"Darwin Day" Topic

"Thank God! I'm free! Free at last!"

Rich, you are risking it, man. Your first post on this DANGEROUS thread, and you start right in with the, "I am a believer" stuff, and referencing the Bible, expounding on Genesis and the "True meaning" of creation/origin stories.

I got DHed for proposing a "God theory" for Existence in the first place: I continually showed how SCIENCE doesn't address origins of existence: I haven't even espoused a recognizable RELIGION ferpetesakes: some butthole complained and into the hoosegow I went.

I totally agree on the IDiots slur: it breaks TMP "rools" six ways to Sunday. But I won't complain, 'cause I don't like rools limiting free expression. (bunch of damned pansyassed, knicker-knotting s)….

Hi Rich!

Wait ……. I just looked up the rules and I can say that because I'm not directing it at anyone in particular. I'm addressing the argument.

Actually, you can't discuss religion at all.

Can I discuss religion here?
No. [RELIGION RULE]

I was DH'd for just that, responding to what I call "schmuck bait," being a schmuck, I fell for it. However, the baiter, and he was a master baiter, who I was quoting and paraphrasing, did not get DH'd. But I don't report other's violations of rules because I'm not a snitch.

You may not call individuals or groups idiots. If this continues, I will call down the wrath of god (Bill).

Thanks for letting us know what kind of person you are.

The Hebrews had just left the land of the Egyptians.

Speaking from a purely archaeological, scientific perspective, there is no evidence of ancient Hebrew enslavement in Egypt, or an exodus.

[A Historical note: atheists in Colonial America were considered worse than the town drunk. ] My personal belief is that atheism, the assertion that God does not exist, is indefensible.

Thanks for sharing!
I think you should look at this thread:
TMP link

However, the baiter, and he was a master baiter, who I was quoting and paraphrasing, did not get DH'd

funniest thing I have seen all year!

Speaking from a purely archaeological, scientific perspective, there is no evidence of ancient Hebrew enslavement in Egypt, or an exodus.

Hey I was going to say that.

Rich,

Since you haven't been in this discussion for over the last few weeks, let's make s few things clear.

This tread is on the SCIENCE BOARD.

That means that exists to discuss SCIENCE.

SCIENCE exists to combat MYTH or SUPERSTITION. We do not discuss MYTH or SUPERSTITION here.

IDiots has been coined here as a short-hand to describe Creationists and proponents of the discredited so-call "Intelligent Design Theory." These people, who are not prepared to play by the rules of science. They have adopted anti-science stance. Here, however, you can be as anti-scientific as you like here without penalty if you hide behind the claim of religion.

[A Historical note: atheists in Colonial America were considered worse than the town drunk. grin] My personal belief is that atheism, the assertion that God does not exist, is indefensible. It is impossible to prove that God does not exist. You may not have any reason to believe God exists but that is an agnostic predilection. I think if you look hard at Dawkins you'll find that he is really an agnostic.

Thank you so much for the ad hominem attack. Yes they believed in witches too. The witches got murdered because myth, superstition and poor translation from the Hebrew. The Early Colonists also created a Theocratic dictatorship. Fortunately, we no longer live in 17thC Massachusetts – despite the fact that various religious types would undoubtedly like to turn the clock back. Be warned, I was actually sent to the Dawghouse for stating a the position of an agnostic. It is easier to state that you are an atheist than to have to explain agnosticism. Professor Dawkins, describes himself as an Atheists, but admits there is a very slim possibility – 1% that there is a deity. I will not repeat the rest of the views Professor Dawkins and I share, because that gets the Blue Fez to exile me to the Dawghouse.

You can be as religious as you like, but I'll go on reading another person from Colonial America; Tom Paine.

SCIENCE exists to combat MYTH or SUPERSTITION. We do not discuss MYTH or SUPERSTITION here.

O! the irony!

We are allowed to discuss science, which is "invented" to destroy superstition, yet we can't discuss the myriad ways of superstition that science's inventions are established to destroy??? We can have the battle but we cannot discuss the strategies and tactics, because we cannot discuss "the enemy"???? HOW STOOPID IS THAT?????

Doug, there is no supersttion in science.

To all the history deniers- you want to say that X, Y and Z is true, provide evidence. I don't care if that is a religeous based claim, or any other. Science works by evidence. You provide that evidence.

I notice we are beginning to get the 'you can't disprove god, therefore he must be true' arguments. I can make a whole list of claims that you can not disprove. However that isn't science, that's making crap up. It is not up to science to disprove, it is up to the claimant to prove. If it comes down to what can be disproved EVERY religeon is equally valid. Otherwise I will just sit here and make a bunch of claims about all sorts of stuff.

I don't care if that is a religeous based claim, or any other.

Bill, unfortunately, doesn't cooperate.

I can make a whole list of claims that you can not disprove.

All non sequitur when compared to putting forward a Necessary Cause for existence in the first place: each claim on any list is, at most, a mere manifestation of that NC, not remotely the NC itself. You can also make this ridiculous by saying that the FSM is the NC; then you can argue with the three monotheistic major religions about whose unsubstantiated definition of the NC is the correct one: nobody can do that and successfully disprove the other definitions. All we have is the NC; and nothing beyond our own observation of the world can be known about it….

I can make a whole list of claims that you can not disprove.

All non sequitur…

This was a response to this

It is impossible to prove that God does not exist.

The constant repetition is "You can't tell us what started the universe/life, ergo there is a God", yet there is no evidence of that creator. The response then AGIAN comes back, "We don't need evidence, because you can not give a Necessary Cause."

OK. There is no creator, the universe and everything in it was caused by Higgs particals created by the LHC travelling back in time. Prove that I am wrong.

And knowing what the 'cause' is, is STILL completely unnecessary to evolution. Evolution is true, no matter how the whole shebang got started.

@Rich

-iot is a suffix meaning "-like" or "pertaining to". As a Renaissance war gamer, you should recognize the term "Stradiot". Same idea. ID, as has been explained to you, is NOT a religion, but an anti-intellectual, anti-scientific philosophy that tries to incorporate the veneer of a legitimate science. Therefore, it is fair game on a SCIENCE board.

Calling the followers of ID, "IDiots" is not only grammatically correct, and philosophically correct, but it is downright funny. Despite your threats, I will continue to use this very appropriate term when indicated.

@Doug

Welcome back. Now to your statement:

I continually showed how SCIENCE doesn't address origins of existence:….

Sorry to disappoint you, but you have done nothing of the sort. You have given us your "feeling", your "grand ideas" and otherwise unsubstantiated bald assertions. You certainly have not "shown" us anything of value. Like Last Hussar says, your "truth" is just a variation of the discredited "god of the gaps" argument.

The one thing I have learned from Doug is that if Doug believes something to be true, then it magically becomes TRUE. If Doug is then offered an author who disagrees with Doug's "truth" (just to give him a full rounded viewpoint) he will not even bother to look at it.

Discussing science here with some is like pulling a chew toy from a pit bull puppy.

Ralph

On a different topic:

I totally agree on the IDiots slur: it breaks TMP "rools" six ways to Sunday.

Now Rich MUST know he is mistaken.

