mitchellmckain
New member
Since posts are simply being deleted without warning or explanation, I am not wasting any more time with this forum.
Creation vs Evolution
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
- Status
No mitchell - they did maintenance and only a handful of posts were lost - it is fixed now !!
6days
New member
Hope you return. Posts do not randomly get deleted here....Uh... sorry it happened yesterday though when administer was having problems.
Rosenritter
New member
Technically one could believe in special creation by a member (or members) of one of the pagan pantheons. I just don't know anyone who does.
Rosenritter
New member
Jesus was the legal heir of David through Joseph, whose line traced back to the throne of David. He did not have a biological link through Joseph.
Jesus was the biological heir of David through Mary his mother. He did not have the legal link to the throne through Mary.
I have just completed some other pressing obligations that kept me offline the past 10 days, only to find Cadry has elected to close his threadus giganticus. His stated reason is that he objects to Rosenritter using the thread to say why he does not buy into Cadry’s claimed divine knowledge. Though I have little respect for RR’s pretended expertise in science, yet I find it interesting that RR is, as far as I have been able to ascertain (after a lot of perusing of earlier posts in Cadry’s thread), the only creationist who has stood in solid defiance of the more radical of Cadry’s religious claims. I did some digging, and last year it appears that the TOL YEC crowd pretty much just elected to tiptoe silently past each of Cadry’s false year-end rapture prophecies. They seemed to like Cadry being a YEC, but were reticent to identify with him beyond that. RR is the first YEC who has challenged Cadry head-on regarding some of Cadry’s unusual religious claims. Cadry seems unable to countenance opposition from another YEC.
Now I need to read carefully through more than a hundred posts that transpired in my absence at the end of the old thread. I presume there is no problem in this thread with referencing what was said in posts in Cadry’s thread.
Thanks PJ, for stepping up to the plate and (at least temporarily) keeping the creation vs evolution thread from expiring.
Now I need to read carefully through more than a hundred posts that transpired in my absence at the end of the old thread. I presume there is no problem in this thread with referencing what was said in posts in Cadry’s thread.
Thanks PJ, for stepping up to the plate and (at least temporarily) keeping the creation vs evolution thread from expiring.
Back on Aug 21 in (Cadry thread) Post 20,651 RR posted to Jose Fly:
My question – where does this repeated babble about radioactive carbon being formed by the sun come from?
And then a couple days later in Post 20,693 RR said:
Similar comments from RR are in Posts 20,709 and 20,754.
My question – where does this repeated babble about radioactive carbon being formed by the sun come from?
Rosenritter
New member
The carbon normally exists in the stable C-12 state. It would remain in that state rather for ever on its own. Energy (radiation) from external sources can ... look, I'm tired of typing. This is low level high school / Google science knowledge. Type in "how is carbon 14 formed" and pick any of the pages that come back:
And for definition of "cosmic rays" for our purposes, our primary source is the sun.
That's where this "repeated babble" about radioactive carbon being formed by the sun comes from. Remove the sun and after a few carbon half lives you wouldn't have measurable C-14 levels anymore.
As for practical application, if you create a brand new planet and add a sun and it will take a while for the atmosphere to absorb enough cosmic radiation to produce grand C-14 levels. Attempts to measure samples taken from a time when Carbon-14 levels were less than what they were now will result in readings skewed to seem much older than they actually are.
Add on to this that the environment described in Genesis had a different atmosphere (a mist covered the earth and there was no rain) and human life spans came close to 1000 years (possibly an indicator that cellular damage from solar radiation was minimized) .... and that is why the biblical creationist isn't phased by Carbon-14 dates in excess of 6,000 years. Because the fair and scientific application of the science of carbon dating is consistent with the Biblical account when assumptions are kept in their proper place.
That's something that Jose (a hostile witness if there ever was one) admitted before he quit the forum. He was frustrated by it, but he did say (and I paraphrase) that "If you accept the description in Genesis ... that it does not conflict with the results of Carbon Dating." So soft dinosaur tissue and coal beds dating in the 22000-40000 year range is not a problem for the Biblical creationist. It remains a problem for the Old Earth Evolutionist that maintains the assumption that the earth today is as it always has been, AKA "Uniformitarianism."
Rosenritter
New member
I dug this excerpt from Michael's thread, that we last had of Jose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
... or translating, The scientific data is consistent with the description of the world in Genesis, and Jose did not wish to challenge any assumptions or interpretations of that data. He glossed over that the scientific data is not consistent with the Old Earth model that evolutionists require, and that the current "solution" is to simply toss out or ignore the dates that disagree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I'll tell you what....I'll grant that if we assume your version of Genesis is true, and grant whatever assumptions and additions to the story you can imagine as also true, and just accept all your unsupported assertions as true, then yes....it all explains the discrepancies between your version of the story and the scientific data.
Thanks for your time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
... or translating, The scientific data is consistent with the description of the world in Genesis, and Jose did not wish to challenge any assumptions or interpretations of that data. He glossed over that the scientific data is not consistent with the Old Earth model that evolutionists require, and that the current "solution" is to simply toss out or ignore the dates that disagree.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
New member
I pop back in for a bit and what do I see? A creationist dishonestly quote-mining me.
