But there may be others that are interested in reality who will see the exchanges and so see a way out of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Deceit. No one expects or even wants to change creation but rather allow others to see and compare the fantasy with reality.
You can still be a Christian without leaving your brain at the door.
Yes, but can you be a Christian while believing in a vague unknowable God? Or are you more properly a Deist?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)
No. It is my claim you do not know and have chosen simply to believe in a certain state in the past. N dates you use have any other worth or reason for existing other than that belief. So don't know my dates that try and use bible dates.
So I guess you didn't see where a biblical date was confirmed ... oh that's right, you haven't read the thread.
What is the boundary for time into the past -- the "fishbowl" for times past?
Really? Walt Brown? At least he is not as pathetic as Kent Hovind.
However, Walt Brown is proven to deliberately lie. That is to say that he tells lies with full knowledge that they are lies.
I retell the story here on my "Bullfrog Affair" page. Brown would use the claim that a study comparing the same protein between different species showed that "rattlesnake's closest biochemical relative is humans". Keep that specific wording in mind.
The story on my page (extra emphasis added at the end):
quote: One of Brown's claims that Arduini was especially interested in was that the rattlesnake's closest biochemical relative is humans. However, Brown demanded $70 from Arduini to provide that documentation.
Robert Kenney of Chicago fared somewhat better. . . .
Then in the Summer of 1984, Kenney wrote to Walter Brown about the fetal horse hemoglobin. Brown responded with a telephone call. Kenney tried to get Brown to confirm or deny the ICR's claims, or at least to pressure the ICR to produce some kind of documentation. Brown refused, but instead offered another claim: rattlesnake proteins.
Brown claimed that on the basis of data from a 1978 study by Margaret Dayhoff, comparisons of cytochrome c show that the rattlesnake is more closely related to humans that to any other organism. When Kenney asked Brown to provide the name of the scientific journal and the page number in which Dayhoff had reached this conclusion, Brown stated that he couldn't. Dayhoff had never reached such a conclusion, but rather Brown's son had used Dayhoff's data to reach that conclusion for a science fair project. It was Brown's son who had concluded that rattlesnakes are more closely related to humans by cytochrome c than to any other organism.
For fifteen dollars, Brown sent Kenney photocopies of his son's project (apparently, Brown's price depends on who you are). Kenney wrote:
quote: "In the project I quickly found that the rattlesnake and humans differed by only fourteen amino acids. Humans and rhesus monkeys differed by one amino acid. Later, Brown called me again and then explained that of the forty-seven organisms in the study, the one closest to the RATTLESNAKE was the human, not that the one closest to the human was the rattlesnake. You see, among the forty-seven there were no other snakes." (CEN Vol.4 No.5 Sep/Oct 84, pg 16)
Most of the other organisms in the study were as distantly related to the rattlesnake as were humans; it is coincidence that human cytochrome c was just barely less different than the others. Obviously, this is just semantic sleight-of-hand which can serve no other purpose than to mislead and it is so blatant that Brown had to know what he was doing.
Later after a debate, Kenney found Brown telling a small group about rattlesnakes being more closely related to humans than to any other organism. When Kenney started explaining to the group how misleading that was, Brown quickly changed the subject.
The hard requirement to word the claim just right is the first tell. If you present it one way ("the rattlesnake is more closely related to humans that to any other organism"), then you could still claim to be technically correct. But if you present it any other way (eg, that humans are more closely related to the rattlesnake than to any other organism) then you would be completely wrong. Rhesus monkeys were also in that study and they differed from humans by only one amino acid. Chimpanzees were not included in that study, but other studies consistently show that there is no difference in the cytochrome c proteins of humans and chimpazees; they are identical.
But what proves beyond a doubt that Walt Brown deliberately lied is how he handled that incident after that debate. He knew full well that he was lying to those people.
Again, in Christian doctrine is God supposed to be served and supported by lies and deception? Not in any Christian doctrine that I had ever learned. What I had always seen Christian doctrine teach is that lies and deception serve the Prince of Lies, the Deceiver, Satan.
Of course, if you truly believe that God is to be served by lies and deception, then do please explain that to us.
BTW, Walt Brown is also to blame for that other stupid "creation science" claim about the rate at which the earth's rotation is slowing down. In 1979 he published his claim based on leap seconds, where had suddenly become big news because of the upcoming GPS system (GPS time started 1980 Jan 06, while the system went on-line around 1986). He grossly misunderstood what leap seconds are and what they do, so he ended up with a deceleration rate hundreds of times too great. That claim was soundly refuted in 1982. Some time after that Walt Brown appears to have dropped that claim, but the creationist community continues to push that false claim even after you prove to them how false it is.