……some butthole complained and into the hoosegow I went.

Consistency has never been your strong point, has it?

BTW, the "butthole" was not me. I merely pointed out that Bill was selectively snipping some of the entries here and not others. I enjoy Bill's TMP and I can abide with his rules. In this case, I believe he was wrong in his "doghousing", but then again, it's not my TMP. I don't report people, there are plenty of those people around.

Ralph

I think/suspect the "reporter" (snitcher) is a lurker. But anonimity protects us all. I never punch that "!" button either. That feature just encourages some people to be vindictive.

Now, to work:

"We don't need evidence, because you can not give a Necessary Cause."

I've never said this. What I do say is that the existence of the universe is evidence of a Cause behind it (just ignore the cap "C", you'll feel better). And science does not address that originating Cause, so I am pleased to refer to the concept as "God" without providing any details that I don't have (but then nobody has any details). You differ with me over my use of the word (it has too many religious connections/connotations to be useful, I guess; so I invite you to come up with a better word than "God" for the NC).

OK. There is no creator, the universe and everything in it was caused by Higgs particals created by the LHC travelling back in time. Prove that I am wrong.

See? This is exactly what I just said: you've provided unsubstantiated DETAILS for your alternative (intentionally silly) hypothesis of origins of Existence in the first place. All I advance is that there MUST BE a NC: my calling it "God" is a choice, because I lack a word to replace it: as I've said, "God" is the biggest concept imaginable.

And knowing what the 'cause' is, is STILL completely unnecessary to evolution. Evolution is true, no matter how the whole shebang got started.

I agree 99.9% (gotta always retain the possibility that something learned later could turn everything we think we know today on its proverbial ear)….

Religion,
* the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
• details of belief as taught or discussed.
• a particular system of faith and worship
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

I did not discuss my belief. I simply said I had one. I provided no details of my religion. I didn't talk about my system of faith and worship. I did not talk about systems of supreme importance. Ego I did not talk about religion. I thus stand before you with clean hands [and a pure heart].

Actually, you can't discuss religion at all.

What I addressed was the discussion of evolution and religion. It was the discussion and not religion that I focused on.

Speaking from a purely archaeological, scientific perspective, there is no evidence of ancient Hebrew enslavement in Egypt, or an exodus.

Yes I know. At least one scholar claims they were Canaanites who, for some reason or another, had to flee to the hills surrounding Palestine. They coalesced into a cultural unity around a war god and reinvaded Palestine. This is neither here nor there. When trying to understand the function of the Genesis story you must understand the cultural understanding of the myth. The function of the creation myth was to provide Hebrews with an understanding of their relation to the cosmos. This myth is associated with the prophet Moses. In mythic literature, Moses was the leader of a group of Hebrews who broke away from Egypt. The creation myth thus is tied to the exodus story. Thus the creation myth is set within the exodus mythic literature as a means of providing the people of the exodus and therefore their subsequent generations a creation myth around which they can coalesce and form a separate identity. It doesn't matter if the exodus actually happened. The function of the creation myth is to separate the group from other groups. It is important to understand that the creation myth was not developed so young Hebrews could go on and get Ph. D's in the life sciences. It's function was to provide a means by which people could obtain a sense of their identity vise vie other peoples around them.

Last Hussar: Rich. I.D. isn't religion. They keep telling the U.S. courts that.

Yah and your side keeps telling them it is a religion so I don't understand your point.

crhkrebs: The earliest European Universities (Bologna, Paris, etc.) were religious schools too, and the only degree handed out was a Doctorate of Divinity.

Actually no. I believe the University of Bologna was created for the study of Cannon and Civil Law. The University of Paris had four faculties: Arts, Medicine, Law, and Theology.

Rich

Religion,
* the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
• details of belief as taught or discussed.
• a particular system of faith and worship
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

I did not discuss my belief. I simply said I had one. I provided no details of my religion. I didn't talk about my system of faith and worship. I did not talk about systems of supreme importance. Ego I did not talk about religion. I thus stand before you with clean hands [and a pure heart].

Actually, you can't discuss religion at all.

What I addressed was the discussion of evolution and religion. It was the discussion and not religion that I focused on.

Speaking from a purely archaeological, scientific perspective, there is no evidence of ancient Hebrew enslavement in Egypt, or an exodus.

Yes I know. At least one scholar claims they were Canaanites who, for some reason or another, had to flee to the hills surrounding the Palestine. They coalesced into a cultural unity around a war god and reinvaded Palestine. This is neither here nor there. When trying to understand the function of the Genesis story you must understand the cultural understanding of the myth. The function of the creation myth was to provide Hebrews with an understanding of their relation to the cosmos. This myth is associated with the prophet Moses. In mythic literature, Moses was the leader of a group of Hebrews who broke away from Egypt. The creation myth thus is tied to the exodus story. Thus the creation myth is set within the exodus mythic literature as a means of providing the people of the exodus and therefore their subsequent generations a creation myth around which they can coalesce and form a separate identity. It doesn't matter if the exodus actually happened. The function of the creation myth is to separate the group from other groups. It is important to understand that the creation myth was not developed so young Hebrews could go on and get Ph. D's in the life sciences. It's function was to provide a means by which people could obtain a sense of their identity vise vie other peoples around them.

Last Hussar: Rich. I.D. isn't religion. They keep telling the U.S. courts that.

Yah and your side keeps telling them it is a religion so I don't understand your point.

crhkrebs: The earliest European Universities (Bologna, Paris, etc.) were religious schools too, and the only degree handed out was a Doctorate of Divinity.

Actually no. I believe the University of Bologna was created for the study of Cannon and Civil Law. The University of Paris had four faculties: Arts, Medicine, Law, and Theology.

Rich

I have no idea why I have two copies of this last post. I would request Bill to eliminate one.

Rich

Hi

Actually, there are a number of papers, peer reviewed, suggesting evidence of hebrew/egy et all. Very sketchy, but not rising to the absolute of "no". This is actually similar to the evolution deniers in that the evidence is dismissed because it has "gaps".

And, doug, there are a number of peer reviewed papers on your "necessary cause", but none of them are testable to the point to rise beyoned "hypothesis".

And both are irrelevent to evolution, though there is some support of the first point in the DNA studies.

Rocky

And, doug, there are a number of peer reviewed papers on your "necessary cause", but none of them are testable to the point to rise beyoned "hypothesis".

Then science, and scientists, need to back off and not make statements like this one:

"Cosmologists do not yet know how the universe began, but this question has now come within the realm of science, with a number of speculative scenarios being discussed." -- Michael S. Turner, Scientific American Sept 2009

Speculations are, by definition, "not testable". So I cannot see why the "God as Necessary Cause" hypothesis is any less viable than the plethora of arising "Godless" speculations, such as string theory and the multiverse….

So I cannot see why the "God as Necessary Cause" hypoethesis is any less viable

It might be an idea. Could even be true. It will never be a hypothesis because its inherently untestable. Other ideas may be wildly beyond our current ability to test, but they are not inherently untestable, and therefore could some day form the basis of a scientific theory.

As I understand it, "hypothesis" is more like speculation: it might never advance to the point of testability. "Theory" can be tested by science.

