Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Young Earth Creationism (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Young Earth Creationism
millernumber1
Member
Member # 9894

 - posted      Profile for millernumber1   Email millernumber1         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not trying to pull anything. Just trying to point out prejudice that's being presented as argument.
Posts: 331 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by millernumber1:
I'm not trying to pull anything. Just trying to point out prejudice that's being presented as argument.

Yes, Prejudice is being presented as argument. So the question is, why do you keep doing it? I presents a long list of historical facts, and pointed out indisputable flaws in the reasoning.

As to talking to Young Earthers, you can't have a rational conversation with irrational people.

You have no foundation for any of your arguments besides befuddled logic, rationalization, circular logic, and a long list of other flawed irrational reasoning.

People have been in the USA (N.America) for over 15,000 years. That's a pretty neat trick when the world is only 6,000 years old. There are artifacts, building and similar, that date back more than 6,000 years.

Worldwide, the scientific consensus from multiple disciplines, all agree, the earth is about 13.8 billion years old.

You hold the position you hold not based on logic or information, rather you hold it because you are trying to justify bronze age writing that are not themselves chronologically consistent. And to make the facts fit your believe, you will use any twisted logic necessary. Self-fulfilling prophecy, you don't believe the facts, you make the 'facts' fit your beliefs.

Now, you can certainly believe what you will and what you want, but I repeat, just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

Here is the test of your failed belief. When new information becomes available, science updates it beliefs to fit the fact. There is no set of facts or knowledge that will sway you from you irrational belief.

Sorry to be so harsh, but ill-reason and irrational logic and just plain ignorance can drive anyone up the wall.

The best you have is pseudo-science and pseudo-logic.

"The scientific consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines that the universe has existed for around 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago.[6]"

Read it an weep.

Steve/bluewizard

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree with YEC, but man, that was a terrible post.

Setting aside readability errors, you also get aggressive and then try to play it off that bad logic and ignorance can "drive anyone up a wall." No. You chose to get driven "up a wall" yourself. You could have posted in a different way, and you chose not to. Take responsibility for your behavior.

Then there's all the appeals to authority. Don't just say there's a consensus and "read it an[sic] weep." Explain why he's wrong. Actually provide data and details, not this bombastic "I'm right and you're an idiot" bullshit.

Or alternatively, actually ask what he thinks. Try to understand his view, then tell him what's wrong with it. If you're not willing to spend that much effort, why engage at all? What's the point? Just to make yourself feel smarter, or what?

Posts: 3494 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Explain why he is wrong?

Perhaps you missed this part of my post.

"The scientific consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines that the universe has existed for around 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago.[6]"

I have the entire consensus of the Scientific community on my side - thousands of researchers and scholars, countless verifiable artifacts, multiple countries, multiple scientific disciplines, all in consensus.

They have one chronologically flawed book written 3,000 years ago, and interpreted by people with a self-serving agenda.

So ...no... I don't have to be nice when dealing with naughty children.

Steve/bluewizard

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't have to be nice when dealing with naughty children.
Yes, Steve, you do. It is not your job to enforce intellectual honesty on the Internet.
Posts: 36782 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're confusing an argument from authority with an explanation. A consensus can be wrong, it really doesn't matter how big it is. There has been a significant scientific consensus on all sorts of wrong and terrible ideas in the past.

Again, I don't think that's the case with regards to carbon dating and the age of the world. But that's irrelevant. Here's what I'm asking: do you understand and agree with the explanations that led to the consensus?

If so, post those explanations. If not, why do you agree? And why do you agree so vehemently that you are willing to attack people who disagree? You should understand the arguments before you jump into a discussion like this.

Posts: 3494 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlueWizard:
Well, Sex-Whores trades Sex for Money.

