the new issues of Creation Magazine and TJ. (great magazines by the way http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) although CM is written alittle too light for my taste.. is kinda around the same reading level as most news paper articles)

I'd like to share two short articles from the "FOCUS" section of Creation Magazine.

The first is in response to something someone said, reguarding how out dated creationist articles are. The second one i'm copying is just meant as "food for thought". Both articles are just quick "book reports" of articles from secular material.

Saturnian Surprises

New discoveries unearthed by the Cassini-Huygens space mission to Saturn continue to challenge evolutionary cosmologists.

For example, Titan, Saturn's largest moon, has long been known to have an atmosphere, but its composition puzzles long-age cosmologists. The sun's UV radiation breaks down methane (CH4), and the hydrogen would escape Titan's weak gravity. In fact, methane should last only for about 10,000 years. And a major by-product should be an ocean of liquid ethane hundreds of metres thick. Yet Titan still has methane clouds, while large areas of liquid ethane are nowhere to be found.

Also, Cassini found two more moons orbiting Saturn. However, they are 'a surprise because such small bodies, just 3 or 4 kilometres across, should have been obliterated long ago by collisions with comet'.

references> Astrobiology Magazine, http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1478.html

, 17 March 2005. New Scientist, 21 August 2004, p. 5; 20 Nov 2004, p9.

(now Creation Magazine's comment)

Although the evidence is obviously consistent with a young (6000 yo) universe, evolutionists are committed to billions of years. So they try to explain away the data, e.g. by postulating methane sources. Why? Perhaps becuse without long periods of time, evolutionary theories collapse!

Now for the "food for thought"..

ATHEISM IN DECLINE

British philosopher Antony Flew, long renowned as 'an intellectual ambassador of secular humanism', has turned his back on atheism.

He says it is impossible for evolution to account for the fact that a single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The Washington Times reports 'a growning consensus' among philosophers, intellectuals and scholars that atheism is in decline worldwide. But this does not mean that 're-Christianization' is occurring-- instead Flew and others merely believe in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe.

references> The Washington Times, http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050303-115733-9519r.htm

9 march 2005

Creation Mags comment:

It is one thing to believe in one god-- but apart from Christ, no-one can be saved (Acts 4:12; James 2:19), and this is a deficiency of the Intelligent Design movment-- see www.answersingenesis.org/id (http://www.answersingenesis.org/id)

Well im not sure what to say. Other than you have just open a can of worms. Totseans are going to be swarming any second.

As for declining atheism, its a counteraction. Like during the 60s, the hippies had conservative parents. Now the neo-hippies have conservative children.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Well im not sure what to say. Other than you have just open a can of worms. Totseans are going to be swarming any second.

As for declining atheism, its a counteraction. Like during the 60s, the hippies had conservative parents. Now the neo-hippies have conservative children.

i realized this on both of your points. I debated whether i would post it, but not for those reasons. The reason i wasnt sure, is because i did not get written permission from Aig to "share".

On page 4 it says: "All rights reserved. No part of this magazine may be reproduced without written permission (but see bottom of page 2)"

On teh bottom of page 2 it says: "May i copy articles from Creation magazine?

Readers who broadly share our minisry may freely photocopy the text of the articles herein for genuine, non-commercial Christian educational purposes-- except where we have shown them as copyrighted elsewhere, or as reprinted by permission from another source. Please note that many of the photos we use, some from commercial sources, only have a limited or one-time right of use, so the right to copy them is not ours to pass on. Where articles are to be reprinted in another publication, permission needs to be sought from us, but is not often refused."

I'm no lawyer, but i think i'm safe. I'm not collecting any money. I am sharing for the "purpose" of education (partly, about the magazine); and i didnt see anyother copyrights.. and i didnt try to include photos.

The TJ magazine has more stringent copying rules, so i'm glad no one had explained to me how to use my scanner to "upload" some articles from the last issue (and they were much too long to re-type.. some even using {scientific} symbols that dont even work in TOTSE-- so i would have had to type in the name of the symbols-- too messy)

But thanks anyway, for the heads up.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Although the evidence is obviously consistent with a young (6000 yo) universe, evolutionists are committed to billions of years. So they try to explain away the data, e.g. by postulating methane sources. Why? Perhaps becuse without long periods of time, evolutionary theories collapse!

1. "Explain away the data"? That's a terrible lie on their part.

Nobody is explaining away any data, because the data only showed that vast oceans of methane didn't exist. It didn't disprove the existence of large lakes (i.e. or small oceans which ever you prefer) or the countless other ways Titan could be replenishing its methane.

2. So they admit that the evolutionary theory is completely possible given long periods of times? Why thank you!



quote:

ATHEISM IN DECLINE

British philosopher Antony Flew, long renowned as 'an intellectual ambassador of secular humanism', has turned his back on atheism.