But science isn't the only way to determine the truth of something. Not everything is empirical about existence, after all.

And you seem unjustifiably certain that the "God as Necessary Cause" hypothesis is so far out of the question that it doesn't even fall into the category of "wildly beyond our current ability to test, but … not inherently untestable": I find that an interesting dismissal of a simple, fundamental idea….

138: Rich,

Yes, listening.

Since you haven't been in this discussion for over the last few weeks, let's make a few things clear.

Yes, yes. Goody, goody. Things are going to be made clear.

This tread is on the SCIENCE BOARD.

That means that exists to discuss SCIENCE.

Well that's as clear as mud. You see 138 I come to this discussion through the Animal Plus Board. Since animals are prominent in myths, I can also talk about myths. Therefore I see my comments as quite apropos. Especially so since creation myths are about the creation of animals (and other things).

SCIENCE exists to combat MYTH or SUPERSTITION. We do not discuss MYTH or SUPERSTITION here.

This makes no sense at all 138. If science exists to combat myths and superstitions, then you have to talk about myths and superstitions (as Doug mentioned). After all, it's the sine quin non of science (according to you). Therefore, by your own admission, we have to talk about myths.

Thank you so much for the ad hominem attack.

138 come over here and sit down. There is something I need to explain to you. [No, no don't thank me I'm just returning the favor.] You see that little smiley face at the end of that sentence. Well, that smiley face means that the sentence before is to be taken as humor. Just incase you don't know what humor is (and I'm beginning to have my doubts) here is a definition: "the quality of being amusing or comic, esp. as expressed in literature or speech." If you feel threatened by humor, that's a personal problem you will have to deal with by yourself.

They have adopted anti-science stance.

And therefore, they can be treated like scum.

Calling the followers of ID, "IDiots" is not only grammatically correct, and philosophically correct, but it is downright funny.

Quite beside the point my dear Watson. It is still in violation of the TMP rules.

Now Rich MUST know he is mistaken.

Sorry crhkrebs regardless of you philosophical position, calling someone an idiot under whatever guise is still a violation of the TMP rules. Nice try though.

crhkrebs: Despite your threats, I will continue to use this very appropriate term when indicated.

I swear both you and 138 must be humor impaired. You see that smiley face? You know what it means? If not go ask 138. It was simply an opportunity to put the words "god" and "Bill" together in a sentence. I have no interest in tattling to Bill on anyone. I've never even d anyone. Well that got bleeped. Anyway it's that thing you do when you don't like what someone said and want to block his comments.

I don't report people, there are plenty of those people around.

Like you friend 138.

Rich

Last Hussar: Rich. I.D. isn't religion. They keep telling the U.S. courts that.

Yah and your side keeps telling them it is a religion so I don't understand your point.

because you appeared to be playing the "you can't attack ID because it is religeon, so out side of TMP rules" card. Perhaps the side in denial could decide one way or the other. If it is religeon don't set it up as an opponent of science. If it isn't religeon, provide some bloody evidence.

I would again point out this thread started as a celebration of Darwin, and TJ directed it this way by his attack on Charles back on page 1- though I am beginning to think 'Poe'.

Doug- THAT wasn't the silly one. The silly one was the egg and cress sandwich and the accident with the time machine! .

The problem with the language of your post is, okay something started it, but to call that 'God' creates linguistic problems – God, especially capitalised, is indicative of some form of 'higher being', usually anthromophised with human like thought processes, and if capitalised in an English context, the Abrahamic God of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. Your last post implied ANY cause- the Higgs particle, or even the sandwich- would be 'God', even if not fitting the normal view of such a being.

Rich- apologies, I skipped a paragraph when reading your long post (no fault of yours), and was intrigued to see you concede 'change from the original creation' – Old Earth Creationism. Is that a fair assessment? (this is, I believe, my wife's faith).

Darwin "didn't kill God", which is the sloppy expression. What evolution (among other sciences) does do is contradict a literal reading of the Bible as a literal account, in the way used by Bishop Ussher to work out the age of the Earth.

Come on lads, less than 220 to go.

Rich,

From the Rules of Conduct of the TMP FAQ:

Somebody just posted something stupid. Can I call them an idiot?
No name calling. You can disagree with their argument, but you can't "attack" them personally.

To the best of my knowledge no one on this thread has "personally attacked" anyone else on this thread. This is a good rule, and maintains civil conduct amongst those of us on the board.

Therefore, characterizing the proponents of the laughably inane ID movement as IDiots does not contraindicate Bill's ruling above, maintains proper grammar, is technically correct and is still humorous. Feel free to disagree. Rich, if you and I ever get to discuss the ID movement, I shall refrain from using this term, out of respect for your sensibilities.

I believe the University of Bologna was created for the study of Cannon and Civil Law.

Actually, I believe you got that from Wiki. And it is Canon Law. The original Doctorate students were all clergy. Canonical studies and Clergy, that sounds like religion to me. The University of Paris was under direct control of the Church, all the professors and students were members of the clergy and, in this institution, they shaved their heads and worn the robes of monks. Check out the history of Robert de Sorbon for details. These universities were a far cry from what we consider universities today. Either way, the original point I was making still stands.

Well that's as clear as mud. You see 138 I come to this discussion through the Animal Plus Board. Since animals are prominent in myths, I can also talk about myths. Therefore I see my comments as quite apropos. Especially so since creation myths are about the creation of animals (and other things).

Surely, with a discussion of Darwin and a day of celebration for his scientific Theory of Natural Selection, you can see that the board topic actually deals with Science, and not Animal Myths. But don't let that stop you. Bring on the animal myth stories!

Ralph

The problem with the language of your post is, okay something started it, but to call that 'God' creates linguistic problems – God, especially capitalised, is indicative of some form of 'higher being', usually anthromophised with human like thought processes, and if capitalised in an English context, the Abrahamic God of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed.

Heh, MY name is capitalized. Necessary Cause is capitalized (but doesn't have to be, anymore than "god" does). It's my choice; because I AM talking about the biggest concept imaginable.

Your last post implied ANY cause- the Higgs particle, or even the sandwich- would be 'God', even if not fitting the normal view of such a being.

Facile, but closer to being right: anyTHING could be the NC. So if you're going to advance a particular one (say, pink unicorns or the FSM) you'd better have proof. Otherwise, all we can do is admit that the NC is, well, NECESSARY, i.e. implicit in existence itself. As limiting your own finite imagination even further is stoopid when contemplating the NC (because it is infinite), it follows that harping on a particular "God" or similar would also be stoopid, since all of these concepts are puny and limited constructs. The deities of mankind are always limited (dumbed down) so that people can hold a fuzzy relationship with the deity, like calling him Abba/Pop/Daddy or even Father. You need to get past all that to see what I am advocating for as THE NC….

Doug…on the subject of infinity you might find this interesting:

link

Pete

Heh, MY name is capitalized.

A quick look at my rules of grammar text shows that "God" and "Doug" are capitalized for different reasons.

Also check out:

q2cfestival.com

at the world famous Perimeter Institute which is just down the road from my office here in Waterloo. I say world famous because Stephen Hawking was supposed to consider coming here initially after his retirement.