A God-Whore trades God for Money, a particular game that has been going on for Centuries. However, the modern world has raised this grifter scam to a high art form with Televangelists.

okay, but whatever you are talking about with these 'god-whores' isn't really not endemic to faith in general. televangelists were just lurid in their particular methodology for monetizing our desire and psychological predispositions for accepting a comforting truth about the universe and our own deaths. they're hardly the ultimate practitioner by a long shot. they're just easy to point to and make a spectacle out of in terms of how baldly they are making a business out of people's irrationality.
Posts: 13219 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by BlueWizard:
Well, Sex-Whores trades Sex for Money.

A God-Whore trades God for Money, ...



okay, but whatever you are talking about with these 'god-whores' isn't really not endemic to faith in general. ...
Religious organizations are by their very nature corrupt. They are about money and power, bought and sold in the guise of comfort, dressed up in the cloak of faith.

The Catholic Church is guilty of countless crimes against humanity in both the ancient and modern world. They take in $billions every year, they have untold wealth in a long history of art treasures they looted from around the world.

Every time they need money, they scam up some new way in which the masses must pay them ... or else. And when the money scam dries up, God magically changes his mind, and it isn't needed any more.

The Mormons are little better, when you consider the Mountain Meadows Massacre. (look it up)

Martin Luther did all his best writing when he was a poor monk. But when he became famous, and grew fat living with Kings, he turned his back on the poor who were espousing the very philosophy that Luther created. As a result of Luther's in inaction and indifference 100,000 peasants were slaughtered.

Are their good religious PEOPLE - Yes, absolutely. Some of them are in my family. Are there good, or at least better, religions? Absolutely, Quakers and Amish come to mind.

It is one thing to take comfort and guidance from religion, it is quite another to take it literally.

But for the systematic fleecing of people, nothing ever invented in the history of mankind has ever equaled the whole sale fleecing by organized religion.

Now, in every bad organization, there are a few good apples. But they act as individuals. The organizations themselves are, have been, and always will be corrupt money grubbing institutions. The massive money they take in makes pale the small good that they do.

I'm not against religion on the level of the individual. If they gain comfort and guidance from it, more power to them. But you will never persuade me that the Organizations are anything but corrupt, as they have been for Centuries.

And you will never convince me that the pseudo-Christians who buy and sell the name of God for money and power are anything but tools of the devil.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

Steve/bluewizard

[ November 07, 2013, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
... A consensus can be wrong, it really doesn't matter how big it is. ...

Consensus is wrong when it clings to Ideology in the face of evidence to the contrary, or when it simply refuses to hear evidence that does not fit its mind set.


And that is precisely what religion does, it clings blindly to ideology, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In the ancient and not so ancient past, religions and science where linked. The idea that the Earth was a sphere floating in space was based on real evidence, and suppressed by the Church until the evidence became so massively overwhelming, the Church had to agree to save face.

Atomic Theory - Democritus - 5th Century BC - an idea lost for 2,000 years.

Earth is a Sphere - Eratosthenes - 3rd Century BC - Measure the earth's circumference with amazing accuracy considering he was using nothing but a stick in the ground.

Copernican System - 1543 AD - The Sun is the center and the Earth travels around it.

Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion - 1610 AD

Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies - Galileo's Concept of the Solar System - 1632

What is the one thing that suppressed all this Scientific Facts? Answer: Religion.

And why? Because knowledge threatens power.

Make of it what you will.

Steve/bluewizard

[ November 07, 2013, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Blue Wiz, that's too easy.

Science is good/Religion is Evil is just another dichotomy, a reversal of Religion is Good, Secular is Evil that the worst of those claiming faith as their justification use to commit crimes.

Beware the false dichotomy.

All dichotomies are false.

Religion and people of faith have done wonderful things both in the ancient past, and the present. They have helped make wars, but they have helped make hospitals. They have supported terrible dictators but they have fed and clothed the poor when none others dared. For every Cardinal Richelieu there have been Mother Theresas. For every false saint there have been true.

