Summations Only

quote:

---

No, I simply took a guess at a rate and figured it for seventeen million years. That length of time doesn't dictate the conclusion, the rate dictates the conclusion. Of course I wanted to show that in seventeen million years even a very conservative rate would reduce the canyon to rubbish.

---

And both Caffeine and I pointed out that you were wrong, and your rate didn’t even account for the Canyon as we see it.

quote:

---

Caffeine pointed out that the greatest width is ten miles which should presumably prove me wrong, at least it would prove the rate I guessed at wrong;

---

Wrong. I pointed out that the AVERAGE width is 10 miles. The greatest width is wider still.And your response was: Yes, you actually claimed that a rate that would produce the Canyon in 17 million years would actually destroy it. Which would obviously require a much greater rate.

quote:

---

but if my supposition is right that all the center formations would have been reduced to rubbish and the surfaces of the walls too, then I think what's being proved here is that the current width of the canyon was not formed by seventeen million years of slope retreat.

---

Since such a supposition was not mentioned by you, nor caffeine, even by implication, and is rather obviously in need of support it can’t be reasonably read into your post.

The benefit to him would be that he would be doing his creationist duty of misrepresenting science. Because creationists believe that by disproving science or denigrating science in any way, they automatically prove creationism and their entire intricate theology.Part and parcel of the "creation science" deliberate deception was the ICR's infamous Two Model Approach (TMA). Even though it is now rarely mentioned by name, along with "creation science" following its exposure as a purely religious deception by Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) (after which the anti-evolution movement abandoned "creation science", AKA the game of "Hide the Bible", and adopted "intelligent design" as their new smokescreen, AKA the game of "Hide the Creationism"), the TMA formed the basis of all creationist activity and still does.The basic idea is that there are two and only two mutually exclusive models for origins: the "creation model" and the "evolution model". We should note that in every debate or public appearance by the ICR's Duane Gish and/or Henry Morris, the ICR's stars and master debaters (those who want to have fun with that last, do feel free), the very first thing that they did was to invoke the TMA. The TMA is presented as a dichotomy, but it is a false dichotomy. The strategy, which informs all their actions, was that, given a dichotomy (ie, "it's either this or that; there is no other choice."), if you can disprove the "evolution model", then you have proven the "creation model". Furthermore, you have proven the "creation model" without ever having to present any evidence or arguments for it, ever having to discuss or defend it, or even ever having to actually present it.Of course, the TMA is a false dichotomy and false dichotomies are routinely used by demagogues and other deceivers of all stripes, including creationists. Around the time that I had written to Henry Morris, I also wrote to the ICR asking why they never ever present any actual evidence for creation, but only so-called "evidence against evolution." Henry Morris' reply in his letter to me was that "evidence against evolution" does indeed constitute evidence for creation. He went on to write (I'm certain that the emphasis is mine, since the letter was typewritten):

quote:

---

The evolution model, in general terms, is not just Darwinism, but any naturalistic concept of origins (including most of the world's religions, ancient and modern). The creation model, in general terms, is not just the Biblical record, but any cosmogony which postulates a transcendent personal Creator to account for the universe and its basic components. Evolution says one CAN explain the origin and development of all things in terms of continuing, natural processes. Creation says one CANNOT so explain them.

---

Now, the big problem with the TMA is in its formulation. Officially to the outsiders, the "creation model" is expressed in extremely general terms as per the game of "Hide the Bible". In reality, the "creation model" can and will only accept a strict YEC interpretation. If you doubt me, then read what Wendell Bird wrote in Acts & Facts, the official ICR newsletter:

quote:

---

I. Special creation of the universe and earth (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence.
II. Application of the entropy law to produce deterioration in the earth and life, on the basis of scientific evidence.
III. Special creation of life (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence.
V. Distinct ancestry of man and apes, on the basis of scientific evidence. VI. Explanation of much of the earth's geology by a worldwide deluge, on the basis of scientific evidence.
VII. Relatively recent origin of the earth and living kinds (in comparison with several billion years), on the basis of scientific evidence

