Except I almost forgot FGG!


Hm... no, I suppose we don't. I did try 2 get my W and kids 2 call me "Doctor" after I finished my PhD, but that whole idea went over like a 2rd in a cesspool. I'm lucky if they don't call me "late for lunch".


Good 2uestion! I don't know middle east geology all that well, but one would think that mechanical weathering of rocks due 2 collisions with automobiles, people, and other commercial/military/personal property would tend 2 reduce the projectile sizes below those useful in meeting the goals of the launcher. This rate of weathering would be dependent on a number of things - chiefly the hardness and brittleness of the source rock, impact velocities, and the strength of the target.

One should study this...

Okay, now I'm so TOTALLY leaving that I will describe it as "wenting!" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

2long


Heh. I did not know that! Well, you're welcome -- I was watching something the other day where they were doing one of those surveys of how much people knew about science and only something like 54% of the people they asked could correctly answer the question "How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun?" And, I think they mentioned that they were surveying college graduates.

When I was in high school, I was lucky to have a majority of my classes taught by people who held Ph.D's in their fields (it was a Department of Defense school abroad). Before I graduated, I came back to the States and went to a public high school. There is a huge difference in the way people who have Ph.D's understand their fields and relate to them. I'm back in college now and I have immense respect for anyone who can go all the way. It's a lot of work and dedication.


I'm not really looking for an 'argument' necessarily but that is one point I was trying to make. SO many fields of science correlate around the Earth being 4.xx billion years old. Even if dating methods were found to be off -- the difference between 4.xx billion and 10,000 is so huge that it's hard to believe.

Mys

Worthary

Thanks for the links.


This is something I'm concerned about. I did read the links and I looked up the Discovery Science Instutite's website. I found on there a list of published journals that I haven't had time to look at yet.

I don't mind science being called into question. I don't mind alternate theories, hypotheses, etc. being advanced. But, I do want the evidence to go through typical scientific channels and review before it's accepted as a standard we teach to children. If nothing else, I worry about what happens when/if they decide to grow up and enter into science. If they aren't familiar with the nomenclature and procedures that are done in the field currently, then they're going to have a very hard time carrying on important work. I don't want to go back and reinvent any wheels, here.

I watched the Dover case with some interest.

Mys

In the Biblical account, describing each day of creation, it specifies 'evening and morning were the first day...evening and morning were the second day...' and so on.

So, whatever arguments might break out over whether that is correct, the Bible is speaking of six literal days.

Didn't you ever wonder why the Jews (and the Seventh-day Adventists <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) keep the Sabbath from sundown to sundown, instead of midnight to midnight? There are other references, too, but that is where it first came from.

Let's step back from the trees for a minute and look at the forest. Faith is an intangible. It can come and go like love. (I think that is why this is an interesting topic around here) Also, you can't force someone into faith. You can't reason them into it either. Ever try to reason someone into believing something they didn't want to believe? An example argument which I employ as a believer to bolster my own faith can also be used by someone who does not believe to show how silly I am goes as follows:
"If God is all all-powerful and all-knowing and exists outside of the constraints of time, He could have made the Earth and Universe to appear exactly as it does, fossil record, radiologicial decay and all." Everytime someone says "That's impossible!" Just reply, " Not for God."

And why would an omnipotent God do that? As a grand ruse to test your faith?

Sounds dishonest to me.

WAT

Well, sure. But, then, following the same logic God might have made the universe last Thursday or even one minute ago and just formed all our memories to believe we've lived as long as we've lived. It's an idea but it doesn't really help us predict or describe what we can study.

If we want to take that as a premise, then I suppose there's not much point in studying history .. it's all something that may or may not have happened. Nothing can be trusted. There's not much point in worrying about our personal histories either. Did anything really happen? Or were we just created to believe it did?

Mys

And, to carry Mys' logic just a wee bit further, why worry, for example, about global warming? Futile, right? Or imaginary.

WAT

And to carry that logic further still - my WW didn't really cheat on me! Cool!

Ok, so I'm away for a few days, and what happens? You'd think all heck broke loose.

Incredibly good arguments, all the way around, BTW. Looks like this may turn into one of the classic forums, since FH had decided to extricate it from the main threads.