For the record, a few years ago I searched through Walt Brown's on-line book for both claims. I could not find any trace of the leap second claim, but the rattlesnake protein claim was still there albeit as a half-cryptic footnote.
Again, do please explain to us why you creationists believe so strongly that God must be served through lies and deception.
Really? Walt Brown? At least he is not as pathetic as Kent Hovind.
Oh he's getting more pathetic by the day.
His latest thing is moving the asteroids from near-Earth Solar orbit to the asteroid belt by Solar sails consisting of water vapor clouds surrounding each asteroid. Doesn't take much smarts to realize gravitational coupling between water molecules and the asteroid is orders of magnitude too small, and the Solar wind would strip the water off.
This thread is in the Dates and Dating forum, which is a science forum,..
Except the content and OP are belief based only. That is not science.
This is getting boring. Your answer to any evidence is, "That's just belief." You never address the evidence. That evidence is just belief is just something you need to believe in order to hold onto your religious beliefs, which have no evidential support at all.
You cannot claim a same nature in the past without evidence. You cannot spam item after religious item based on there having been a same state past without ever stopping to first prove there was.
Again, your criticizing science by calling it religion? Do you not get how that completely undermines your religiously based approach?
Offering tree rings as proof of ages as if they were grown in this nature, without showing why or how is religion. Offering to collaborate that with some other belief based feature of a same state past is religion. It was pointed out that all collaborations here are from the same belief!
Collaborations? Did you perhaps mean correlations? I'll proceed under that assumption.
If the tree rings were grown under different natural physical laws then there would be evidence of that. Where's your evidence? And once again, do you not realize that criticizing evidence by calling it religion invalidates your own approach?
Rather than try and desperately call that science it seems you guys should be addressing the elephant in the room.
We are addressing the elephant in the room. That would be you and your claims completely contradicted by all evidence that natural physical laws were different in the past than they are now. Not to mention that you've presented no evidence yourself. You're just making up whatever you need to to prop up your religious beliefs.
Did I not ask RAZD and others to simply show even one of the supposed correlations that were NOT based on this one belief?! Why are you not capable of doing that?
Why are you not capable of seeing that that has been done, multiple times? Why are you imitating a broken record? Why are you incapable of addressing the evidence provided?
No. It is my claim you do not know and have chosen simply to believe in a certain state in the past. No dates you use have any other worth or reason for existing other than that belief.
Again, this is untrue. We've provided evidence that natural physical laws in the past were the same as today. You've dismissed the evidence without giving it any consideration, calling it mere belief. In reality there is no evidence for your position, which is mere belief.
So don't know my dates that try and use bible dates.
This is not a religious thread. It is a science thread. You should not be mentioning the Bible, though it would be nice if you'd show it the proper respect by capitalizing it.
Great. So the Oklo fable is your defense!!!? So tell us how you know the whole site was dunked miles under the surface of the earth when needed, and then eons later, brought to the surface?? Hint? You can't...you just need it to be so. Correct?
No, that's not correct concerning when the natural fission reactions were taking place, which was near the surface, which we know since the concentrations of uranium and the interruptions of the fission reactions were due to groundwater. I couldn't find anything online about the geological history of the region, but it is very, very common for regions of net sedimentation to become deeply buried and later become reexposed after uplift and erosion. The Grand Canyon region is a great example.
Oklo is not a fable - you can't make evidence disappear just by calling it names. See Natural nuclear fission reactor over at Wikipedia. We can bring as much evidence as you like into this thread.
Nope. I can touch, feel and measure tree rings for instance. Other people can touch, feel and measure tree rings. In fact this has been done multiple times as part of the scientific review.
That's funny earlier you failed to even be able to post a detailed picture of tree rings from a tree that had more than 5000 rings!? Now we supposedly can touch them?
Yes, of course we can touch them. Here's an image of the stump of the Prometheus tree:
See the Wikipedia article on the Prometheus tree for more details. We can bring as many of those details into this thread as you wish. The tree ring count is currently thought to be 4862, but because of missing rings (apparently not uncommon at that elevation) it is estimated that the Prometheus tree is older than 5000 years.
Then you have the nerve to accuse others of an inability to debate?
It isn't so much an accusation as a statement of the obvious.