Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Using Religion to Suppress Debate on Evolution
The Washington Post ^ | March 27, 2009 | John G. West

Posted on 03/30/2009 8:31:35 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last
To: Buck W.; cookcounty; metmom; GodGunsGuts; Fichori

“You’re not claiming that those despots were driven to genocide because they believed in evoloution are you?

Are you?

You might equally reasonably conclude that they did so because they were male, or had dark hair.”

I don’t believe all evolutionists are destined to be dictators but when you discount God from your life it lends itself to wanting to be your own ruler or “god”. You can read the superior, arrogant tone of most evolution posters on this site to get some idea of how that kind of thinking would lead to elitist ideals and a superiority complex.

On the point of the conclusion being male or having dark hair is the same thing... I don’t buy that argument any more than I buy the argument some are born gay... serial killers... addicted to alcohol or any other such nonsense. To believe or not believe is a choice, not a birth trait.


151 posted on 04/01/2009 4:53:35 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
Secondly, if we have those “few” examples of carbon dating gone wrong, how can the rest stand up to science? Are most of them not too old to have any verification of their age? What standard could scientists possibly use to prove the other “thousands of millions” are correct.

If you will not accept anything except perfect results, that is your perogative. Are you willing to apply that same standard equally outside of the context of the current questions? Will you refuse to take any drug prescribed by you doctor that has any potential unwanted side effects, or refuse to accept that we can safely store long half-life nuclear waste until doing it has actually been demonstrated (that will take several thousand years)?. If NASA screwed up and blew up a rocket, does that mean we can never trust them to launch another one?

You can do that if you want, but is that honestly a practical constraint to put on science, and can we realistically hold them to that standard?

So now are we saying the earth is billions of years old? That’s the first I heard of that.

4.5 Billion years has been the accepted estimate for quite some time.

pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

152 posted on 04/01/2009 4:55:42 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; BrandtMichaels

“Only science should and will continue to be taught in science class.”

Good job discounting the intentions of the founders of our country.

Now...

Evolution and Christianity are prefectly compatible.
Evolution and Christianity are prefectly compatible.
Evolution and Christianity are prefectly compatible.
Evolution and Christianity are prefectly compatible.

...nope... I said it a whole bunch of times and it still doesn’t make sense.

I do agree with you about faith and science... faith by definition cannot be proven with science. However, the truth of the Word and the principles laid down there should be taught in every school. Of course you have to give the disclaimer that the Ten Commandments were simply meant as allegory and you are therefore not bound to honor your father and mother, you can have other Gods before Him, you can murder, you can lie, you can... well all of it is allegory so ignore what you like.


153 posted on 04/01/2009 5:01:50 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom

First, allow me to apologize for the length of the post which follows. I took the time to read and re-read your original answer so that I could understand it. If you feel your eyes glazing over at some point here... please read again so you fully understand what I’m attempting to explain here. Thank you.

“If you will not accept anything except perfect results, that is your perogative.”

The problem I have when I discuss this topic with evolutionists is that they consistently answer only a portion of any question I ask. I’ll be glad respond to your statements but I’d like you to provide me the courtesy of answering me in context. I have re-posted my original statement. The single statement you attempted to answer was not meant to be read alone or I would have stopped there... Please answer it entirely.

Please note that your examples do not apply to my questions as in your first example there is measurable, documented scientific evidence of the potential occurence of unwanted side effects. This is not the case in Carbon dating or any other dating method that is used to measure things that old as we have no valid point of reference. It is also a bad example for the reason that the percentage of possibility of side effects in most medications is in the single digits. I’m sure you didn’t mean to place your proposed dating methods into that category. With the same percentages applied you would be arguing my case for me. As for the other example, are we then to take the dating methods as scientific fact for the explicit reason that it is too hard and would take too much time to prove their valid use? (This question is not rhetorical)

My original statement: “Secondly, if we have those “few” examples of carbon dating gone wrong, how can the rest stand up to science? Are most of them not too old to have any verification of their age? What standard could scientists possibly use to prove the other “thousands of millions” are correct.”

