ICR throws in towel -- then reaches for another

Who are the likely students attending the M.C.Ed program? Christian working adults who are serious thinkers, lifelong learners, servant-leaders, and who are within driving distance of ICR’s Dallas campus.

"The graduate school may be exempt from licensing requirements as long as it offers purely religious degrees."

Right. Cause, you know, there are no standards for purely religious degrees.

Look, these guys are just planning on offering exactly the same degree that tried to call "science education" except that now they are calling it "Christian Education". The accrediting body saw right through their lies and evasions and called a spade a spade. There was never any real content or scholarship involved, just a bunch of stuff about how to convince people that evolution is wrong without actually having any evidence. They are probably even going to use the same "courses" and "professors". Thing is, now only those who want to be fooled will believe that they are actually learning anything useful in the real world. If they still want to had over their money to these charlatans, fine by me. Everyone knows that they won't be getting any real teaching jobs anywhere and now everyone should know why.

Update. … It appears that THECB failed to clarify the relevant frequently asked questions of its website section in light of the Texas Supreme Court's decision in HEB Ministries, Inc. et al. v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (235 S.W.3d 627 [Tex. 2007]), which established that THECB does not have oversight over institutions that offer exclusively religious education and training. The preceding paragraph, speculating on whether the ICR could obtain certification for its School of Biblical Apologetics to offer its Master of Christian Education degree, is thus moot. Revised on September 4, 2010, to add the fifth paragraph.

Ha! I saw this coming a mile away (or, more accurately, over a year ago):

ICR prepares a fall-back position

I would like to hear from the "house" physicists about ICR's news item, "The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates".

Carbon 14 dating has been calibrated using independent data sets going back 35,000 years. They can wave their hands and make things up until the cows come home and crap on their faces, but that is never going to prove that earth is only 6,000 years old. What a bunch of desperate nonsense. These guys will do anything to try and fool the ignorant into believing the impossible. Next thing you know, they are going to claim that the current rate at which the ice sheets are melting means that there could never have been an ice age. Oh and the speed of light is gettin faster as well.

DS said: "The graduate school may be exempt from licensing requirements as long as it offers purely religious degrees." Right. Cause, you know, there are no standards for purely religious degrees. Look, these guys are just planning on offering exactly the same degree that tried to call "science education" except that now they are calling it "Christian Education". The accrediting body saw right through their lies and evasions and called a spade a spade. There was never any real content or scholarship involved, just a bunch of stuff about how to convince people that evolution is wrong without actually having any evidence. They are probably even going to use the same "courses" and "professors". Thing is, now only those who want to be fooled will believe that they are actually learning anything useful in the real world. If they still want to had over their money to these charlatans, fine by me. Everyone knows that they won't be getting any real teaching jobs anywhere and now everyone should know why.

"Having addressed this primary issue, the Court will proceed to address each of ICRGS’s causes of action in turn, to the extent it is able to understand them."

Gary Hurd said: I would like to hear from the "house" physicists about ICR's news item, "The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates".

The sample's radioactivity has not been dropping steadily over time, as the textbooks demand. It has fallen, to be sure, but superimposed on that decline is an odd, periodic wobble that seems to follow the seasons. Each year, the decay rate is at its greatest around February and reaches a minimum in August.

Matt Young said: However, I think I remember that some laser calorimeters at NIST behaved similarly -- that is, their responsivity varied slightly with the seasons. Had to do with the heating and air conditioning.

Accreditation is provided (in the US) by private accrediting bodies, and as far as I know these are unregulated, although the Secretary of Education maintains a list of approved accrediting agencies. I thought that, at the university level, departments or programs were generally accredited, rather than entire colleges. The graduate school at ICR is accredited by an agency (TRACS) that accredits Christian schools; the original Henry Morris was one of the founders of both ICR and TRACS. You can read more about it on PT here.

I first came across the decay rate findings a couple of weeks ago, and it looks legitimate, if tentative. The researchers have done their best to discount environmental effects, and have demonstrated a link to solar activity.

Here's the story from a more reputable source.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

"Dr. Patterson noted the textbooks specified in several of the program course descriptions were introductory texts typical for freshman-level undergraduate classes. Id. at ¶ 10. Dr. Patterson states in his declaration, “[t]he rigor of the proposed course work appeared to be remarkably low, certainly not what we would expect of graduate-level courses.” Id. He also concluded the overall curriculum of the program indicated a “strikingly deficient and incorrect understanding of modern science, its methods, procedures, ways of knowing, and generally-accepted conclusions.”"

Altair IV said: I first came across the decay rate findings a couple of weeks ago, and it looks legitimate, if tentative. The researchers have done their best to discount environmental effects, and have demonstrated a link to solar activity.

It does seem conceivable that subatomic activity could be influenced by the number of neutrinos and/or anti-neutrinos coming through per unit time, though more than a very subtle effect would have been noticed already.

(I see somebody else already made this same point, but I'm still putting in my 10 cents anyway.)

Henry J

Gary Hurd said: I would like to hear from the "house" physicists about ICR's news item, "The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates".

Mike Elzinga said: The effect, if it is there at all, it so tiny – and it is periodic – that it’s effects on radiometric dating is irrelevant.

“The graduate school may be exempt from licensing requirements as long as it offers purely religious degrees.”

Wouldn't it be great if they got the briliant idea to offer a degree program in intelligent design? Somebody should suggest that to them...

Matt Young said: Accreditation is provided (in the US) by private accrediting bodies, and as far as I know these are unregulated, although the Secretary of Education maintains a list of approved accrediting agencies. I thought that, at the university level, departments or programs were generally accredited, rather than entire colleges. The graduate school at ICR is accredited by an agency (TRACS) that accredits Christian schools; the original Henry Morris was one of the founders of both ICR and TRACS. You can read more about it on PT here.

Here's a link about accreditation in the regional bodies. This website includes the standards and even some 'faith based accreditation' that I haven't read yet.

http://www.chea.org/Directories/regional.asp

OgreMkV said: Here's a link about accreditation in the regional bodies. This website includes the standards and even some 'faith based accreditation' that I haven't read yet. http://www.chea.org/Directories/regional.asp

this is now how the world should be. if YECs from bogus institutions aren't claiming to have science qualifications, they should be free to make fools of themselves and go about their foolish business. they will still twist vulnerable minds, but not being able to claim a (secularly supported) authority they don't have is a serious restriction for people whose favorite argument is authority

Periodic effects have no effect on trends provided you're aware of them. Even if you're not, if their period is roughly a divisor of the time period you're trending, they won't make a difference. If you weren't aware of the periodicity beforehand, it'll be evident in the trend.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

Matt Young said: I do not have a subscription, so I did not read the entire article and do not intend to. However, I think I remember that some laser calorimeters at NIST behaved similarly -- that is, their responsivity varied slightly with the seasons. Had to do with the heating and air conditioning. Be suspicious of anything that varies seasonally or diurnally.

In general, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent from what is expected, as they've examined available published data and taken some measurements themselves.

FL said: ... (ICR) picked themselves up off the ground, they "grabbed another towel" that is currently within their reach, and now they're coming out swinging again, boldly. ... A positively inspirational example, to be honest.

"I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!"

ICRGS claims the vagueness of Standard 12 is proven by the fact the initial site visit team gave a positive evaluation of ICRGS’s curriculum under Standard 12, whereas the subsequent review panel gave a negative evaluation of the curriculum. Id. at ¶ 10. ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is.

FL said: Perhaps some readers might ask, "Well, so what? Their M.C.Ed. degree is 'possibly exempt from licensing requirements' because it's apparently 'a purely religious degree', so the degree is useless."

FL said: However, that's where ICR's graduate degree can be very useful, very much needed. Each person that graduates with an ICR master's degree in Chr. Ed. will be equipped to help fight against that trend in a big way. Providing solidly biblical, rational, evidence-based, Christ-centered responses to skeptical and evolutionist challenges.

"Providing solidly biblical, rational, evidence-based, Christ-centered responses to skeptical and evolutionist challenges."(My emphasis)

FL said: Instead, they picked themselves up off the ground, they "grabbed another towel" that is currently within their reach, and now they're coming out swinging again, boldly. No apologies, no kowtows, no compromises, no regrets. A positively inspirational example, to be honest. As if they were taking a cue from Niebuhr's prayer. FL

FL said: They're eroding and corroding other Christians' trust and confidence in the historicity, authority and reliability of God's Word--not merely regarding origins, but other vital areas as well, up to and including the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself. How? By saying that evolutionary theory's historical and theological claims trump the Bible's historical and theological claims. A mess, a tragic situation, currently in progress.

FL said: ...and THAT's how you break evolution's dominance in a nation or a culture...

snaxalotl said:

FL said: ...and THAT's how you break evolution's dominance in a nation or a culture...

no, you do it by false claims of being scientific.

FL said: The need for (a clear focus on biblical apologetics and Christian education, as well as a minor in creation research) right now within American Christian churches is HUGE.

FL continued: (Quite a few clergymen and women) are eroding and corroding other Christians' trust and confidence in the historicity, authority and reliability of God's Word - not merely regarding origins, but other vital areas as well, up to and including the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself. How? By saying that evolutionary theory's historical and theological claims trump the Bible's historical and theological claims.

SWT said: Just read the decision ... I had to laugh when I read this on page 34:

ICRGS claims the vagueness of Standard 12 is proven by the fact the initial site visit team gave a positive evaluation of ICRGS’s curriculum under Standard 12, whereas the subsequent review panel gave a negative evaluation of the curriculum. Id. at ¶ 10. ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is.

Gary Hurd said: I would like to hear from the "house" physicists about ICR's news item, "The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates".

They're sure to have a degree in journalism, producing reporters/editors like this one:

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/atheist-104128-discovery-extremist.html

henry said: The last footnote is a link to ...

cronk said: They're sure to have a degree in journalism, producing reporters/editors like this one ...

The need for all three items right now within American Christian churches is HUGE. That’s simply the ground-floor truth.

Henry J said: It does seem conceivable that subatomic activity could be influenced by the number of neutrinos and/or anti-neutrinos coming through per unit time, though more than a very subtle effect would have been noticed already. (I see somebody else already made this same point, but I'm still putting in my 10 cents anyway.)

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/atheist-104128-discovery-extremist.html

God is not a sadistic tyrant who condemns people to hell for merely doubting if he exists.

fnxtr said: Oh, look, FundieLoon is back:

The need for all three items right now within American Christian churches is HUGE. That’s simply the ground-floor truth.

Meanwhile the need for these items in the real world remains zero. You are free to share you looniness in your echo chambers to your heart's content. Just keep it out of publicly-funded schools, ok? We have work to do, feeding people and curing diseases and finding actual explanations for stuff. Thanks. Bye now.

cronk said: They're sure to have a degree in journalism, producing reporters/editors like this one: http://www.gazette.com/opinion/atheist-104128-discovery-extremist.html

Timothy McVeigh sent a 1999 story Laugesen wrote for Soldier of Fortune magazine to Fox News in response to a request to "describe his motivations" for his lethal actions.

harold said: This is one of the reasons why I am an apatheist, and don't identify myself as an atheist (although I do meet some of the broad definitions of "atheist" that others proclaim).

This is the way to look at this.
its unjust and dumb to deny ICR wants it wants.
It would be a very very small step forward if iCR got itsway.
Yet ICR, a great creationist organization, like the others has never had a passion or even a interest to be leaders in taking on the state prohibition, by claims of constitution etc, in the matter of origin teachings in public institutions.

So defeats like this should be just what the Doctor ordered.
It should force organized creationism and ists to have o do what they don't want to do.
Attack by cases and the publicity around cases the actual problem in all this.
The use of the constitution to ban the truth , conclusions of what is true, and the search for truth in origin subjects in public institutions.
Not working around it or with it but going straight into its belly and busting it open.

Cases like this show how the line of reasoning from the original reasoning behind the prohibition will bring crazy results.
Its clear time has come to aggressively and fully attack the whole concept of censorship by law on origin issues based on a constitution made by very Protestant, even puritan, Yankees and Southern people by way of their delegates.

I'm sure defeats like this are better for the good cause then what a victory would of brought.
No way around it. The law must be given attention and energy and ability that is oterwise given for the substance of creationism (s).
Time has come today.

Robert Byers said: The law must be given attention and energy and ability that is oterwise given for the substance of creationism (s).

1.6

Same old same old. Poor persecuted me. They won't let me lie to people and claim it's the truth. Wah, wah, wah.

Robert Byers said: The use of the constitution to ban the truth , conclusions of what is true, and the search for truth in origin subjects in public institutions.