You are a man of science, so investigate and study people of faith. Take a true unbiased sample and you'll discover that most of them are good people. Even the Young Earth Believers, though misguided, are mostly good people.

They are people like us all, atheists or secular, faith filled or spiritual. Some are good, and some are not.

If you mark them all as treacherous our naive you do them an injustice.

Now as far as Biblical Literalists vs Science--remember, according to those of Faith, God created two things. God created reality, and God created the Bible. One of these he created first hand with is perfect hands, and one he created through the imperfect hands and minds of men. When our understanding of these two creations seem to be in conflict we must decide which is correct--the perfect creation we can all witness and the universal language of math that allows us to decipher it, or the words written in long dead languages, where we imperfect humans have evolved our languages away from what was written so long ago.

Posts: 1794 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I made it clear that m criticism fell on the corporate end of Religion, not on the personal end. Yes, people can be good or corrupt, but corporations, like religion, are inherently bad. They serve there own end above all else.

Yes, religions do a few good things to maintain their credibility, and the people for whom that good was done are grateful, assuming it truly was good.

But the magnitude of that good pales compared to the $Billions they collect.

Religion has always put on a good show, but that's all it has even been, a show to keep the people in line and the money flowing, and to maintain their grasp on power.

Religion has opposed every advancement in science across a massive span of history. They have opposed true in favor of Dogma. The previous Pope, not the current one, when he was younger defended the Church saying there were right to try and oppress Galileo, simply because Galileo opposed the power of the Church. This wasn't about true or right, this was about holding on to power. And this was a Pope 500 years after the fact. Still trying to hold on to false virtue, to false morality, to false authority.

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
millernumber1
Member
Member # 9894

 - posted      Profile for millernumber1   Email millernumber1         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So scientists who work for corporations manage to avoid all this badness in all their views?
Posts: 331 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A large part of the problem is the determined effort to misrepresent the Creationist position, and especially the Young Earth, Young Universe position, along with false claims that evidence for evolution and vast ages of the universe is "overwhelming." This is propaganda and is absolutely untrue.

Here is an article setting forth 14 scientific evidences for a young physical earth and/or universe, measured in thousands, rather than millions or billions of years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
Evidence for a Young World
by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics
First published in Impact #384, ICR, June 2005

______________________

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old....The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.