Unfortunately, the topics most interesting to you already happened or are on today.

Ralph

Pete, I would have to download a "Real Player", in order to have a listen. I shy away from downloading multiple anythings (I use Windoze Media Player; and if something won't play on it, too bad for me)….

A quick look at my rules of grammar text shows that "God" and "Doug" are capitalized for different reasons.

My word! it's your fault as much as mine that this thread drifts so much. Shall we play the pedantics game, who can be more?…

Rich.

Sorry that you catch the flak, after beating my head out against Creationists, CDesign Proponentist, Intelligent Proponents, Intelligent Design Proponents(or IDiots for short)this tread is getting to be hard work. I will, btw include in this category Doug, whom I have found to gentlemen, even if I do not entirely agree with him.

Three days in Dawghouse for speaking truth to power does tend to remove your sense of humour. Particularly in the somewhat capricious editing that seems to happen of the boards. To that end I really assumed that the smiley was actually an attempt at sarcasm. For that I am sorry.

Genesis is a a myth, the trouble is Creationists, CDesign Proponentist, Intelligent Proponents, Intelligent Design Proponents(or IDiots for short)take it seriously and attempt to contaminate science with it.

The Hebrews had just left the land of the Egyptians.

More myth – no archeological evidence to support this. Indeed there is very little archeological evidence to support much of Old Testament before 8thCBE.

The Genesis cosmology actually owes most of its structure to that of the ancient Babylonian rather than the Egyptian.

Interesting you dismiss the two creation accounts as unimportant. The problem is when you have had to deal with proponents of Biblical literalism it does seem to matter.

Now I'm interested in why people both capitalise the word god. If someone with give me a good grammatical reason I doing so I will start doing so.

Titles when applied to s specific personage always get capitalized. And also "God" is an English version of one of "his" names. As I said, I capitalize it because the ultimate concept of Existence in the first place ought to be capitalized if anything is….

Las Hussar: because you appeared to be playing the "you can't attack ID because it is religion, so out side of TMP rules" card.

Actually I was addressing the use of the word ‘silly' not the use of the word ‘religion'.

Rich- apologies, I skipped a paragraph when reading your long post (no fault of yours), and was intrigued to see you concede 'change from the original creation' – Old Earth Creationism. Is that a fair assessment? (this is, I believe, my wife's faith).

Concede? Hmm. "Concede: admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it." Nope wasn't conceding a thing. I am neither a Creationist (denier of evolution) nor an IDer. I believe evolution is the best idea we have now for the development of life. I don't believe Religion and Science are in conflict as they address different subjects. I don't think science has much to say about religion. I don't think religion has much to say about science. I more or less follow John Lock's distinction:

"Reason [Science] therefore here, as contradistinguished to faith, I take to be the discovery of the certainty or probability of such propositions or truth which the mind arrives at by deduction made from such ideas which it has got by the use of its natural faculties, viz., by sensation or reflection.

Faith, on the other side, is the assent to any proposition, not thus made out by the deductions of reason, but upon the credit of the proposer, as coming from God in some extraordinary was of communication. This way of discovering truths to men we call "revelation."

Rich

Hi

Just a note to Doug. The idea you have is sort of backwards to the process in science. And a lot of this revolves around the concept that language is sloppy for describing science.

Thus, you start with a premise of "God" or "Necessary Cause" and THEN assert it is a valid hypothesis equal to any other unprovable hypothesis.

Science does it the other way round. There are observed facts, nor anecdotes, and one constructs a hypothesis from the facts to suggest an explanation. THEN, one does work looking for ways to test or gather more facts.

You don't assume the hypothesis first.

The issue of observable facts for a "God" are that of a lot of people FEEL a "higher power" then look for evidence in their lives to prove the hypothesis. My wife, for example, saw her life in a fatal spiral but "god" worked all sorts of things to shove us together to save her life. The old rebel dead at 27, idea. Despite her creds as a scientist, she held this unsupportable belief. And she would cherry pick events to "prove" it in her mind. But it wasn't science. The long way of saying "all hypothesis are not created equal".

Scientists are not immune to this anymore than the religious. But in discussions like this, you have to make that distinction.

You asserted above that as I had never made any sort of declaration of belief, I must be some sort of athiest, or cowardly agnostic who didn't admit to being an athiest. For me, it is simply, my feelings…FEELINGS about a spiritual presence, higher power, god, whatever do not rise to the level of hypothesis.

I can look at a bit of bone and see the creature. I can, as you know, glance at a face and know a lot about ancestry and such. I can look at a skull and usually know male from female. And as with other things, I can demonstrate the reasons to others. The problem with NC/God is that in any conversation, I cannot demonstrate my "feeling" about NC and neither can you.

It is an issue of objectivity.

Rocky

Doug, that is a reasonable explanation of capitialisation.

Which "God", which "his" do we capitalise? That's the problem as I see it; the Egyptians alone have four or five gods that created the world. It is Babylonian God? Or the Persian, Chinese or the "Great Ju-Ju up the Mountain" of the Wherethehellarewe Tribe?

It seems we have a very abstract First Cause in all this discussion.

They have adopted anti-science stance.

And therefore, they can be treated like scum.

Let me see – if they proposed to talk about science – yes!

We would do the same to astrologers who wanted to talk about cosmology. The IDiots should not feel that they are being picked on.

Calling the followers of ID, "IDiots" is not only grammatically correct, and philosophically correct, but it is downright funny.

Quite beside the point my dear Watson. It is still in violation of the TMP rules.

As we explained, calling them IDiots is actually a shortening, it saves describing them as Creationists, CDesign Proponentist, Intelligent Design Proponents, every time we address them. Since they go to great lengths to explain that whilst they hold similar views the these people are not the same. IDiots is about the shortest we can get the name and still be recognisably English. That means we are following the rules.

IDaunts could be used but it's a bit of stretch and not very elegant.

For the idea that motivates the IDiots the following is telling coming as it does from their science institute:

PDF link

Orwell would be proud of the Discovery Institute describing itself as a scientific organisation.

IDiots, of course, find it double plus good and regard me as a thought criminal.

Please take Religion to the Blyue Fezzy.

There are observed facts, nor anecdotes, and one constructs a hypothesis from the facts to suggest an explanation. THEN, one does work looking for ways to test or gather more facts.

You don't assume the hypothesis first.

Existence of the universe is not an anecdote! We see infinity "at work"; the NC must be BIG enough to work infinitely, so the biggest concept for a NC seems the only logical pursuit here.

For me, it is simply, my feelings…FEELINGS about a spiritual presence, higher power, god, whatever do not rise to the level of hypothesis.

Yet the concept of the biggest NC imaginable is somehow inferior when asking "how did the universe originate?" This isn't based on feelings, but rather a perceived NC being implicit to existence in the first place.

The problem with NC/God is that in any conversation, I cannot demonstrate my "feeling" about NC and neither can you.

Why is that a problem? Why is it even necessary? I can't show my feelings for the most stupendous sunset I ever saw, even though at the time I did my best to describe it in writing.

