how to quote a message?

I edited the OBEY post to add more colors for ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD, and I see a lot of blackness below that post in Firefox, much like in the screenshot, but it looks strangely normal in Chrome.

You broke it again. Looks okay in IE, but not with firefox.

The nesting limit for Firefox probably applies to anything. A <table> is a level, a <div> is a level, a list (<ol>, <ul>) is a level, etc.

--Percy

The first message, then as quoted in the second message which contains a coding error:

-----The first message is below-----

The 1st one is objectivity. Much of the objectivity contested upon in atheistic/theistic debates comes through the scientific method and matters of science. But, the scientific method is a human construct, and is bound by empirical observation and human limitations. It does not form the basis of all truth or all reality; it can't. Science cannot contain all reality. Science should not be expected to deal with any truths or concepts higher than it, or outside of it. True objectivity (or reality) predates both science and humanity and lies outside of them. Humanity is but a product of reality. Human methods do not define reality, for we are mere creations. Reality is the Creator.

The very things you criticize science for are the very things that make up objectivity. The idea behind objectivity is to verify you ideas by pointing to something real and tangible that is the same for everyone. It is necessarily limited by our own limitations. It seems to me that you want to be able to point to something that can't be verified and still call it objective. It doesn't work that way.

Is it logical to make the leap from unreasoning (inanimate and unconscious) to reasoning (animate and conscious) through evolution? No it is not.

You never explain why this is not logical. Why can't an organism capable or reasoning come from a natural process with no intelligence behind it?

To me, strict adherence to science and empiricism is like a group of blind mice scientists insisting that color and vision do not exist.

That is a strange analogy to use given the fact that science has allowed us to "see" wavelengths of light that our eyes can not directly detect. Science has allowed us to see galaxies that can not be seen by the naked eye, bacteria that are too small to be seen, and deconstruct the very atoms that make up matter. On top of that, science has allowed us to cure blindness.

Important big-picture, guiding and unifying (non-physical) principles can be missed or ignored when focusing one's life too closely under the microscope of science.

Examples?

The power of reason was not handed up through a (mindless) chain of events and chemical interactions, and evolution. Such a claim is not even scientific, though many adherents to science believe that it is.

Why isn't it scientific?

We reason because our Source, our Creator, does.

The only argument you have put forth for this is an argument based on incredulity. That is, your inability to accept the idea that nature can produce a species capable of reasoning. From this inability you then proceed to assert the existence of an entity for which there is zero evidence. This is very poor logic.

There are no infinite creators, only one Creator who is eternal. If we are honest, the very least any of us could do is acknowledge that such a Creator exists.

Based on what evidence?

Is science like a way of thinking for all areas in life for you atheists and agnostics? If so, why? Does what you believe about science determine your disbelief in God?

Ask yourself why you don't believe that Thor uses a great hammer to create thunder and you will have the answer.

-----The second message is below-----

[qs=Taq]

Is it logical to make the leap from unreasoning (inanimate and unconscious) to reasoning (animate and conscious) through evolution? No it is not.

You never explain why this is not logical. Why can't an organism capable or reasoning come from a natural process with no intelligence behind it?

For the same reason symphonies are not composed and arranged without some intelligence behind it. For the same reason wrong does not equal right, and eternal lack has no means to become anything but lack, which is nothing.

To me, strict adherence to science and empiricism is like a group of blind mice scientists insisting that color and vision do not exist.Important big-picture, guiding and unifying (non-physical) principles can be missed or ignored when focusing one's life too closely under the microscope of science.The power of reason was not handed up through a (mindless) chain of events and chemical interactions, and evolution. Such a claim is not even scientific, though many adherents to science believe that it is.We reason because our Source, our Creator, does.

The only argument you have put forth for this is an argument based on incredulity. That is,
your inability to accept the idea that nature can produce a species capable of reasoning. From this inability you then proceed to assert the existence of an entity for which there is zero evidence. This is very poor logic.

I explained in the beginning that I wouldn't be giving
any strictly empirical evidence. My logic, or line of reasoning, though is not very well spelled out I admit, so I will attempt to elaborate. It is not logical to go from one extreme to the next without evidence. Without additional evidence to prove otherwise, we go on
what we can reasonably infer. The simplest solution to a "beginning" of the universe from something that always existed is the concept of an existence that is irreducible to a fully functioning Creator with the ability to do anything that is possible - like reason. IOW, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. The most rational solution is not to start wholly from scratch and open potential, especially without evidence. For certain features to develop, certain definite principles must presuppose it, certain features must simply be eternal and uncreated. The concept of a Creator fully satisfies the existence and development of the universe we study and see. We have no valid scientific evidence even to assume that mind or reasoning ability is a relatively new development in the universe. But we have plenty of scientific evidence to lead us to infer that mind is as old as the universe, and existence itself.

-----End of quoted messages-----

I did not use any quote coding myself, because the above error(s) might blotch it up also. Compare the two messages - See how "Who is saying what" is hard to tell and/or easily to misinterpret? It would take quite an effort for an admin to fix the mess.