And of course, I remember discussing this subject with you before... I’m not sure I really expect you to answer me clearly. Please prove me wrong.


154 posted on 04/01/2009 5:55:34 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

“I don’t believe all evolutionists are destined to be dictators but when you discount God from your life it lends itself to wanting to be your own ruler or “god”.”

I agree with the first half. However, regarding the second point, are there not numerous examples of religiously-engrossed despots, from Egyptian pharaohs through the inquisitors, Jim Jones, and David Koresh?


155 posted on 04/01/2009 5:56:12 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

““Only science should and will continue to be taught in science class.”

Good job discounting the intentions of the founders of our country.”

The founders never said anything about the science syllabus.

” However, the truth of the Word and the principles laid down there should be taught in every school. “

Where have I said that religion shouldn’t be taught in school?


156 posted on 04/01/2009 5:58:13 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom

Oops... I forgot to answer your question about the age of the earth.
No, I didn’t know that. I lost count after “Millions of years”.

I was in school a long time ago. Back then they were satisfied with a few million years. I don’t trust government sites to give me facts anyway. I have yet to see what Obama meant by a tax break for 95% of Americans. I must be missing something in my calculations (and in my wallet!)


157 posted on 04/01/2009 6:00:14 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; metmom; Fichori; GodGunsGuts

“Where have I said that religion shouldn’t be taught in school?”

You have my humblest apologies. You are correct... I did misread your original post. You just said it shouldn’t be taught in the science class. I absolutely should have read closer before posting that reply.

While I do agree with that, I believe that theory is perfectly acceptable in science class. There are two prevailing theories (with several lesser schools of thought) pertaining to the origin of the universe, those being Creation and Evolution. I have never said Evolution should not be taught as theory only that Creation is every bit as plausible in the scientific realm as a theory. There is hard perfect evidence for neither. Although there is what can be construed as physical evidence for Evolution making it acceptable for science instruction, there is logical evidence based on what we know of matter and physics and the process of design for the Creation theory to be acceptable as well, therefore it should be taught.

On another matter, I believe we have agreed on posts in the past pertaining to conservatism and I would like to set the record straight. My intention here is not to take someone to task who is partaking in serious debate. I enjoy debate and may get carried away at times, as you are also guilty of. If discussion is not passionate it is not interesting.

Let’s keep the lines of dialogue open.

I have no plan to back off of those who attack and accuse and insist on forcing their elitism into the conversation. I am no better than you as you and your ideas are not superior to mine.

Gentlemen’s agreement?


158 posted on 04/01/2009 6:14:51 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; GodGunsGuts; metmom; Fichori

“are there not numerous examples of religiously-engrossed despots, from Egyptian pharaohs through the inquisitors, Jim Jones, and David Koresh?”

You are absolutely correct. I would not make the assertion that is not the case.

In all the cases you noted there were people who believed they were in some way gods or the hand of God. Man does not have the ability to handle unbridled power with no moral compass and in the case of the contemporary examples noted, Jim Jones and David Koresh, both were also morally bankrupt partaking in deeds that directly contradicted the Word of God.

The fact that this is true does not in any way discount the truth of the second half of my statement. Human nature is to defy God. Any way you go about it the end is still despotism.


159 posted on 04/01/2009 6:22:39 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
What it ultimately comes down to is whether scientists should assume that what have been observed to be physical constants, like the half lives of radio isotopes, were constant before they were first observed and measured.

Those constants do not exist in a vacuum, they are a necessary consequence of the properties of the matter and forces they study and if they changed then everything they affected or interacted with had to change too.

I will give you a practical example. If they cannot assume that the decay rate of uranium is constant, then they cannot reasonable estimate the safety of a nuclear reactor containment vessel, or say with any certainty that any of our nuclear warheads would be any more effective than dropping a comparable load of bricks from high altitude.

You submit that your questions have a broader context than I address. I will try to do better if you will try to understand that for them to make the assumptions you want them to make, or disallow the ones you don't want them making has cosequences beyond your immediate objections to those assumptions.

160 posted on 04/01/2009 6:32:03 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

Sure.


161 posted on 04/01/2009 6:37:01 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
I was in school a long time ago. Back then they were satisfied with a few million years. I don’t trust government sites to give me facts anyway. I have yet to see what Obama meant by a tax break for 95% of Americans. I must be missing something in my calculations (and in my wallet!)

While there were some earlier, lesser document theories, the origin of "Old Earth" theory is generally attributed to a Scottish geologist named James Hutton, who first theorized that sedimentary rock took millions and possible billions of years to form. Hutton was a contemporary of the Founders, and his theories pre-date Darwin by several decades.

162 posted on 04/01/2009 6:38:16 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
So now are we saying the earth is billions of years old? That’s the first I heard of that.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments. It looks like this:

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp
163 posted on 04/01/2009 6:40:07 PM PDT by Phileleutherus Franciscus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“I will try to do better if you will try to understand that for them to make the assumptions you want them to make”

Pointing out an elitist-like statement. Not for the point of slamming you but because you don’t seem to know when you do it.

Your answers are, again well thought out and I appreciate that, but just as you are convinced of your logic in these matters I see the point I’m trying to make just as vividly. We only know so much past 100 years or so but assume we have become so intelligent in that time we can answer the mysteries of the universe. It’s no different than the global warming argument... to think the earth is, as the evolutionists claim billions of years old and we could destroy it with an SUV in 40 is ludicrous, yet you ask me to trust those same scientists when it comes to millions of years? Better yet, You believe them? You seem smarter than that to me.


164 posted on 04/01/2009 6:40:43 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
I don’t trust government sites to give me facts anyway. I have yet to see what Obama meant by a tax break for 95% of Americans. I must be missing something in my calculations (and in my wallet!)

I'll wager the same information was there when Reagan was in office.

165 posted on 04/01/2009 6:41:16 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
We only know so much past 100 years or so but assume we have become so intelligent in that time we can answer the mysteries of the universe. It’s no different than the global warming argument... to think the earth is, as the evolutionists claim billions of years old and we could destroy it with an SUV in 40 is ludicrous, yet you ask me to trust those same scientists when it comes to millions of years? Better yet, You believe them? You seem smarter than that to me.

Again, if you want perfect answers that is your perogative. Are you willing to hold religion to the same standard - as long as there is disagreement and conflicting opinions among it's proponents, the none of it is to be trusted?

166 posted on 04/01/2009 6:44:46 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Those constants do not exist in a vacuum, they are a necessary consequence of the properties of the matter and forces they study and if they changed then everything they affected or interacted with had to change too.

And we can measure what those constants were (or, more precisely, the ratios of some of the constants) by viewing very distant objects today and measuring their values when light left them. Here are two recent examples using two entirely different molecules for measurement:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3081v1

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/7080

The conclusion? There is no evidence that any of the constants have varied in the last 6-8 billion years.
167 posted on 04/01/2009 6:46:04 PM PDT by Phileleutherus Franciscus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Phileleutherus Franciscus
The conclusion? There is no evidence that any of the constants have varied in the last 6-8 billion years.

Unfortunately I don't believe an absence of evidence that they have changed is sufficient. What's being demanded is documented contemporaneous proof that they have never changed.

168 posted on 04/01/2009 6:49:30 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“I’ll wager the same information was there when Reagan was in office.”

I’d take that bet... I was in school when Reagan was in office and I was taught millions of years not billions. Either way, I don’t think Reagan was as active in the internet as Al Gore at the time and there was no Government website in the 80’s. There was no public internet to speak of. Arpanet was just getting started and few had access.