To Pio, as a pseudo-expert in things astronomical, I'd have to classify your WW as a black hole. No, that's not an anatomical thing to you non-astrophiles. It's an EXTREMELY DENSE (help me here Pio) piece of matter that is SO DENSE that light itself cannot escape the pull of gravity. Hence, a BLACK HOLE. I think many of us have experienced the Black Hole of emotion, but Pio may be the first to equate it to an astronomical term. Well done, Pio.

Second, when GG mocked (in good humor) the term "professional geologist" when referring to 2Long, an important point was accidentally made. PG IS a term that refers to geologists that have passed the equivalent of a PE exam in their state. I'm a PE, but I have staff that are licensed as PG's in their state. I'm guessing 2Long is from the great white north, who don't always recognize this certification, but I'm certain he would be worthy of such a title.

Geology, as I'm guessing several, including our Saudi-based forum members can attest, has certain absolutes. I haven't heard the anti-ancient-earth quotes on this yet, but FOSSIL FUELS mean exactly that. FOSSILs. ANCIENT. 10,000 years is the same as 100 years, in geologic time.

More to come.

I am neither a PE nor a professional geologist. However, in the course of doing the work I do (management consulting for the federal government), I have had the honor of working with a number of each sort. They have been, uniformly, some of the brightest and most hard-working people I've worked with, and they've done their work well in spite of the incredible distaste they had for it. (I do outsourcing studies. It's not very popular when you're the subject of the study.)

2Long, I didn't know you were a professional geologist. Know anyone at NRCS?

Not so - agree that Genesis list six days for creation.

I just read that as six days post the creation of light and the dividing of light and dark.

One could read the chronology as in the begining the heavens and earth were created. At this point, since there was no light, there was no evening and mornning, only dark.

Post the creation of the heaven and earth, the light was created, the light was divided, and thus the first day.

The concept that the "6 days" was actually geologic days is the only thing that can make sense to me, Biblically speaking. Remember, the guys who wrote the Bible were not "modern day" theologeans, like FH. They did not have to answer the same questions that we ask today.

I cannot dismiss all modern day intelligent design theory, but as a scientist, I have to say the VAST MAJORITY of all the biology, biochemistry, hydrogeology, geology, geophysics, physics, astrophsyics and biophysics all support the principles of evolution, IMVHO. I may be wrong, but I need more evidence.

As humans, we have higher needs to value our lives than the lower beasts. God (in His many visions) helps us all. Is there a God? I dunno. I hope so, most of the time. But please tell me God isn't just messing with me, giving me obstacles, just to see how I rise to the situation.

I've see some horrible things in my 40 plus years. I'd rather believe they are the act of random chance, than the act of God, planning my life step by step. If God has been a major player in each and every step, then I'm gonna have a tougher time with all of this. Nothing intelligent about some of the sh_t I've faced.

Nothing intelligent about all of these BS's. Even if the BS's get stronger in the process, you don't need to destroy someone's life, take away children and family members, just to "test" someone. THAT I have issues with.

I'm a scientist first. It's gonna be tough to convince me that God is watching and planning each and every battle we face. Yep, some will make us stronger, but MANY will destroy us or our families. THAT is not pious, IMVHO.

Myschae - this is the same "argument" that 2long has used over the years of our "on again, off again" discussion of evolution/creation. The fact is that it is almost impossible to get a "contrary" article published in "those journals" because they automatically reject for publication any article that does not support evolution. Fortunately, some occasionally "slip through" and there are other places to be published. It really is NOT "where" something gets published, it is the scientific experiment and/or analysis that is important, because the nature of the "scientific method" is the reproducability and verifiability of the data/hypothesis/theory, etc. that is fundamental to science regardless of where something is "published." A whole of lot "junk science" has been published in so called "peer reviewed" publications. That publishing does not, itself, confer "rightness" to what is published. More often than not, what it is dependent upon is a philosophy, a belief, rather than the "rightness" of the analysis. In otherwords, if it supports and evolutionary bias and presupposition, it gets published regardless, but if it "questions" evolution, let alone argues for creation, it is rejected out of hand for publication.

What might make a Ph.D in any field "more expert" than another Ph.D in the same field? According to evolutionists and to the evolutionist controlled "peer reviewed publications," it is their BELIEF in evolution and rejection of a Creator, despite the lack of "Evidence" to support evolution and despite the fact that "scientific fact" touted by evolutionists have been shown, by subsequennt research, to either be WRONG or, in some cases, outright forgeries promulgated to "support" the faith of evolution. Those things tend to "get swept under the rug" by the evolutionists and ignored, and then a "new idea," like "Punctuated Equilibrium" for example (the old "hopeful monster" idea repackaged by Gould, et. al) gets pushed as the latest "Prop Up" for evolution and that the actual FACTS observed fit creation "as well" and in most cases "better and more consistantly" than they do evolution.