Here is what I actually said: "I'll grant that if we assume your version of Genesis is true, and grant whatever assumptions and additions to the story you can imagine as also true, and just accept all your unsupported assertions as true, then yes....it all explains the discrepancies between your version of the story and the scientific data."
Again we see how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.
Here is what I actually said: "I'll grant that if we assume your version of Genesis is true, and grant whatever assumptions and additions to the story you can imagine as also true, and just accept all your unsupported assertions as true, then yes....it all explains the discrepancies between your version of the story and the scientific data."
Again we see how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.
Rosenritter
New member
Jose, your accusation is entirely befuddled because you replied beneath where I had dug up your direct quote. It's post 31, your accusation was post 32. My initial paraphrase (written just 18 minutes before I found the exact quote) was accurate. Although you whined and used prejudiced language, you did admit that the when the details of the Genesis account were considered in whole they did align with the data.
You might want to consider leveling honest accusations before accusing others of dishonesty.
Last edited:
6days
New member
It isn't RR who is dishonest. He did say he paraphrased (And a good paraphrase!)..... and then, so no one could dishonestly accuse him of quote mining, he quoted you word for word. :execute:
6days
New member
uh..... No, I don't think he does wish to consider that, but we can hope.
Rosenritter
New member
Even if you had been misrepresented, one instance of a dishonest argument would not demonstrate the impossibility of presenting an honest argument. Let's stay logical in our reasoning with less wild emotions stirring the pot, shall we?
Jose Fly
New member
The problem with trying to get away with stuff like this in an internet forum is that it keeps track of what happened and when. I put up my post at 9:44 AM. You went back and edited your post an hour later, at 10:44 AM, in a pathetic effort to try and save face.
Further, if you think "The scientific data is consistent with the description of the world in Genesis" is an accurate translation of what I said, then there's something fundamentally wrong with you.
RR, thank you. Your reply suggests several details that I wonder about, but I think for now I will focus on just a couple of points. First is a minor point when you say
And you leave it off just where I wanted to see what you would say about this energy from external sources. Can you flush out what you would have said to complete that sentence?
But more significant is this:
For this to be true, our sun would have to be almost the only significant source of cosmic rays that cause the creation of C-14 in the atmosphere. On what basis do you make the claim that non-solar cosmic rays are a) so rare as to be negligible, or b) ineffectual in the creation of C-14 in the atmosphere?
And you leave it off just where I wanted to see what you would say about this energy from external sources. Can you flush out what you would have said to complete that sentence?
But more significant is this:
For this to be true, our sun would have to be almost the only significant source of cosmic rays that cause the creation of C-14 in the atmosphere. On what basis do you make the claim that non-solar cosmic rays are a) so rare as to be negligible, or b) ineffectual in the creation of C-14 in the atmosphere?
What a damp, dark, dreary, dismal world that must have been. Does this mean that the pre-flood world you envision was governed by a substantially different set of laws of physics and chemistry than is in operation today? Water (mist) is opaque to IR frequencies, yet IR is the frequency at which most heat from the earth is radiated into space. This is why cloudy evenings are typically warmer than clear-sky eves. So you want some visible sunlight to penetrate, heat the earth a bit, but like an enclosed black-body, just get hotter and hotter? Did Adam live on a Venus hot-house type planet?
Condensation into rain didn’t happen? Really? The rivers just magically were continuously filled from some divine spigot? Does that mean evaporation didn’t happen as well?
And I am not a botanist, but I would be surprised if a lot of plants could not survive if deprived of a much broader spectrum of sunlight than a mist is likely to allow.
But it appears those assumptions should encompass some other things as well. For example, ice core dating, isochrons, dendrochronology, varves, corals, speleothems, plate tectonics, etc.
Nor is it a problem for the scientist who understands the factors that enter into C-14 dates. Real scientists are not afraid to study the world without religiously dictated preconditions. In the old thread (Post 20,604) I itemized a number of factors that can make a measured C-14 date unrealistically recent. You have not responded to that post.
But in the earth sciences “uniformitarianism” does not mean “that the earth today is as it always has been”. Obviously with plate tectonics, magnetic field changes, evidences of catastrophic meteor/comet impacts, etc. the earth is a dynamic place. Uniformitarianism simply means the slow geological processes we see in operation today are sufficient to explain most of the observed geology.
Aaron the Tall
Member
The Bible only speaks of death as evil in regards to man.
It doesn't say anything about death in the animal kingdom.
Do you believe God created right whales with an elaborately designed feeding / filtering system to feed on plants?
Do you believe God created ant eaters with a long sticky tongue to root out mushrooms from the earth?
Rosenritter
New member
No, Jose. You're just an idiot, in some combination of paranoid, dishonest, and/or desperate. Ask Patrick Jane if the post was somehow fabricated. He thanked it, so he we have at least one witness that we can ask to tell us whether it was "doctored" as you claim. I hereby dub thee Troll with a capital T.
The only "content" changed was the word "except" to "excerpt" in the first line. See, I may not always type spell perfectly at 2 AM in the morning. But I would think that the people who read this forum would notice if a post suddenly disappeared.
Given that you replied after said post that you are accusing of being "doctored" what was it supposedly about? This mystery post that you seem to think I cannibalized to conspire against you. You're acting insane, Jose Troll.
More than usual, I mean.
Last edited:
- Status