Adminnemooseus

The following is a copy of the entire message. The first big box seems OK, but the second big box is a mess. Code fixing is pending; Chances are it's a small thing, but finding that small thing may be a trick - Adminnemooseus

Minnemooseus writes: Moose writes: So I repeat my question: How do you reconcile having your YEC time frame life being found as fossils in rocks that are far older than the YEC time frame? I don't think it's fair for you to insist that I am YEC. My position is not that planet earth is young. Why should I be lumped in with YEC just because I go with young mankind and animals? As a "young animal life" creationist, you are putting the history of animal life into a YEC time frame. The scientific animal life time frame is a minimum of 550 million years. You are compressing the history of 550+ million years into 5-10 thousand years. So, even though you're not compressing the 4.45 billion year Earth history or the 13 billion year universe history into that 5-10 thousand years, you are still compressing down many millions of years. To me, such a compression is still a variation of YEC.

I am not YEC. (young earth creationist) You might call me, YAHC, i.e. young animal and humanity creationists. Why is it important to designate? Because of the dating data. The rocks and even plants were created (day three) before the sun, (day four) according to the Genesis record. According to Genesis, the day length determination was not until the sun was created.

Likely, this also was true concerning the insect world, in that plants would have needed them to pollinate etc.

Minnemooseus writes: As I understand , radiometric dating, perhaps some math and relationships to material in and around a fossil, etc are how the SM determines age. While radiometric dating certainly is very useful for putting more precise dates on Earthly events, it is not needed to show that your time frame perceptions are very wrong. Just observing the geometric relationships between geologic features can document that a vast sequence of processes and results have happened. These processes require time amounts that add up to years far beyond you time frame. Minnemooseus writes: (Abe: I believe the SM assumes that most of the fossils have no organic material in them) While that may depend on how you define "organic material", it is still irrelevant. The bulk of the Earth's animal life history is older that Carbon 14 dating's relevance. Organic material, as I would define is matter related to life. I don't see it as irrelevant in that fossils contain mostly inorganic material, as I understand it. Minnemooseus writes: I believe that the Buz Noaic flood catastrophe position would comply with SM, in that the fossil should date from the time of the deposit of the sediment in which is is found. That is the premise of the flood hypothesis. So, how much of the geologic column's (the geologic time line's) rock stratigraphy are you attributing to "the flood"? Re: the Grand Canyon rock column - Are you saying most or all of the post pre-Cambrian (that's referred to as the Phanerozoic) sedimentary rocks are flood related deposits? I'm inclined to think that to be the case. Minnemooseus writes: ...rock is nothing but compacted and hardened old soil, tiny old rock/sand particles, minerals and other inorganic matter, having long existed on the surface of the old earth before being deposited around and/or in the fossil. That would be tantamount to dating a house from the age of the material in it, including old rocks, including, perhaps, fossils) in the cement foundation. No? The age of the sedimentary rocks is the age of the time of deposition, NOT the age of the component particles. You conceivably could pull a 4 billion year old Zircon out of a modern beach sand. No scientist would thus say the modern beach sand deposit was 4 billion years ago. If any given beach sand were dated via the same method old rock is dated, what would the dector show as the date of the beach sand which was dated? Minnemooseus writes: Another is that the SM assumes a more uniformitarian premise to the hypothesis than the premise to the flood hypothesis. The "uniformitarion premise" is that, with some exceptions, the processes that are now happening are the processes that were happening earlier. My use of the term "some exceptions" recognizes that there are some environmental conditions that existed in the past that no longer exist. You seem to be invoking the "all purpose flood", that can include all the various geologic processes for which we can see evidence. Your flood can do vast amounts of weathering and erosion, and vast amounts of all kinds of deposition. Your flood can do river deposits, do beach deposits, do wind deposits, do volcanic deposits, etc, etc, etc. There were actually two Biblical earth floods, that which existed on the surface of the earth prior to the work of day one of Genesis and the Noaic flood; the former time frame unknown and the latter, known, Biblically. We have no knowledge of anything relative to earth or the cosmos prior to day one of Genesis, according to the literal reading of the Bible. Minnemooseus writes: A lot, relative to atmosphere properties, earth's surface etc depends on the premise to the hypothesis. OK, you need to expand on this, if I'm to have any idea of what you are talking about. According to Genesis, the earth as dark and cold, likely having a frozen watery surface before heat was applied which effected the creation of the pre-flood atmosphere. That would have created a perfect environ for the work that was to be done. It would have also been such as would created the ideal global climate implied in Genesis one. There was no rainbow and no rain until the flood, according to Genesis. Man lived hundreds of years, implying that some animals did, due to the terrarium kind of atmosphere, clearly implied in Genesis. Thus, we would not know what many of the properties of the pre-flood earth and atmosphere was. This would, of course, have a bearing on date calculations. Minnemooseus writes: As I would not hold your premise to my application of the SM, I don't see why I should be required to hold my application of the SM to the more uniform non-catastrophic premise so far as things like dating fossils. I think you need to get yourself a nice "Introduction to Geology" type book, and do some reading. The problem with that is that none of the above would be factored in books assuming a different premise and hypothesis. This is why I go with ALL of the corroborating evidences observable to the Biblical record. When you assemble them all, they become significant enough to justify my firm stance, assuming the Genesis hypothesis. I appreciate that you have allowed me to explain why the Buzsaw Hypothesis is unique. I believe it gleans the best of both sides of the EvC debate, in that it is based on the basic laws of science as well as the Biblical record. For this, of course I'm considered delusional by just about everyone, YECs and evolutionists alike. I believe time will continue to bear out the Biblical record as it has over the millennia relative to fulfilled Biblical prophecies, etc. Moose

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : For some unknown reason, "big" seem.s to want to be spelled "bix"