ICRGS could actively stand on its First Amendment rights…[or] passively surrender … in order to avoid being (unjustly) prosecuted for offering what the THECB and defendants (acting under color of state law) characterize as a "fraudulent or substandard" degree program, via legal proceeding that potentially implicate Texas Deceptive Trade Practices -- Consumer Protection Act jeopardies.

First, although it is difficult to follow ICRGS’s complaint, it appears ICRGS contends the Board engaged in “viewpoint discrimination” against ICRGS, thereby violating its constitutional rights to free exercise of religion, free speech, and equal protection. See Sec. Am. Compl. at 40. ICRGS makes an as-applied challenge to the State’s regulation of its issuance of degrees—and specifically, to the Board’s decision to deny its application under those laws—basing all of its constitutional claims on an identical set of facts.

Robert Byers said: Cases like this show how the line of reasoning from the original reasoning behind the prohibition will bring crazy results.

Proves itself to be what, though?

Henry J said: Proves itself to be what, though?

Since there were literally no such persons as the obviously mythological Adam and Eve, and thus there was no such thing as Original Sin, and thus death did not enter the world through the actions of Adam and Eve, then humans do not need to be saved from anything - and the whole Christian edifice falls apart - because it is based on a myth: Not truth, not science, just a myth.

Rich Blinne said: So, back to the case at hand. Brooker's lawsuit was settled so none of the legal principles were tested. Like Dover, the Texas case if appealed could set up a precedent where the current strategy to force creationism in the schools is destroyed, and this could become law for the whole country. So, brave Sir Robin, err, ICR, ran away.

eric said:

Rich Blinne said: So, back to the case at hand. Brooker's lawsuit was settled so none of the legal principles were tested. Like Dover, the Texas case if appealed could set up a precedent where the current strategy to force creationism in the schools is destroyed, and this could become law for the whole country. So, brave Sir Robin, err, ICR, ran away.

Actually, there is recent, on-topic precedent which may be one reason ICR ran away; i.e. a 'legal principle that was tested.' ACSI vs. Stearns, 2007. Summary: religious school teaching crap complains that UC has no right to say their science, literature, history, etc... courses don't qualify as good ones, because that's viewpoint discrimination. The judge in that case made the obvious point that any evaluation process necessarily requires some assessment of "some viewpoints over others." That is the whole point of evaluation for quality, after all. You can't grade something without, um, giving it a grade. So as a general argument, viewpoint discrimination legally fails. It is a constitutionally relevant argument only if the plaintiff can show that a particular evaluation process is based on bad criteria (no rational basis), or show that while it may have a rational basis, this basis wasn't followed when they were evaluated (animus). So, ICR can't legally argue generic viewpoint discrimination. They'd have to show that the Texas evaluation process was either not rational, or that Texas' rational criteria were not followed correctly in their case. *** My guess, however, is that the reason for not filing any further complaint is much simpler. ICR's lawyers were so bad at their jobs that the judge demanded they redo their first complaint because it was legally incomprehensible. The second one wasn't much better, and got panned by the judge as well as most bystanders. My guess is ICR's leadership figured this out and decided that this particular legal effort was unsalvageable - better to start over if they have to then continue with this.

FL said: The fact that you weren't even challenged on your specific statement by anybody in this forum, whether they be theist or atheist, is extremely telling.)

It does clearly show why ICR and other Christian organizations (and also the Christian churches) do NOT have the luxury to lay down and die in the face of evolutionist opposition.

Actually, there is recent, on-topic precedent which may be one reason ICR ran away; i.e. a 'legal principle that was tested.' ACSI vs. Stearns, 2007. Summary: religious school teaching crap complains that UC has no right to say their science, literature, history, etc... courses don't qualify as good ones, because that's viewpoint discrimination.

FL said:

Since there were literally no such persons as the obviously mythological Adam and Eve, and thus there was no such thing as Original Sin, and thus death did not enter the world through the actions of Adam and Eve, then humans do not need to be saved from anything - and the whole Christian edifice falls apart - because it is based on a myth: Not truth, not science, just a myth.

Well, I obviously don't believe that Christianity is a myth, but you have done an excellent job of spelling out why evolution is incompatible with Christianity. (In fact yours is reminiscent of evolutionist Richard Bozarth's classic, no-nonsense statement. The fact that you weren't even challenged on your specific statement by anybody in this forum, whether they be theist or atheist, is extremely telling.) That incompatibility is not the subject of the thread, but it's a powerful, compelling incompatibility that directly (as you so well demonstrated) goes straight to the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It does clearly show why ICR and other Christian organizations (and also the Christian churches) do NOT have the luxury to lay down and die in the face of evolutionist opposition.

Rich Blinne said: One key difference between the cases is ACSI was appealed to the Ninth Circuit and then failed.

So when the creationist are once again shown to be the lying charlatans that they are, FL once again crows about how this is somehow a victory. He just can't admit that the reason that they were denied accreditation is because they have no evidence whatsoever. They just can't fool anyone who knows anything. You have to wonder why he wants them to succeed if their irrational and unsubstantiated views have been shown to be contrary to reality.

Got any predictions about the Freshwater case, oh mighty oracle? Tell us agin how this is going to be such a stunning victory for the forces of ignorance. Tell us agin how Freshwater and Hamilton want to be broke and humiliated in a real court of law because of their dishonesty and incompetence. Tell us agin how this is the kind of person you want to teach science to young people, after branding them.

eric said:

Rich Blinne said: One key difference between the cases is ACSI was appealed to the Ninth Circuit and then failed.

My point was, the legal principles have been tested. The generic 'viewpoint discrimination' argument won't fly when it comes to state evaluations of programs, and if ICR had chosen to fight the ruling, the defense could have cited ACSI as a relevant precedent.

FL said:

Since there were literally no such persons as the obviously mythological Adam and Eve, and thus there was no such thing as Original Sin, and thus death did not enter the world through the actions of Adam and Eve, then humans do not need to be saved from anything - and the whole Christian edifice falls apart - because it is based on a myth: Not truth, not science, just a myth.

Well, I obviously don't believe that Christianity is a myth, but you have done an excellent job of spelling out why evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

MrG said:

henry said: The last footnote is a link to ...

Oh gosh yes, who could fail to be impressed by documents published by that long-standing source of leading-edge research, the ICR?

FL, try treating everyone else here the way you want to be treated: non-response typically means lack of interest or time.

How did ICR lay down and die? They can still teach whatever they want to teach. The issue was accreditation.

DS said: So when the creationist are once again shown to be the lying charlatans that they are, FL once again crows about how this is somehow a victory. He just can't admit that the reason that they were denied accreditation is because they have no evidence whatsoever. They just can't fool anyone who knows anything. You have to wonder why he wants them to succeed if their irrational and unsubstantiated views have been shown to be contrary to reality. Got any predictions about the Freshwater case, oh mighty oracle? Tell us agin how this is going to be such a stunning victory for the forces of ignorance. Tell us agin how Freshwater and Hamilton want to be broke and humiliated in a real court of law because of their dishonesty and incompetence. Tell us agin how this is the kind of person you want to teach science to young people, after branding them.

FL said: In fact, couldn't help noticing that your post doesn't attempt to challenge Burrnett's specific statement, not even slightly. You ducked it. It's always good to treat others the way you want to be treated (you're right about that part). Of course, I'll be looking for you to offer that same bit of advice in this forum, whenever your evo-pals stoop to name-calling and personal insult. I know you'll be consistent about it. However, the fact is that a non-response after six hours CAN honestly, rationally mean that nobody's able to refute a given statement. Especially given what Burnett said, which is very very difficult for you guys to refute (as proven by previous PT discussions.) Your excuse, "lack of interest", doesn't change a thing, and after six hours in THIS forum (between the time of Burnett's statement and my statement), somebody has indeed had time to say **something** about Burnett's statement (like a simple "I disagree"), if they wanted to. So, bottom line, there's nothing wrong with what I said. More importantly, Burnett's statement remains untouched, unchallenged. ***

How did ICR lay down and die? They can still teach whatever they want to teach. The issue was accreditation.

Nope, that wasn't the issue, not in my post. In my post, the issue was "grabbing another towel" after being forced to throw in the first "towel", as per this thread's OP subject heading. You're right in that ICR is still able to teach without accreditation. And as I already said, they did NOT lay down and die; that's specifically why I commended them. There's a big difference between "still able to teach", and actually crankin' up and offering a masters program right here and now. Especially after you have just lost out on a judge's ruling. So in the end, ICR is a winner. Not because of how they lost the accreditation battle, but because of how they bounced back afterwards. FL

It’s really funny how you will quote from an atheist to “prove” your claim that evolution and Christianity are not compatible. Note: Christianity evolved (no pun intended) from Judaism but does not limit itself to ancient Jewish dogmas. And being a Christian is about beleiving in JESUS, not Genesis. But if we were forced to choose between evolution and Christianity, I am genuinely puzzled as to why anyone would choose Christianity and reject the facts of evolution. The evidence is clear that Christianity is a complete failure as a religion and has been for most of its history. No one needs it.

I see it as the other way round. If there were a literal Adam and Eve who sinned, in what way is that sin imputed to us? It is unjust to make one person suffer for the deeds of another. If, on the other hand, the story is a myth (allegory, if you don’t like the word “myth”), then it expressed how in each of us lies the inevitbility of sin. We are all Adam, we are all Eve, we are all faced with the choice. That would be something to be redeemed of, not the actions of someone else 6000 years ago. To make the story of Adam and Eve literal is to strip it of its power and its theological significance.

henry said: Three of the various references in the footnotes are from Geology, Science and Nature. Which of these peer reviewed publications is your favorite?

henry said: If the US should become like Europe, we will face a dismal future. With declining white populations and growing Moslem populations, Europe will eventually have Moslem majorities and can easily implement Sharia law and it's good bye personal freedoms. The victory of the secularists in Europe will be short lived. They've taken their Christian heritage for granted.

If ICR burned to the ground, FL would crow about what a wonderful opportunity it was for them to build something bigger and better. I guess when you lose every time, the only way to win is to declare losing a form of winning.

henry said: If the US should become like Europe, we will face a dismal future. With declining white populations and growing Moslem populations, Europe will eventually have Moslem majorities and can easily implement Sharia law and it's good bye personal freedoms. The victory of the secularists in Europe will be short lived. They've taken their Christian heritage for granted.

Dale Husband said: The solution is to overthrow the political power and popular appeal of both Christianity AND Islam.

FL said: However, the fact is that a non-response after six hours CAN honestly, rationally mean that nobody's able to refute a given statement. Especially given what Burnett said, which is very very difficult for you guys to refute (as proven by previous PT discussions.) Your excuse, "lack of interest", doesn't change a thing, and after six hours in THIS forum (between the time of Burnett's statement and my statement), somebody has indeed had time to say **something** about Burnett's statement (like a simple "I disagree"), if they wanted to. FL

So in the end, ICR is a winner. Not because of how they lost the accreditation battle, but because of how they bounced back afterwards. FL

MrG said:

henry said: Three of the various references in the footnotes are from Geology, Science and Nature. Which of these peer reviewed publications is your favorite?

Only cherry picking from the best, right? Creationists often cite from mainstream science. But mainstream science does not cite from creationists.

FL said: However, the fact is that a non-response after six hours CAN honestly, rationally mean that nobody's able to refute a given statement. Especially given what Burnett said, which is very very difficult for you guys to refute (as proven by previous PT discussions.) Your excuse, "lack of interest", doesn't change a thing, and after six hours in THIS forum (between the time of Burnett's statement and my statement), somebody has indeed had time to say **something** about Burnett's statement (like a simple "I disagree"), if they wanted to. FL

FL said:

FL, try treating everyone else here the way you want to be treated: non-response typically means lack of interest or time.

...In fact, couldn't help noticing that your post doesn't attempt to challenge Burrnett's specific statement, not even slightly. You ducked it.

However, the fact is that a non-response after six hours CAN honestly, rationally mean that nobody's able to refute a given statement.