---

If you visit that page, which quotes the ICR article very faithfully as you can verify for yourself, you will see that Wendell Bird was comparing the "scientific" and the biblical creation models. They are absolutely identical except for very superficial rewording, which proves that the ICR's "scientific creation model" is nothing more than pure religion, in complete contradiction with "creation science's" fundamental claim that its objections to evolution are purely scientific.Do please track down the original ICR article to confirm what I had posted. On that page I have given you have everything you need to know to do so. That is the difference between creationists and normals: we normals have nothing to hide, whereas creationists have everything to hide.OK, the fundamental problems with the TMA. Basically it gives us two different "models": the "creation model" and the "evolution model". Furthermore, I have seen the "evolution model" described by creationists as "atheistic" (eg, in the "balanced treatment" "educational" materials prepared for "public school balanced treat classes." However, the "creation model" very strictly restricts itself to YEC, while, as per Henry Morris' letter to me, all other theistic are consigned to the atheistic "evolution model."Once they actually start to talk to their base, we find that the "creation model" can only mean nothing else than the full YEC theology. Every other god, every other idea of origins, and other Christian idea is consigned to the atheistic evolution model! Really? All other Christians who do not follow your idiotic creationist ideas are all ATHEISTS????? Do you really believe that? Then in that case, what a complete idiot you are!Back to the basic creationist deception.According to the TMA, any disproving of any aspect of science is supposed to be proof of YEC and young earth and the complete fundamentalist bullshit theology in all its details. Bullshit! But that is their entire argument: "prove" creationism solely by "disproving" the "evolution model" without ever having to ever present what creationism is. What a complete con-job that is! What a complete deception!In order to have a true dichotomy, all possible options must be presented so that they can be properly eliminated from consideration. In the case of the false dichotomy of the TMA (and of your movie, as per interviewee Paul Nelson in his complaints of how the movie had misrepresented him), all other options to their very narrow "creation model" have been lumped into their "atheistic evolution model". All ideas about evolution, including all the ones that were disproven and discarded long ago, all the misconceptions about evolution as well. All other non-evolution ideas of origins, especially from "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern" as per Dr. Henry Morris, PhD Hydraulic Engineering (I kid thee not). Therefore, the vastly major portion of creationism's "atheistic evolution model" is overwhelmingly theistic. And one of the stickiest problems about purely theistic claims is that they are virtually impossible to disprove. Since the supernatural cannot be observed nor tested, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God ... only the creationists have been successful in disproving God, but only if you accept their fallacious premises (eg, "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.", John Morris, current President of the ICR).In order to "prove" their "creation model" solely by fully disproving their "evolution model", creationists must fully disprove their "evolution model" (as well as establishing that their TMA is actually valid, which it is not, but that's a side issue). Since the vast majority of ideas in their "evolution model" are theistic and theistic ideas are fundamentally immune to examination and disproof, it is clearly impossible to ever disprove their "evolution model". Even if it were possible to disprove any supernatural claim, the breadth of the "evolution model" is so vast as to render the problem intractable (ie, an intractable problem is theoretically possible to solve, but is so vast or complicated that it proves to be impossible to solve practically; eg, trying to guess all possible passwords).Given that it is virtually impossible to "prove" the "creation model" solely by "disproving the evolution model", why take that approach? If your goal is to prove the "creation model", then why not just simply present the evidence for the "creation model" so that you can prove it? In nearly half a century, I have never ever seen that approach attempted by creationists. The obvious reason for that is that there is no evidence for YEC creationism and they know it! All that creationists can do is lie about everything that they can and even about things that they cannot lie about because their faithful are blind to those lies, whether through pig ignorance or piety (or self-imposed pig ignorance, such as yours, Faith). 
So what we have as the creationist model is that they strive to "prove" creationism solely by "disproving" science. The way in which they "disprove" science is by grossly misrepresenting science and what science says. Ideally, they will misrepresent science in a manner in which they misrepresent the scientific idea or explanation as something that is so completely ridiculous even though that is nothing like what any scientist would actually say (eg, Stuart Nevins (AKA Steve Austin) about that that rock formation accumulating over millions of year at a strictly uniform rate of hundredths of an inch per year). Back to Stuart Nevins' lie and " how would it benefit him to misrepresent that".The very basic and fundamental goal of creationist claims is to "disprove evolution". Prove creation by disproving evolution without ever presenting any evidence for creation. That's the name of the game, dude.That is exactly what Stuart Nevins was doing. He presented a strawman caricature of what geologists actually thought in order to show that that strawman was completely ridiculous and hence that geology was ridiculous. In a letter to the editor, I used the analogy of shadow boxing. You shadow box against an imaginary opponent, which can be a valid training tool, but the actual test of your boxing skills will be in the ring. Creationists only engage in shadow boxing; in the actual ring they are always defeated. What Stuart Nevins was doing in those articles was misrepresenting the current state of geological thought. edge (Message 1490) has already verified what that current geological thought was and the fact that it is indeed taught to all students of geology -- so just where the fuck is your own evidence to the contrary?. Stuart Nevins' obvious intention was to falsely present the scientific position as something ridiculous. Typical creationist lying.