2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals. 23, 24

10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31

14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.31

References
1. Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–353, 401–413.
2. D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, Inner spiral structure of the galaxy M51, Nature 364:313–315 (July 22, 1993).
3. Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175–184, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.
4. Steidl, P. F., Planets, comets, and asteroids, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73-106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), order from http://www.creationresearch.org/.
5. Whipple, F. L., Background of modern comet theory, Nature 263:15–19 (2 September 1976). Levison, H. F. et al. See also: The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296:2212–2215 (21 June 2002).
6. Milliman, John D. and James P. M. Syvitski, Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers, The Journal of Geology, vol. 100, pp. 525–544 (1992).
7. Hay, W. W., et al., Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B12):14,933–14,940 (10 December 1988).
8. Meybeck, M., Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans, Revue de Géologie Dynamique et de Géographie Physique 21(3):215 (1979).
9. Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 43:767–779 (1979).
10. Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 17–33, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.
11. Nevins, S., [Austin, S. A.], Evolution: the oceans say no!, Impact No. 8 (Nov. 1973) Institute for Creation Research.
12. Humphreys, D. R., The earth’s magnetic field is still losing energy, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 39(1):3–13, June 2002. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm.
13. Humphreys, D. R., Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 113–126, out of print but contact http://www.creationicc.org/ for help in locating copies.
14. Coe, R. S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374:687–92 (20 April 1995).
15. Humphreys, D. R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 129–142, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.
16. Austin, S. A. and J. D. Morris, Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 3–15, out of print, contact http://www.creationicc.org/ for help in locating copies.
17. Gibbons A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279:28–29 (2 January 1998).
18. Cherfas, J., Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354–1356 (20 September 1991). Cano, R. J., H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature 363:536–8 (10 June 1993). Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Pääbo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19–30 (Jul 11, 1997). Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature’s ancient secrets, Nature 413:358–359 (27 September 2001).
19. Vreeland, R. H.,W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers, Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407:897–900 (19 October 2000).
20. Schweitzer, M., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science 207:1952–1955 (25 March 2005).
21. Gentry, R. V., Radioactive halos, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23:347–362 (1973).
22. Gentry, R. V. , W. H. Christie, D. H. Smith, J. F. Emery, S. A. Reynolds, R. Walker, S. S. Christy, and P. A. Gentry, Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification, Science 194:315–318 (15 October 1976).
23. Gentry, R. V., Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective, Science 184:62–66 (5 April 1974).
24. Snelling, A. A. and M. H. Armitage, Radiohalos—a tale of three granitic plutons, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 243–267, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.
25. Gentry, R. V., G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste containment, Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129–1130 (October 1982).
26. Humphreys, D. R, et al., Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1):1–16 (June 2004). See archived article on following page of the CRS website: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm.
27. Baumgardner, J. R., et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127–142. Archived at http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html.
28. McDougall, I., F. H. Brown, and J. G. Fleagle, Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia, Nature 433(7027):733–736 (17 February 2005).
29. Deevey, E. S., The human population, Scientific American 203:194–204 (September 1960).
30. Marshack, A., Exploring the mind of Ice Age man, National Geographic 147:64–89 (January 1975).
31. Dritt, J. O., Man’s earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 73–78, order from http://www.creationicc.org/.

Additional resources for items 9–11.
• DeYoung, D., Thousands … Not Billions, Master Books (2005) Green Forest, AR.
• Vardiman, L., Snelling, A. A., and Chaffin E. F., editors, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society (2005) El Cajon, CA and Chino Valley, AZ. (Technical).

Posts: 3573 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It should be added that there are situations where the speed of light constant may be different. E=MC² represents what is involved in the conversion of matter to energy, which happens during nuclear decay. In that equation, C represents the speed of light in a vacuum. It has been found in the laboratory that radioactive isotopes, when heated to the plasma state, may have their rate of radioactive decay multiplied billions of times. In the case of lutetium, the rate of decay is actually increased trillions of times. Now, was not all matter in the universe in a plasma state for the first instant of Creation? Is it not likely that at the very moment of creation of the universe, God may have allowed the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum to be very different from what it is now? Materialists talk about a "Big Bang," in an effort to mock Creation. (But what they propose is even more absurd, the idea that without God, in the beginning was nothing, and then nothing exploded and became the ordered universe.) But Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; and numerous other texts say God "stretched out the heavens."

The Creator in Genesis 1 is also shown to desire that the universe be a place of light, not a place of darkness, waiting billions of years for light from distant stars and galaxies to arrive at earth. Thus if we are willing to see the reasonableness of taking into account the testimony of the One who created the universe, we should take due note of His announced purpose.

If the only light from distant stars and galaxies that we can see is that which has been travelling for billions of years to reach us, then why don’t we see some sections of space where there is only blackness, and then later more and more stars and galaxies gradually appear, as the light from them is just now reaching us? We may increase the resolving power of our telescopes, but no one has ever reported reaching the limit of how distant stars and galaxies must be for their light to just now be reaching earth. This would seem like a very fundamental problem for the position that the universe is vastly old, and the light we see from distant stellar objects is only that which has been travelling for billions of years to reach us.

We must not say that the universe has always existed. If we said that, we would be denying that God created the universe. Since God did create the universe, there has to be a beginning point for the universe. But was it billions of years ago, or at most only 12,000? Moreover, since we believe that God did create the universe, that means that God created both space and time when He created the universe. Now here is where it is a little tricky: There can be no "before" God created time, because "before" implies time, and time did not exist before God created it.