The requirement of a NC for existence in the first place is where quantum theory is headed simply by bringing "what happened before the BB" into the realm of science (so they claim, even though they admit it is all speculation, wanting to become hypothesis). IF someone manages to demonstrate a working hypothesis for a best explanation of what caused the BB, in order for this to be the NC it would have to not reveal more questions about what caused what caused the BB! None of this has anything to do with believing because of feelings….

It seems we have a very abstract First Cause in all this discussion.

Each god has a name or names; each one capitalized; but we refer to the grouping of them as "the gods". Only a monotheism capitalizes "God", meaning, of course, the ultimate Necessary Cause God. Most religions that have pantheons either allow for the ultimate God at the top (responsible for existence of the other gods and the world of existence), or even allow that "the gods" are just God manifesting in different ways (Hinduism, for instance).

(Now, you lurking SOB, whoever you are, hit the "!" button and go crying to Bill because I was talking about why we use capitalization when writing the names of deities….)

Be that as it may, It still belongs on the Blyue Fezzy.

While things were getting a little "heated" around here, I went back and checked on something that I was referred to, a link about the geologic column:

The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood by Glenn R. Morton

Now, it's a sizable work and Morton goes into the geology in considerable detail. What Morton set out to do was to examine each of the layers in the Williston Basin of Montana through North Dakota and into southern Canada. Some of these beds are quite extensive covering large parts of the Western United States. Morton proceeds to describe the strata and spices it up with a little bit of his own personal evolutionary thought as well. Without those additional thoughts however, what Morton essentially describes is this: layer after layer of various strata, around 15,000 feet in all.

Now, since I was not there, and you were not there, and the likes of Morton were not there to see what happened when these strata were laid down, then all we can do is interpret the data based on our beliefs and presuppositions.

The crux of Morton's argument goes something like this: Shales take a very long time to be deposited; therefore, the sheer volume of the shale deposits in this case is incompatible with the yearlong Flood scenario. Essentially what he is relying on is this, and I quote Morton:

Shale, due to the very small particle size requires quiet, tranquil waters for deposition to take place. This is one of the unrecognized difficulties of Flood geology. Every shale, which is approximately 46% of the geologic column, is by its existence, evidence for tranquil waters.

Morton repeats this basic claim a number of times throughout his work. Morton also notes that the many sandstone layers in-between these layers of shales were deposited rapidly.

So, do shales require tranquil waters and a long time to deposit as Morton suggests?
References:
Scheiber J, Southard J and Thaisen K, "Accretion of mudstone beds from migrating floccules ripples", Science 318(5857):1760-1763, 2007.
Macquacker JHS and Bohacs KM, "On the accumulation of mud", Science 318(5857):1734-1735, 2007.

Contrary to conventional belief, these two recent scientific papers do in fact show that mud, the source for Morton's shales, can be deposited under much higher current velocities and in a very short space of time from rapidly flowing turbulent water.

For their "mud", Scheiber and his co-researchers used extremely fine clays (calcium montmorillonite and kaolinite) as well as natural lake muds. According to conventional geological belief, like Morton's, such extremely fine clay particles would not and could not settle from rapidly moving turbulent water.

Scheiber's team built a device, a type of flume, which kept the mud laden water moving, turbulent, and at high speed and in a short space of time the mud was deposited on the bottom. Further, they reported that flow rates sufficient enough to move sand will still allow the deposition of clay sized particles.

Geologists have for a long time assumed that tranquil waters are required for the deposition of mud and the like, and so, like Morton, whenever they encounter mud deposits in the geological record they immediately assume a tranquil environment.

Shales come from mud and clay. Mud and clays consist of very fine particles indeed. The demonstrated fact that these very fine particles can deposit quickly from fast flowing turbulent water means that the shales (that is, 46% of Morton's strata) CAN be explained by catastrophic deposition and that that deposition can be in a timescale of days, hours or even minutes.

Further, these researchers showed that the mud deposited formed fine laminated structures. Interestingly, when they compared their results with actual mudstones and shales found out in the field, those mudstones and shales showed the same fine laminated structures throughout. Macquaker's conclusion was this, and rightly so:

…The results call for critical re-appraisal of all mudstones previously interpreted as having been continuously deposited under still waters. Such rocks are widely used to infer past climates, ocean conditions and orbital variations.

Yeah, as if that's going to happen…

If you re-read Morton's work consider this: If very fine particles such as muds and clays can be deposited rapidly in this way, then why not other very fine particles like volcanic ashes?

When I was younger, I worked underground in a coal mine for about three years. The seven foot thick coal seam was sandwiched in between two very thick layers of sandstones. The coal seam had about a dozen very thin (sometimes just a millimeter or two thick) layers of shale and mudstone sandwiched in between the coal layers of the seam; that's why they have to "wash" coal, to remove these impurities. So, based on the above evidence of rapid deposition of the shales, the mudstones and the sandstones, the traditional geological belief of coal forming in some "tranquil swamp" environment is almost certainly flawed as well.

Looking back at selected parts of Morton's work:

The fossils of the Niobrara are quite interesting. There is a 14-foot Portheus (fish) which apparently died after trying to digest a smaller 6-foot fish…

I've seen photos of this fossil. This is clear evidence of a very sudden and very rapid burial consistent with the Flood scenario.

But what has recently come to my attention is that Fourier analysis of the Niobrara laminations reveals that the laminations vary in thickness according to the periodicities of the orbital cycles. If this bed were deposited in a two day time frame required by the assumption of a global deluge, there is absolutely no reason to find orbital periodicities in this rock.

What did Macquaker conclude about orbital variations…?

There is also the Monument Hill Bentonite which is 150-220 feet thick and represents one heck of a volcanic eruption.

Evidence of widespread and massive volcanic and tectonic activity is consistent with the Flood scenario.

The Hell Creek section contains the famous iridium anomaly from the K/T meteor impact… (etc) … The question is why would a global flood cause fern/pollen and iridium to alter in a way that would mimic an asteroid impact?

Mimic? There is absolutely no reason as to why there couldn't have been asteroid activity as well at some stage during the Flood. This is consistent with the Flood scenario.

The Fort Union formation is the first Tertiary deposit. It also cannot be the flood deposit. It consists of shale, sandstone, and conglomerate.

Since the shales can be explained by catastrophic Flood deposition, along with sandstones and conglomerates… well, it does depend on which set of "glasses" you put on to interpret the evidence, doesn't it?

… those who would decry the use of uniformitarianism in the interpretation of the fossil record need to … (etc) … demonstrate what laws do apply in order to explain the supposed rapid sedimentation of these beds.

Done, and done scientifically.

Geology, like any science, is not immune from criticism. But Christians who criticize geology should do so only after a thorough understanding of the data, not as is usually the case before such an understanding is gained.

And visa versa. It appears that Morton's information and his understanding of it are somewhat out of date and were heavily biased in the first place by his uniformitarian presuppositions. Like I've said before, the bottom line is and has always been this (quoting Morton who quotes a Paul Steidl):

The entire scientific community ["entire"? Now there's a rather presumptuous statement] has accepted the great age of the universe; indeed, it has built all its science upon that supposition. They will not give it up without a fight. In fact, they will never give it up, even if it means compromising their reason or even their professional integrity, for to admit creation is to admit the existence of the God of the Bible.