You're right in that ICR is still able to teach without accreditation. And as I already said, they did NOT lay down and die; that's specifically why I commended them...So in the end, ICR is a winner...

henry said: There may a mountain of scientific evidences, but those evidences have to be interpreted and ICR does connect the dots.

henry said: If the US should become like Europe, we will face a dismal future. With declining white populations and growing Moslem populations, Europe will eventually have Moslem majorities and can easily implement Sharia law and it's good bye personal freedoms.

henry said: Here's the entire list of references to Dr. Snelling's article. 1 G.B. Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth (1991, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press), p. 91. 2 G.B. Dalrymple, "40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6 (1969): pp. 47-55. 3 For the original sources of these data, see the references in A.A. Snelling, "The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon 'Ages' for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon 'Dating'," R.E. Walsh, ed., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism (1998, Pittsburgh, PA, Creation Science Fellowship), pp. 503-525. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 S.A. Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St Helens Volcano," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10 (1996): pp. 335-343. 7 A.W. Laughlin, J. Poths, H.A. Healey, S. Reneau and G. WoldeGabriel, "Dating of Quaternary Basalts Using the Cosmogenic 3He and 14C Methods with Implications for Excess 40Ar," Geology, 22 (1994): pp. 135-138. D.B. Patterson, M. Honda and I. McDougall, "Noble Gases in Mafic Phenocrysts and Xenoliths from New Zealand," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 58 (1994): pp. 4411-4427. J. Poths, H. Healey and A.W. Laughlin, "Ubiquitous Excess Argon in Very Young Basalts," Geological Society of America Abstracts With Programs, 25 (1993): p. A-462. 8 P.E. Damon, A.W. Laughlin and J.K. Precious, "Problem of Excess Argon-40 in Volcanic Rocks," in Radioactive Dating Methods and Low-Level Counting (1967, Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency), pp. 463-481. 9 C.L. Broadhurst, M.J. Drake, B.E. Hagee and T.J. Benatowicz, "Solubility and Partitioning of Ar in Anorthite, Diopside, Forsterite, Spinel, and Synthetic Basaltic Liquids," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 54 (1990): pp. 299-309. C.L. Broadhurst, M.J. Drake, B.E. Hagee and T.J. Benatowicz, "Solubility and Partitioning of Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe in Minerals and Synthetic Basaltic Melts," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 56 (1992): pp. 709-723. 10 J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research, 73 (1968): pp. 4601-4607. .... etc I think the creation scientists can only do so much so they have to quote from other scientists, especially if the data supports a young earth or creation. There may a mountain of scientific evidences, but those evidences have to be interpreted and ICR does connect the dots.

darvolution proponentsist said:

henry said: If the US should become like Europe, we will face a dismal future. With declining white populations and growing Moslem populations, Europe will eventually have Moslem majorities and can easily implement Sharia law and it's good bye personal freedoms.

That's about one of the best arguments for the separation of church and state I've heard in a while. When the muslim population grows large enough here in the US to start influencing law and muslims begin to hold office in numbers, I wonder how long it will take the "christian nation" christians to turn tail and start thumping about the myth of separation of church and state.

So Henry, can you quote from those references exactly what they determined that the age of the earth is? I'm guessing that any of them that actually give any date younger tan about 4.5 billion years are very wishy washy about it and are published by creationists.

FL wrote:

"It does clearly show why ICR and other Christian organizations (and also the Christian churches) do NOT have the luxury to lay down and die in the face of evolutionist opposition."

Exactly. No matter what the evidence shows, no matter that they lack any evidence whatsoever of their own, no matter if every judge, jury and accrediting body realizes that they are just a bunch of reality deniers, they have no choice but to persist in their misconceptions and misrepresentations. To do otherwise would mean that they would lose all of their power and prestige and would have to admit that they had been completely wrong all along and inspired by nothing more than their own greed. Now, given all of that, what do you suppose is the probability that they are actually right about anything?

Science, on the other hand is completely free to go wherever the evidence leads. It is always free and willing to change in the light of new evidence. Now, given that, why do you think that creationists refuse to submit any evidence to support their ideas? It doesn't really make any sense, that is if they really want to convince anyone of anything.

DS said: "... do NOT have the luxury to lay down and die in the face of evolutionist opposition."

FL said: So in the end, ICR is a winner. Not because of how they lost the accreditation battle, but because of how they bounced back afterwards. FL

henry said: If the US should become like Europe, we will face a dismal future. With declining white populations and growing Moslem populations, Europe will eventually have Moslem majorities and can easily implement Sharia law and it's good bye personal freedoms. The victory of the secularists in Europe will be short lived. They've taken their Christian heritage for granted.

FL said: However, the fact is that a non-response after six hours CAN honestly, rationally mean that nobody's able to refute a given statement. FL

darvolution proponentsist said: Of course this is going to bite your in the ass in the future.

Mike Elzinga said: It has been considerably more than six hours since FL ran away from an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his understanding of Dembski’s science by explaining to us the Dembski and Marks paper.

FL said: More importantly, Burnett's statement remains untouched, unchallenged.

You're right in that ICR is still able to teach without accreditation.

So in the end, ICR is a winner. Not because of how they lost the accreditation battle, but because of how they bounced back afterwards.

Paul Burnett said: ICR is a loser, just as the misled Dover School Board was a loser. You guys lost in the US Supreme Court a few decades, and you will continue to lose, because your absurdly bogus mythology is inappropriate. for the 21st century

Nobody challenged, FL, because nobody except a few sad non-scientists like me is concerned by the difference between myth ('a fictive narrative which illustrates and explains fact and can include metaphorical truth, without being factually accurate') and simple untruth.

Scientists are not, by their very nature, interested in metaphor. They are rigorous and fact-driven. They want to know exactly what happened and when and how. Physical fact is their metier.

The physical fact is that there never was an Adam nor an Eve. There was no Garden, no serpent, no Tree of Knowledge or of Good and Evil, no curses, no angel with a flaming sword, none of that.

But there is fact and there is metaphor. At some point, humans gained a sophisticated understanding of cause and effect. That meant that they could predict consequences, including the consequences of their own actions. The result is ethics. Some animals can be shown to be capable of empathy - the ability to liken others to themselves. Humans, however, have this in vastly greater degree. The result is morality.

Is this not like "the knowledge of good and evil"? Does it not come with a consequence - the ability to knowingly act unethically and immorally, to the detriment of others? That is, the free will to do evil? Does the explanation of Genesis, then, not have a useful metaphorical value, even if it is not factually true? Above all, is not life for humans far better if the other humans around them often act ethically and morally according to principles generally agreed, rather than invariably without reference to those principles?

And the Garden. Nineteenth-century anthropologists found, to their astonishment, that even in the marginal and harsh environments to which hunter-gatherers had been relegated, those hunter-gatherers needed to spend far less time "working" to gain a living than the industrial peons of their own time - or even they themselves. Is there, then, no echo of this fact in "the curse of Adam"? Is there not a metaphorical value there? And large-headed infants plus bipedalism undoubtedly make childbirth for humans more hazardous and protracted and probably in most cases more painful than for most large mammals (which is not to say that it is invariably so). Can no justification - metaphorical, to be sure, but nevertheless real - be found for the 'curse of Eve'?

Christians then add further layers of metaphor to the story. Understood as metaphor, it may be taken - even if many do not take it so - as including truth without being factually accurate. Scientists are not interested in this. It is not rigorous. It is not factual in the same way. The truths, if they are there, are true transcendentally, as metaphor. Yet it is still possible to understand Christianity in those terms, and not to insist on literal fact.

FL is, oddly, trying to impose on the ancient myths the same sort of rigour that a scientist would wish. He fails completely, for they simply do not bear that treatment, being contradicted by demonstrable fact. By insisting, with transparent irrationality, on literal as opposed to metaphorical truth in Genesis, he simply makes what he calls Christianity incompatible with actual reality, and hence impossible for a rational person to accept.

Fortunately - or indifferently, if you don't care whether it's accepted or not - Christianity is not what he calls "Christianity" and it includes, whether FL likes it or not, many, many people who accept the metaphorical ideas that arise from Genesis without accepting it as fact.

henry said: I think the creation scientists can only do so much so they have to quote from other scientists, especially if the data supports a young earth or creation. There may a mountain of scientific evidences, but those evidences have to be interpreted and ICR does connect the dots.

Dave Luckett said: Scientists are not, by their very nature, interested in metaphor. They are rigorous and fact-driven. They want to know exactly what happened and when and how. Physical fact is their metier. The physical fact is that there never was an Adam nor an Eve. There was no Garden, no serpent, no Tree of Knowledge or of Good and Evil, no curses, no angel with a flaming sword, none of that.

Behold the true nature of FL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F_G2zp-opg

Let me know if he EVER responds to my earlier posts.

It has been considerably more than six hours since FL ran away from an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his understanding of Dembski’s science by explaining to us the Dembski and Marks paper.

Or a separate thread can be done here at PT if the ruling powers so allow.

FL said:

It has been considerably more than six hours since FL ran away from an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his understanding of Dembski’s science by explaining to us the Dembski and Marks paper.

And btw, it's been considerably more than six hours since I asked Mike if he'd at least read Dembski's book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (IVP 1999), so that he could offer a *considered* response to the very specific comments I offered based on that book.

Where did this challenge occur?

At the time, Mike hadn't read the book, he still hasn't read the book, (and candidly, remains starkly unequipped to discuss any of its science-theology interface issues). So at that time, he brought up the Dembski and Marks paper instead, and tried to challenge me to prove to him that I understood Dembski's "science" in that particular paper.

Where did this challenge occur?

(And that's a paper, as I directly pointed out to him, that did NOT address or even mention the specific issues I was discussing at the time from Dembski's 1999 book. Hey, I know it doesn't, because after all I have a copy of that very paper as well as Dembski's book.) So let me make it clear (again) for Mr. Elzinga. Mike, I won't ever let you get away with trying to duck and change the subject like that. Not with me, and not like that. Nope.

Where did this challenge occur?

If you ain't got the time or inclination to visit a library/bookstore and read/study/understand Dembski's 1999 book, that's fine by me. Just stay away from posts where that book's contents are being discussed; that way you won't appear to be, ummm, outta gas.

Where did this challenge occur?

*** As I said before, Dembski's insights in Chapters 7 and 8 about how God and Jesus actually relate to the scientific enterprise are powerful and compelling. You can actually see how the bridge between science and (Christian) theology works, and it works beautifully. Best of all, Dembski's bridge can be constructed without denying the historicity of ANY of the Scriptures, even though it's not based on YEC or OEC. It's just that powerful and adaptable. I've never seen anything like it. So, apparently angered by such comments, you jumped in, but unable to offer a considered response because you hadn't read the book, you simply tried to change the subject, directly sidestep what I was discussing, and presumptuously dictate your arbitrary rules of engagement to me. Such moves didn't work then. And still won't work now. I have no intention of accomodating that kind of stuff, Mike. Hey, you've worked hard for many years on scientific literacy and expertise, which is mondo honorable. But you're also a flat-out biblical and theological illiterate who's too lazy and drunk on your own disbelief in God, to invest any comparable time in correcting that illiteracy and fully investigating the person of Jesus Christ WRT how he might actually relate to your life, your scientific method, and your natural world. Yeah, I said it. Worst part is, you ain't even in position to deny it. You already know that's where you live. Tell you what though: If you'll make some time to actually read Dembski's book Intelligent Design, and you 'n' me do some talking about what Dembski said in Chapters 7 and 8, THEN, to reciprocate in fairness, we'll go change the subject together and talk about the Dembski and Marks paper as you request. Meet you halfway, yes? That's the deal if you're interested. Take it or leave it; makes no difference to me. This offer is not open to any other poster, just Mr. Elzinga if he wants it. I suggest the ATBC venue (eg, the 'FL debate thread') if said offer is accepted. FL

One time, FL boasted that he knew the exact location of the Garden of Eden.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

FL said: But you're also a flat-out biblical and theological illiterate who's too lazy and drunk on your own disbelief in God, to invest any comparable time in correcting that illiteracy and fully investigating the person of Jesus Christ WRT how he might actually relate to your life, your scientific method, and your natural world. FL

FL said:

One time, FL boasted that he knew the exact location of the Garden of Eden.

Not that difficult, Stanton. We do know the general area (and I did say "general area") where Eden is located.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

In fact, let's go there right now. Simply click on the link and look straight at the green map. Okay, you're there Stanton. That quick. That area. That's that. http://bibleatlas.org/tigris-euphrates_region_.htm FL

And challenging someone to a debate over a non-existent issue and excluding everyone else from it is the mark of a liar AND a coward!

And btw Dale, the existence of Eden is NOT dependent on the existence of the global Noahic Flood. Eden came first.

FL

FL said:

And challenging someone to a debate over a non-existent issue and excluding everyone else from it is the mark of a liar AND a coward!

But as you already know Dale, the ATBC forum is a Zero-Modulation Gang-Fight arena where ANYBODY can jump in and attack anyway, when I'm there. (If Mike accepts and shows up, all you'd need to do is show up, pull out a shiv, and have all the fun you want!) However, my time is still limited, and frankly Mike's tactics strikes me as rather egregious, so I'm limiting the offer to him. If HE accepts, then we'll all have some fun, but if he doesn't, the offer expires and that's that. FL

FL said: And btw Dale, the existence of Eden is NOT dependent on the existence of the global Noahic Flood. Eden came first. FL

No, it is YOU who is profoundly ignorant about the true nature of the Bible and its contents, or you wouldn’t be calling it the “Word of God”, you blasphemous prick!

