me I'm not any more competent in this topic than you are or that I don't offer anything more than "vague notions".

other than your ability to mount antagonizing language and sneering tones...or in essence...pretend you have a monopoly on science and like the world that believed that a flat earth was a scientific fact...attack any contrary idea. You seem to view science more like an ideology.

You seem to be frothing at the mouth at me rather than refuting anything I've actually posted.

191 posted on 10/25/2006 4:15:19 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
No, there are serious doubts about how reliable radio carbon dating and tree ring data can be,

Only among those who make the mistake of try to "learn" about dating methods from creationist propaganda.

but I suppose in as far as we encounter "anti-science" people who don't want to be bothered by "peasky" facts...

In my long experience with them, yes, indeed, that is the case. You're doing nothing to dissuade me from that conclusion.

they tend to have no healthy skepticism whatsoever and they absolution drives their supposed science...

Your comment is so laughable that it's clear that you've never actually read anything in primary science journals. No one who actually is familiar with the real science could ever say anything as transparently ridiculous as what you just did. Scientists have more "healthy skepticism" and less "absolution" than most any non-scientist, and creationists have far more "absolution [sic]" and a very UNhealthy kind skepticism.

i.e., "we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation."

We do. Would you like to dispute the actual science, or do you just want to fling more spittle in my general direction because you don't like my well-founded conclusions?

192 posted on 10/25/2006 4:19:24 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
No, there are serious doubts about how reliable radio carbon dating and tree ring data can be, but I suppose in as far as we encounter "anti-science" people who don't want to be bothered by "peasky" facts...they tend to have no healthy skepticism whatsoever and they absolution drives their supposed science...i.e., "we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation."

The "serious doubts about how reliable radio carbon dating and tree ring data can be" are generally based either on twisted facts or outright non-scientific claims.

As I have mentioned to you before, I do a lot of carbon 14 dating in my work (archaeology) and have studied the method for decades. I have also examined many of the comments made on the method on the creationist websites, and can tell you that they are a mix of misrepresentation, wishful thinking, and outright lies.

Tree-ring dating involves finding a type of tree that is long-lived and has reliable one-ring-per-year rings. The bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southeastern California fit the bill nicely.

The method involves coring standing dead bristlecone pines and then matching up the various cores (they use computers to eliminate the subjectivity of humans). As a cross-check they look for known climatic events that would show up in the rings: volcanic eruptions are among the best. These have been found to show up in the tree rings when expected. That is a pretty good confirmation that the oveall method works.

The individual rings are then radiocarbon dated. The recent ones (back to about AD 1650) are dated each year, while the older ones (earlier than AD 1650) are dated in ten-year increments. This is used to establish the atmospheric variation (how much the levels of C12 and C14 in the atmosphere varied from the expected values), creating a calibration curve for the radiocarbon method. The calibration curve based on bristlecone pines is now past 12,500 years.

Other methods of cross-checking the accuracy of the method include dating historic items of known ages (Egyptian scrolls or artifacts, for example). The method has been shown to be accurate within its limits.

When you check out the creationist sites they make a lot of hay out of dating coal or dinosaur bones and obtaining dates in the 30,000-50,000 year range. For many labs this is the upper limit of their detection equipment. These dates being cited by creationists are meaningless.

If you want, I can explain some of these points in more detail. Are you willing to learn, or is your mind already made up?

193 posted on 10/25/2006 4:59:23 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Berosus

Hey, royalties. ;') That one is a classic "imagine my surprise..."


194 posted on 10/25/2006 9:06:05 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Dhimmicrati delenda est! https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Clump
It doesn't.

I know. It's a hypothetical.

But if it did, I would think that when it was written people called chickens cats:)

Non responsive. Let me put it another way: if the Bible makes a clear statement of fact that is absolutely contradicted by science--such as "all cats reproduce by laying eggs"--would you believe the Bible or the science?

I only posted it because I doubt you really thought I was a lawyer anyway. The so called academic elite in this country have sufficiently demonized and belittled evangelicals for so long that people now think we are idiots. I just post to say that there are plenty of smart people that subscribe to the THEORY of creation. I really don't care if people disagree with me. I just get tired of being talked down to like I am just a toothless brainless drone.

I don't think people who believe in creationism are necessarily idiots. (Some are, of course. Appallingly so, in fact.) But the fact that they're not idiots doesn't mean that the creationists are right.

Those creationist that aren't idiots, from what I can gather having read their words for many years, are ignorant of (or unreasonably deny) what the science of evolutionary biology actually is and what it actually says. They are also religiously motivated to remain ignorant in order to avoid the unpleasantness of having their core religious beliefs challenged. (In fact, some creationists are proud of this fact, asserting that they find strength in their ignorance in the subject.)

So, no, I don't believe you're an idiot; I just know you're wrong.

I have actually read up on the topic, and it is my OPINION that there is room for discussion on this topic without resorting to condescending personal attacks. As far as I know, evolution is still a theory, is it not?

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact that populations of organisms have diversified and changed throughout the ages. (See, e.g., the law of faunal succession.) It is also a theory in the sense that the modern synthesis, often called neo-Darwinism, explains the manner in which that diversity of life arose.

And, of course, the theory of evolution will always remain a theory because there is nothing higher in science than a theory. (And, in fact, the theory of evolution is one of the most well-established theories in all of science, with literally millions upon millions of data points supporting it.)