Emphasis added. Quoting William James, American Philosopher, 1842-1910:

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it.

…or, as in this case… by those who looked at it.

TJ, I am just going to post the relevant article from Talk Origins, it is essentially pointless as you already have a firm "belief" but still…

Most people who believe in a global flood also believe that the flood was responsible for creating all fossil-bearing strata. (The alternative, that the strata were laid down slowly and thus represent a time sequence of several generations at least, would prove that some kind of evolutionary process occurred.) However, there is a great deal of contrary evidence.

Before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological column and the relative dates therein were laid out by people who believed divine creation, before Darwin even formulated his theory. (See, for example, Moore [1973], or the closing pages of Dawson [1868].)

Why are geological eras consistent worldwide? How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent" geological eras and several different (independent) radiometric and nonradiometric dating methods? [e.g., Short et al, 1991]

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:

* the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
* the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
* why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
* why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
* why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
* how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
* why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
* why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
* why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
* why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
* why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

How do surface features appear far from the surface? Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:

* Rain drops. [Robb, 1992]
* River channels. [Miall, 1996, especially chpt. 6]
* Wind-blown dunes. [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984]
* Beaches.
* Glacial deposits. [Eyles & Miall, 1984]
* Burrows. [Crimes & Droser, 1992; Thackray, 1994]
* In-place trees. [Cristie & McMillan, 1991]
* Soil. [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1986, 1994]
* Desiccation cracks. [Andrews, 1988; Robb, 1992]
* Footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).]
* Meteorites and meteor craters. [Grieve, 1997; Schmitz et al, 1997]
* Coral reefs. [Wilson, 1975]
* Cave systems. [James & Choquette, 1988]

How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood?

How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.

How were mountains and valleys formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.

When did granite batholiths form? Some of these are intruded into older sediments and have younger sediments on their eroded top surfaces. It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor does granite erode very quickly. [For example, see Donohoe & Grantham, 1989, for locations of contact between the South Mountain Batholith and the Meugma Group of sediments, as well as some angular unconformities.]

How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation in New Jersey is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the Flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling per day. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, etc.? [Zimmer, 1992]

How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.

How could a flood deposit layered fossil forests? Stratigraphic sections showing a dozen or more mature forests layered atop each other--all with upright trunks, in-place roots, and well-developed soil--appear in many locations. One example, the Joggins section along the Bay of Fundy, shows a continuous section 2750 meters thick (along a 48-km sea cliff) with multiple in-place forests, some separated by hundreds of feet of strata, some even showing evidence of forest fires. [Ferguson, 1988. For other examples, see Dawson, 1868; Cristie & McMillan, 1991; Gastaldo, 1990; Yuretich, 1994.] Creationists point to logs sinking in a lake below Mt. St. Helens as an example of how a flood can deposit vertical trunks, but deposition by flood fails to explain the roots, the soil, the layering, and other features found in such places.

Where did all the heat go? If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.

* Magma. The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 1027 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C. In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.
* Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 1023 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 1026 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters.
* Meteorite impacts. Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 1026 joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]
* Other. Other possibly significant heat sources are radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates); biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles); and compression of sediments.

5.6 x 1026 joules is enough to heat the oceans to boiling. 3.7 x 1027 joules will vaporize them completely. Since steam and air have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released will quickly raise the temperature of the atmosphere over 1000 C. At these temperatures, much of the atmosphere would boil off the Earth.

Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it to space, and it can't radiate significantly more heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now. (It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the earth would still be unlivably hot.

As shown in section 5, all the mechanisms proposed for causing the Flood already provide more than enough energy to vaporize it as well. These additional factors only make the heat problem worse.

How were limestone deposits formed? Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. [Poldervaart, 1955] A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.

How could a flood have deposited chalk? Chalk is largely made up of the bodies of plankton 700 to 1000 angstroms in diameter [Bignot, 1985]. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec. [Twenhofel, 1961] In a year of the Flood, they could have settled about half a meter.

How could the Flood deposit layers of solid salt? Such layers are sometimes meters in width, interbedded with sediments containing marine fossils. This apparently occurs when a body of salt water has its fresh-water intake cut off, and then evaporates. These layers can occur more or less at random times in the geological history, and have characteristic fossils on either side. Therefore, if the fossils were themselves laid down during a catastrophic flood, there are, it seems, only two choices:
(1) the salt layers were themselves laid down at the same time, during the heavy rains that began the flooding, or
(2) the salt is a later intrusion. I suspect that both will prove insuperable difficulties for a theory of flood deposition of the geologic column and its fossils. [Jackson et al, 1990]

How were sedimentary deposits recrystallized and plastically deformed in the short time since the Flood? The stretched pebble conglomerate in Death Valley National Monument (Wildrose Canyon Rd., 15 mi. south of Hwy. 190), for example, contains streambed pebbles metamorphosed to quartzite and stretched to 3 or more times their original length. Plastically deformed stone is also common around salt diapirs [Jackson et al, 1990].

How were hematite layers laid down? Standard theory is that they were laid down before Earth's atmosphere contained much oxygen. In an oxygen-rich regime, they would almost certainly be impossible.

How do you explain fossil mineralization? Mineralization is the replacement of the original material with a different mineral.

* Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly mineralized, including some that biblical archaeology says are quite old – a substantial fraction of the age of the earth in this diluvian geology. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively mineralized.
* Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show quite variable mineralization.
* Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized.
* Trilobite remains are usually mineralized – and in different sites, fossils of the same species are composed of different materials.

How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition of remains in a single episode of global flooding?

How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"? The moon is slowly sapping the earth's rotational energy. The earth should have rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a day would have been less than 24 hours, and there would have been more days per year. Corals can be dated by the number of "daily" growth layers per "annual" growth layer. Devonian corals, for example, show nearly 400 days per year. There is an exceedingly strong correlation between the "supposed age" of a wide range of fossils (corals, stromatolites, and a few others -- collected from geologic formations throughout the column and from locations all over the world) and the number of days per year that their growth pattern shows. The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric dating, and the theory of superposition is a little hard to explain away as the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 300-day-long flood. [Rosenberg & Runcorn, 1975; Scrutton, 1965; Wells, 1963]

Where were all the fossilized animals when they were alive? Schadewald [1982] writes:

"Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.

"Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate [land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded."

A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."

Even if there was room physically for all the large animals which now exist only as fossils, how could they have all coexisted in a stable ecology before the Flood? Montana alone would have had to support a diversity of herbivores orders of magnitude larger than anything now observed.

Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from? There are 1.16 x 1013 metric tons of coal reserves, and at least 100 times that much unrecoverable organic matter in sediments. A typical forest, even if it covered the entire earth, would supply only 1.9 x 1013 metric tons. [Ricklefs, 1993, p. 149]

How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.
References

Andrews, J. E., 1988. Soil-zone microfabrics in calcrete and in desiccation cracks from the Upper Jurassic Purbeck Formation of Dorset. Geological Journal 23(3): 261-270.