Posts: 3573 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't feel like taking the time to blow holes in all of that but I will take a moment for 14. Yes the oldest known writing of language is only about 5-6k years old but numbers have been written long before that. Tally sticks have been found over 40k years old.
Posts: 604 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
It should be added that there are situations where the speed of light constant may be different. E=MC² represents what is involved in the conversion of matter to energy, which happens during nuclear decay. In that equation, C represents the speed of light in a vacuum. It has been found in the laboratory that radioactive isotopes, when heated to the plasma state, may have their rate of radioactive decay multiplied billions of times. In the case of lutetium, the rate of decay is actually increased trillions of times.

Rate of decay is not the same as speed of light. That's like saying because there are ten cars doing 60mph on the highway, they should all get tickets for doing 600mph.
Posts: 604 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As for the theory of evolution, proponents conspicuously turn a blind eye to the abosolute mathematical impossibility of meaningful genetic code being written by mutation guided by natural selection, sufficient to turn one species into another entirely different species, with a complexity involving billions of bits of data.

The impossibility of evolution is proven by the existence in most genomes of species a library of alternate characteristics, already encoded in them and ready to be expressed. Thus the Great Dane and Collie and Cocker Spaniel did not "evolve" from a predecessor (such as, perhaps, a kind of wolf); rather, the Great Dane and Collie and Cocker Spaniel WERE ALREADY PRESENT in the genome of the predecessor species.

This library of alternate characterists used to be characterized as "trash DNA." But more recently, it has been shown repeatedly that this previously unused, unexpressed DNA, is in fact ordered, meaningful genetic code.

Here is the key question: How could all these sequences of meaningful DNA code have been written by mutation guided by natural selction, if these sequences were not expressed? There is no way that natural selection can act on genetic code that is "switched off" and not expressed! So how did it get written?

Science is rapidly advancing in its ability to map genes. When the point comes when it is conclusively proven that the genetic code for the Collie is already in the Wolf, that will be the final, inarguable proof that evolution is wrong, and creation by an Intelligent Designer is the only possible scientific truth.

While we may wait for this final, definitive genetic mapping to be done, we already know what must be the case--because plant and animal breeders have been successfully producing many variations of existing species through the simple means of selective breeding. So we know the genetic code for the blue rose already exists in the red rose. The almond already existed in the so-called "bitter almond." The modern maize plant already existed in the early forms of the plant. The blue potato, and yellow potato, already existed in the white. So we know selective breeding works--which must mean that the desired alternate characteristics already exist in the progenitor genome, for the breeder to select from generation after generation.

Posts: 3573 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wingracer:
I don't feel like taking the time to blow holes in all of that but I will take a moment for 14. Yes the oldest known writing of language is only about 5-6k years old but numbers have been written long before that. Tally sticks have been found over 40k years old.

How do you verify that claim, without making a prior assumption dependent on what you are trying to prove? There is nothing on earth that can be proven to be greater than 10,000 years old. The evidence is not there. At least, not unquestionable evidence. If you want to cite Carbon 14 age dating, I will give you plenty of caveats on why that is not reliable.
Posts: 3573 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wingracer:
Rate of decay is not the same as speed of light. That's like saying because there are ten cars doing 60mph on the highway, they should all get tickets for doing 600mph.

That example of the cars does not even make sense, logically. When radioactive decay takes place, matter is converted into energy, according to the equation that includes the speed of light in a vacuum as a factor. If the rate of radioactive decay can be increased, as it has been proven to happen in the laboratory, then what does this imply about the speed of light constant?
Posts: 3573 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:

That example of the cars does not even make sense, logically. When radioactive decay takes place, matter is converted into energy, according to the equation that includes the speed of light in a vacuum as a factor. If the rate of radioactive decay can be increased, as it has been proven to happen in the laboratory, then what does this imply about the speed of light constant? [/QUOTE]

Absolutely nothing.