FL said:

No, it is YOU who is profoundly ignorant about the true nature of the Bible and its contents, or you wouldn’t be calling it the “Word of God”, you blasphemous prick!

And that's another quirky addiction of yours that I've been meaning to ask about, btw. More than once, I've heard you claim that it's somehow, someway, "blasphemy" to refer to the Bible as God's Word. Now your fellow Pandas seem content to let that theological oddity slide, (since after all you're a faithful devotee of St. Darwin and that's all they really care about), but I'm willing to question you about it. What is your reasoning there? Where are you getting that idea from, Dale? FL

FL said: That's the deal if you're interested. Take it or leave it; makes no difference to me. FL

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: That's the deal if you're interested. Take it or leave it; makes no difference to me. FL

You don’t get to choose the terms. The Dembski and Marks paper; remember? We already know what you will do with a thread by watching your ludicrous fiasco over on AtBC. You crave attention too much to be a Christian. I don’t mud wrestle with creationists. You come up to my level of expertise; and you do it out in the open with a paper where everybody looking on can read and evaluate your understanding at the same time. And you aren’t going to find out what I know about the relationship between science and religion until you can convince everyone here that you are competent enough to evaluate Dembski’s knowledge of science and, by extension, his understanding of the relationship between science and religion. There are no other terms. And, since this has obviously pissed you off, take the rest of your damned taunting over to the Bathroom Wall. Dale asked you some questions which you have also refused to address.

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase. Description of Red Herring A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: Topic A is under discussion. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Topic A is abandoned. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

FL

Some of us read Dembski's novels in the 1990s and realise how bad his arguments are. Hence we can't be bothered to pay money for a new novel when we know he is just repeating his old stuff.

I suggest you give some real arguments for a change

FL said:

One time, FL boasted that he knew the exact location of the Garden of Eden.

Not that difficult, Stanton. We do know the general area (and I did say "general area") where Eden is located.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

In fact, let's go there right now. Simply click on the link and look straight at the green map. Okay, you're there Stanton. That quick. That area. That's that. http://bibleatlas.org/tigris-euphrates_region_.htm FL

FL said:

It has been considerably more than six hours since FL ran away from an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his understanding of Dembski’s science by explaining to us the Dembski and Marks paper.

And btw, it's been considerably more than six hours since I asked Mike if he'd at least read Dembski's book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (IVP 1999), so that he could offer a *considered* response to the very specific comments I offered based on that book. At the time, Mike hadn't read the book, he still hasn't read the book, (and candidly, remains starkly unequipped to discuss any of its science-theology interface issues). So at that time, he brought up the Dembski and Marks paper instead, and tried to challenge me to prove to him that I understood Dembski's "science" in that particular paper. (And that's a paper, as I directly pointed out to him, that did NOT address or even mention the specific issues I was discussing at the time from Dembski's 1999 book. Hey, I know it doesn't, because after all I have a copy of that very paper as well as Dembski's book.) So let me make it clear (again) for Mr. Elzinga. Mike, I won't ever let you get away with trying to duck and change the subject like that. Not with me, and not like that. Nope. If you ain't got the time or inclination to visit a library/bookstore and read/study/understand Dembski's 1999 book, that's fine by me. Just stay away from posts where that book's contents are being discussed; that way you won't appear to be, ummm, outta gas. *** As I said before, Dembski's insights in Chapters 7 and 8 about how God and Jesus actually relate to the scientific enterprise are powerful and compelling. You can actually see how the bridge between science and (Christian) theology works, and it works beautifully. Best of all, Dembski's bridge can be constructed without denying the historicity of ANY of the Scriptures, even though it's not based on YEC or OEC. It's just that powerful and adaptable. I've never seen anything like it. So, apparently angered by such comments, you jumped in, but unable to offer a considered response because you hadn't read the book, you simply tried to change the subject, directly sidestep what I was discussing, and presumptuously dictate your arbitrary rules of engagement to me. Such moves didn't work then. And still won't work now. I have no intention of accomodating that kind of stuff, Mike. Hey, you've worked hard for many years on scientific literacy and expertise, which is mondo honorable. But you're also a flat-out biblical and theological illiterate who's too lazy and drunk on your own disbelief in God, to invest any comparable time in correcting that illiteracy and fully investigating the person of Jesus Christ WRT how he might actually relate to your life, your scientific method, and your natural world. Yeah, I said it. Worst part is, you ain't even in position to deny it. You already know that's where you live. Tell you what though: If you'll make some time to actually read Dembski's book Intelligent Design, and you 'n' me do some talking about what Dembski said in Chapters 7 and 8, THEN, to reciprocate in fairness, we'll go change the subject together and talk about the Dembski and Marks paper as you request. Meet you halfway, yes? That's the deal if you're interested. Take it or leave it; makes no difference to me. This offer is not open to any other poster, just Mr. Elzinga if he wants it. I suggest the ATBC venue (eg, the 'FL debate thread') if said offer is accepted. FL

FL said: And btw Dale, the existence of Eden is NOT dependent on the existence of the global Noahic Flood. Eden came first. FL

Interesting. The Garden of Eden is somewhere near the headwaters of the Tigris and the Euphrates. (The other rivers, I believe, are conjectural.) But it just so happens that this area corresponds with the first known place of cultivation of cereal crops, going back to about 11000 years ago, at the start of the Holocene. The first continuously occupied permanent settlements are roughly contemporaneous and colocated.

Doesn't mean anything, of course. But still, interesting. Did the cultures of Palestine c. 1000 BCE have some notion of where the earliest beginnings of civilisation occurred?

And you aren’t going to find out what I know about the relationship between science and religion until you can convince everyone here that you are competent enough to evaluate Dembski’s knowledge of science and, by extension, his understanding of the relationship between science and religion. There are no other terms.

FL - did Adam have a belly button? Can you prove your answer?

FL said: In fact, let's go there right now. Simply click on the link and look straight at the green map. Okay, you're there Stanton. That quick. That area. That's that. http://bibleatlas.org/tigris-euphrates_region_.htm

FL said: Then we are at a mutually agreed impasse, Mr. Elzinga, because at this point you have some serious demonstrations of literacy to show to ME, before I can take you seriously anymore regarding your alleged knowledge of said relationship. That's the honest truth.

FL said:

And you aren’t going to find out what I know about the relationship between science and religion until you can convince everyone here that you are competent enough to evaluate Dembski’s knowledge of science and, by extension, his understanding of the relationship between science and religion. There are no other terms.

Then we are at a mutually agreed impasse, Mr. Elzinga, because at this point you have some serious demonstrations of literacy to show to ME, before I can take you seriously anymore regarding your alleged knowledge of said relationship. That's the honest truth.

The Offer remains open to you, but only to you. Reminders will be given each time you bring up the Dembski/Marks paper.

You say, "Go to the Bathroom Wall." I say, "Meet me at ATBC." FL

David Fickett-Wilbar said: I see it as the other way round. If there were a literal Adam and Eve who sinned, in what way is that sin imputed to us? It is unjust to make one person suffer for the deeds of another. If, on the other hand, the story is a myth (allegory, if you don't like the word "myth"), then it expressed how in each of us lies the inevitbility of sin. We are all Adam, we are all Eve, we are all faced with the choice. That would be something to be redeemed of, not the actions of someone else 6000 years ago. To make the story of Adam and Eve literal is to strip it of its power and its theological significance.

FL said: It's always good to treat others the way you want to be treated (you're right about that part). Of course, I'll be looking for you to offer that same bit of advice in this forum, whenever your evo-pals stoop to name-calling and personal insult. I know you'll be consistent about it.

FL said: ... because at this point you have some serious demonstrations of literacy to show to ME, ...

You say, “Go to the Bathroom Wall.” I say, “Meet me at ATBC.”

eric said: OTOH makes you look like a narcissistic jackass to come to an evolution/creation discussion website and insist that people read, study, and discuss theology before you will deign to discuss the actual topic of the website.

Dale Husband said:

FL said:

No, it is YOU who is profoundly ignorant about the true nature of the Bible and its contents, or you wouldn’t be calling it the “Word of God”, you blasphemous prick!

And that's another quirky addiction of yours that I've been meaning to ask about, btw. More than once, I've heard you claim that it's somehow, someway, "blasphemy" to refer to the Bible as God's Word. Now your fellow Pandas seem content to let that theological oddity slide, (since after all you're a faithful devotee of St. Darwin and that's all they really care about), but I'm willing to question you about it. What is your reasoning there? Where are you getting that idea from, Dale? FL

Because I think the REAL Creator God of the universe, life, and mankind was nothing like the savage, self-serving, two-faced, bigoted egomaniac we find in the Bible. The Biblical god looks like a ancient king, with flaws like you would find in actual human beings with too much power over others. In short, man created THAT god in his image, not the other way around. No wonder there are so many atheists, when they are given to worship that sort of tyrant and rightfully reject him, as any rational person should! The real God is so beyond our understanding that his nature could never be defined in anything written by man, period. The only way we could ever know anything about this God is to study the actual universe he made. And that is what science does.

FL said:

And you aren’t going to find out what I know about the relationship between science and religion until you can convince everyone here that you are competent enough to evaluate Dembski’s knowledge of science and, by extension, his understanding of the relationship between science and religion. There are no other terms.

Then we are at a mutually agreed impasse, Mr. Elzinga, because at this point you have some serious demonstrations of literacy to show to ME, FL

Is it just me, or does FL seem more genuinely agitated than he does in his usual stirring of the pot? I'm reading an edge of anger that I don't usually see in his writing.

Robin said:

Dale Husband said:

FL said:

No, it is YOU who is profoundly ignorant about the true nature of the Bible and its contents, or you wouldn’t be calling it the “Word of God”, you blasphemous prick!

And that's another quirky addiction of yours that I've been meaning to ask about, btw. More than once, I've heard you claim that it's somehow, someway, "blasphemy" to refer to the Bible as God's Word. Now your fellow Pandas seem content to let that theological oddity slide, (since after all you're a faithful devotee of St. Darwin and that's all they really care about), but I'm willing to question you about it. What is your reasoning there? Where are you getting that idea from, Dale? FL

Because I think the REAL Creator God of the universe, life, and mankind was nothing like the savage, self-serving, two-faced, bigoted egomaniac we find in the Bible. The Biblical god looks like a ancient king, with flaws like you would find in actual human beings with too much power over others. In short, man created THAT god in his image, not the other way around. No wonder there are so many atheists, when they are given to worship that sort of tyrant and rightfully reject him, as any rational person should! The real God is so beyond our understanding that his nature could never be defined in anything written by man, period. The only way we could ever know anything about this God is to study the actual universe he made. And that is what science does.

Well that and the fact that nowhere does the bible actually indicate that it is the word of any god. In point of fact, most of the authors are quite up front about the writing being of their own creation.

darvolution proponentsist said: I was under the impression that ID was not religious and therefore unnecessary to understand it. What does Jesus have to do with any of this ?

On the other hand, I know a great deal about at least one of those topics; and it is none of your damned business what I know about the other.

There are people of various faiths posting here who know far more about science and religion than you do.

FL said: But at the same time, Burnett's compelling, Richard-Bozarth-quality statement about how evolution impacts Christianity, remains completely unrefuted.

Is it just me, or does FL seem more genuinely agitated than he does in his usual stirring of the pot? I’m reading an edge of anger that I don’t usually see in his writing.

Also, would you identify the posts that you believe refuted Burnett's specific point about evolution vis-a-vis Christianity? I'll search the thread too but I don't think it's there.

Last note for a little while: sincere thanks to Dale for explaining his "blasphemy" thing. Am printing off and looking it over.

FL

eric said: I'll tip my hat to the person who can figure out how to expand FL's boycott so that he also refuses to discuss religion until Mike does X.

FL, there is a wonderful venue for you, if you want to discuss the interface between science and religion:
http://biologos.org/

FL said: Also, would you identify the posts that you believe refuted Burnett's specific point about evolution vis-a-vis Christianity? I'll search the thread too but I don't think it's there.

FL said: Last note for a little while: sincere thanks to Dale for explaining his "blasphemy" thing. Am printing off and looking it over. FL

commenting on the ruling.... hooray! the danger in those loons being able to issue degrees in science/ get acceditation (as a science institution) was HUGE - now they can't get federal money (in the form of financial aid to it's students) to turn out preachers posing as teachers - and the degrees they print can't be used as meeting the qualification towards getting a teaching certificate- TEXAS GOT IT RIGHT!