Bignot, G., 1985. Micropaleontology Boston: IHRDC, p. 75.

Clemmenson, L.B. and Abrahamsen, K., 1983. Aeolian stratification in desert sediments, Arran basin (Permian), Scotland. Sedimentology 30: 311-339.

Crimes, Peter, and Mary L Droser, 1992. Trace fossils and bioturbation: the other fossil record. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 339-360.

Cristie, R.L., and McMillan, N.J. (eds.), 1991. Tertiary fossil forests of the Geodetic Hills, Axel Heiberg Island, Arctic Archipelago, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 403., 227pp.

Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition. MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp.

Donohoe, H.V. Jr. and Grantham, R.G. (eds.), 1989. Geological Highway Map of Nova Scotia, 2nd edition. Atlantic Geoscience Society, Halifax, Nova Scotia. AGS Special Publication no. 1, 1:640 000.

Eyles, N. and Miall, A.D., 1984, Glacial Facies. IN: Walker, R.G., Facies Models, 2nd edition. Geoscience Canada, Reprint Series 1: 15-38.

Ferguson, Laing, 1988. The fossil cliffs of Joggins. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Fezer, Karl D., 1993. "Creationism: Please Don't Call It Science" Creation/Evolution, 13:1 (Summer 1993), 45-49.

Gansser, A., 1964. Geology of the Himalayas, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New York.

Gastaldo, R. A., 1990, Early Pennsylvanian swamp forests in the Mary Lee coal zone, Warrior Basin, Alabama. in R. A. Gastaldo et. al., Carboniferous Coastal Environments and Paleocommunities of the Mary Lee Coal Zone, Marion and Walker Counties, Alabama. Guidebook for the Field Trip VI, Alabama Geological Survey, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. pp. 41-54.

Gilette, D.D. and Lockley, M.G. (eds.), 1989. Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 454pp.

Gore, Rick, 1993. Dinosaurs. National Geographic, 183(1) (Jan. 1993): 2-54.

Grieve, R. A. F., 1997. Extraterrestrial impact events: the record in the rocks and the stratigraphic record. Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 132: 5-23.

Hubert, J.F., and Mertz, K.A., Jr., 1984. Eolian sandstones in Upper Triassic-Lower Jurassic red beds of the Fundy Basin, Nova Scotia. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 54: 798-810.

Jackson, M.P.A., et al., 1990. Salt diapirs of the Great Kavir, Central Iran. Geological Society of America, Memoir 177, 139pp.

James, N. P. & P. W. Choquette (eds.), 1988. Paleokarst, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Kocurek, G., and Dott, R.H., 1981. Distinctions and uses of stratification types in the interpretation of eolian sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 51(2): 579-595.

Miall, A. D., 1996. The Geology of Fluvial Deposits, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Moore, James R., 1973. "Charles Lyell and the Noachian Deluge", in Dundes, 1988, The Flood Myth, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Newell, N., 1982. Creation and Evolution, Columbia U. Press, p. 62.

Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth's crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.

Reinhardt, J., and Sigleo, W.R. (eds.), 1989. Paleosols and weathering through geologic time: principles and applications. Geological Society of America Special Paper 216, 181pp.

Ricklefs, Robert, 1993. The Economy of Nature, W. H. Freeman, New York.

Robb, A. J. III, 1992. Rain-impact microtopography (RIM); an experimental analogue for fossil examples from the Maroon Formation, Colorado. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 62(3): 530-535.

Rosenberg, G. D. & Runcorn, S. K. (Eds), 1975. Growth rhythms and the history of the earth's rotation. Willey Interscience, New York.

Schadewald, Robert, 1982. Six 'Flood' arguments Creationists can't answer. Creation/Evolution 9: 12-17.

Schmitz, B., B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink, M. Lindstrom, & M. Tassinari, 1997. Accretion rates of meteorites and cosmic dust in the Early Ordovician. Science 278: 88-90.

Scrutton, C. T., ( 1964 ) 1965. Periodicity in Devonian coral growth. Palaeontology, 7(4): 552-558, Plates 86-87.

Short, D. A., J. G. Mengel, T. J. Crowley, W. T. Hyde and G. R. North, 1991. Filtering of Milankovitch Cycles by Earth's Geography. Quaternary Research. 35, 157-173. (Re an independent method of dating the Green River formation)

Stewart, W.N., 1983. Paleontology and the Evolution of Plants. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 405pp.

Thackray, G. D., 1994. Fossil nest of sweat bees (Halictinae) from a Miocene paleosol, Rusinga Island, western Kenya. Journal of Paleontology 68(4): 795-800.

Twenhofel, William H., 1961. Treatise on Sedimentation, Dover, p. 50-52.

Weast, Robert C., 1974. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 55th edition, CRC Press, Cleveland, OH.

Wells, J. W., 1963. Coral growth and geochronometry. Nature 197: 948-950.

Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.

Wilson, J. L., 1975. Carbonate Facies in Geologic History. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Wright, V. P. (ed.), 1986. Paleosols: Their Recognition and Interpretation, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Wright, V. P., 1994. Paleosols in shallow marine sequences. Earth-Science Reviews, 37: 367-395. See also pp. 135-137.

Yun, Zhang, 1989. Multicellular thallophytes with differentiated tissues from Late Proterozoic phosphate rocks of South China. Lethaia 22: 113-132.

Yuretich, Richard F., 1984. Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place, Geology 12, 159-162. See also Fritz, W.J. & Yuretich, R.F., Comment and reply, Geology 20, 638-639.

Zimmer, Carl, 1992. Peeling the big blue banana. Discover 13(1): 46-47.

Pete

TJ's lack of knowledge of geology has led him to the simple mistake that shales and mudstones are not the same thus the papers he refers to (and his entire post) become irrelevant.

Shales contain significant amounts of organic matter consistent with their deposition in an anoxic environment. Mudstones do not have this organic matter, thus deposition in an oxygenated, fast water environment is not an issue.

Glenn R Morton has a B.Sc in Geology. He is not a scientist, nor does he do research. His book is a vanity publication, and he is not published in the scientific literature. Why are we paying attention to, "The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood" in the first place?

TJ, which of the following associations have seriously entertained the concept of a worldwide flood?