Posts: 604 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wizards can clearly exist!
Posts: 12311 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
narrativium
Member
Member # 3230

 - posted      Profile for narrativium           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, Ron. Your posts would be entertainingly ludicrous if they weren't so tediously long.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So I can't figure out why crazy comes in waves around here. Ron, what made you swing by again?
Posts: 36782 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is where the Guile theme starts playing as I hear that Ron has returned, and I give myself a celebratory neon green mohawg and ride a flaming bus through a wall of televisions into the thread in sheer and utter ecstasy, eagle tears streaming out of my eyes to the backdrop of the american flag, as a chorus of literal angels take a moment out of their meteor-deflection duties to sing "BARACK NATE DHALANI"
Posts: 13219 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For you, Sam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfoIlbH6pCw

Posts: 36782 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just converted that entire video into an animated gif and had it tattooed onto my FOREHEAD
Posts: 13219 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hm, that sounds like a brilliant new technology. Animated tattoos! If I can just figure out how to do it, I'll make millions.
Posts: 604 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I particularly like the "winding-them-up" theory!
Posts: 10437 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I particularly like that Ron literally is pretty much quoting Answers in Genesis verbatim in their tired format of "Our understanding of a particular scientific understanding of something is that they do not understand it perfectly and we presume it to be full of holes. Holes that are satisfyingly filled with extremely questionable postulations that we take as true from the beginning of our analysis."
Posts: 13219 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
COME ON I thought this would have a lot more steam.
Posts: 3768 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
honestly this all goes right back to the single overarching question I have about young earth creationism. What claim does it have to being respectable? I think we've already long reached the point where it's more important to keep creationist initiatives from impacting real biological and geological primary education rather than say that it has any claims to deserving equal representation or time because it's something some people truly believe.
Posts: 13219 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifibum: Yeah, this has been disappointingly slow. Angels deciding on whether to stop meteors based on homosexuality? Good times.
Posts: 7302 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Curious about the creationist take on ice layering. Has that been brought up yet? Doesn't that put Earth at a minimum 160,000 years old?
Posts: 3092 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not just angels deciding to stop meteors based on homosexuality; it's that american laws on american marriage and homosexuals are specifically the most weighted issue when it comes to the wavering commitment of the angelic anti-meteor deflection shield. like, we're accountable in our marriage laws for whether meteors hit the whole damn planet

it's american exceptionalism at its finest: our law and our definition of marriage is the bastion for the rest of the world against meteoric disasters. y'all rest of you better be grateful for our traditional marriage. I'm looking at you, europe. if it had been up to you, god would have gone all Chicxulub on us all. in His mercy. or something.

Posts: 13219 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephan:
Curious about the creationist take on ice layering. Has that been brought up yet? Doesn't that put Earth at a minimum 160,000 years old?

I think the gist is that we weren't there to watch the layering so we can't say that it's definitely one layer per year.

It's a specific form of the general claim that just because things work a certain way now doesn't mean it always worked that way in the past. This is applied to everything from the formation of geological features to the rate of radioactive decay.

Posts: 3163 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The objection is not to homosexuality, but to calling same-sex unions "Marriages," in defiance of the Creator's authority to define what Marriage originally consisted of. It is official defiance of divine authority that leads to the angels being told to "stand down" in their activity to protect earth from terminal disasters of all kinds.

I have no doubt that many people who were homosexual on earth will be in heaven to live forever at peace with God. However, like all of us, their human natures will be changed as "this corruption shall have put on incorruption, and this mortality shall have put on immortality." (1 Corinthians 15:54; NKJV) There will be no one practicing homosexuality in Heaven or in the New Earth. But then, apparently there will be no sexuality at all, since Jesus said that "...in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Matthew 22:30; NKJV) God originally told humans to reproduce until they had filled the earth (Genesis 1:28). So once the earth is filled, as it will be when all the faithful from all past generations have been resurrected, there would no longer be any need to reproduce. But lest anyone protest that they would never want to do without sex, just bear in mind that God never takes anything away from us without giving us something even better in its place. Perhaps there will be a kind of mental/empathetic intimacy we will be able to enjoy, and not just be limited to one person, but to everyone in this and all past generations whom we might find to be kindred spirits. That's just a speculation.