Dipstick said:

Blah, blah, worthless biblical crapola, blah

I swear, you're like the Engergizer Bunny's mentally deficient cousin...

Dale Husband said:

FL said: Also, would you identify the posts that you believe refuted Burnett's specific point about evolution vis-a-vis Christianity? I'll search the thread too but I don't think it's there.

Clue: I wrote one of them.

Fundie Loser said: ...Burnett's compelling, Richard-Bozarth-quality statement about how evolution impacts Christianity, remains completely unrefuted.

SWT said: Is it just me, or does FL seem more genuinely agitated than he does in his usual stirring of the pot? I'm reading an edge of anger that I don't usually see in his writing.

SWT said:

Dale Husband said:

FL said: Also, would you identify the posts that you believe refuted Burnett's specific point about evolution vis-a-vis Christianity? I'll search the thread too but I don't think it's there.

Clue: I wrote one of them.

Actually, yours was not one of the comments I had in mind. FL should look at some of Dave Luckett's and David Fickett-Wilbar's comments.

SWT said:

Dale Husband said:

FL said: Also, would you identify the posts that you believe refuted Burnett's specific point about evolution vis-a-vis Christianity? I'll search the thread too but I don't think it's there.

Clue: I wrote one of them.

Actually, yours was not one of the comments I had in mind. FL should look at some of Dave Luckett's and David Fickett-Wilbar's comments.

It’s really funny how you will quote from an atheist to “prove” your claim that evolution and Christianity are not compatible. Note: Christianity evolved (no pun intended) from Judaism but does not limit itself to ancient Jewish dogmas. And being a Christian is about beleiving in JESUS, not Genesis.

Dale Husband said: My comment on that issue was this: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/09/icr-throws-in-t.html#comment-230545

It’s really funny how you will quote from an atheist to “prove” your claim that evolution and Christianity are not compatible. Note: Christianity evolved (no pun intended) from Judaism but does not limit itself to ancient Jewish dogmas. And being a Christian is about beleiving in JESUS, not Genesis.

SWT said:

Dale Husband said: My comment on that issue was this: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/09/icr-throws-in-t.html#comment-230545

It’s really funny how you will quote from an atheist to “prove” your claim that evolution and Christianity are not compatible. Note: Christianity evolved (no pun intended) from Judaism but does not limit itself to ancient Jewish dogmas. And being a Christian is about beleiving in JESUS, not Genesis.

While I have much sympathy for the paragraph you quoted above, I disagree with the second paragraph of the comment you referenced (not quoted above).

But if we were forced to choose between evolution and Christianity, I am genuinely puzzled as to why anyone would choose Christianity and reject the facts of evolution. The evidence is clear that Christianity is a complete failure as a religion and has been for most of its history. No one needs it.

JASONMITCHELL said: TEXAS GOT IT RIGHT!

Dale Husband said: The history of Christianity, including its fragmentation into THOUSANDS of sects and the many, many atrocities committed by professing Christians, are a matter of public record.

Dale Husband said:

SWT said: While I have much sympathy for the paragraph you quoted above, I disagree with the second paragraph of the comment you referenced (not quoted above).

Oh, you mean this?

Dale Husband said: But if we were forced to choose between evolution and Christianity, I am genuinely puzzled as to why anyone would choose Christianity and reject the facts of evolution.

The evidence is clear that Christianity is a complete failure as a religion and has been for most of its history. No one needs it.

The history of Christianity, including its fragmentation into THOUSANDS of sects and the many, many atrocities committed by professing Christians, are a matter of public record.

FL said: So why are you being so tight-lipped about your knowledge of religion and the science-religion interface?

...someone as perfidious as FL: all he wants to do is to use his faith to manipulate and control people, and he always either leaves, or mocks anyone who point out his obvious lack of logic

Since there were literally no such persons as the obviously mythological Adam and Eve, and thus there was no such thing as Original Sin, and thus death did not enter the world through the actions of Adam and Eve, then humans do not need to be saved from anything - and the whole Christian edifice falls apart - because it is based on a myth: Not truth, not science, just a myth.

My own denomination (PC(USA)) states explicitly that there is no contradiction between evolutionary theory and Christian faith.

FL said: That specific point of Burnett's, is what you guys are unable to refute.

FL said:

...someone as perfidious as FL: all he wants to do is to use his faith to manipulate and control people, and he always either leaves, or mocks anyone who point out his obvious lack of logic

But of course. However, I'm not leaving (though I'm not trying to belabor anything either.) I went back and checked to see if anybody had specifically offered a refutation to Paul Burnett's specific claim:

Since there were literally no such persons as the obviously mythological Adam and Eve, and thus there was no such thing as Original Sin, and thus death did not enter the world through the actions of Adam and Eve, then humans do not need to be saved from anything - and the whole Christian edifice falls apart - because it is based on a myth: Not truth, not science, just a myth.

I've made no attempt to disprove Paul on this one. In fact, I could just simply say, "Paul, you're right" and go home. (Btw, I haven't ignored your other posts, Paul, and I know I could in fact offer a creationist link on Adams's belly button (fwiw) if I google enough. But that's the rub: I could just as easily concede that I wasn't there for Adam's belly button, and Burnett would still have the huge Incompatibility confirmed. That's all I'm needing anyway. That specific point of Burnett's, is what you guys are unable to refute. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, which is why ICR can't afford to give up. FL

But why do alleged supporters of Christianity want to convince people that their religion is inconsistent with accepted evidence-based conclusions about how things work?

The obvious result of doing that successfully would seem contrary to their alleged purpose in making the argument.

Henry J

fnxtr said:

FL said: So why are you being so tight-lipped about your knowledge of religion and the science-religion interface?

Because, again, FL, this is not your church here, and no-one needs to justify or defend their faith or lack of it to you. You are not an authority here, you're just a bag of wind.

FL said: And a quick question for SWT, who said:

My own denomination (PC(USA)) states explicitly that there is no contradiction between evolutionary theory and Christian faith.

That's true, they do say that. So, let me ask you directly...what is the PCUSA's specific refutation to Paul Burnett's powerful point? Have they offered any? FL

SWT said:

The evidence is clear that Christianity is a complete failure as a religion and has been for most of its history. No one needs it.

The number of people who self-identify as Christians suggests that Christianity is quite successful as a religion, as are Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. This doesn't prove that Christianity is "true", only that it's a successful religion using the standards that I think most people would apply to deciding if a movement was "successful" or not.

The history of Christianity, including its fragmentation into THOUSANDS of sects and the many, many atrocities committed by professing Christians, are a matter of public record.

One could just as easily have made the assertion that the history of democracy, including its fragmentation into hundreds of political parties and the many, many evil acts committed by people and nations professing the principles of democracy, are a matter of public record, and assert that democracy is consequently a complete failure. Just as I'm not ready to give up on democracy ("the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried") because of the number of political parties and bad behavior exhibited by some of its proponents, I'm also not ready to give up on Christianity. Individuals and groups, including Christians and the church, often fail to live up to the ideals they profess. The church and its members must stand ready for correction when they fall into error. Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda.

FL said: I went back and checked to see if anybody had specifically offered a refutation to Paul Burnett's specific claim:

Since there were literally no such persons as the obviously mythological Adam and Eve, and thus there was no such thing as Original Sin, and thus death did not enter the world through the actions of Adam and Eve, then humans do not need to be saved from anything - and the whole Christian edifice falls apart - because it is based on a myth: Not truth, not science, just a myth.

That specific point of Burnett's, is what you guys are unable to refute. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, which is why ICR can't afford to give up. FL

FL said: And a quick question for SWT, who said:

My own denomination (PC(USA)) states explicitly that there is no contradiction between evolutionary theory and Christian faith.

That's true, they do say that. So, let me ask you directly...what is the PCUSA's specific refutation to Paul Burnett's powerful point? Have they offered any? FL

Dale Husband said: But in terms of actually living up to what Jesus taught, the track record is dismal indeed.

Since there were literally no such persons as the obviously mythological Adam and Eve, and thus there was no such thing as Original Sin, and thus death did not enter the world through the actions of Adam and Eve, then humans do not need to be saved from anything - and the whole Christian edifice falls apart - because it is based on a myth: Not truth, not science, just a myth.

Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, which is why ICR can’t afford to give up.

eric said:

Dale Husband said: But in terms of actually living up to what Jesus taught, the track record is dismal indeed.

I do not think you can call that a failure of Christianity so much as an expected consequence of ideological evolution. Current Christian theologies are the offspring of the theological variants that prospered. Is a Chihuahua a failed wolf? No - its different of course, but failure isn't really an apt description. Certainly what has not prospered is the "give away all your stuff, be a pacifist, and travel the world preaching barefoot and penniless until you die" version. But it spawned many successful variations. Some people might consider me wicked for applying evolutionary theory to the history of the church. But I can't really think of a better explanation for how it went from "turn the other cheek" to "just war" than to say that Jesus' teaching spawned both pacifist and non-pacifist movements and the latter outcompeted the former.

eric said: Some people might consider me wicked for applying evolutionary theory to the history of the church. But I can't really think of a better explanation for how it went from "turn the other cheek" to "just war" than to say that Jesus' teaching spawned both pacifist and non-pacifist movements and the latter outcompeted the former.

In the US the constitution thing is used as a defense I guess mainly because this country doesn't have national curriculum standards for science classes (unfortunately). Countries that have such standards in place could presumably use that as a defense against this sort of sabotage of the education process.

Eric Finn said: My question: Is the discussion at PT only for Americans ?

The discussions at PT appear to deal with theology more than science.

I do understand that there is "a war" between science and religion in regard to what to teach during science classes in high schools. I do understand that the constitution of the US dictates the separation of state and religion.

Judge Jones (Kitzmiller) stated that the movement known as 'Intelligent Design' is a religious movement and is not science. It may be relevant to state the connection to religion in the court of law, but is it really relevant to state it in a forum like PT?

In fact, religious hypotheses may well be scientific, if testable predictions can be drawn (e.g. effects of prayer).

eric said: Sad, but true. I think most of us would be very happy if the theology component went away.

eric said: Yes, absolutely Jones' ruling is relevant to PT. In the U.S. is it constitutional (not smart, but legally allowed) to teach crap science.

Mike Elzinga said: It also appears to have infected our political system. Much of the nuttiness in our current politics directly reflects the kinds of thinking that goes on in these aggressive sects. And you can see from whom and where it is coming. Look at the DI, AiG and ICR websites for example.

eric said: Yes, absolutely Jones' ruling is relevant to PT. In the U.S. is it constitutional (not smart, but legally allowed) to teach crap science. As long as you have a rational, non religious purpose, that is. But it is not constitutional to teach religion as science. Jones' ruling is important because he said ID is religion. It is therefore illegal to teach as science. If he had merely said "I personally think its crap, but its not necessarily religious," Dover and other districts would have been legally allowed to teach it.

I agree. Hypotheses in science can come from anywhere (bathtub daydreams...sitting under an apple tree...dreams about snakes eating their own tails...even the "acceptable" science myths are pretty crazy).

However, that is not the case with Dover and other situations. They have never presented creation or design as "hypotheses." They misrepresent theory, hypothesis, and fact. They intentionally use language meant to reduce the confidence in the theory of evolution while increasing the students' confidence in their "alternative."

Eric Finn said: By the way, you forgot to mention the misinterpretation of the concept 'evidence'.

It does not take judge Jones to figure this out. Connection to one or more religions is irrelevant in judging the scientific content.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The use of the constitution to ban the truth , conclusions of what is true, and the search for truth in origin subjects in public institutions.

1. This institution isn't public, its private. 2. It can still teach whatever it wants. 3. It can still try for science accreditation in 49 other states. 4. It can still apply for accreditation in other areas. 5. The only thing this court case was about was accreditation for a masters of science degree, in Texas. Its about what counts as a good science education, not anything else, and censorship has nothing to do with it. On the scale of wrongness, your dial seems to have gone to 11.

We do all realize, don't we, that establishing VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION as a legal principle will end the war on drugs?

As in-- "Your honor, it is my client's viewpoint that providing high-quality marijuana at a reasonable price is a service to the community. Interfering with his business is VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION."

Given the incoherence of Byers's posts, it occurs to me that this is exactly what he has in mind. He does seem to be under the influence of some sort of controlled substance.

So Byers thinks that it is not true that you will get the right conclusions if science is done properly. He thinks that it is judges who have decided this. Translation: if you don't get the conclusion I want you haven't done things properly. Well that might have been the way things were done in the dark ages. Apparently Byers is still stuck there.

Of course he is dead wrong about the way that science works. It's all about the process, not just the conclusions. Even the bible states that conclusions are tentative, but the data ye will always have with you. Or at least it should say something like that. Byers has no ideas what the data include, let alone any alternative explanation. His opinion is worthless, even though he doesn't understand why.

FL said:

...someone as perfidious as FL: all he wants to do is to use his faith to manipulate and control people, and he always either leaves, or mocks anyone who point out his obvious lack of logic

But of course. However, I'm not leaving (though I'm not trying to belabor anything either.) I went back and checked to see if anybody had specifically offered a refutation to Paul Burnett's specific claim:

Since there were literally no such persons as the obviously mythological Adam and Eve, and thus there was no such thing as Original Sin, and thus death did not enter the world through the actions of Adam and Eve, then humans do not need to be saved from anything - and the whole Christian edifice falls apart - because it is based on a myth: Not truth, not science, just a myth.

I've made no attempt to disprove Paul on this one. In fact, I could just simply say, "Paul, you're right" and go home. (Btw, I haven't ignored your other posts, Paul, and I know I could in fact offer a creationist link on Adams's belly button (fwiw) if I google enough. But that's the rub: I could just as easily concede that I wasn't there for Adam's belly button, and Burnett would still have the huge Incompatibility confirmed. That's all I'm needing anyway. That specific point of Burnett's, is what you guys are unable to refute. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, which is why ICR can't afford to give up. FL

Robert Byers said:

eric said: On the scale of wrongness, your dial seems to have gone to 11.

Those denying status is public.

it is censorship. It is discrimination viewpoint.

They are saying one can not have a masters course in swcience if the conclusions from the science is wrong.

Its impossible to draw other conclusions then the "right" ones if science is being done properly. Thats what these incompetent judges are saying.

It is all about the conclusions and not about the process (science) to the conclusions.

They aggressively are saying disagreement with evolution equals not understanding or doing scieNce. VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION.

In principle, of course, if the ICR and company were given accreditation for their science degrees, that would not be so far off giving them accreditation for medical degrees.

I am wondering a bit if, should the ICR and its like decided to diversify their coursework into medicine, those would believe in the validity of their instruction would regard the graduates as competent to provide medical care for serious illnesses, perform surgeries, and the like.

I suspect the answer would be generally YES -- but that would have its positive aspects. As the saying goes: "Consider it an example of evolution in action."

mrg said: I suspect the answer would be generally YES -- but that would have its positive aspects. As the saying goes: "Consider it an example of evolution in action."

eric said: I think ICR is already seeing such evolution in action in the legal field. This case (among many others PT has featured) was a great example of what happens when you choose your representation based on ideological purity rather legal competence.

FL said: Well, I obviously don't believe that Christianity is a myth, but you have done an excellent job of spelling out why evolution is incompatible with Christianity. ... It does clearly show why ICR and other Christian organizations (and also the Christian churches) do NOT have the luxury to lay down and die in the face of evolutionist opposition.

From the fifth century BCE philosophers such as Xenophanes and Empedocles had ridiculed taking the stories of the gods and goddesses literally. They viewed them as allegories of human spiritual experience. (The Jesus Mysteries)

This has always been a source of wonderment to me. Not that they would press such cases – but that they would honestly think they have a good chance of winning them.

eric said:

Eric Finn said: By the way, you forgot to mention the misinterpretation of the concept 'evidence'.

Its really late and I've already had several beers. I'll leave that to you. :)

It does not take judge Jones to figure this out. Connection to one or more religions is irrelevant in judging the scientific content.

Right in principle, wrong in practice. Connection to a religion in this case is relevant because it may bear on the question of whether the primary effect is to advance religion, and whether teaching the concept unnecessarily entangles the state with religion. Both are bad.

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The use of the constitution to ban the truth , conclusions of what is true, and the search for truth in origin subjects in public institutions.

1. This institution isn't public, its private. 2. It can still teach whatever it wants. 3. It can still try for science accreditation in 49 other states. 4. It can still apply for accreditation in other areas. 5. The only thing this court case was about was accreditation for a masters of science degree, in Texas. Its about what counts as a good science education, not anything else, and censorship has nothing to do with it. On the scale of wrongness, your dial seems to have gone to 11.

Those denying status is public. it is censorship. It is discrimination viewpoint. They are saying one can not have a masters course in swcience if the conclusions from the science is wrong. Its impossible to draw other conclusions then the "right" ones if science is being done properly. Thats what these incompetent judges are saying. It is all about the conclusions and not about the process (science) to the conclusions. They aggressively are saying disagreement with evolution equals not understanding or doing scieNce. VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION.

Flint said: Why would this surprise you? Creationists, whatever else one might say about them, have one universal characteristic - they are all fully capable of sincerely believing in complete disregard for reality. Without this talent, creationism as we know it simply could not exist.

Eric Finn said: I still feel that your comment is somewhat restricted to the U.S. and her constitution.

Eric Finn said: My question: Is the discussion at PT only for Americans ?

How could I have forgot Pim van Meurs?

It must be age.

MrG said:

henry said: There may a mountain of scientific evidences, but those evidences have to be interpreted and ICR does connect the dots.

Well then, obviously very soon mainstream science will come around. H, I will bet you $50 to nothing that in 2020 that if I contact the geology departments of ten universities highly regarded for their scientific work, and three of them admit the Earth is really a few thousand years old, then I lose and I owe you fifty bucks. If I win, since this is a 50-to-nothing bet, you lose nothing. I'll promise to pay. Is is a bet? If you want to alter the terms, we can discuss it.

How courageous Henry. Now there is a guy with the courage of his misconceptions.

Of course, even if the republitheocrats get their way and their savior Sarah Palin, with the help of her science advisor Ann Coulter, outlaws real science in this country and leads us back to the dark ages and every geology department is forced to be politically correct and distort the facts, it still won't be true. The earth will still be billions of years old. But in that case you would have a lot more to worry about then just the death of science and rationality.

henry said: OK, you have a bet.

Can anyone name one geologist in a geology dept who is YEC , except a college which insists all staff are YEC?

I think I can name one from the 1930s

Michael Roberts said: Can anyone name one geologist in a geology dept who is YEC , except a college which insists all staff are YEC? I think I can name one from the 1930s

It appears to me that we stand committed to an evolutionary philosophy if we do not distinguish clearly between creation and providence. But how then can we explain certain natural phenomena? How can a Christian geologist for instance, explain the earth's strata without Lyell's presupposition? Will he have to return to the old cataclysmic theories of Cuvier and others? Hardly. But upon the basis of Scripture, cataclysms can not be ruled out altogether. In this connection, we may ask: Have Christian biologists and geologists (outside of [George McCready] Price and his associates) taken adequate account of such Biblical and historical facts as the effects of sin and the fall, the peculiar characteristics of the antediluvian period, and the tremendous effects of the deluge?

One of the most probable facts in geology, I believe, is that the earth is close to two billion years old, and I think this can be demonstrated, at least by way of order of magnitude with as much validity as we can demonstrate many of the laws such as conservation of momentum that we meet with as physicists. Unfortunately, historically this is true: Over the last fifty years there have been practically no Christians in the field of geology.

Rich Blinne said:

Michael Roberts said: Can anyone name one geologist in a geology dept who is YEC , except a college which insists all staff are YEC? I think I can name one from the 1930s

Note these two quotes from the ASA in 1949: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1949/JASA6-49Monsma.html

It appears to me that we stand committed to an evolutionary philosophy if we do not distinguish clearly between creation and providence. But how then can we explain certain natural phenomena? How can a Christian geologist for instance, explain the earth's strata without Lyell's presupposition? Will he have to return to the old cataclysmic theories of Cuvier and others? Hardly. But upon the basis of Scripture, cataclysms can not be ruled out altogether. In this connection, we may ask: Have Christian biologists and geologists (outside of [George McCready] Price and his associates) taken adequate account of such Biblical and historical facts as the effects of sin and the fall, the peculiar characteristics of the antediluvian period, and the tremendous effects of the deluge?

and

One of the most probable facts in geology, I believe, is that the earth is close to two billion years old, and I think this can be demonstrated, at least by way of order of magnitude with as much validity as we can demonstrate many of the laws such as conservation of momentum that we meet with as physicists. Unfortunately, historically this is true: Over the last fifty years there have been practically no Christians in the field of geology.

G. M. Price according to his brief autobiography in Vol. I, No. 4 of the Bull. of Flood Geology had two years at Battle Creek College in classics and theology. Later he took a teachers training course at the Normal School in New Brunswick which included some elementary study in natural science. This ended his formal education. The primary proponents of flood geology have been of 7th Day Adventist persuasion and have assumed from their theological tenets that a 6-10,000 year span is required for all life. Price writes in the above Bulletin, "From childhood I had always believed in the Flood and ... I had become convinced of what that book (Patriarchs and Prophets, Mrs. E. G. White 1890) teaches about the Flood as the cause of the chief geological changes." It is evident that he did not approach the subject without a preconceived pattern to which the data must conform. The authors of the articles in the flood geology bulletins include two M.D.'s, one Ph.D. chemist who makes a number of incorrect statements on chemical principles, and the others who list no degrees. The other prominent writer on Flood geology is H. W. Clark who has a master's degree in biology. None of these men have done any geologic field work such as mapping or studying paleontological or structural sequences.

I am reminded of the tale of how a geologist friend of John Whitcomb, Henry Morris's partner in crime, read through a draft of THE GENESIS FLOOD and pleaded with Whitcomb to come over and teach Whitcomb something about geology.

mrg said: I am reminded of the tale of how a geologist friend of John Whitcomb, Henry Morris's partner in crime, read through a draft of THE GENESIS FLOOD and pleaded with Whitcomb to come over and teach Whitcomb something about geology.

I get a kick out of all these pronouncements!

Dembski pronounced that "Darwinism" would be dead in 10 years, and that was 10 years ago! Seems that Dembski, the Alfred E. Neuman of Something missed the Modern Synthesis. I guess they don't teach that at his vacation Bible school.

So, where is the creationist research being done? Name one institution that has a creationist research program. I guess you could point to the Disco Tute's "Bio-Il-Ogic" Institute which has done no research to date, other than a bacteria experiment that demonstrated natural selection. Oops! Seems the results of that experiment were "expelled" by the creationists. Pity.

Where else? Bob Jones University? Nope. Liberty University? Nope. Southwest Baptist Seminary Tire Shop and Daycare Center? Nope. AIG? Nope.

Looks pretty grim for the away team.

Perhaps their only hope is that in one of Hawking's multi-universes that creationism is the dominant force. Imagine a universe based on stupidity. That would be something!

Doc Bill said: Imagine a universe based on stupidity. That would be something!

Doc Bill said: I get a kick out of all these pronouncements! Dembski pronounced that "Darwinism" would be dead in 10 years, and that was 10 years ago! Seems that Dembski, the Alfred E. Neuman of Something missed the Modern Synthesis. I guess they don't teach that at his vacation Bible school. So, where is the creationist research being done? Name one institution that has a creationist research program. I guess you could point to the Disco Tute's "Bio-Il-Ogic" Institute which has done no research to date, other than a bacteria experiment that demonstrated natural selection. Oops! Seems the results of that experiment were "expelled" by the creationists. Pity. Where else? Bob Jones University? Nope. Liberty University? Nope. Southwest Baptist Seminary Tire Shop and Daycare Center? Nope. AIG? Nope. Looks pretty grim for the away team. Perhaps their only hope is that in one of Hawking's multi-universes that creationism is the dominant force. Imagine a universe based on stupidity. That would be something!

Some time last winter President Everest presented to the members of our affiliation a proposal that we publish our estimate of the evolution theory after we have thoroughly studied and discussed the matter and have come to certain definite conclusions. The proposed publication is to appear about ten or eleven years hence, at a time coinciding with the centennial of the publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species." This would give the members of our affiliation ample time to prepare a thoroughly scientific and scholarly work on the Christian approach to this vital and important subject. The suggestion is no doubt an excellent one. There is perhaps no greater need among us than a scholarly Biblical statement of views in regard to evolution.

Exactly, Rich.

Creationists can spend a hundred years, a thousand years or a million years and be no further along than they are today because they are wrong. Simple as that. It's not a matter of money nor time.

Turtles all the way down.

Doc Bill said: Exactly, Rich. Creationists can spend a hundred years, a thousand years or a million years and be no further along than they are today because they are wrong. Simple as that. It's not a matter of money nor time. Turtles all the way down.