My pathologist friend was explaining to me some things about the human body that blew my mind the other day. He told me numerous examples of internal body parts that depend on one another. He said that there are so many things that cannot exist apart from another, that he could not begin to fathom how such distinct and complex organs could come into existence on their very own at all, let alone simultaneously. I was trying to follow him, and it was admittedly tough to keep up. I got the point he was making though.

This is the logical error known as the argument from personal incredulity. Just because your friend cannot fathom how these organs came into existence through evolution is no evidence that they did not. Other people have fathomed how they came about and the theory of evolution works just find in bringing these organs about. One book I would recommend you read on this particular subject is by Richard Dawkins, called, "Climbing Mount Improbable." In that book he shows how small, nominal evolutionary changes in organic structures can quickly (geologically speaking) results in fantastically complex organs.

He said that just one living cell occurring by chance is about as likely as a tornado hitting a scrap yard, and creating a 747 ready to take off. I'm not a scientist, but I know those are not good odds. Anyway, I am not throwing flame bait, just asking for your side to be a little less condescending. We are people too.

That is an old and quite discredited canard, although professional creationists are still fond of it. (Probably because they are either ignorant of its being rebutted or betting on the fact that their audiences will either not know or not care that it's been debunked.) Basically the answer lies in the gradual accumulation of small, minute changes, none of which is, in itself, implausible or even unlikely.

The analogy is false because evolution doesn't act like a hurricane. An analogy I've used is this: You see a cat in a second floor window. The creationist says that God must have personally put the cat there because everyone knows that the cat couldn't have jumped that high in a single leap, so there is no alternative but to invoke God. The evolutionist just points to the staircase.

Furthermore, this objection is always fascinating to me, because it invariably comes from Christians who believe in the existence of an omnipotent God. But, if this argument is so good and the existence of a 747 resulting from a hurricane in a junkyard is so laughably improbable, isn't it even more laughable and more improbable that an infinitely complex 747 (i.e., God) just happens to exist??

195 posted on 10/26/2006 5:00:47 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
When one absolutely denies the existence of God, there is really no explanation for our origins other than evolution. You and I are both committed to our religions evidently. I guess when we are both dead we will see who was right.

I agree with you that micro-evolution is a fact. But macro-evolution is an entirely different matter. Natural selection only selects from preexisting characteristics, it doesn't actually add on additional and previously nonexistent characteristics.

We are not going to convince one another however. And BTW, the cat story was funny, but it was a bit of an oversimplification. It was also condescending to say the least. But you don't seem capable of not talking down to people (or maybe it is just me). You must be a professor, or I am I just jaded from years of crawling through the sewage of institutions of "higher learning"?

Have a good day by the way.

196 posted on 10/26/2006 9:13:05 AM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Clump
I noted you didn't answer my question: if the Bible makes a clear statement of fact that is absolutely contradicted by science--such as "all cats reproduce by laying eggs"--would you believe the Bible or the science?

When one absolutely denies the existence of God, there is really no explanation for our origins other than evolution. You and I are both committed to our religions evidently.

Evolution is science, not religion. If the Theory of Evolution were scientifically proven wrong tomorrow, I'd be surprised, but excited to dive into that which replaced it. My guess is that you would find it inconceivable, tawdry or sacrilegious to consider whether there is no God or whether Christianity is false.

I guess when we are both dead we will see who was right.

Or neither of us is, or our consciousnesses will fade as our brains shut down and, therefore, we will "see" nothing...

I agree with you that micro-evolution is a fact. But macro-evolution is an entirely different matter.

No, it isn't. Macro-evolution, so called, is simply microevolution that occurred a long time ago. Nothing more.

Natural selection only selects from preexisting characteristics, it doesn't actually add on additional and previously nonexistent characteristics.

Correct, as far as it goes. But natural selection isn't the whole process. The "preexisting characteristics" arise from random changes in the genome which does generate "additional and previously nonexistent characteristics."

We are not going to convince one another however. And BTW, the cat story was funny, but it was a bit of an oversimplification. It was also condescending to say the least.

Well, certainly don't take it as an intentional insult; many of the concepts that really make up the science of evolutionary biology are actually this straightforward and even simple, in theory. (Obviously they get more complex and detailed when the actual mechanics are examined.) When creationists deny these concepts or refuse to see them, it is difficult to express the concepts in an even simpler way without it starting to approach condescension.

For example, creationists say that the Earth is only 6,000 years old; that statement is so wrong, it is difficult to explain how wrong it is without resorting to analogy: Compared to its real age, saying the Earth is 6,000 years old is the equivalent of saying that the Declaration of Independence was signed 2 1/2 hours ago, or saying that the distance between New York and San Francisco is 18 feet.

But you don't seem capable of not talking down to people (or maybe it is just me). You must be a professor, or I am I just jaded from years of crawling through the sewage of institutions of "higher learning"?

Nope, not a professor. And I am sorry if I seem like I'm talking down to you and don't take it personally, but, in my mind, life's too short to pretend that someone's ideas make sense when they really don't.

Have a good day by the way.

You, too.

197 posted on 10/26/2006 10:04:53 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Certainly one "man's" opinion anyway.


198 posted on 10/26/2006 10:06:42 AM PDT by Logic n' Reason (Don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
WorldNutDaily.com Placemarker.
199 posted on 10/26/2006 10:09:56 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (A wall first. A wall now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

heh heh......

You said Annals......

heh heh, heh heh heh


200 posted on 10/26/2006 10:11:20 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (DeWine ranked as one of the ten worst border security politicians - Human Events)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson