Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8144 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2014 9:05 AM
64 online now:
Capt Stormfield, Dr Adequate, Pressie, ramoss, RAZD, vimesey (6 members, 58 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: NinaSabrina1999
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,368 Year: 24,209/28,606 Month: 1,510/1,786 Week: 372/423 Day: 13/119 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Emails Restored


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism & Age of Creationists' Earth
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15947
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 16 of 54 (450387)
01-21-2008 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by obvious Child
01-21-2008 5:13 PM


What I don't understand is how they can determine the age of the Earth when a fair portion of it was based on a set of laws of physics that can't be determined. You're missing half of the equation and no way of figuring it out.

See Great Debate with Simple

The purpose is not to be able to actually determine the age of the earth -- they already "know" what that is -- but to make reality wrong.

Rationally, that would mean you cannot come to an outcome.

You're assuming a rational outcome is desired.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by obvious Child, posted 01-21-2008 5:13 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by obvious Child, posted 01-21-2008 7:42 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 581 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 17 of 54 (450414)
01-21-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
01-21-2008 6:23 PM


quote:
The purpose is not to be able to actually determine the age of the earth -- they already "know" what that is -- but to make reality wrong.

Alright, I can accept that. But say a creationist's argument about a 6,000 year old Earth was challenged to prove it empirically. How would they deal with the problem of missing variables in the equation? If you lack the information of how the previous set of physics operated, rates are unknown, resulting in large hole in one's argument.

quote:
You're assuming a rational outcome is desired.

Of course. I'd love to see a YEC try to argue against why this doesn't completely invalidate their empirical arguments, but I don't think I'm going to get a bite.

Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2008 6:23 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 18 of 54 (450428)
01-21-2008 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by arachnophilia
01-21-2008 6:16 PM


Re: not a septuagint v. masoretic issue
Hi arachnophilia

oof, now there's some funny logic. i'd like to point out that the 2,300 year old jews didn't believe in jesus either, and necessarily so because he hadn't been born yet.

Easy big fellow I did not say they did not believe in Jesus they believed he was a great teacher. I said they did not believe in the deity of Jesus.

The ones prior to Jesus time was looking for his coming. He just did not arrive on a white charger and set up His kingdom like they had envisioned. So they refused to accept Him as their King.

arachnophilia writes:

further, it is a translation. and i'm reasonably positive that you're reading it in translation. so opposed to reading something that's at least in the original language, you're reading something that has been distorted by two translation cycles.


Sorry to disappoint you I can read the Greek one.

arachnophilia writes:

further, the masoretic is much older than 1,000. under the same standards you're measuring the septuagint, it's closer to 1,800. if you're going to use the oldest surviving codex, that puts the LXX at about 400 ad.

The septuagint was completed long before Christ arrived. He quoted it and the Apostles quoted it. Greek was the basic language of the day.

The masoretic text as you pointed out was started many years after Christ. It was not finished until the 10th or llth century.

arachnophilia writes:

even further, there is a high degrees of correlation between the masoretic and the DSS, showing that the text (of at least the still-present books) as remained largely unchanged since before the time of christ.

There is a high degree of correlation between the masoretic and the septuagint. They came from the same originals.

All am saying is the Jews who did not believe in the Deity of Jesus had an agenda to get references to that and a few other things out of their way.

That is no different that the present flood of translations.
I read one the other day where the 2nd chapter of Genesis had 3 verses.

arachnophilia writes:

plausible the first verse of genesis in the LXX's source document said the same thing it does today in the masoretic.

I think the first verse is pretty much the same.
I got no problem with: In the beginning God created (made)(either word)the heaven and the earth,

arachnophilia writes:

no, and to do so would be silly, because genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. it's not even a complete sentence. what i do think is that needlessly breaking up the sentence, and rendering that dependent clause as referring to something else entirely, and inserting a whole other story of creation and destruction in there is rather absurd. in the middle of a sentence!

You say it is a dependent clause. Why?

Have fun now,

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2008 6:16 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2008 9:53 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 8967
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 19 of 54 (450440)
01-21-2008 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICANT
01-21-2008 8:07 PM


Re: not a septuagint v. masoretic issue
Easy big fellow I did not say they did not believe in Jesus they believed he was a great teacher. I said they did not believe in the deity of Jesus.

when one says "believe in jesus" that's generally what they mean.

The ones prior to Jesus time was looking for his coming. He just did not arrive on a white charger and set up His kingdom like they had envisioned. So they refused to accept Him as their King.

then their expectations were not of jesus, were they?

Sorry to disappoint you I can read the Greek one.

i am as inclined to believe this point as i am the one you made about your expertise in hebrew. untill you start making arguments based on that text instead of merely appealing to its authority, i'm not going to believe you.

in fact, here is a thread where such an argument based on the grammar of the greek text would be more than welcome. in fact, you've already posted in this thread, but did so without actually making such an argument. if you care to demonstrate your knowledge of koine greek by describing the grammatical structure of the first verse of genesis, please do so.

The septuagint was completed long before Christ arrived. He quoted it and the Apostles quoted it. Greek was the basic language of the day.

jesus spoke aramaic. the quotes attributed to him by the authors of the new testament were indeed lifted from the LXX. but jesus also in one very prominent occassion quotes the bible in aramaic.

The masoretic text as you pointed out was started many years after Christ. It was not finished until the 10th or llth century.

the masoretic seems to date to about the time of the new testament. the oldest text is the 10th or 11th century, but it matches the DSS with a high degree of precision.

There is a high degree of correlation between the masoretic and the septuagint. They came from the same originals.

indeed. so what's the point in championing one version, particularly the one that has been rendered in another language? like the title up there says, this is not a septuagint v. masoretic issue. they say the same thing -- you are reading it incorrectly.

All am saying is the Jews who did not believe in the Deity of Jesus had an agenda to get references to that and a few other things out of their way.

yes, it's all a jewish conspiracy. classy argument, that one.

think the first verse is pretty much the same.
I got no problem with: In the beginning God created (made)(either word)the heaven and the earth,

and what follows is the description of how.

You say it is a dependent clause. Why?

...because it is. for the actual argument regarding that, please see the link above.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2008 8:07 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3576
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 20 of 54 (450464)
01-22-2008 2:10 AM


6 "Off-topic" banners just went on recent messages
3 on ICANT messages.

3 on Arachnophilia messages.

These messages are totally off-topic. Other recent messages had at least some vague connection to the topic.

Cease the off-topic substring theme, or chance suffering the wrath of Moose.

And don't reply to this message, either in this topic or at the "General discussion of moderation procedures" topic. There is nothing to discuss.

Adminnemooses


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 13287
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 21 of 54 (450498)
01-22-2008 10:13 AM


Defining Uniformitarianism
It is worth making two points. First, the term uniformitarianism is no longer current within geology, though the principles are very much alive and well.

Second, uniformitarianism does not mean what most creationists think it means. It is not a synonym for gradualism. It means that the array of forces active on our planet today have been active throughout its history. It definitely does not rule out catastrophes. For example, an asteroid strike is possible today, and an asteroid strike was possible millions of years ago.

Wikipedia has a good article on uniformitarianism.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 8:40 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 2120 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 22 of 54 (484324)
09-27-2008 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Granny Magda
01-20-2008 11:02 PM


Howdy Granny and Child,
It is not like evilutionist don't do precisely what you are accusing creationists in this case. Before the find "scientific" thought was expressed as fact that no soft tissue..yadda yadda. No problem we can just change the facts. Again. So when the fact comes out you bet the creationists said whoopee. Science responds by saying sorry that's not a fact anymore. I as a creationist only have a problem with interpretation or with it being stated as fact. I admit openly to being dismissive of that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Granny Magda, posted 01-20-2008 11:02 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Granny Magda, posted 09-27-2008 9:27 PM b0ilingfrog has responded

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 2120 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 23 of 54 (484325)
09-27-2008 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
01-22-2008 10:13 AM


Re: Defining Uniformitarianism
Uninformatarianism was used to drive out research based on the flood.
Once it was established as the only game in academia and only religious zealots believed in the flood it could be safely altered to include a few catastrophes (as long as they weren't a global flood). It was synonymous with gradualism for nearly a century. I was taught that it took millions of years for the dinosaurs to all die off. Now it happened with a single impact off Yucatan?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 01-22-2008 10:13 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 24 of 54 (484329)
09-27-2008 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 8:22 PM


Hi b0ilingfrog, nice to have you on board.

It is not like evilutionist don't do precisely what you are accusing creationists in this case.

You might like to be more specific about what I am accusing people of. If you have a problem with some specific statement that I have made, please quote it, so that we can discuss things clearly. If you're not sure about how to format quotes, hit the "peek" button (next to the reply button) to see how I made these quote boxes. There is also lots of help here

Before the find "scientific" thought was expressed as fact that no soft tissue..yadda yadda. No problem we can just change the facts. Again.

I think that you are over-egging this. Before finds that suggested soft tissue (as I understand it, soft tissue fossils are still being examined and the findings are mostly pretty tentative), the expectation was that no soft tissue could fossilise. This was simply a theoretical expectation, not a fact.

The fact once was that no soft tissue fossils had been found.

Now the fact is that some fossils do seem to possess soft tissue.

What should science do about this state of affairs? Stick its head in the sand and defiantly shout "No! There is no such thing as a soft tissue fossil! It's impossible!"? Clearly not.

The proper thing to do is to examine all available evidence (i.e. observed facts) and re-assess theory to better explain those facts, along with all other known facts. Theory can and should change in response to new information.

What I am critical of is the creationist habit of cherry picking specific aspects of biological or geological science that have been superseded and clinging onto the old theory as though it were held as gospel by the scientific community, whilst simultaneously trying to present the new information as though it had falsified entire fields of scientific endeavour. This is dishonest and speaks of a lack of understanding of how science works.

Another reason why it would be difficult for "evilutionists" to treat creationist research in the way that creationists treat scientific research, is the extreme paucity of creationist research papers. How can scientists cherry pick creationist theories that have been falsified when creationists don't do proper research, don't publish their work in scientific journals and never seem to change their minds, even when their ideas have been refuted an thousand times?

So when the fact comes out you bet the creationists said whoopee.

Of course. Creationists will make great mileage out of anything that they think can be tortured into supporting their viewpoint. Proper science on the other hand, is neutral. It shouldn't matter what viewpoint the evidence supports, what is important is the strength of the evidence itself.

Science responds by saying sorry that's not a fact anymore.

Just you cite me one respectable scientific source making such a statement. Go on and try. You won't succeed. Know why? Because science isn't in the business of creating facts. Scientists create theories, theories that are held tentatively and are subject to change in the light of new evidence. That is entirely healthy. That is how science is supposed to work, as opposed to creationism, which just clings on to outdated falsified theories, just so long as they chime with the Bible.

I as a creationist only have a problem with interpretation or with it being stated as fact. I admit openly to being dismissive of that.

Well good, you should be. The problem here is that you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The idea that soft tissues could not fossilise was never considered a "fact". No-one here ever claimed that it was a fact and I doubt very much that you will be able to cite any scientist claiming that it was a fact. I wouldn't even go so far as to describe the idea as a theory (a high accolade in science). Let's call it an expectation, based upon theory and observation. It has now has doubt shed upon it. So what? That's how science works!

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 8:22 PM b0ilingfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 5:32 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4749
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 25 of 54 (484332)
09-27-2008 9:45 PM


Soft tissues?
The issue of soft tissues is still being debated.

A recent study suggests that what were described as soft tissues in dinosaur bones were actually a bacterial biofilm.

Did Dinosaur Soft Tissues Still Survive? New Research Challenges Notion

Stay tuned; more research will get to the bottom of this.

In the meantime creationists haven't a clue as to what is going on as they conduct no research and for the most part don't study science. (Its just "evilution" you know. Not a proper field to actually study.) Their pronouncements on science can be taken as apologetics and safely ignored.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Granny Magda, posted 09-27-2008 10:29 PM Coyote has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 26 of 54 (484350)
09-27-2008 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Coyote
09-27-2008 9:45 PM


Re: Soft tissues?
Hi Coyote,

Nice article. I never meant to give the impression that soft tissue bearing fossils were to be regarded as fact, but I do think that it is fair to say that recent discoveries have cast some doubt upon the previous view that no soft tissues would ever be found in fossils. The whole thing is a perfect study in how science and especially scientific tentativity are supposed to work.

I particularly like this quote, which gives an accurate view of how scientists approach their ideas;

quote:
"I believed that preserved soft tissues had been found, but I had to change my opinion," said Thomas Kaye, an associate researcher at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington. "You have to go where the science leads, and the science leads me to believe that this is bacterial biofilm."

Before the "soft tissue" findings, Kaye probably never thought that soft tissues would be found in fossils, but as the available evidence changed, he changed his views. Now, armed with better evidence, he has changed his views again. That is how things are supposed to work!

This is stark contrast to creationists, who are loathe to change any of their beliefs.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 9:45 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 10:38 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2008 11:33 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4749
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 27 of 54 (484352)
09-27-2008 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Granny Magda
09-27-2008 10:29 PM


Re: Soft tissues?
I agree with you completely.

I wish more folks would exhibit the understanding of science that you do.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Granny Magda, posted 09-27-2008 10:29 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15947
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 28 of 54 (484367)
09-27-2008 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Granny Magda
09-27-2008 10:29 PM


Re: Soft tissues?
This is stark contrast to creationists, who are loathe to change any of their beliefs.