The idea of Creationists pounding on for a million years about how the Earth can only be 6,000 years old is ironically amusing.

Stanton said: The idea of Creationists pounding on for a million years about how the Earth can only be 6,000 years old is ironically amusing.

stevaroni said: Creations will see this and crow about how it finally proves creationism, since it shows that it takes intelligence to create a universe in a lab.

Well then, obviously very soon mainstream science will come around.

The Bible describes our ultimate Enemy as "the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan" (Revelation 20:2), who wages war against the saints with his many "ministers" (2 Corinthians 11:15) who do his bidding. What is his primary strategy? To thwart the impact of God's Word. The battle that began in Eden with the deception of Eve and Adam's great sin has continued unabated since the Fall. Forty years ago, the Institute for Creation Research joined the fray to teach believers the message of the Creator and to engage the opposition in defense of the truth. And while the scope and intensity of the battle continue to increase, our commitment to the fight has not diminished.

FL said: And of course, we saw how Iowa State's "mainstream scientists", plus prominent non-scientists like Hector Avalos, behaved when it was time for Dr. Gonzalez to apply for tenure. Pretty intense stuff there, folks. Christians had better believe there was something unseen, something serious, going down behind all that controversy. You know that's true.

... ICR didn't fold up shop, but instead kept going with its mission.

Alas, no. FL is not kidding. He really thinks that there's "spiritual warfare" going on, and he's a "spiritual warrior" and so is Henry Morris and probably Gonzalez as well. He really is that crazy.

He simply cannot comprehend that this is about factual evidence, not mystical battles for souls, and that the factual evidence was accepted by rational people more than a century ago.

That's why he will never discuss the evidence, nor take the first steps towards informing himself about it. He has absolutely no interest at all in it. I suppose he knows it exists, at one level, but it simply doesn't matter to him, and the idea that it should matter has never occurred to him, because it can't. He simply cannot admit the thought.

So he won't engage on the evidence. He can't, but more importantly to him, he regards it as irrelevant. He thinks his internal reality is the only thing that is relevant. The note of frustration which has crept into his discourse is thus explained. People here wish to discuss the evidence, and FL can't for the life of him see why.

Sad.

FL said:

Well then, obviously very soon mainstream science will come around.

No, it won't. Not on its own, anyway. The evolution controversy involves not only scientific debate, but a huge amount of spiritual warfare. Bible-believing Christians don't always talk about it--but it's there. The 800-pound gorilla, as it were.

I'm not trying to be harsh or insulting to evolutionists, but there's no use sugar-coating certain realities, and this is a big one.

Under current conditions in our fallen and broken world, Christians simply can NOT trust "mainstream science" to be fair and evenhanded on some issues (and one might reasonably be advised to ask specifically who gets to define that term "mainstream" in the first place).

That's the real deal, people. You see what's happening. That's why I'm glad to see that ICR didn't fold up shop, but instead kept going with its mission.

FL wrote:

"Under current conditions in our fallen and broken world, Christians simply can NOT trust “mainstream science” to be fair and evenhanded on some issues (and one might reasonably be advised to ask specifically who gets to define that term “mainstream” in the first place)."

Right. The "It's all one big conspiracy against poor oppressed me and I'm the only one who knows the truth" routine. Bullshit.

Perhaps FL could explain to us the motivation that every real scientist has for wanting to hide the truth. Perhaps he could explain how they all got together and agreed on this. Perhaps he could explain why they bother to do experiments and publish the results if it's all one big conspiracy. Perhaps he could explain why scientists of every faith and political persuasion broadly agree on the fundamental issues. Perhaps he could tell us why creationists don't bother to do any research at all if the truth is on their side and they could easily prove all the scientists wrong. "Fallen" has nothing to do with it.

This is projection pure and simple. FL is attributing all of the characteristics of pseudoscience to real science in a vain attempt to claim that his unsubstantiated views are somehow superior to those of real science. Unfortunately for FL, the track record of real science is one of discovery and progress while the track record for creationism is one of stagnation and deceit. That is the way that one distinguishes real science. That is the way that one defines mainstream. It isn't some political buzzword that can be arbitrarily defined. Only a transparent charlatan would even bother to dispute this.

FL said: Under current conditions in our fallen and broken world, Christians simply can NOT trust "mainstream science" to be fair and evenhanded on some issues (and one might reasonably be advised to ask specifically who gets to define that term "mainstream" in the first place).

FL said: The evolution controversy involves not only scientific debate, but a huge amount of spiritual warfare. Bible-believing Christians don't always talk about it--but it's there. The 800-pound gorilla, as it were.

Under current conditions in our fallen and broken world, Christians simply can NOT trust "mainstream science" to be fair and evenhanded on some issues

Pretty intense stuff there, folks. Christians had better believe there was something unseen, something serious, going down behind all that controversy. You know that's true.

You're kidding, right?

"“I don’t think talking behind Guillermo’s back is quite ethical." --ISU physicist Bruce Harmon

Liar. You never pass up an opportunity to insult people who don’t bow down and worship you.

FL said: Not trying to re-hash the Gonzalez debate, but even if you side with those who denied Gonzalez tenure, you can surely see that there were real elements of deceitful, anything-to-stop-Gonzalez behavior going on on the part of Iowa State evolutionists. That intensity that was shown against Gonzalez simply for endorsing a cosmological ID hypothesis, and the clear deceitfulness that was involved in that effort, tells me that this episode wasn't just about science.

Stanton said: If Christians aren't allowed to trust "mainstream science," then why are Christians hypocritically allowed to use products of "mainstream science," like, say, the Internet, computers, or food derived from agriculture?

FL said:

Liar. You never pass up an opportunity to insult people who don’t bow down and worship you.

Ummm, I honestly don't need your worship. However, I do have a weakness for Pop-Tarts. Chocolate Fudge, please. Instead of bowing down, would you please send some Pop-Tart money? Visa and Mastercard accepted. Use Paypal please!! FL

Dave Luckett said: Alas, no. FL is not kidding. He really thinks that there's "spiritual warfare" going on, and he's a "spiritual warrior" and so is Henry Morris and probably Gonzalez as well. He really is that crazy. He simply cannot comprehend that this is about factual evidence, not mystical battles for souls, and that the factual evidence was accepted by rational people more than a century ago. That's why he will never discuss the evidence, nor take the first steps towards informing himself about it. He has absolutely no interest at all in it. I suppose he knows it exists, at one level, but it simply doesn't matter to him, and the idea that it should matter has never occurred to him, because it can't. He simply cannot admit the thought. So he won't engage on the evidence. He can't, but more importantly to him, he regards it as irrelevant. He thinks his internal reality is the only thing that is relevant. The note of frustration which has crept into his discourse is thus explained. People here wish to discuss the evidence, and FL can't for the life of him see why. Sad.

mrg said:

Stanton said: If Christians aren't allowed to trust "mainstream science," then why are Christians hypocritically allowed to use products of "mainstream science," like, say, the Internet, computers, or food derived from agriculture?

That's the GOOD SCIENCE BAD SCIENCE game at work, Stanton: "If science produces cool stuff like computers or vaccines or whatever, that's GOOD SCIENCE. No comment on if we creationists can do anything like that ..." "But if science says something we don't like and can shrug off as guesswork, that's BAD SCIENCE, it's worthless -- and we're every bit as good as it is!" Incidentally, it is worth noting here that antivaxers label vaccines as BAD SCIENCE. Of course there's the other blatant flimflam here. Saying that one doesn't buy evolution is, to a large degree, unobjectionable -- there's no law saying anyone has to believe it, and if one simply says they don't believe it, there's nothing to say in response except that the sciences show otherwise. And that's where the flimflam arises, in saying that the sciences AGREE. Buy evolution or not, whether the sciences are right or not, they flatly say exactly the opposite. It's like saying Mexicans speak French. To claim otherwise demands gross mangling of scientific literature.

Well, hypocrisy and con games are not mutually exclusive concepts.

One of my real difficulties with creationuts is not just that they are playing a con game ... it's such a PATHETIC con game.

mrg said: Saying that one doesn't buy evolution is, to a large degree, unobjectionable -- there's no law saying anyone has to believe it, and if one simply says they don't believe it, there's nothing to say in response except that the sciences show otherwise. And that's where the flimflam arises, in saying that the sciences AGREE. Buy evolution or not, whether the sciences are right or not, they flatly say exactly the opposite. It's like saying Mexicans speak French.

FL wrote:

"That intensity that was shown against Gonzalez simply for endorsing a cosmological ID hypothesis, and the clear deceitfulness that was involved in that effort, tells me that this episode wasn’t just about science."

Pot meet kettle. By his own criteria, FL condemns all creationists as charlatans and hucksters.

DS said:

FL wrote: "That intensity that was shown against Gonzalez simply for endorsing a cosmological ID hypothesis, and the clear deceitfulness that was involved in that effort, tells me that this episode wasn’t just about science."

Pot meet kettle. By his own criteria, FL condemns all creationists as charlatans and hucksters.

mrg said: Well, hypocrisy and con games are not mutually exclusive concepts.

One of my real difficulties with creationuts is not just that they are playing a con game ... it's such a PATHETIC con game.

Stanton said: True, one can be a hypocrite without being a con artist, but ...

FL hasn't responded to my questions either - I feel like a regular member of the PT family now

Hey FL - since you haven't responded should we assume that you agree that :
“Evolution is incompatible with Christianity”

is bullshit?
that you agree that you are a liar?

Evolution (and reality) is incompatible with the particular sectarian version of “Christianity” that you (FL) and others like you claim as you religion. You are being misleading (lying) when you make such a claim [that Christianity and Evolutiohn are incompatible] ON the contrary,the Roman Catholic Church, PC (USA), and many other Christian denominations and sects have been able to reconcile their faith and science/reality/evolution.

Are all those others not really Christians FL? how are you defining “Christian” and “Christianity”? It seems that based upon MANY of your posts, you believe that someone who is not a Biblical Literalist isn’t a “real Christian”.

Are Catholics Christians FL?

Is the Pope John Paul II in Hell now because of his stance on the compatibility of Evolution and Faith /Christianity/Catholicism?

It has been days since I posted these questions to FL, by his own criteria, since he hasn't refuted my claims we should assume he agrees with them. Therefore by his own "logic" FL admits that he bears false witness

I find you to be such an odious, disgustingly untrustworthy example of a human being that I wouldn’t give you pocket lint if your worthless life depended on it, nor would I bother to spit in your direction if you were on fire.

(FL) simply cannot comprehend that this is about factual evidence, not mystical battles for souls...

"Even if ALL the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." -- Dr. Scott Todd, KSU

Aw, come on, guys! FL's been around for years with the same MO.

FL spouts insanity.

Intelligent people respond intelligently.

FL ducks questions and spouts insanity, and the cycle continues. About all FL is good for is generating 200 comments on a thread worth only 30. Nice job, FL, you may have found your calling after all!

FL said:

I find you to be such an odious, disgustingly untrustworthy example of a human being that I wouldn’t give you pocket lint if your worthless life depended on it, nor would I bother to spit in your direction if you were on fire.

Sheesh! How can Chocolate Fudge Pop-Tarts make people so angry? (Must be an off-brand or something!!) ***

(FL) simply cannot comprehend that this is about factual evidence, not mystical battles for souls...

Oh, there will always be that "factual evidence" aspect. Biblical Christianity says "Test all things, hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thessalonians). Therefore the scientific method, and the ongoing search for factual evidence, happens to be right up OUR alley. But, we all bring presuppositions to the science table. And that's where your current religious/theological beliefs come in. For if you've already signed up with the employment agency Beel Z. Bubb, Inc. (and some of you definitely have!), your presuppositions are going to definitely be biased in favor materialistic evolution and not divine creation (or even intelligent design) when you examine the scientific evidence on the table. Here's a good example, btw:

"Even if ALL the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." -- Dr. Scott Todd, KSU

Now look at that mess. Some of y'all think Todd's statement is "science", when it fact it's nothing but "scratch" -- OLD SCRATCH!!! *** So while we all want to deal in factual evidence, there's still that matter of presuppositions. Meanwhile, you've collectively taught others, even taught sincere Christians, to allow the evolution religion to cast severe doubt on the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself. You got 'em disbelieving their own Bibles, of all things. Yeah, there's more than science going on there. And yes, evolution IS your religion. You know how I know? Because you wouldn't give up evolution even if Darwin himself rose outta Hell, bought you a cheeseburger (that he spit on when you weren't looking), pointed out exactly where on earth to locate rabbit fossils in Precambrian Rocks, and said with a grin, "Macroevolution is falsified dude!!!" *** Now, wouldn't you agree...? FL

Doc Bill is correct. May I suggest that we stop feeding the FL troll?