What’d I win?


169 posted on 04/01/2009 6:53:41 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
I’d take that bet... I was in school when Reagan was in office and I was taught millions of years not billions. Either way, I don’t think Reagan was as active in the internet as Al Gore at the time and there was no Government website in the 80’s. There was no public internet to speak of. Arpanet was just getting started and few had access.

What’d I win?

You win an admission that I may be wrong about it being available on the internet. I seriously question your memory about what the accepted estimate of the age of the Earth was then.

170 posted on 04/01/2009 6:59:28 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Unfortunately I don't believe an absence of evidence that they have changed is sufficient. What's being demanded is documented contemporaneous proof that they have never changed.

Well, the first measurement would not be possible if the value of the proton to electron mass ratio had changed more than 1.8x10-4%.

The second indicates that the fine structure constant, equal to the square of the charge of the electron divided by the speed of light times Planck's constant, did not change over a 4 billion year period.

We can measure what the constants must have been at the time light left distant stars, is my point. And if the constants had changed, what we would see would be very different from what we do see.
171 posted on 04/01/2009 7:00:19 PM PDT by Phileleutherus Franciscus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom; GodGunsGuts; Fichori

“as long as there is disagreement and conflicting opinions among it’s proponents, the none of it is to be trusted?”

I don’t use people’s opinions as a standard for my faith. That would be pretty ignorant. Whether you agree or not, my standard is the Word of God. I could care less about religion or the opinions of other men.

Disagreement and conflicting opinion among the proponents of evolution is a different matter. Why should I take in faith something that the evidence doesn’t fully support and that even the believers in the evidence disagree wildly on.

I admit what I believe about the Bible is faith, but evolutionists are afraid to do the same with their chosen religion.


172 posted on 04/01/2009 7:00:38 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

Is it possible, for the purposes of this discussion, to separate the “hard” science of physics and the issue of measureable physical constants with the “soft” science of biology and evolution and keep to that line of argument?


173 posted on 04/01/2009 7:10:55 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Phileleutherus Franciscus

“What’s being demanded is documented contemporaneous proof that they have never changed.”

Where? Maybe that’s the problem. You’re making an assumption that’s what is being asked for. The premise of my argument is not that at all. I’ve asked for no proof of the constant although I don’t think the constants are a given. I’ve just voiced my doubt about the validity of the given methods based on the length of time the samples span. If the scientists are even a day off over 10 years the exponential nature of the error would be unnacceptable by most scientific standards.


174 posted on 04/01/2009 7:19:19 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; metmom

“You win an admission that I may be wrong about it being available on the internet. I seriously question your memory about what the accepted estimate of the age of the Earth was then.”

Good grief! That’s enough for me... it’s like winning the lottery (and yes I believe the lottery is a tool of Satan).

That’s the closest to an admission of error I’ve gotten from an evolutionist on this site! Still incorrect even in the “admission” but you were close. Are you really so young that you don’t know there was no government website of that nature that was available to the public in the early 80’s?

Of course, even in the admission there was an elitist attitude. Just pointing it out for your benefit.


175 posted on 04/01/2009 7:24:10 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
If the scientists are even a day off over 10 years the exponential nature of the error would be unnacceptable by most scientific standards.

That's a margin of error of 0.00027. What's good enough?

176 posted on 04/01/2009 7:26:06 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
Of course, even in the admission there was an elitist attitude. Just pointing it out for your benefit.

I don't supposed it ever occured to you that anything you've posted is arrogant and condescending.

177 posted on 04/01/2009 7:28:55 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
You might like to read some background regarding this general subject... (if you have time)

Starting at posts 144 [through 177], and 210 [through 283] (both on the same thread)
178 posted on 04/01/2009 7:35:43 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“Is it possible, for the purposes of this discussion, to separate the “hard” science of physics and the issue of measureable physical constants with the “soft” science of biology and evolution and keep to that line of argument?”