The dire trap being set for homosexuals in the present push to legalize same-sex "marriage" is that when nature turns out of its course to pummel us with disaster after disaster, a powerful movement will arise of people who wrongly will blame homosexuals for the destruction, and they will claim that the only way to turn aside what will wrongly be interpreted as "God's wrath" is to eliminate homosexuals. Professed atheists will also come into the targeting crosshairs, and no one will even dare to openly profess agnosticism. Relatively sudden watershed change in human society is what is predicted by the prophecy of Daniel 11:40, if you allow the Bible to define for you all the prophetic symbols employed. The King of the South is atheism, like when Pharoah said "I do not know the Lord."--Exodus 5:2. The King of the North is false religion (spiritual Babylon), behind which is Satan Himself operating most directly, seeking to establish his throne "in the sides of the north" (Isaiah 14:13) This change to the point where false religion will virtually rule the earth is only months away.

[ November 19, 2013, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 3573 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right, Ron, but the issue is that if America redefines marriage to allow gays to marry, this puts the world at risk of more meteor strikes, because divine agents who normally protect us from meteor strikes are less inclined to protect us when we are acting in defiance of God's word, at least insofar as it pertains to how our country should define marriage, right?

Also what other disasters are these angels protecting us from? I assume it's not just meteors!

Posts: 13219 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems remarkable to me that angels would withdraw their protection from the world for governments letting homosexuals get legally married -- using an English term that did not exist until a few hundred years ago -- but would be cool with, y'know, all the state-sanctioned assassination that goes on.
Posts: 36782 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What God said was: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) This is the concept, as God originally created it, before sin ruined everything. Marriage and the Sabbath are the two things that were instituted by God in Eden prior to the entry of sin. Both rest solely upon God's authority as Creator, thus official defiance of these institutions constitutes direct defiance of God's authority. Divorce is bad enough, and adultery obviously is destructive of marriage, but daring to redefine what God instituted as marriage is too direct a challenge to God's authority to be passed over lightly. This is precisely what Satan is trying to con humanity into doing, because then he can claim the right to bring increased destruction upon humanity.

America dominates world culture, and sets an example even our most hateful enemies cannot ignore. Tolerance, expecially of religion, is widespread on earth only because it is what America stands for. America's sabotage of the institution of marriage will be definitive for all humanity.

Posts: 3573 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is the concept, as God originally created it...
Can you explain why you think same-sex marriage represents defiance of or a threat to this concept? It seems to me that men and women remain free to leave their parents and merge their flesh even if homosexuals can get tax benefits and adopt children.
Posts: 36782 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Answered in my previous post.
Posts: 3573 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you could make God happier by making sure people were not allowed to divorce? But it's more important that our government specifically doesn't redefine marriage from the original biblical standard?

I assume the original biblical standard includes teh tax rebates and the naturalization stuff for offseas territories. Otherwise, wuh-oh!

What happens if only a few states allow gay marriage but it's not a federal standard? Is that good enough to survive for now, or must it be abolished totally?

Posts: 13219 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As to why I have not posted in this forum for a while, I spend my time with some care. The kind of "progressive" bigotry and close-mindedness that dominates this forum does not seem to warrant my serious attention. But certainly a thread titled "Young Earth Creationism," especially after it has gone on for three pages still without showing any fairness or justice or accurate knowlege in representing the position of Young Earth Creationism, warrants some comment from me, since as most people here know, I do care about this topic.
Posts: 3573 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's cool but we're asking you really important questions about the angel meteor shield! It's kind of important to us ron because we do not want to get hit by meteors.