So he changed from a scientifically verifiable theory, to a theory which has absolutely no evidence supporting it? And then has the gall to claim he did it because the lack of evidence? I for one am happy that moron isn't going to call himself an atheist any longer. I don't want such idiots on my side.

Howdy Xtreem,

You certainly have opened a can of worms, so I figured I'd get my licks in early.

First, regarding the methane levels, I would direct your attention to Mr Occam's Razor.

Which is the simplest (and therefore, more likely) answer? That Titan simply has methane sources at or below the surface, or that some supernatural creature created the universe 6000 years ago, and left behind some puzzling atmospheric readings behind, sorta as a divine calling card? Gimme a break!

And as far as the smaller satellites not being hit by comets....That's not only not proof, that's not even good logic!

And for Anthony Flew's quote. "it is impossible for evolution to account...etc". How can you state that something is impossible to explain? The most you can say is that it can't be explained given our current knowledge. And you will note that Mr Flew is a philosopher, not a scientist, which doubtless accounts for his absurd statement.

We really need to quit this insane pandering to superstition. Get it through your head. There is NO evidence for creationism. None! Zero! Zilch!

Thank You

Send all contributions to The Giovanni Bruno Died For Your Sins Foundation.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rust:

1. "Explain away the data"? That's a terrible lie on their part.

Nobody is explaining away any data, because the data only showed that vast oceans of methane didn't exist. It didn't disprove the existence of large lakes (i.e. or small oceans which ever you prefer) or the countless other ways Titan could be replenishing its methane.

2. So they admit that the evolutionary theory is completely possible given long periods of times? Why thank you!

Their comment, as taken toward the whole creation v. evolution debate, had e.g. (for the sake of example, such as). I dont feel it was a blatant lie, but more like propaganda, with example to "back up" the point. And the point of that "propaganda" was that evolution could only work if long ages are assumed... although, i realize you already understood this, as you already understand that the arguement is the point of views of long age = no god vs. short age = God. (as you have evidenced by one of your responses when someone was saying that God could have used {long-age} evolution).

So he changed from a scientifically verifiable theory, to a theory which has absolutely no evidence supporting it? And then has the gall to claim he did it because the lack of evidence? I for one am happy that moron isn't going to call himself an atheist any longer. I don't want such idiots on my side.

Ya, i think you already said something like this, when i posted a sound file (i think it mentioned the same guy)? I'm not sure, but i think that "idiot" has a PhD.. lol

QUOTE Originally posted by HagbardCeline:

Howdy Xtreem,

You certainly have opened a can of worms, so I figured I'd get my licks in early.

First, regarding the methane levels, I would direct your attention to Mr Occam's Razor.

Which is the simplest (and therefore, more likely) answer? That Titan simply has methane sources at or below the surface, or that some supernatural creature created the universe 6000 years ago, and left behind some puzzling atmospheric readings behind, sorta as a divine calling card? Gimme a break!

And as far as the smaller satellites not being hit by comets....That's not only not proof, that's not even good logic!

Aloha HagbardCeline http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

The articles are just reports of articles from secular material. The comments from AiG are in italics .

Did you clik the links? The "book reports" were really just restating (concisely) what the secular sources said. This is pertains to both the 'ethane oceans' and the 'smaller satelites'.

As far as Occam's Razor, how much more simple of a statement than "God dun it" do you need?

Not that i am using that AS an arguement, but just trying to show you that divine fiat is not the point that AiG is trying to make. It is just showing that the long age origin starting point is looking at the same data and therefore coming to a different conclusion as a starting perspective of short age looking at the same data, and coming to a different conclusion... and this would be the point of AiG's comments in italics.

And for Anthony Flew's quote. "it is impossible for evolution to account...etc". How can you state that something is impossible to explain? The most you can say is that it can't be explained given our current knowledge. And you will note that Mr Flew is a philosopher, not a scientist, which doubtless accounts for his absurd statement.

As i said above, the post is a copy, not my comments, and in the italics are the comments of AiG.



We really need to quit this insane pandering to superstition. Get it through your head. There is NO evidence for creationism. None! Zero! Zilch!

Think what you want.

Thank You

you're welcome

Send all contributions to The Giovanni Bruno Died For Your Sins Foundation. /QUOTE

<sarcasm> The check must have been lost. I FedEx it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I'll track it right away http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) </sarcasm>

quote:We really need to quit this insane pandering to superstition. Get it through your head. There is NO evidence for creationism. None! Zero! Zilch!

Excuse me... nearly all evidence of origins can be shared and interpreted by both creation and evolution. You must know this as well. So then by simple geometric substitution one also has "There is NO evidence for evolution" which is correct.

We have never observed a creature evolve into another. We have also never seen any divine being create something.