FL said:

Well then, obviously very soon mainstream science will come around.

No, it won't. Not on its own, anyway. The evolution controversy involves not only scientific debate, but a huge amount of spiritual warfare. Bible-believing Christians don't always talk about it--but it's there. The 800-pound gorilla, as it were. I'm not trying to be harsh or insulting to evolutionists, but there's no use sugar-coating certain realities, and this is a big one. Under current conditions in our fallen and broken world, Christians simply can NOT trust "mainstream science" to be fair and evenhanded on some issues (and one might reasonably be advised to ask specifically who gets to define that term "mainstream" in the first place). One recalls how when Dr. Gonzalez's educational film "The Privileged Planet" passed the reviewers at the Smithsonian Institution and was scheduled for showing, the Smithies were subsequently forced by evolutionists to withdraw the traditional Smithsonian endorsement that accompanies the showing of their movies (even though the Privilged Planet film was shown at the Institution anyway). And of course, we saw how Iowa State's "mainstream scientists", plus prominent non-scientists like Hector Avalos, behaved when it was time for Dr. Gonzalez to apply for tenure. Pretty intense stuff there, folks. Christians had better believe there was something unseen, something serious, going down behind all that controversy. You know that's true. In fact, Morris's ICR article that is the subject of this very thread, makes this spiritual warfare aspect quite clear.

The Bible describes our ultimate Enemy as "the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan" (Revelation 20:2), who wages war against the saints with his many "ministers" (2 Corinthians 11:15) who do his bidding. What is his primary strategy? To thwart the impact of God's Word. The battle that began in Eden with the deception of Eve and Adam's great sin has continued unabated since the Fall. Forty years ago, the Institute for Creation Research joined the fray to teach believers the message of the Creator and to engage the opposition in defense of the truth. And while the scope and intensity of the battle continue to increase, our commitment to the fight has not diminished.

That's the real deal, people. You see what's happening. That's why I'm glad to see that ICR didn't fold up shop, but instead kept going with its mission. FL

Matt Young said: Doc Bill is correct. May I suggest that we stop feeding the FL troll?

Dale Husband said:

Matt Young said: Doc Bill is correct. May I suggest that we stop feeding the FL troll?

Good idea. Why not ban him completely? And Robert Byers and any other delusional lying bigot who can't deal with reality.

D. P. Robin said:

Dale Husband said:

Matt Young said: Doc Bill is correct. May I suggest that we stop feeding the FL troll?

Good idea. Why not ban him completely? And Robert Byers and any other delusional lying bigot who can't deal with reality.

Barring that, how about moderators who can remove to the BW posts that are off topic or hijack threads/ dpr

Barring that, how about moderators who can remove to the BW posts that are off topic or hijack threads[?]

While I am not a fan of the Banninator, as used by Dembski's moronic moderators over at Uncommon Insanity, there comes a point where an individual promotes the same old story and arguments over and over and over. Famous examples are FL, Byers, Davison, Bilbo, and others we know so well.

In this community there are so many people who are willing and able to discuss science and correct creationist nonsense, we never the less get to a point of diminishing returns when we ONCE AGAIN demonstrate the invalidity of a worldwide flood, the inanity of Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, signatures in the cell, the Mousetrap, etc that we should say that these topics have been dealt with and if a poster has new information to consider we'll do that. Otherwise, FL, your voice has been heard and I suggest you invest in a tape recorder if you want to hear it more.

p.s. FL, in case you respond to this, in advance, I don't care.

Dale Husband said:

FL said: I went back and checked to see if anybody had specifically offered a refutation to Paul Burnett's specific claim:

Since there were literally no such persons as the obviously mythological Adam and Eve, and thus there was no such thing as Original Sin, and thus death did not enter the world through the actions of Adam and Eve, then humans do not need to be saved from anything - and the whole Christian edifice falls apart - because it is based on a myth: Not truth, not science, just a myth.

That specific point of Burnett's, is what you guys are unable to refute. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, which is why ICR can't afford to give up. FL

No, because the ICR is run by bigoted @$$holes like you, FL.

FL said: And a quick question for SWT, who said:

My own denomination (PC(USA)) states explicitly that there is no contradiction between evolutionary theory and Christian faith.

That's true, they do say that. So, let me ask you directly...what is the PCUSA's specific refutation to Paul Burnett's powerful point? Have they offered any? FL

I have my own question for you, FL. Why are you and others like you so hung up on Creationist dogmas, anyway? Indeed, why should any Christians care about what is written in JEWISH scriptures (including the book of Genesis). Since the focus of the Gospel is supposed to be what Jesus did and taught, Genesis is irrelvant. If Genesis is indeed that important, why follow Jesus at all? Just become Jewish and be done with it.

henry said: Jesus quoted from Genesis as well as from Deuteronomy, Jonah, the Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, etc. It seems to me that He had the highest regard for the Old Testament so we should as well. Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female

Oclarki said:

henry said: I think the creation scientists can only do so much so they have to quote from other scientists, especially if the data supports a young earth or creation. There may a mountain of scientific evidences, but those evidences have to be interpreted and ICR does connect the dots.

It seems that your long list of regurgitated "references" actually includes at least two that are a wee bit more than mere quotes of other papers. References 3 and 6 are to "papers" authored by ICR scientists that discuss those scientists' actual experiments on the accuracy of the K/Ar dating technique. To a creationist, those studies sound really, really convincing...after all, they are by creationist scientists and so must reflect the "truth", right? Alas not. In both cases, the authors submitted samples for K/Ar age determination to a laboratory that could not actually provide accurate dates for samples so young. That violates one of the primary rules of sample analyses: to provide meaningful and useable results, the lab selected for the analyses absolutely must be capable of accurate measurements at the levels of interest for the specific samples. All that the ICR "studies" can do is tell us what we already knew: the specific analytical technique as performed by the specific lab is not capable of accurate age determinations for samples younger than the lab's stated limit. Not very profound, really, and certainly not suportive of a claim that radiometric dating techniques are universally inaccurate. And more importantly, if those authors do not understand the importance of using appropriate analytical methodologies, why should anyone accept their explanations of the data obtained from those methodologies?

Stanton said:

FL said: So in the end, ICR is a winner. Not because of how they lost the accreditation battle, but because of how they bounced back afterwards. FL

The ICR wanted to get accreditation to have the authority to give out science degrees in Texas, and they were told by a judge that the law of the land forbids them from doing so. Now they are opting to give out degrees in Christian apologetics. Only a lying idiot like you, FL, would say that the ICR victoriously bounced back. Any sane person with a halfounce of common sense would see that the ICR failed miserably, especially given as how there is so much that can be accomplished with science degrees, versus so abominably little that can be accomplished with a degree in Christian apologetics.

henry said: If the US should become like Europe, we will face a dismal future. With declining white populations and growing Moslem populations, Europe will eventually have Moslem majorities and can easily implement Sharia law and it's good bye personal freedoms. The victory of the secularists in Europe will be short lived. They've taken their Christian heritage for granted.

henry, I would suggest you be forcibly deported move to some remote part of the globe where there would be enough lily-white Nordics to support you, but, thanks to globalization, there would, no doubt, be too many evil colored people to offend your racist and bigoted sensibilities. It's also ironic, in a fucked up sort of way, that creationists, especially FL, whoop and holler about how Evolutionary Biology is allegedly the source of all racism, contrary to the fact that Evolutionary Biology is virtually never used as an excuse for racism. Furthermore, virtually all of the racist organizations of the world, such as the Aryan Nation, Klu Klux Klan, Nation of Islam, or the Nazi Party, oppose Evolutionary Biology for two main reasons: 1) Evolutionary Biology contradicts a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis and whatever other favorite holybook and 2) All of the members of these organizations find the very idea that they are closely related to different ethnic groups, especially those ethnic groups they find to be anathema, to be an unforgivable, and demeaning blood insult. I mean, it's impossible to think that a Nazi officer, or an Al Qaeda terrorist to be evolutionary fanatics if they find the idea of being related to a chimpanzee to be as insulting as the idea that they are related to a Jew.

No, dummy, he's saying that the samples were too young for the radiometric techniques requested, and therefore they yielded erroneous results. The ICR knew they would. The whole thing was a set-up.

Here's a footrule. I want you to use it to tell me the distance from New York to Los Angeles by measuring it on this accurate map (with an appropriate projection) of a known scale. Could you do it?

Sure you could. You'd be accurate, if you were careful, to the limits imposed by your eyes, the footrule, and the map. Would you be accurate to the foot? To the inch? To the micron? Good grief, no. You can't be - you'd fall foul of definitions, for a start. Where does New York start? Even better, LA?

But the answer you'd get would be close, if you were careful, and did the sums right. You'd get about 3000 miles, not ten and a half inches.

That's what radiometric dating is like, so long as the task is appropriate for it. You get something close to the right answer.

Now I want you to use the same footrule to measure the distance from here to Mars. Can you do it? No - and part of the reason is that the distance from here to Mars varies, so a set figure, no matter how it's arrived at, isn't a measurement.

So that technique isn't appropriate for the task. If it yields any results at all, those results will be wrong. That's what's happened when ICR attempted this "experiment". It was, in fact, a primitive "gotcha" based on a deception - the deception being that the samples were appropriate for the procedure requested, when they were not.

And here was I thinking that Bible-believing Christians would have a problem with deception and falsehood.

henry said:

If the US should become like Europe, we will face a dismal future. With declining white populations and growing Moslem populations, Europe will eventually have Moslem majorities and can easily implement Sharia law and it’s good bye personal freedoms. The victory of the secularists in Europe will be short lived. They’ve taken their Christian heritage for granted.

Then he claims:

You're assuming I'm white--I am not.

Dale Husband said: What are you then, just a non-white person who hates Muslims? Have you ever been to Turkey, a mostly Muslim country with a SECULAR government?

henry said: Are you saying the radiometric dating couldn't be used on the stated lava flows because they were known exactly when they occurred in human history?

Oclarki said:

henry said: Are you saying the radiometric dating couldn't be used on the stated lava flows because they were known exactly when they occurred in human history?

No, what I am saying is that the laboratory selected for the analytical work by your creationist "scientists" could not provide accurate K/Ar age determinations for the samples submitted by those creationists because the samples were too young for the lab's analytical equipment and methodology. In other words, your creationist "scientists" used the wrong lab if their intent was to truly determine the accuracy of the K/Ar technique using the samples they collected. Of course, those "scientists" also should have known about the lab's capabilities before sending in the samples, and should have addressed those capabilities explicitely in their reports. That they did not strongly suggests that they either had no clue about the link between laboratory capability, laboratory performance, and analytical results or that they simply did not care. In either case, those data are entirely worthless.

henry said: Here are the references in the third reference of Dr. Snelling's article.

henry said: If your claim of improper use of the equipment by Creation scientists is true, what about other scientists coming to the same conclusions?

Mr. henry's implication that a paper must be scientific because it has a long list of references (whether or not they support its conclusions) reminds me of this exchange shortly after Star Wars came out: A youngish child told his mother that the music to Star Wars was classical music. Why? Because it had a lot of violins. I am afraid that Mr. henry's reasoning is about the same - a reasonable deduction perhaps for a 10-year-old.

Oclarki said:

henry said: If your claim of improper use of the equipment by Creation scientists is true, what about other scientists coming to the same conclusions?

What was improper in the "studies" conducted by both Snelling and Austin was not just the "equipment" they used. It was that they specified the wrong analytical technique for their samples and used a lab that was not capable of providing accurate measurements for samples so young. It does not really matter how many "citations" you regurgitate. It was entirely inappropriate for Snelling and Austin to submit their samples to a lab wghose stated minimum effective age for the K/Ar technique was 2 million years. That is like submitting a water sample that needs to be characterized at the parts-per-billion level to a lab that can only quantify the chemicals of interest at the parts-per-million level. In other words, worthless.

Here are the references in the third reference of Dr. Snelling’s article.

Are we supposed to be impressed?

Show of hands – is there one person, ONE person out there, who honestly believes that Snelling is doing anything more than piling up citations from articles containing items that he has cherry-picked?

What actually might be impressive is a list of citations of Snelling’s ICR papers in scientific journals – y’know, real ones – as anything except a joke and a bad example.

henry said: The point of Snelling's article is not only is the technique unreliable for recent, known lava flows, it is unreliable for anything on earth, since nothing is millions of years old. He included publications such as Nature and Science. Are these peer reviewed publications that shouldn't have published the studies of scientists simply because they call into question the reliable of this technique? Are you discounting the work of these other scientists?