I’d love to do that, but I’m more of a philisophical - logic kind of guy. I’m not really trained in physics. Where it’s kind of hard for you to jump into the religious faith-based side of things, I have no education in physics so I can only take your word for it on physics.

Hmmm.... I do see the problem. Of course, as I said I have faith in God and believe the Bible because of my faith and what I see in the natural world. For these reasons I can’t promise I can limit the discussion the way you propose. Which is part of the problem. I cannot separate my faith from the discussion... I know that’s not exactly what you’re asking me to do, but alll of the physics you’re citing is directly related to trying to prove the case for evolution. At least that’s how it appears and that makes it kind of tough for me not to argue that direction.


179 posted on 04/01/2009 7:36:26 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“That’s a margin of error of 0.00027. What’s good enough?”

What period of time... using what as a standard (standard in the traditional sense)?


180 posted on 04/01/2009 7:38:13 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“I don’t supposed it ever occured to you that anything you’ve posted is arrogant and condescending.”

Oh, absolutely. I think in general when you disagree with someone you run the risk of sounding arrogant or condescending. I appreciate that it took you until the second time for that to sufficiently tweak you.

I only start with the arrogance on the evolution posts, though. I’m not that way as a rule, but tend to be a bit defensive when I know the audience already has a chip on their shoulder. I love the discussion, but I will tweak you from time to time as you will me. Can you handle it?


181 posted on 04/01/2009 7:42:01 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

“You might like to read some background regarding this general subject... (if you have time)”

Thanks! I’ll check them out. I’m used to the broken record, but I can be one myself from time to time. I know they prime each other on one post and coagulate on the other.

To be honest, they sharpen my resolve as well.


182 posted on 04/01/2009 7:46:29 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
I engaged you in discussion when you had a question about the physics of radio carbon dating. I tried, and believe I did, answer your question politely, civily, and to the best of my knowlege. I have tried to explain why the physicists make the assumptions they do.

I haven't disparaged your religious beliefs, or been insulting. We have obvious differences of opinion about some things. If we cannot simply agree to disagree about those things, and concentrate on the things we can discuss without them becoming personal then I don't believe there's any good reason to continue this right now.

183 posted on 04/01/2009 7:51:38 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“I haven’t disparaged your religious beliefs, or been insulting. We have obvious differences of opinion about some things. If we cannot simply agree to disagree about those things, and concentrate on the things we can discuss without them becoming personal then I don’t believe there’s any good reason to continue this right now.”

I don’t think you’ve been unfair to me in any post now or in the past. Again, I am passionate about what I believe and as such occasionally am a bit zealous about my beliefs. If you have strong-held beliefs you are also, but if you’ll look at some of the posts on these threads it’s hard to tell friend from enemy. There are those who would attack and call anyone disagreeing things like simpleton’s, morons, cretard’s. You do not speak in that way and I must thank you for that.

We can agree to disagree about those things. The personal insults should have been reserved for those who deserve them and that has certainly not been you.

You absolutely gave me a good answer as you say. Now I’ve had to apologize twice in one evening... don’t let it happen again! sarc/

Thanks. GG


184 posted on 04/01/2009 8:11:43 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
What period of time... using what as a standard (standard in the traditional sense)?

I don't understand the question. As far as I know, the standard is whatever the best estimate is that they can give, given the sample they have to work with and the technology they have to measure it.

Do you know of any technology or methodology that produces more reliable results that they should be using instead?

185 posted on 04/01/2009 8:14:57 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

Fair enough. I abhor the level some of these threads descend to, and I admit to having occasionally gotten caught up in a “race to the bottom” in the past and regretted it later. I will occasionally get involved in some “give and take” with others I’m familiar with, but too many times I’ve seen minor disagreements esacalate to downright mean,ugly and stupid in just a few posts.


186 posted on 04/01/2009 8:24:08 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“Do you know of any technology or methodology that produces more reliable results that they should be using instead?”