I don't think there's any deception. The way things look from the YEC point of view there are just two basic models, although to you it's possible to make many fine distinctions. It's not a false dichotomy, it's the way YECs actually truly see the reality.And instead of wanting to "hide" anything, I believe the intention was simply to try to be clearer. Although YEC begins in the Bible, it provides the foundational assumptions, the arguments concerning the Flood and all the other physical issues are scientific issues. If a huge effort isn't made to try to keep the distinctions clear, all we ever hear is that everything we say is nothing but "religion." Well, it's not, it is a real attempt to think through the issues in the physical world from a different paradigm or model than the accepted one.And yes, YEC does regard anything other than its own view of the age of the earth to be unbiblical, not accepting anything but what you call a strict YEC interpretation. It may be going too far to say others who consider themselves Christians with different ideas of the Bible aren't really Christians, but since YEC is considered to be the only accurate understanding of the Bible, they are within their rights to make that judgment, and they may be right. I personally allow for some deviation from the Bible where people maintain a Christian lifestyle, but I'm not entirely sure where God draws the line on these things, and I certainly believe YEC is the right biblical understanding and any deviation is wrong though perhaps God will forgive it. You may certainly disagree, but it's not right to accuse YECs of misrepresentation or whatever else it is you want to hang on them/us for that.Perhaps it is technically wrong to define evolution as atheistic since there are people who profess various forms of religious and Christian belief who also endorse evolution, but again, since YEC regards evolution as completely antithetical to the Bible they are within their rights to make that judgment call. Atheism is often described in Christian theology as applying to people who live like atheists although they profess Christian belief. You just aren't familiar with this way of thinking.The list of seven scientific principles you object to as too strictly YEC and I guess not really even scientific, are honestly scientific, and they are claiming to be able to present them as scientific although they are using the Bible as foundational. Of COURSE "the full YEC theology" is the basis of the principles. I understand that if there is a biblical foundation, or YEC foundation, from your point of view that disqualifies it as science. All they are trying to do is say that is not so and I agree with them.I don't remember Paul Nelson but since I've gone on to "Beyond Is Genesis History" which expands a great deal on all the parts of the movie, maybe I'll find out.I also think disproving the evolution model is a big part of proving the YEC model. You also mischaracterize the YECs as out to disprove "science" because to you science is synonymous with evolutionism, but of course YECs don't see it that way.I still have no reason to doubt Austin's description of strata formation as slow and incremental without actual proof that a different description is commonly and typically taught in geology. Edge merely claimed it is so but he too offered no actual proof of it, and as I said I haven't seen any. Austin also describes it as slow and incremental in the film. This supposed lie is not proved, and what standard geology consistently and regularly teaches on this subject is not yet proved.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Utter nonsense and falsehoods Faith.YEC is considered nothing but a Cult of Ignorance.YECs claim they have the right interpretation yet are always misrepresenting what the Bible actually says and denying the reality of what the Bible actually says. They are at best simply delusional. If they claim to be Creation Scientists they are simply professional liars.

quote:

---

I don't think there's any deception. The way things look from the YEC point of view there are just two basic models, although to you it's possible to make many fine distinctions. It's not a false dichotomy, it's the way YECs actually truly see the reality.