So what? You religiously hold on to your belief of evolution like we hold on to our belief of creation. Your no better than any religion yourself. Will it make you feel worse if i were to reveal to you that atheism is just as much religion as Christianity?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Excuse me... nearly all evidence of origins can be shared and interpreted by both creation and evolution. You must know this as well. So then by simple geometric substitution one also has "There is NO evidence for evolution" which is correct.



Sorry, but evidence that serves for both, isn't evidence at all. Or, if you still want to consider it evidence, then evidence of evolution, because of Occam's Razor.

Also, there IS evidence of evolution; which I have provided to you numerous times, and you in your seemingly unending quest to be a moron, decided to ignore it.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



And as Rust has pointed out, creationist do and must believe in evolution.



The difference is the scope and the timeframe.

It may have been me who said many creationist arguments are old, and I stand by that. Although new ones are being formulated all the time, many of the base arguments are old.

Anthony Flew

He is old news. First of all, he fucked up, he said evolution when he really meant abiogenesis. Yes, we are taking the word of someone who can't even get the theory straight, maybe we shouldn't listen to a philospher teach science. Second, since his big anouncement, he has recanted his claim, saying that he didn't understand the theories as much as he thought he did.



quite frankly I find it pretty funny that you seem to hold to AiG so strongly even after they are shown to be liars and wrong almost all the time.

there is another short column i will add (not right now). I didnt find the piece itself all that interesting (some might, i didnt), but the reason i'm going to copy it, is the thought that i had while reading it (which i think some of you may have a few comments-- flames perhaps)..

But the real reason i'm "bumping this post" is something i just noticed about the two magazines. I've felt that the price was maybe a little high for a subscription - although, after reading them, i have no problem renewing --(Creation $22 for 4 issues/year of about 50-60 pages and TJ $37 for 3 issues/year of about 120-130 pages... although, i thought my wife said she paid more..i'll have to ask her. The subscriptions were a Christmas present).

Well, the thing i just noticed: they have no paid advertising!! Considering that, i think they are a very good bargin (compared to other subscriptions i've had over the years).

I'm not mentioning this to sell them, nor am i trying to boost the sales of them for anyone. But the reason i wanted to point this out is, one of the TOTSE members had said that AiG is a scam, just to make money.

The books i've bought (from one of the two seminars i've attended) are very reasonably priced (compared to books i've bought from Barnes and Nobles, Walden, B-Dalton, etc).

And, although the AiG Megaconferences have an admission fee, the two seminars i've been two, have been free (except, accepting donations-- which it didnt seem like many folks donated.. i didnt either, i spent the allowance my wife gives me http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif) on the books http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) )

I'm not naive'. I have lived a bit. I am pretty sure that they believe what they say and from what i've seen, I am doubtful that it is a scam for money considering the research that they do, and the printing/editing costs, plus the costs of seminars and such.

Anyway, the swimming pool is already to be "tested out", so i'll post the other part -- and MY thought(s) later.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Sorry, but evidence that serves for both, isn't evidence at all. Or, if you still want to consider it evidence, then evidence of evolution, because of Occam's Razor.

Also, there IS evidence of evolution; which I have provided to you numerous times, and you in your seemingly unending quest to be a moron, decided to ignore it.

Its much simpler to say creationism is true.

We have only to say God exists and it is solved. Yet evolutionism which you claim to be the victor of the Razor must explain proposition on proposition to get anywhere and has still not fulfilled itself as factual.

Occams Razor must therefore decide that the simpler to explain creationism as the true answer then. Unless you can explain to me why evolution with hypotheses extending in every direction is so much simpler than a simple postulate of Divine being.

As for your "evidence" you only provide for single celled organisms. None of which act as a living creature any more than a simple computer program.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

And as Rust has pointed out, creationist do and must believe in evolution.



The difference is the scope and the timeframe.



Creationist dont believe in evolution. The Bible and evolution are incompatable. If God said he created the universe and evolution did it, then God is a liar and creationism is a null issue anyway.

Rust is nothing more than a diehard atheist who would believe anything other than evolution even if we found God. Until you show me where someone has seen some creature change species and has been able reproduce that, i will not believe.

Rust, you believe so profoundly on your little ideaology yet you have never once heard of someone actually observing something evolving. Religious types only need to take it by faith, we see "evidence" in other places to assume that it is true. Evolutionists still have doubts about their beliefs, therefore it cant be said that it is factual as you would have us believe. Until it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, you must say that evolution might not be true.

When does creation automatically entail the Biblical accounts?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Its much simpler to say creationism is true.

We have only to say God exists and it is solved. Yet evolutionism which you claim to be the victor of the Razor must explain proposition on proposition to get anywhere and has still not fulfilled itself as factual.

