Why TOE is not accepted

Oh ya, so you gonna back peddle on this or should I ask one more time? Any answers?

I agree. I don't think you have to make a faith statement to be a fellow at the Discovery Institute, but the Wedge document which I presented previously clearly demonstrates that the organization is political.

quote:

---

all organizations that advocate YEC or IDC are political and/or religious* and thus not scientific in nature.

---

still stands.The concept of a Designer is not excluded a priori. Miracles and supernatural beings are excluded only because they don't leave evidence.This message has been edited by Clark, 08-01-2005 02:31 PM

Different fossils are found in different sediments because they represent life from different times and depositional environments. Different environments leave different rocks at different parts of the geo column.If you have read Gould I doubt you got much from it...he gets pretty thick sometimes where geology is involved.ABB

Why do I smell trees? Willow trees.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I know that much. The point is that the idea is absolutely absurd that these strata of utterly different sediments with their utterly different fossil collections could represent "depositional environments" stacked one on top of another without the slightest transitional zone between them. That's my whole point. The whole idea of depositional environments lasting millions of years is what is absurd, fantastic and ridiculous. No gradations in the fossil contents within these depositions that were laid down over millions of years, etc. No, there's no way to prove it, it's just obviously absurd on the face of it. All evolutionism has is elaborated tales of these "environments" no real evidence for any of it. The actual evidence goes against it, the uniformity of the deposit, the differences between them, the sudden transition from one to another, the absolutely completely different fossil contents, the lack of gradation in those contents within the stratum. All this evidence contradicts the ToE. But it can't be proved or falsified. It's all a matter of constructing plausible scenarios. This one is ridiculously implausible but because there is no objective proof possible, it will be clung to in the face of its obvious absurdity against all objections. It's been years and it was mostly his popular columns and articles I think. I kept trying to get a grip on the proof for evolution and all I was getting, from Gould too, was these imaginative TALES, these SCENARIOS. It was maddening. Just like the idea of "depositional environments."

But of course if you actually go back and read those threads. Deposition and Erosion of Sedimentsand Peanut Gallery for the Faith/Jazzns Great DebateYou will find that these issues had been discussed and rebuttals were left waiting. Anyone curious can find a decent description of depositional environments and why the geologic column form layers. The primary point of contention before the termination of the discussion was about not having examples of unconformities of drastic degree. In both some of the final posts in the debate and the peanut gallery some great examples of ancient topography including rivers, canyons, and islands was demonstrated.If anyone has any questions with regard to Faith's incredulous statements about the geologic column and sedimentation I am sure there are many (including myself) who would love to discuss them with you in an appropriate thread on that topic.Because of Faith's abandonment of the original debate I will simply bring the rebuttal to wherever she choose to continue to make the empty statements of disbelief as support of her utterly untenable position.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I searched for it. The whole topic has disappeared.

I wasn't making a scientific claim. It was just an opinion of my own. Creationism strikes me as political in nature. It's not the sort of claim that can be scientifically investigated.

No it's there - just go to the great debate forum and scroll down.It's just as Jazzen describes it.

It wasn't in the great debate forum. It was a topic I introduced, entitled "Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?" I couldn't find it.

If you posted in the thread, use the topic index linked to your username. All the threads you've posted to are listed.http://EvC Forum: Does microevolution logically include macroevolution? -->EvC Forum: Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?

You may not have found it but it's probably still around. We do not delete threads.AbE: It is at Message 1This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-01-2005 05:27 PM

Thanks. See message #16, Faith.

Clark here's a great example of the powerful work that creationist scientists are doing:

quote:

---

The April 1997 issue of Discover magazine had a pretty good April Fool's joke about some Neandertal musical instruments that had supposedly been discovered in Germany. It was an unlikely collection, featuring bagpipes, a tuba, a triangle and a 'xylobone', along with a cave painting of marching musicians. In September 2000 the Institute for Creation Research fell for it and featured Marvin Lubenow presenting this evidence in one of their radio programs. I pointed that out on this website about a month later, and the ICR quickly apologized and retracted the claim. However, no erroneous argument ever completely disappears from creationist literature. I've recently noticed the April Fool article cited again in an article by Brad Harrub on the Answers in Genesis website (update: the citation has now been removed). Harrub also thinks that the Java Man skullcap belongs to a gibbon - even though AIG has admitted that this is a discredited argument that creationists shouldn't use any longer. Harrub's article was also published in AIG's 'peer-reviewed scientific journal', the Technical Journal. What is AIG's peer-review process like, if clangers like these can get through it?

---

Paleoanthro Weblog

You stated: "They don't care about the truth."Ribinrohan, the mega-ToE makes more sense to me than, say, inflationary theory compensating for big-bang-theory-fallacies:(Like, Farthest stars = 15-18 billion light-years away ---> how did those stars get 15-18 billion light-years away so fast? --> ??????
Voila, Presto: Inflationary theory that the *pre-universe* (or something) expanded exponentially faster than the speed of light)Have you seen all those advanced equations and calculus, Robinrohan, supporting inflationary theory? Who pays these *science researchers*?Unfortunately, "naturalistic evidence" doesn’t really seem to explain: If I were to die today would I know for certain if I’d go to Heaven or Hell. Such *truth* weighs heavy on my mind.And, if sub-quarkian matter *really* evolved into human geniuses and/or Christs, I’d have to lose my religion.Thus, science for science sake seems (to me) destructive to any *faith and love* typology I might cherish.I’d also scratch out eternal justice and salvation from my wish list.In sum, Mega-ToEs seem perhaps a stumbling-block both (1) to evolutionary sciences (i.e., stellar evolution, above) and (2) to some persons’ faith in God and Salvation (per se).