That "scientists" cannot be "men of God" is simply wrong. Science and faith are two separate issues. But faith DOES often "bias" the scientist and causes them to bring presuppositions to the table when they attempt to interpret the FACTS that are observed in nature. I don't much care what anyone thinks about "10,000 years" and that's a "red herring" that evolutionists drag out because it's "unreasonable." Well, if "reasonableness" is the "Test," then I'd simply suggest that MOST of the evolutionists "thoughts" are unreasonable as well. The "reason" for that is that evolutionists BEGIN with a NECESSITY for "millions and millions of years" in order for ANY possibility of evolution to occur.

The idea that the "present is key to the past" and that "all things are as they always have been" is unprovable. But it IS a "hallmark" of evolutionary thought. There was a time, not too long ago(roughly 30 - 40 years ago), for example, when ALL evolutionists ascribed to the concept of Uniformitarianism. Today, what has actually been observed has convinced MANY evolutionist scientists to accept that catastrophism IS a fact. But they want to limit it only to "local" catastrophies and still steadfastly denied global catastrophe (i.e., the Noahic Flood).

Simply put, the actual FACTS have not changed. The "interpretation" of those FACTS have changed. But they can't quite bring themselves to "believe" in a creator when it's easier to "believe" in unintelligent random chance as the "source" for what IS actually observed and "how we got here."




I guess the best thing I can do for you, Myschae, at this point, will be to try to type in some chapters from a "textbook" that examines the data and the arguments so that the "credentialed experts," rather than some poor shlemiel who only has an "opinion" can speak to the issues.

Understand that I have great respect for 2long and his "expertise" in his field. That, of course, does not mean that he is an expert in other fields of science, but he will have a "passing" knowledge of those fields and will have a "lay person's potentially uninformed opinion " concering those fields just like the rest of us "lay people." A "degree" does NOT confer infallibility on anyone, nor does it insulate them from error. In some cases the "experts" have even stooped to fraud (i.e. Haeckel). It DOES indicate that they are "intelligent and trainable." They might even be, regarless of their belief in creation or evolution, "nice guys" socially and morally.

In essence, what you have here is not much different than, say, opposing forensic scientists testifying in a court of law, who have examined and interpreted the SAME facts and arrived at "opposing" opinions as to what the FACTS tell them. They then take their positions as being "definitive," but it is "up to the jury of laymen" to listen to the arguments and to decide for themselves which interpretation is "more likely" or "more consistant" with the entire case and the "argument" of the "Pro" or "Con" side. IF ONLY ONE SIDE gets to present it's arguments (i.e., in peer reviewed journals), is "justice" served? IF THE JURY doesn't get to hear the "opposing experts" evaluations of the very same data, isn't that "brainwashing" and not "education?"

I dread the time it will take to type in the chapters, but I WILL do it for you Myschae just as soon as I can. This "debate" has been "raging" for some 200 years now, so I guess a little more time won't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Besides, most evolutionists LIKE things that take lots of time! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Interesting how God gets "blamed" for the fertilizer that gets dumped into our lives, never Satan or ourselves or just "plain old sin." There is a marked difference between "allowing" something to happen and being the "cause" of the sin.

Why not, for example, ask Osama who is the cause for all the bad "stuff" or ask a Hindu "why" you might have bad "stuff" that you have to deal with in "this life?"

ForeverHers


A quick note as I'm dashing off to my morning class....

I go to a University with a fairly well stocked library. If you give me the name of the book, I'll look for it there and try to save you some typing.

Mys

Myschae, there are several books that I have, but if you want to narrow it down to one that might be "very good" at presenting the scientific, rather than religious, treatment of the subject, that book would be Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D

Mys - be aware that Morris' book has next to no credence except amongst biblical literalists. By all means have a look at it, but Morris was a hydrologist whose claim to fame was devotion to "proving" a global flood. His first book, "The Genesis Flood", appears to be required reading for young earth creationists. He's the darling of the YECers.