Occam's Razor must therefore decide that the simpler to explain creationism as the true answer then. Unless you can explain to me why evolution with hypotheses extending in every direction is so much simpler than a simple postulate of Divine being.

1. Just because you put it in simple words does not mean the concept itself is simple.

2. An omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god, which allows for evil to exist, who refutes logic by his very own existence, who created us with his magic, is much more convoluted than evolution.

3. Occam's Razor asks us to take the simplest and logical explanation, that fits the evidence. Creationism doesn't fit the evidence, hence it would choose evolution.

quote:

As for your "evidence" you only provide for single celled organisms. None of which act as a living creature any more than a simple computer program.

My evidence for evolution was not restricted to single celled organisms. Not that it would even matter.

What a fucking terrible liar you are. The post is saved in the forum, along with the links I provided... Geez, one would think a human being would posses at least the brain power to think ahead, and know whether a terrible lie such as that one would be so easily exposed as bullshit or not; and therefore to avoid it. Your stupidity reaches new heights.

Here, the thread in which I provided the evidence:

http://tinyurl.com/8n7s2

As anyone should be able to see, the evidence is not restricted to single celled organisms.

quote:Rust, you believe so profoundly on your little ideaology yet you have never once heard of someone actually observing something evolving. Religious types only need to take it by faith, we see "evidence" in other places to assume that it is true. Evolutionists still have doubts about their beliefs, therefore it cant be said that it is factual as you would have us believe. Until it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, you must say that evolution might not be true.

Pathetic.

If I were to ask you, why hasn't god farted rainbows with magical leprechauns out of his ass yet? What would you reply? "Who said he was going to do such a thing".

That's exactly my reply. Nobody ever claimed that evolution would happen in such a short time scale that speciation would be seen with our very own eyes. That is a strawman product either of your own ignorance, or your deceit.

The fact is, it is supported by every possible scientific evidence. Genetics. Biology. Anthropology. Medicine. Archeology. Botany. Zoology. Mathematics. Paleontology. et cetera. I could go on...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-14-2005).]

You die-hard creationists do know that refuting evolution in no way makes creationism more plausible?

Why an omnipotent being needed to rest on the 7th day is something i will never understand...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:I'm not naive'. I have lived a bit. I am pretty sure that they believe what they say and from what i've seen, I am doubtful that it is a scam for money considering the research that they do, and the printing/editing costs, plus the costs of seminars and such.

I agree. I have talked to and read articles by former creationists. Some rather high up former creationists and they have said that many in AiG do seriously believe what they are promoting. Of course, believing what they are selling doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean they aren't fully aware when they publish half truths or lies in their magazines and site.

Don't kid yourself that they aren't making money. Many are making more than if they were working a normal science job in their respected field (which is often not the same field as they write about in their creationist research).

So, what other science magazines do you read, or are those satanic? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Shit, was that water cold...

Ok, here is that other article. As before, i'll copy it word for word with AiG's comments in italics, but this time i'll put the thought (and question) that i had in bold (at the point in the article that i had the thought). The question is meant simply as a question.. not as a springboard. Afterward, i'll try to respond to a few of the comments.

"Resurrected reef-dwellers?

An international scientific team has reported that the world's oceans contain far more cold-water coral reefs than previously thought.

'We are finding not only new species of corals and cold-water corals in new locations but if the world before the flood and the 'days of peleg' are true, the continents would more than likely have been all one. that means that it is possible, from this POV, that there could be fossils of land dwelling animals on antartica, and even the possibility of human fossils there also.... i wonder if there are any reasons from evolutionary/long ages that would also allow this possibility and if so, how would they explain this,,, if some were found.

assiciated organism, like snails and clams, that were believed by palaeontologists to have become extinct two million years ago', said Professor Andre' Freiwald, of the University of Erlangen-Nuremburg, Germany.

'That was a real surprise, and we expect many of these surprises in the future as we undertake more scientific missions.'

references < BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3773919.stm

21 October 2004

[i]An evolutonary interpretation of the fossil record might imply that certain creatures have been extinct for millions of years--so when these creatures turn up alive and well, it's a surprise. But a biblical interpretation of the fossil record clearly indicates the vast majority of fossils were buried during the global Flod of Noah's day and its aftermath, only around 4,500 years ago. So when 'living fossils' are encountered, it's really no surprise at all."

Well, anyway, that is pretty close to the thought i had-- minus any spelling/grammatical mistakes, cuz the thoughts in my head are spelling/grammar error free..unless im thinking of spelling or grammar-- anyway, the question is in the thought.

QUOTE Originally posted by Beta69:

It may have been me who said many creationist arguments are old, and I stand by that. Although new ones are being formulated all the time, many of the base arguments are old.

ya, i think it was. I couldnt remeber for sure and didnt want to have to sift through many topics and tons of posts... and i dont really see a problem with 'stick'n to your guns'. I respect that, just like i've said that i respect atheistism more than agnostic.