I don’t. But then as I said that’s not my field... not sure what my field is. I’ve done many things.

I’m just not sure how scientific, “whatever the best estimate is that they can give, given the sample they have to work with and the technology they have to measure it.” The thing is, I think you have nailed what I’m saying right here. If there is no standard (point of reference to compare results) then the science is flawed. We could find items that are a few hundred years old and work from there forward, but when you get out 1000, 4000, 10000, 100000, 1000000 years there is no standard. My logic may be flawed in this but I don’t see how we can assume accuracy in the millions of years when any known reference point is millions of years later.

I’m not trying to make a cricular argument or confuse the subject, I’m just trying to understand it.


187 posted on 04/01/2009 8:27:40 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“too many times I’ve seen minor disagreements esacalate to downright mean,ugly and stupid in just a few posts.”

I can even understand that at times after a few posts when beliefs are challenged and tempers flare. But it’s especially disgusting to me the people who start out of the box that way. The ones who do it just to attack folks. I was kind of surprised when I started looking at the evolution/religion posts at the kind of attacks that were allowed. I am glad we have a place to share ideas and differences of opinion in an almost entirely conservative format.


188 posted on 04/01/2009 8:34:20 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
They do have some comparative references, it's not completely arbitrary.

There are some samples they can use for baseline reference based on events in recorded history - samples gathered from sites of past volcanic eruptions like Vesuvius for example.

They can date some samples take from deep ice cores in the Arctic and Antarctic regions by drilling down and bringing up ice cores and counting the seasonal layers in the ice like rings in a tree. In the Antarctic, those layers go down over 100,000 years. There's not a lot of organic matter in some of them, but enough to use for comparative analysis and establishing reference baselines.

189 posted on 04/01/2009 8:36:30 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I’m plagued by my faith! The problem I have with a lot of the ice-core samples and the like is my belief in the Great Flood. Even if the global flood is not taken into account there were certainly major floods that took place with various climate shifts over the ages that would account for shifts in the soil samples and in the ice cores.

The science is imperfect at best and I believe you acknowledge that. It’s a whole lot easier to weed through relevant information when both parties are willing to acknowledge where the weaknesses in the arguments are.

I know we disagree on most of this, but I don’t even understand where some of these guys are coming from and you give some very good and helpful knowledge.

If you have a response to the statement at the top, please post it. I’ll be back on tomorrow night.

Thanks.

Gordon


190 posted on 04/01/2009 8:45:25 PM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life." Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
I can even understand that at times after a few posts when beliefs are challenged and tempers flare. But it’s especially disgusting to me the people who start out of the box that way. The ones who do it just to attack folks. I was kind of surprised when I started looking at the evolution/religion posts at the kind of attacks that were allowed. I am glad we have a place to share ideas and differences of opinion in an almost entirely conservative format.

I think most of the time this is the result of somebody coming into a thread still mad from the last one.

I'll give your other post some thought and take it up againg tomorrow. I'm headed for bed, too.

191 posted on 04/01/2009 9:04:56 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Gordon Greene; GodGunsGuts
“They can date some samples take from deep ice cores in the Arctic and Antarctic regions by drilling down and bringing up ice cores and counting the seasonal layers in the ice like rings in a tree. In the Antarctic, those layers go down over 100,000 years. There's not a lot of organic matter in some of them, but enough to use for comparative analysis and establishing reference baselines” [excerpt]