I would be really sad if my misguided progressivism resulted in the mass casualty of human beings. Even I admit that there is a limit to my cause, and that limit is protecting human beings for god's wrath, which apparently would be inflicted on us if we do not keep marriage for men and women.

Would the united states lose its area of coverage individually if it deviates from setting God's standard for the world, or would other countries be equally at risk of meteor strikes from when God's angels are told to "stand down?"

Posts: 13219 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Answered in my previous post.
No, I don't think so. Because here's the thing: when Adam and Eve were "married," even according to your own mythology, it wasn't called a "marriage." The word didn't exist. There was a state of union, and a term evolved to describe that state of union.

Other forms of union have since appeared. Some of them are described by a term that is also used to describe the state of union you believe that God personally instituted; some of them are not.

But what threat to the sort of union God instituted, what defiance, is there in applying a term that encompasses that sort of union to another sort of union, given that we've been doing that for as long as we've possessed both language and the concept of state-sanctioned unions?

Posts: 36782 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wish you would care to notice you are bat shit crazy, and no one else cares....
Posts: 14923 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amka
Member
Member # 690

 - posted      Profile for Amka   Email Amka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron - I just have one question. Which God is greater, the one that must manually create every thing and lied about the age of the earth, or the one that gives a single command, and the elements obey to evolve a planet, then evolve life, then evolve man in God's image - through a command billions of years ago?

Assuming God - this is not that debate - which is the simpler, more profound answer?

Read Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian who shows biblical support for deep time and evolution. The parts of the Bible describing creation was written thousands of years ago, the flawed memories of revelations God gave to men who thought the universe ended a few miles above the surface of the earth - stars were pinpricks in the dome of the sky letting through the light of 'heaven'. The point wasn't even just creation, it was to teach men what they were - agents who could choose between good and evil - and teach them to be better, to have self control, and to prepare mankind for a Savior.

It is not a scientific account of creation. Genesis is basically a metaphorical account, showing increasing complexity until Man appears. Then Genesis is about God's covenants with Man.

Posts: 3494 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kwea! That's really rather rude. Ron has gone to great lengths to warn us about how we have to keep gays from marrying otherwise god will make sure we are hit by meteors. He's also done some good work showing us the absolutely crystal-clear evidence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. And his arguments as to the obvious proof of the true age of the earth are irrefutable, except by weak-minded people who are driven to murderous tempest by the influence of the devil.
Posts: 13219 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Samprimary, even God allowed "for the hardness of your hearts" by allowing for divorce under some circumstances (see Matthew 19:8). It is better to break free of a relationship that is harmful--and some marriages are extremely harmful to the point of being life-threatening. It is difficult enough to live a life seeking to come into closer fellowship with God, without being dragged down by a spouse who is not on the same path you are. God did tell us not to be "unequally yoked."

But it is important not to confuse what is the divinely authorized ideal. In fact, this becomes all the more important when so many human relationships are being sundered and lying in ruins.

Posts: 3573 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Amka--this is the God who is greatest. The one of whom it is said: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9)

Have you ever considered why it is that natural law, with all its constants, remain the same, and does not change from moment to moment? Who enforces that?

Let me remind you of the argument I presented based on the fact that there is meaningful genetic code in the genome of most species that is unexpressed. How could "Natural Selection" have written meaningful genetic code that is not expressed? Do you see how this has to indicate that God created everything at once--even the potentials for variation and adaptation within a species? And do you see how this must necessarily and conclusively disprove evolution? Evolution requires Natural Selection to explain how meaningful code can be written by chance; but there can be no action of Natural Selection on code that is not expressed. Can you appreciate the tremendous logical weight of this argument?

And once you admit the necessity for an Intelligent Designer, there no longer is any need to contrive excuses for believing in vast age for the earth and universe.

Posts: 3573 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2