A good resource for much in this broad topic is talkorigins.org The creationists version is trueorigins.org

WAT

WAT, DOCTOR Morris was a hydrologist. Gee....is that the same thing as "scientist?" Might Hydrology have SOME bearing on water (and cataclysm by flood waters)?

Here's a listing of the writers and consultants to the book:

Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc. Professor of Physics, University of El Paso.
Willima A. Beckman, Ph.D. Professor of Physical Sciences, Christian Heritage College, San Diego.
Richard Bliss, M.S. Science Consultant, Unified School District #1, Racine, Wisconsin
David R. Boylan, Ph.D. Dean, College of Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames
Larry Butler, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D. Research Biologist, U.S. Consultants Fisheries Service, LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Malcom Cutchins, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Robert H. Franks, M.D. Professor of Biological Sciences, Christian Heritage College, San Diego.
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. Accociate Director, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego.
Donald Hamann, Ph.D. Professor of Food Technology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Charles W. Harrison, Jr., Ph.D. President, General Electro-Magnetics Corporation, Albuquerque.
Harold R. Henry, Ph.D. Chairman, Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Alabama.
Joseph Henson, Ph.D. Head, Science Division, Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina.
Lane Lester, Ph.D. Professor of Biology, Christian Heritage College, San Diego.
John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Louisville, Kentucky.
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Director, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego.
John N. Moore, Ed.D. Professor of Natural Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Stuart E. Nevins, M.S. Assistant Professor of Geology, Christian Heritage College, San Diego.
Robert Olson, M.Ed. Science Teacher, San Diego City Schools, California.
Charles C. Ryrie, Th.D, Ph.D. Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas
Harold S. Slusher, M.S. Professor of Planetary Sciences, Christian Heritage College, San Diego.
John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Th.D. Director of Post-Graduate Studies, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana.

(The data shown refer to the degrees and positions help by these men in 1974, when the first edition of this book was first published. Although more than half now (1985) hold different positions, and several have been awarded additional degrees, their position on the subject of scientific creationism remains the same.


WAT, one should "beware" of ALL books one reads, INCLUDING evolutionist supporting textbooks. There is nothing "special" in such a "warning."

Or is it more of the same? Denegrate someone BECAUSE they believe in creation instead of discussing and evaluating the SCIENCE in question in an attempt to get others to "discount" what they might say?

These gentlemen have DEGREES, if that is to be the "measure" of "worth" in one's ability to evaluate data and make an argument.

So let's toss your degree out on the table too, shall we, so Myschae can have a complete understanding of the "area of expertise" of each contributor to the discussion

2long has a Ph.D. in Geology.
I have B.A. in Biology.
You have...?

Others, like imanotherone (if memory serves), has a father who has a Ph.D. in Biology and uses him as a "reference point" for evaluating data.

For the purposes of this discussion, we are trying to keep "religion" out as much as possible and look at "science."

I guess my question to you, WAT, in all "intellectual honesty," would be have YOU read the book I cited? Or do you simply reject out of hand, not even knowing what is contained in the book simply because you are "prejudiced" against anything that might call into "question" evolutionary thought?

WAT, here's a brief sample of some of the material contained in that book that you want to "disparage."


Geologist David Raup has made extensive studies on these fossil sequences and has come to the following surprising conclusion:

“So the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory….

In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found – yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” (David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record,” Science (Vol. 213: July 17, 1981), p. 289

Raup, as Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum, as well as Head of Geology at the University of Chicago, is surely one of the world’s most knowledgeable paleontologists. He is also a proponent of neo-catastrophism and punctuated equilibrium, in common with an increasing number of modern evolutionists. One of the top men of the previous generation, a student of the eminent George Gaylord Simpson, has come to a similar conclusion:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.’ (David B. Kitts, “Search for the Holy Transformation,’ Paleobiology (Vol. 5: Summer 1979), p.353)

“The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories and even ahistorical theories.” (Ibid, p.354)

No wonder that the Oxford zoologist, Mark Ridley, has concluded that:

“No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution over special creation.” (Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist (Vol. 90: June 25, 1981), p. 831

Both the ubiquitous evidences of catastrophism in the geological strata and the ubiquitous absence of transitional forms in the fossil record can now be combined with the utter absence of any evidence of evolutionary progression in this record to make a very strong case for special creation and a global hydraulic cataclysm as the best model for correlating the data of geology and paleontology. (Scientific Creationism, pp.xi-xiii)