Wild ice-core interpretations by uniformitarian scientists

Uniformitarian scientists derive many more ‘annual layers’ in the Greenland ice cores than creationists because of their assumed old age time scale. The differences between the two paradigms also show up in the interpretation of the Ice Age portion of the cores. Large changes in oxygen isotope ratio are interpreted by uniformitarian scientists as wild fluctuations in temperature in the North Atlantic region. Such wild fluctuations in the previous ‘interglacial’ sparked a reinforcement syndrome and other such fluctuations were then ‘discovered’ in other data sets, such as deep-sea cores. These ‘interglacial’ fluctuations have been used to justify speculation on rapid climate change in the present climate due to increased greenhouse gasses. The ‘interglacial’ ice core fluctuations are now seen by most scientists as an artifact of ice flow. Uniformitarian scientists are still perplexed over the huge Ice Age fluctuations. Creationists, on the other hand, can interpret the oxygen isotope swings in at least four ways by events within a short post-Flood Ice Age. The oxygen isotope fluctuations could represent seasonal changes, longer period climate changes caused by variable volcanic dust loading, changes in sea ice, or atmospheric circulation changes.

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...


New ice core records 120,000 years?

A milestone in deep ice drilling occurred on Thursday, 17 July 2003.1  The deepest ice core in the Northern Hemisphere hit bedrock on the Greenland Ice Sheet at a depth of almost two miles.  The new core was drilled by the North Greenland Ice Core Project (NorthGRIP, or NGRIP for short), which took seven years to drill, after overcoming many problems.2  The ice core is located 203 miles from the highest point on the ice sheet, on a north–north-west trending ice ridge.  European glaciologists had drilled the high point to bedrock back in the early 1990s.  Their ice core was called GRIP.  American scientists had drilled another hole to bedrock at the same time, 18 miles to the west of GRIP, called GISP2.3

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...


Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?

Ice cores have been drilled deep into both the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets. These cores represent snowfall that has turned to ice. During snowfall on top of the ice sheets, dust, air, acids, etc. are added and eventually incorporated into the ice. Some of these parameters oscillate during the seasons and can be a signature for an annual layer of snowfall. The annual snowfall over Antarctica is normally too small to resolve annual layers down an ice core. It is the Greenland Ice Sheet that exhibits annual cycles of one or more of the variables down an ice core.

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...


Still trying to make ice cores old

On December 3, Dr. Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe website featured a new result from the Dome C ice core, drilled from on top of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. This ice core was drilled down to 3,190 meters and is supposedly over 800,000 years old in the uniformitarian* timescale.1 The website stated that evidence for the great age of the core is demonstrated by the discovery of the Matuyama-Brunhes geomagnetic reversal at about 780,000 years in the core, based on a recent article from Nature.2 However, this deduction is equivocal, even from a uniformitarian point of view.

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...


Ice cores vs the Flood

Paul H. Seely has written a rebuttal to creationist’s ice sheet and ice core interpretations in the December 2003 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, a journal put out by American Scientific Affiliation.1 [Ed. note: Seely is an ostensibly evangelical theologian whose main hobby for decades seems to have been to argue that the Bible contains scientific errors, and is thus much beloved by anti-Christians—see

The ASA has been for decades the leading American organization promoting theistic evolutionary compromise.]

He primarily challenges my reinterpretation of the 110,000 claimed annual layers in the GISP2 ice core from the top of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the depth of 2,800 metres and defends the extensive timeframe, claiming independent corroboration by multiple methods. I will show that these methods are not independent and open to significant reinterpretation. The root of the problem is the uncritical acceptance of the uniformitarian paradigm.

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...



Needless to say, the methods and assumptions used to get the desired 100,000+ years, are rather questionable.


(GGG, Hope you don't mind me spamming your thread)
192 posted on 04/01/2009 10:11:13 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

Not at all, spam away!


193 posted on 04/01/2009 10:25:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

I don’t mind. IMHO, any critical reading of AIG’s articles usually does more harm than good to their position. They provide little if any hard data to back up their conclusions and their comparative analysis consists mostly of assigning perjoratives to non-creationists theories, reasarch and scientists and describing their own in glowing terms.


194 posted on 04/02/2009 3:58:47 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Phileleutherus Franciscus

Maybe you’ve simply not studied the arguments against old earth (see creationscience.com). Also maybe you have not considered nor studied those that have attempted to meet in the middle (google Gravitational Time Dilation or read Starlight and Time by Russell Humpreys Ph.d.). Not everything is as uniform as it appears.