---

So, as a YEC you genuinely believe that there are no Old Earth Creationists ? Neither Hugh Ross, nor the OECs in the Intelligent Design movement ?

quote:

---

And instead of wanting to "hide" anything, I believe the intention was simply to try to be clearer. Although YEC begins in the Bible, it provides the foundational assumptions, the arguments concerning the Flood and all the other physical issues are scientific issues. If a huge effort isn't made to try to keep the distinctions clear, all we ever hear is that everything we say is nothing but "religion." Well, it's not, it is a real attempt to think through the issues in the physical world from a different paradigm or model than the accepted one.

---

Perhaps you can show us where the proposed curriculum admitted that it was based on the YEC interpretation of the Bible rather than scientific evidence. Because not mentioning something is hardly a good way to be clear about it. And don’t forget that is the fact that lost them the case. Do you really think that they didn’t know that would happen if it came out ?

quote:

---

And yes, YEC does regard anything other than its own view of the age of the earth to be unbiblical, not accepting anything but what you call a strict YEC interpretation. It may be going too far to say others who consider themselves Christians with different ideas of the Bible aren't really Christians, but since YEC is considered to be the only accurate understanding of the Bible, they are within their rights to make that judgment, and they may be right. I personally allow for some deviation from the Bible where people maintain a Christian lifestyle, but I'm not entirely sure where God draws the line on these things, and I certainly believe YEC is the right biblical understanding and any deviation is wrong though perhaps God will forgive it. You may certainly disagree, but it's not right to accuse YECs of misrepresentation or whatever else it is you want to hang on them/us for that.

---

Aside from the fact that it is hardly clear that the YEC view of the Bible is correct - and you don’t even try to argue that it is - I hardly think that God has any cause to condemn anyone who sees things differently. Besides can you point to any place where salvation is said to depend on believing YEC rather than things like Baptism or repentance of sins ?

quote:

---

Perhaps it is technically wrong to define evolution as atheistic since there are people who profess various forms of religious and Christian belief who also endorse evolution, but again, since YEC regards evolution as completely antithetical to the Bible they are within their rights to make that judgment call. Atheism is often described in Christian theology as applying to people who live like atheists although they profess Christian belief. You just aren't familiar with this way of thinking.

---

It is not just technically wrong, it is absolutely wrong. Perhaps you can explain why YECs have the right to pretend that the various forms of theistic evolution don’t exist or why it should be a judgement call.

quote:

---

The list of seven scientific principles you object to as too strictly YEC and I guess not really even scientific, are honestly scientific, and they are claiming to be able to present them as scientific although they are using the Bible as foundational. Of COURSE "the full YEC theology" is the basis of the principles. I understand that if there is a biblical foundation, or YEC foundation, from your point of view that disqualifies it as science. All they are trying to do is say that is not so and I agree with them.

---

They obviously aren’t scientific. They are obviously the product of religious doctrine without any sound evidential support. Just because you deluded yourself into thinking you have evidence doesn’t mean that the leaders o& the YEC movement don’t know better.

I don't know anything about the Dover case except what has been said at EvC. My impression of what I read here, however, is that the judge was wrong.There hardly seems any need to argue that YEC represents the most biblically faithful understanding of the Creation. The Bible clearly describes an earth of a few thousand years old. It takes all sorts of mental gyrations to make it mean anything else, and Old Earth creationism is clearly an accommodation to the theory of evolution, which is warned against in the New Testament.It's just prejudice that makes a difference between "religion" and science when we're talking about the Bible, since it offers facts about the real world by God Himself.

No shit!!!I'll add law to the long list of scientific disciplines that you know are wrong. Only Faith is right, always.