As to "formulating new" and "base arguements being old", it seems as if this is something that science does no matter if it is creation science or "real" science. They still have to interpret the facts based on their starting POV and new findings.

Anthony Flew

He is old news. First of all, he fucked up, he said evolution when he really meant abiogenesis. Yes, we are taking the word of someone who can't even get the theory straight, maybe we shouldn't listen to a philospher teach science. Second, since his big anouncement, he has recanted his claim, saying that he didn't understand the theories as much as he thought he did.

He may be old news, but the article that Creation mag. cited (The Washington Times) was dated march of this year. As far as evolution v. abiogenesis goes, the Times did not meantion it, so in away, it was beyond the scope of the info presented.. but since you brought it up, now it is not beyond the scope. I'm not calling you wrong (and i think i might have heard this before..although, i could have heard it in TOTSE..) but could you provide evidence of this?

As far as recanting, i'm pretty sure that the only ones that can know for sure is Anthony Flew and God. I have know of someone that had just "found God" and were all excited and such, until a close family member attacked the "notion right out of her head".. it was many years later that she was Saved. So Flew too, could have been persuaded to rethink his position... i dont know, but it is possible. Is there anyway that we would be able to know if that were the case?

quite frankly I find it pretty funny that you seem to hold to AiG so strongly even after they are shown to be liars and wrong almost all the time. /QUOTE

I can not recall where they have been shown to be liars. Wrong? Maybe..and that would be mostly from Rust.. however, where Rust says, "refuted", I think "disputed-(maybe leaning toward stronger evidence)" fits many of those instances better.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Creationist dont believe in evolution. The Bible and evolution are incompatable. If God said he created the universe and evolution did it, then God is a liar and creationism is a null issue anyway.



The difference between the "millions and billions of years evolution" and the evolution that creationist believe happened, is creationists say that the change in the created kinds is "loss of genetic information" and that it happened "quickly".

Where as darwinian and neodarwinian evo. think it was 'lots of time' + random defects (mutations that did basically nothing until it might have been advantageous) filtered by natural selection.

In short, creationism says: info already exists (perfect at creation) and looses info in the 'Fallen world'

'millions of years' evolution says: info was changed and gradually got more complex by tiny steps...

Which brings me to another thought: With the idea that enough benificial mutations combined to make even one small step up the evolutionary ladder for just one organism or even one part of an organism is really phenomonal; how did it happen over and over and over and over...etc?

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

You die-hard creationists do know that refuting evolution in no way makes creationism more plausible?

There really is only two ways possible for the origin of everything. One of those ways is Creation...

But i will admit, even if evolution and the billions of years were proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, wrong; creation by divine fiat would still be disagreed with. And this too, would be an evidence for God's Word.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Why an omnipotent being needed to rest on the 7th day is something i will never understand...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Does God's Word say that He needed to take a break? No.

And Jesus even said that the Sabboth was created for man, not God.

quote:As to "formulating new" and "base arguements being old", it seems as if this is something that science does no matter if it is creation science or "real" science. They still have to interpret the facts based on their starting POV and new findings.

It should be noted that I don't think that just because an argument is old it is wrong. The comment was dirrected at someone else who was using old refuted arguments. Many creationist groups (such as DrDino) are built on old refuted arguments from the 1970's.

AiG isn't completely free, often using old and refuted claims as current evidence.



Anthony Flew

He has flip flopped quite a few times, it started here, http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm

When he said (among other things) "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."

Now, the first thing that should stick out to anyone who knows this debate is the fact that the theory of evolution Starts at the first reproducing organism, and it is the theory of abiogenesis that is trying to figure out how it was created. So, he isn't doing great on his terms already.

He then admits that he hasn't done any recent research,

"Flew points out that he has not yet had time to examine any of the critiques of Schroeder. Nor has he examined any of the literature of the past five or ten years on the science of life's origin, which has more than answered his call for "constructing a naturalistic theory" of the origin of life. " http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

He then realized the errors of his ways and made this statement,

"I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Although it appears he may still be a deist, he has since retracted his IDist claims.

I do find it odd that many theists and creationists have latched onto this. If they want to make the poster child of dropping atheism someone who didn't bother to look at the facts and came to a confusing and rash decision, that's their choice, just seems like a poor one.

As far as that article, it was very poor. I have yet to actually find the source of the Encyclopedia quote. Sorry if I don't exactly trust a christian writer about the supposed decline of atheism, especially when he provides no evidence to support it.



quote:I can not recall where they have been shown to be liars. Wrong? Maybe..and that would be mostly from Rust.. however, where Rust says, "refuted", I think "disputed-(maybe leaning toward stronger evidence)" fits many of those instances better.