The best question I’ve seen posed to the evolution intellectuals is:

Why do you put so much stock in Charles Darwin w/ a fairly checkered educational background and mostly overlook the work of Albert Einstein w/ a highly scientific and mathematical educational background as well as some of the most astounding breakthroughs in modern science?


195 posted on 04/02/2009 5:03:46 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; wendy1946
Communism comes from the Bible Communists of the 18th and 19th centuries

The small cults of Christian Communists of the 18th and 19th centuries developed independently of the Marxist, atheistic variety, and can by no stretch of the imagination be linked to the eugenics and mass murder practiced by the latter.

At the time when Marxism first emerged on the political scene, the concept of secular or atheistic communism did not yet exist. All communism was rooted in religious principles. During the mid-to-late 1840s, the largest organization espousing communist ideas in Europe was the League of the Just, whose motto was "All Men are Brothers" and whose aim was to establish a new society "based on the ideals of love of one's neighbor, equality and justice". Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels joined the League of the Just in 1847. Under their influence, the organization became secular and atheistic and changed its name to the Communist League. The League invited Marx and Engels to write a programmatic document that would express communist principles, and they obliged, producing the Communist Manifesto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Cordially,

196 posted on 04/02/2009 8:10:00 AM PDT by Diamond (:^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Diamond; wendy1946
You make my point for me.

The motto of the League of the Just (Bund der Gerechten) was "All Men are Brothers" and its goals were "the establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth, based on the ideals of love of one's neighbour, equality and justice."

And, as you point out, Marx and Engels joined in 1847, 12 years before Darwin published Origins. It's true that the movement moved away from God, but that was my point. Marx specifically moved away from previous socialist efforts, even using the term communism to disassociate himself from them. However, these movements grew from Christianity, not evolutionary biology..

And the fact is that the Oneida colony practiced eugenics in the 19th century. The elders decided who would be allowed to reproduce. They didn't follow any biological theory of Darwin, or anyone else, in this.

197 posted on 04/02/2009 9:01:14 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Why do you put so much stock in Charles Darwin w/ a fairly checkered educational background and mostly overlook the work of Albert Einstein w/ a highly scientific and mathematical educational background as well as some of the most astounding breakthroughs in modern science?

Why do you put so much stock in arguments about Charles Darwin? "Old Earth" theories originated in geology, and predate Dawrin by several decades.

What evidence can you present that Albert Einstein disagreed with the geologists and nuclear physicists about the age of the Earth based on radiometric dating?

198 posted on 04/02/2009 10:20:01 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
However, these movements grew from Christianity, not evolutionary biology..

These movements were small cultish aberrations of Christianity. There is nothing inherently Biblical or historically Christian about Communism in any of its forms.

And the fact is that the Oneida colony practiced eugenics in the 19th century. The elders decided who would be allowed to reproduce. They didn't follow any biological theory of Darwin, or anyone else, in this.

On whose shoulders did later eugenicists explicitly stand, the "Christian Communists' or Charles Darwin?

Cordially,

199 posted on 04/02/2009 12:24:16 PM PDT by Diamond (:^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
These movements were small cultish aberrations of Christianity. There is nothing inherently Biblical or historically Christian about Communism in any of its forms.

Agreed. I'm just saying there is well documented evidence that communist movements started as Christian utopian movements.

On whose shoulders did later eugenicists explicitly stand, the "Christian Communists' or Charles Darwin?

I think both the Bible communists and the later 20th century eugenics movements come from Lamarck. Especially in the 20th century where they assumed that having athletic, "fit" parents would result in superior children.

This fits perfectly with Lamarck's idea of acquired characteristics, which ironically was the one of the dominant evolutionary theories that Darwin's theory eclipsed.

200 posted on 04/02/2009 1:30:56 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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