* American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
* American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists (AASP)
* American Gem Society (AGS)
* American Geological Institute (AGI)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Hydrology (AIH)
* American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG)
* American Rock Mechanics Association (ARMA)
* American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO)
* Arizona Geological Society (AGS)
* Association for Women Geoscientists (AWG)
* Association of American State Geologists (AASG)
* Association of Earth Science Editors (AESE)
* Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists (AEG)
* British Geological Survey (BGS)
* British Organic Geochemical Society (BOGS)
* Canadian Geophysical Union
* Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM)
* Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists (official site)
* Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists
* Clay Minerals Society (CMS)
* Colegio de Geólogos de Chile
* Council for Undergraduate Research-Geosciences Div. (CUR)
* Deutsche Geophysikalische Gesellschaft, (DGG) (German Geophysical Society)
* Delft Organization of Geophysics Students (DOGS)
* Edinburgh Geological Society
* Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society (EEGS)
* European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE)
* European Association of Science Editors (EASE)
* European Geosciences Union (EGU)
* Friends of Mineralogy (FOM)
* Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (GI)
* Geological Association at Berkeley (GAB)
* Geological Society of America (GSA)
* Geological Society of Glasgow
* Geological Society of India
* Geological Society of London (GSL)
* Geological Survey of Belgium (GSB)
* Geological Survey of Canada
* Geological Survey of China (GSC)
* Geological Survey of India
* Geological Survey of Newfoundland and Labrador
* Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP)
* Geologists' Association (GA)
* Geoscience Australia (official site)
* Geoscience Information Society (GSIS)
* History of Earth Sciences Society (HESS)
* International Association of Hydrogeologists/U.S. National Chapter (IAH)
* International Association of Sedimentologists (IAS)
* International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI)
* International Basement Tectonics Association (IBTA)
* International Glaciological Society (IGS)
* International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
* International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG)
* International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS)
* International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS)
* Japan Geoscience Union (JPGU)
* Micropalaeontological Society (official site)
* Mineralogical Society of America (MSA)
* Mining, Geological & Metallurgical Institute of India
* National Association of Black Geologists and Geophysicists (NABGG)
* National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT)
* National Association of State Boards of Geology (ASBOG)
* National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS)
* National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA)
* National Society of Consulting Soil Scientists (NSCSS)
* National Speleological Society (NSS)
* North American Commission of Stratigraphic Nomenclature (NACSN)
* Norwegian Geological Survey (NGU)
* Oregon State Board of Geologist Examiners (OSBGE)
* Paleobotanical Section of the Botanical Society of America (PSBSA)
* Paleontological Research Institution (PRI)
* Paleontological Society (PS)
* Petroleum History Institute (PHI)
* Pittsburgh Association of Petroleum Geologists (PAPG)
* Pittsburgh Geological Society (PGS)
* Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists (RMAG)
* Royal Astronomical Society (RAS)
* Royal Geological Society of Cornwall (RGSC)
* Saudi Geological Survey (SGS)
* Seismological Society of America (SSA)
* Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. (SME)
* Society for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM)
* Society of Economic Geologists (SEG)
* Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG)
* Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists (SIPES)
* Society of Mineral Museum Professionals (SMMP)
* Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)
* Soil Science Society of America (SSSA)
* The Society for Organic Petrology (TSOP)
* United States Consortium of Soil Science Associations (USCSSA)
* United States Geological Survey (USGS)
* United States Permafrost Association (USPA)

My guess………….zero. Until those in the Geo-Sciences start treating a worldwide flood as an viable topic, I think I'll follow suit and ignore all this.

Ralph

The entire scientific community ["entire"? Now there's a rather presumptuous statement] has accepted the great age of the universe; indeed, it has built all its science upon that supposition. They will not give it up without a fight. In fact, they will never give it up, even if it means compromising their reason or even their professional integrity, for to admit creation is to admit the existence of the God of the Bible.

William James said this? Can you supply the source? Regardless, I suggest he is wrong. The "entire scientific community" has built all of science upon the supposition that the Universe is of a great age? Surely he has that backwards.

The scientific consensus is built upon the foundation of observations and the theories that best explain these observations. That is what science is built upon. And, contrary to Mr James assertions, scientists have given up on pet theories that didn't hold up, many times in fact.

I'll leave this for you to ponder. Much has been learned about cosmology and astrophysics in the 100 years since William James' death. None of these new observations have altered the "fact" that the Universe is very, very old. I am sure, knowing what we do today, that Mr. James would change his mind.

Ralph

Evidence of widespread and massive volcanic and tectonic activity is consistent with the Flood scenario.

The amount of tectonic activity required by the "Global Flood" theory would boil all the oceans dry and poach old Noah and his animals quite nicely.

I thought Young Earthers didn't believe in Plate Tectonics or am I mistaken?

Pete

The investment in a Great Deluge covering the entire earth is unsupportable.

Much easier it would be (I did this as a child, in fact), to believe that a phrase in the KJV such as "all the world", or "under the whole heaven", or, "all the kingdoms of the earth", are relative to the subject. Therefore, Caesar did not send tax collectors into China of Sub-Sahara Africa; Cyrus did not rule in ancient America or China or India; and the flood spoken of occurred under heaven as far as the eye could see (but not the entire globe). As the Andes, Himalayas, et al. the great mountain ranges of the earth are a skosh over "fifteen cubits" in height, it is obvious that "mountains" seen to be covered by the flood spoken of were local eminences only.

The evidence is clearly there, in the story itself, that the term "under the whole heaven" is relative, not a literal global flood. Taken this way, the myth is founded on a RL event of the distant past (such as the inundation that formed the Black Sea), and is not in conflict with the geological record at all….

[138 & crhkrebs]
As we explained, calling them IDiots is actually a shortening, it saves describing them as Creationists, CDesign Proponentist, Intelligent Design Proponents, every time we address them.

I wrote asking for a clarification:

"Bill, we need a clarification of the rules on the use of the term IDiots in the Darwin Day discussion. You know the one. It's the one that is getting so many sent to the doghouse. :)). It is my contention that regardless how one types the word it is still calling those who believe in ID idiots which seems to be a violation of the rules. The others claim they have made no personal attacks. The purpose of my query is NOT to send anyone to the doghouse but to simply get a rule clarification"

His response:

"Spelling shouldn't matter."

So, whether you write it as Idiot or idiot doesn't matter. You are in violation of TMP rules. Please cease and desist. TJ or whomever would well be in their rights to object.

Rich

Hi

TJs basic false syllogism. Correctly, "mud and shale could be faster" is followed with, in english, this means the great flood happened in 2500 BC. "Faster" didn't mean enough faster for 2500BC, but arguing if it was, say wrong by 200 years, not two million.

Doug, that is the point about NC. You FELT you saw the best sunset ever. But that assertian cannot be either explained to anyone else, nor does it bear in comparison to all the sunset everyone else has ever seen. And at heart, you have a basic false syllogism as well. "Existence is; existance is proof of a prime mover; therefore there is a prime mover that we can talk about without any evidence of what the F you mean."

rocky

I'm quite disapointed in TJ, one thing is beeing a IDiot, another is trying to "prove" noah's flood, it's a total diffrent level of sheer stupidity.

I'm amazed that those people can feed them self, let alone write books on the subject.

The flood is just so stupid that any person stupid enoght to defend it is rightly ridiculed until their faces become a perment red.
One thing is not understanding slighlty complicated science like everyday cosmiliy or bioligy and getting a wrong veiw of the world that way.
But to realy and truly beliving in a global flood(a flood the chinese and greek aperantly survied with out bothering to write the event down) is so far of reality they are scary

Oops. I didn't catch this until too late. What I meant was whether you write is as IDiot or idiot doesn't matter. You are in violation of TMP rules. Please cease and desist. TJ or whomever would well be in their rights to object.

Gunfreak, what is there about not calling people idiots that you don't understand. It's OK to argue but keep it in within the confines of the rules.

Rich

I didn't call anybody on the forum idiot, I just said I was disapointed in TJ for his aperant lack of basic understanding of the world around him