I'm watching the film "Is Genesis History?" again and finding various places where they give a different view of things than I'm familiar with. Sometimes I disagree. But at the moment I'm watching the segment about half way through, where the paleontologist is explaining the tracks in the surface of the rocks in a way that's new to me: he says they are the tracks of animals that were buried immediately after they were formed in the wet sediment, so that their fossilized bodies are found in the layer right above the tracks.That makes sense of this phenomenon in a way nothing else has. The tracks don't show creatures just milling around living out their lives in a placid world, They are clearly in the process of running from something, running on a wet surface being chased by that something: chased by the next sediment-laden wave of course, that then overtakes and buries them. Very satisfying explanation.

Not about law, but about how it isn't religion but science, on which subject it would appear the judge simply shared the status quo opinion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And I suppose that they have an example of this happening?So, let me get this straight. You have a layer of sediment laid down by the flood and then the flood goes away while creatures come out and live on the previous layer. Why did they do that? Then the flood comes back with another layer.So, how many times did the flood return with another layer of sediment?And this surge of sediment laden water does not disrupt the previous, still wet, layer of sediments? To you. How do you know this? Have you ever seen creatures just 'milling around' on sand dunes? I see creatures running away from me in the desert all the time and I look nothing like a wave of sediment laden water. And they seldom 'mill around'. There are lots of reasons why they might run, but I seriously don't see a way to tell what they are running from or toward. To you.To me, it's pretty stupid.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here: First of all it is not a 'mere claim', it is personal, observational experience.Second, I wouldn't take anything Austin says too seriously. He is a known prevaricator.Third, I'm not sure what you mean by 'this supposed lie'. I know pretty much what is taught in Geology 101 and it isn't what your YEC masters tell you. I have also presonally seen the evidence.

We're talking waves and tides here. A very long wave just laid down the layer the tracks are found on; it goes out and when the next wave rolls in the creature runs from it. As I already said, the tracks show a running pattern, the creatures were not "living" on the wet sediment, they were running from the next wave. Well, exept for the fact that they weren't "living" but in a state of panic because their world was being engulfed by water, where else would they go? The entire continent was being inundated. This is the ocean coming up over the land, not some puny little flood. Until the whole continent was covered to some depth I guess. It apparently filled in the tracks as it deposited the new sediment on top of it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, to me. Or probably anyone thinking in terms of the Flood. All the tracks I've seen show a running pattern, long strides, not a number of sets of footprints in a standing position, or even one set. And obviously the tracks are made on a flat wet surface, not sand dunes. And you were sharing a surface of flat wet sediment with them at the time? You mean the tracks in the stone? How could you tell? This is all trying to reconstruct the scene from tracks that look like they are running on a flat wet surface. Yup to me, and, probably, anyone thinking in terms of the Flood. Well, you might need to work a bit at getting it right first. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Experience of what? I was talking about the question of whether the formation of strata are clearly taught in geology courses in such a way as to counter Austin's description of incremental accumulation. You claimed, stated, that it was. Unless it's just the usual inability to put yourself in the creationist's position, which is what I'm wondering about. You may have been where the strata formation are clearly taught, but Austin may not have. You haven't shown the evidence in any case, merely stated that it occurs. I'm not going to call a man a liar without better evidence of what he was taught, OR of his reasoning about why he insists on describing incremental accumulation in any case.As I said I personally have read around in quite a bit of geology, even stratigraphy, and don't recall running across any such discussion myself. For all I could tell slow incremental accumulation IS what was being described.ABE: I'd guess that there isn't any really clear idea of how a given formation was laid down, how fast or slow any part of it would have been, and any two people could have half a dozen different versions of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Another interesting thing I've been pondering from the film is the presentation of the various sequences of transgressions as seen from the conventional point of view, as maps of sedimentary "packages" one on top of another, more than one sediment per package representing one of the sequences, such as the Sauk, the Tippecanoe, etc. etc.That makes it a lot clearer to me than the diagram I could never figure out how to decipher. This way it represents a series of waves coming up over the land from all directions, depositing a few layers in that one pass and then going out again, as waves do. which would fit with the Flood timing. Or, it could be a series of tides.