I guess "liar" is based on interpretation. I have watched many creationists jump through loops to try and pretend their creationist Gods weren't liars.

Although I haven't debated this for awhile and so I don't have all of it on hand (and it's more than I want to write) I do have a couple ones on memory, if you wanted to investigate further (I've found further investigation isn't common among creationists, partly thanks to the good ol Morton's Demon).

Such as the original claim that T-rex blood was found, even though the paper clearly shows it wasn't.

The complete making up of evidence when it comes to magnetic decay.

Claiming their evidence against K-Ar dating is just as valid against Ar-Ar dating.

QUOTE Originally posted by Beta69:

Of course, believing what they are selling doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean they aren't fully aware when they publish half truths or lies in their magazines and site.

Nor does it mean that they are wrong. The same goes for me or you. The fact that they say this or that, really has no bearing on my belief in God, and His Word, nor even my literal understanding of God's Word. The Faith given me by God is the bearing. And long before i knew that other people took the Bible literally, i believed in a literal understanding based on reading and studying God's Word.. and the first time i had used Strong's, was to look at Genesis even closer (and i think the reason why, was because when i was a little kid, my mom had said, "but we dont know how long the days were back then. They might have been very long"). And this studying confirmed my belief even more, that the literal interpretation of the Bible is not a problem.. and the days were normal days, with no breaks between them.

As far as creation science goes, to me it is nice to know that i am not the only one who thinks this way. That conversation with my mom must have been about 30-35 years ago, and aside from a few instances with Rust, my overall belief has not waviered at all (my everyday faith--my walk with God-- comes and goes, just like everyone. I still try to do it my way, not God's. And i still at times, ever so slightly, wish that there is no God. But as my faith matures, there is less rebellion and more peace with myself but more impertantly, with God)

Don't kid yourself that they aren't making money. Many are making more than if they were working a normal science job in their respected field.

But, is that any indication of their motive?

Refresh my memory, was it you that i mentioned that (as Digital put it, "obscure verse that may or may not exist") verse that God allows us to question Him on?

If it was you, did you ever look for it? Did you find it?

If it was you and you didnt find it, at least now you have a clue what i was pointing to.

And sorry, but there really was a reason for me to keep it "obscure".

So, what other science magazines do you read, or are those satanic? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) /QUOTE

This is the first subscription to science mags that i have had. But i do buy off the rack.. less now that i am married.

Most of the time it was Popular Science. Discover, Astronomer, Archeology, and Biblical Archeology quite a few times over the years. Scientist or New Science (something like that-- i generally didnt look at what the magazine was called, i mostly bought magazines due to the articles, and mostly then from the articles posted on the cover.. not neccessarily THE cover story).

I dont think i have ever bought national geographic, although i've read them in the library and a friend gave me his old copies.

Most often (because i'm frugal on some things) i would sit in the store and read... both magazines and books (however, not frugal when it comes to books). I've even been locked in a store while reading, because the whole world gets blocked out when i read, and i didnt hear the announcement.. and they didnt see me when they checked the store. To be honest, though, it was a computer book, not science, and the store was best buy. And the manager of the store was in a hurry cuz the Packers were in the Super Bowl.. called 9-1-1 so when the alarms went off, i didnt have to explain anything.

I understand what you are getting at here, or atleast i'm pretty sure... you are kinda wondering if creation science is the only science i have been exposed to. No. Although i havent gone to college for science, when i'm in a book store, it is the science section (unless i had read all the ones they had). Rummage sales = used college text books (and they are reasonably priced).

And from the time i was 4 until 7th grade, i wanted to be a zoologist.. so i consumed anything and everything about animals. In second grade they said that my reading level was between 8th grade and 1st year college.. which fanned the flames. The first college text book i owned (i think i was about 3rd or 4th grade..maybe sixth..because of a science teacher i talked to in 3rd and 4th, but had in 6th) i bought at a rummage sale. It was 2nd year college biology text, and i read it 1 1/2 times. The books on my shelf are about 50/50 science and theology, although i probably havent read even half of them, but i do look stuff up in most of them (thats one nice thing about text/reference books). The science books are mostly physics. There is one first year chem book, some psychology, a couple of very basic history (time life), threw out most of the computer books (from when i went to school for data processing), some math and logic (the 2 logic books, i dont think i have ever more than opened them up.. they were given to me, and just never got around to em.. so really, they dont count), I have 2 books about Nikola Tesla's inventions (and i've loaned out 2 others that i doubt ill ever see again.. but i figure, dont lend books or money if you expect it to return). I went through a phase were i read tons of UFO stuff (mostly didnt believe it, and was looking for the fallacy of the idea..although, i figured that it was possible, just unlikely) which had almost a bookcase to themselves but most have been given away or tossed out. And my garage has more book (very few fiction.. if i want fiction, i can turn on the TV)..