And who complain every time science changes, all the while claiming that science is dogmatic and like a religion ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Granny Magda, posted 09-27-2008 10:29 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 2120 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 29 of 54 (484387)
09-28-2008 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Granny Magda
09-27-2008 9:27 PM


Thanx Granny Magda

Can I just call you Granny?

As to it being typical of creationist to embrace the same science they are lampooning to make a point. No different than evol ones quoting scripture. As far as I see it same intent same results.

Thank you for the tips on quotes. Others tried to clue me in earlier but it went over my head. Go figure. I will click on the HERE link you left me when I am done with this drink. Hey I claim to be a Christian I never claimed I was any good at it.

I agree the "soft tissue" is only speculatory as far as I am concerned.

In fact soft tissue is not a fossil by definition (unless the definition of fossil has changed)
For the sake of argument if it really is soft tissue science could at least ask if maybe this specimen is not millions of years old and perhaps young enough to fit their concept of just how long soft tissue can remain "intact". A surprising number were all too willing to reconsider million year old soft tissue than a younger sample than previously accepted. Make any sense? Again I do not think it was intact soft tissue anyway. But Yes the Scientific community most certainly does cherry pick. It made me mad when I found out but they do. Proper science is neutral. I agree with that. I am not wearing blinders I know how science works. I also know money ruined the scientific process as surely as it ruined pro sports.

As for peer reviewed scientific journals, ideas and claims not consistent with uniformity rarely survive the peer review process.

I rejected uniformity in the fifth grade. I know everyone thinks I live at AiG but I was there for a minute or two one time only. Oh wait I linked to it from here once today and they do just like you say. These claims you say are refuted in these journals how are they refuted? I can tell you before I go look that 90% are "refuted" on the basis of uniformatarian criteria. It is not science, has never been proven and is supported exclusively on censorship. It is supported by allowing interpretations to be perceived as evidence.

As for the one "respectable scientific source" I can't. The game is much too sophisticated for that but please bear with me on this.

When I learned the Principle of Uniformity it was the doctrine of gradualism and I was taught that there were no global catastrophes like the flood. By the way global flood was specifically cited as the one example of catastrophes that violated the Principle of Uniformity. I realize it was not stated as fact but just like the word theory is left off evolution it was accepted as fact. You probably accept the theory of evolution as fact, I have heard scientists insist it is a fact but it was built on uniformity. The no global catastrophe doctrine. Well maybe a regional catastrophe or two but certainly never a global one But wait. Now that only 8th grade graduates and not very many even of them sincerely believe in things like the flood and God there WAS a global catastrophe. Yup. Wiped out the dinosaurs.

Now even global catastrophes are perfectly acceptable as long as they don't involve a global flood.

It is not just that I cling to the bible and I freely admit that I do. It is the methods used to suppress anything that might remotely infer there is any validity to bible. This is already too long. Read what happened to Emanuel Velikovsky. He was one of the founders of Hebrew University, no crackpot and certainly not on the bible side. He equated the bible with all ancient myth. But read about him. To really get an idea read what he actually wrote and see how it was twisted. Um, he wrote an awful lot. Also read forbidden Archeology. Pretty thick but written so us 8th grade graduates could plow through it. Couple of Hindu guys wrote it. No bible bias there.

In closing I lied earlier. I actually have a problem with interpretation being deceptively presented as fact even more than when it is expressly stated as such.

If you actually read all of this, Thank you for your time.

JD

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Granny Magda, posted 09-27-2008 9:27 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by anglagard, posted 09-28-2008 7:11 AM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2008 10:34 AM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Granny Magda, posted 09-28-2008 3:30 PM b0ilingfrog has responded
 Message 33 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-28-2008 5:27 PM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Chiroptera, posted 09-28-2008 5:47 PM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2013
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 30 of 54 (484396)
09-28-2008 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by b0ilingfrog
09-28-2008 5:32 AM


bOllingfrog writes:

It is not just that I cling to the bible and I freely admit that I do. It is the methods used to suppress anything that might remotely infer there is any validity to bible. This is already too long. Read what happened to Emanuel Velikovsky. He was one of the founders of Hebrew University, no crackpot and certainly not on the bible side. He equated the bible with all ancient myth. But read about him. To really get an idea read what he actually wrote and see how it was twisted. Um, he wrote an awful lot. Also read forbidden Archeology. Pretty thick but written so us 8th grade graduates could plow through it. Couple of Hindu guys wrote it. No bible bias there.

Wow! Velikovsky and Forbidden Archeology?

I guess you believe in everything except science.

I have a lot of quartz crystals, would you be interested? Sorry, I have to charge extra for magical properties.

In closing I lied earlier.

How can you tell?


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 5:32 AM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014