One type of science that i am not interested in (but have been exposed because of creation science)..well, you know that one... geology. Rocks are boring. But i have forced myself to read the articles in the first issue of TJ that i have.. in your honor(well, really, because of our past conversations).. and that aint no shit.

Well, i guess that's it for now. I'm gonna check a few more posts, and then turn on some fiction... my back hurts from sitting here so long.. gotta learn to type faster or write less and get sidetracked less.

oh ya, i forgot:

quote:The Faith given me by God is the bearing. And long before i knew that other people took the Bible literally, i believed in a literal understanding based on reading and studying God's Word.. and the first time i had used Strong's.....that the literal interpretation of the Bible is not a problem.. and the days were normal days, with no breaks between them.

The most difficult verse in the Bible, both to understand and believe, is

genesis 1:1

In the begining God created...

Whether it is understood or not, if it is believed, ALL the rest of the Bible is gravy.. from that point, God's Word is: continuous and contradiction free. And from that POV, the evidence that "real" science finds fits what "creation" science claims.

Well i will admit i am ill-equipped to refute your never ending rabbit trail. However i thought about Occams Razor and what you said for its premise.

The answer is not always true. At one point it was most logical to say that electromagnetic waves travelled through the ether. They had evidence and logic on their side. Now we have quantum physics. Its more logical and has more evidence. However we are fast poising to throw it away as well.

Occams Razor cannot answer all questions at all times. It seems that the Razor only cuts out the false when all information is known. You do not know all the evidence for evolution. You might find one day a human fossil in the deepest strata.

I would implore you to not use it to "prove" theories, as it most certainly cannot. The best it does is only to validate assumptions on some uncertain topic.

quote:Well i will admit i am ill-equipped to refute your never ending rabbit trail. However i thought about Occams Razor and what you said for its premise.

If by "never ending rabbit trail" you mean "empirical scientific evidence" then, I would agree. You most definitely are ill-equipped.

quote:The answer is not always true. At one point it was most logical to say that electromagnetic waves travelled through the ether. They had evidence and logic on their side. Now we have quantum physics. Its more logical and has more evidence. However we are fast poising to throw it away as well.

Occam's Razor cannot answer all questions at all times. It seems that the Razor only cuts out the false when all information is known. You do not know all the evidence for evolution. You might find one day a human fossil in the deepest strata.

I would implore you to not use it to "prove" theories, as it most certainly cannot. The best it does is only to validate assumptions on some uncertain topic.



Who the hell is using Occam's Razor to "prove" anything? Certainly not me. Don't accuse me of the same idiocy you do.

You said that there was some evidence which supported both evolution and intelligent design. I said that either that "evidence" doesn't serve as evidence at all, by that very virtue (i.e. the ambiguousness of which theory it supports) or that it supports evolution by using Occam's Razor.

I'm not using it to claim that evolution has been prove, so once again you're completely wrong.

Don't you tire yourself from all the idiocy?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



if the world before the flood and the 'days of peleg' are true, the continents would more than likely have been all one. that means that it is possible, from this POV, that there could be fossils of land dwelling animals on antartica, and even the possibility of human fossils there also.... i wonder if there are any reasons from evolutionary/long ages that would also allow this possibility and if so, how would they explain this,,, if some were found.

The continents were united in the pass, to form the mass of land known as "pangea".

quote:An evolutonary interpretation of the fossil record might imply that certain creatures have been extinct for millions of years--so when these creatures turn up alive and well, it's a surprise. But a biblical interpretation of the fossil record clearly indicates the vast majority of fossils were buried during the global Flod of Noah's day and its aftermath, only around 4,500 years ago. So when 'living fossils' are encountered, it's really no surprise at all."

This doesn't make sense.

Irrelevant of whether or not the diverse species on Earth were created by a god, or by abiogenesis + evolution, they can still go extinct.

Since we cannot scan every crevice of Earth to find every single animal on Earth, in order to conclude whether or not they are extinct, we have to make assumptions. We examine the evidence (i.e. the existence or the lack of: sightings, habitats, remains, droppings, etc.); and if it is consistent with extinction, then we assume extinction.

That has nothing to do with the evolutionary or creationist models.

Rust, thanks for quoting that, I think I missed the Peleg comment some where. This is where literalism just gets silly. I seriosly don't think they named their son (Peleg = "division") because the earth was all of a sudden physically seperated. Wouldn't you think it could be figuratively such as a division on opinion and thus a division of the land?

Nevermind all the death the destruction moving continents in only a few years would produce (don't worry, most serious creationist groups don't seem to go beyond the surface.)

Most creationists now claim it was a geographical "division" of the land, as in a map; or that the continents were divided by the waters, when the Ice Age ended.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Most creationists now claim it was a geographical "division" of the land, as in a map; or that the continents were divided by the waters, when the Ice Age ended.

yes, that is the general idea of current creationist.

And yes Beta, i (owe this hurts) suppose it is POSSIBLE that it MIGHT be figurative... and i have considered that before. I am only admitting the possibility, because of the thought i've given to it leaves it at a possibility at this time.

Anyway, the question i had hoped someone might have an answer (or even a guess--this guess wont be held against them in future discussions) to this:

.. i wonder if there are any reasons from evolutionary/long ages that would also allow this possibility and if so, how would they explain this,,, if some were found...

If some hominid fossil were found on antartica, what would/could be the evolutionary outlook?

...wait, i guess in a way you already answered this, Rust.... "pangea" is your answer, right?

QUOTE Originally posted by Rust:

This doesn't make sense.

Why doesnt this make sense? First, it was a direct quote(by me) of the article, which was reporting (and commenting)what the BBC article said.. which included quoting that Professor: "That was a real surprise, and we expect many of these surprises..."

The surprise was that something(s) that were thought extinct, were not.

But from a short-age POV, how could it be a surprise... for the exact reason you said, "Since we cannot scan every crevice of Earth to find every single animal on Earth, in order to conclude whether or not they are extinct.."

A couple thousand years vs. the millions of years of not seeing "evidence (i.e. the existence or the lack of: sightings, habitats, remains, droppings, etc.);" and i'll add, fossil evidence... which would be more of a surprise when "living fossils" are found? i.e. coelacanth

I don't find it too surprising that animals thought to be extinct have been found. It's not like humans have all seing eyes. 1000 years ago, europe didn't even know there was a land mass on the other side of the world. Recently a species of frog that was thought to have recently gone extincted in a rather populated area was discovered to still be around.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



...wait, i guess in a way you already answered this, Rust.... "pangea" is your answer, right?



Yes. The land mass was not divided by the oceans at that time, so we could find traces of other living organisms now not native to the land.

quote:Why doesnt this make sense? First, it was a direct quote(by me) of the article, which was reporting (and commenting)what the BBC article said.. which included quoting that Professor: "That was a real surprise, and we expect many of these surprises..."

The surprise was that something(s) that were thought extinct, were not.

But from a short-age POV, how could it be a surprise... for the exact reason you said, "Since we cannot scan every crevice of Earth to find every single animal on Earth, in order to conclude whether or not they are extinct.."

A couple thousand years vs. the millions of years of not seeing "evidence (i.e. the existence or the lack of: sightings, habitats, remains, droppings, etc.);" and i'll add, fossil evidence... which would be more of a surprise when "living fossils" are found? i.e. coelacanth

What I quoted says it wouldn't be a suprise from the young earth point of view, does it not?

It says:

"But a biblical interpretation of the fossil record clearly indicates the vast majority of fossils were buried during the global Flod of Noah's day and its aftermath, only around 4,500 years ago. So when 'living fossils' are encountered, it's really no surprise at all."

Which is what I am referring to when I say that doesn't make sense. It would be a surprise for both.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I don't find it too surprising that animals thought to be extinct have been found. It's not like humans have all seing eyes. 1000 years ago, europe didn't even know there was a land mass on the other side of the world. Recently a species of frog that was thought to have recently gone extincted in a rather populated area was discovered to still be around.



It was the Professor that said it was a surprise, as many discoveries can be.

But, like i asked, from which POV would it be more of a surprise? If you've lost your car keys this morning, but found em in the afternoon, you'ld be less surprise than if you had lost them long ago, and found them after you had stopped looking since you thought they were gone for good.

Same, same for the frog vs. something like a coelacanth (from an long-age POV)

But from a short-age POV, both would have been thought to have been extinct recently, but because of all the nooks and cranies of the earth, a young-earth creationist can see the possibilities of "living fossils" being alive, "long" after they were presumed extinct per fossil record.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

What I quoted says it wouldn't be a suprise from the young earth point of view, does it not?

It says:

"But a biblical interpretation of the fossil record clearly indicates the vast majority of fossils were buried during the global Flod of Noah's day and its aftermath, only around 4,500 years ago. So when 'living fossils' are encountered, it's really no surprise at all."

Which is what I am referring to when I say that doesn't make sense. It would be a surprise for both.



ok, fair enough.

Well, considering we are talking about a large area, if I lost my car keys somewhere in alaska, and found them, I would be equally surprised. The point is, that no matter the time between lost and found, it is my inability to see everything in alaska that made me lose my keys in the first place.

When it comes to animals, some don't leave much evidence behind, thus finding one that is thought to be extinct is "surprising" but not unexpected, and generally has very little baring on the theory of evolution.