...this was just another redundant comment with facts you aren't interested in. I'd rather just step away from this altogether.

I'm heading off to sleep but let me leave you with just one quote from the co-founder of evolution and I'll get to the rest later.

Alfred Wallace, was a contemporay of Darwin. From His book "Man's Place in the Universe" Chap 12 on whether or not there's enough water on the earth for a biblical flood.

“the oceans are deep enough to submerge all the mountains of Europe and temperate North America… and if all the land surface and ocean floors were reduced to one level, that is, if the solid mass of the globe were a true oblate spheroid, the whole world would be covered with water about two miles deep.”

So here's a devout evolutionist and the founder of it pretty much backing up scripture.

boy Baker, can't decide if you are angry or just cranky. Let's stick to the issues and not the attacks. And no, I don't need a cheat sheet.

and one for Cacto.....

It's a stupid point but I think it points out one of the flaws of the biblical description of the flood. They don't show a particularly well-informed understanding of science and therefore can't be all that divinely inspired.

be careful, your bias is showing.......well this is actually what the bible does say.....

And of every living thing of all flesh two of every sort shall you bring into the ark to keep them alive with thee, they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto you to keep them alive. And take thoou unto you of all food that is eaten and you shall gatehr it to you and it shall be for food for you and for them. Gen 6:19-21

where does it say, sea creatures, whales, fish, etc? Where does it say fish that swim in the sea or whales that jump in the sea? It does mention creeping things and fowls and such. Do you notice tho where it does say...."to keep them alive?" I'm sure that is there for a purpose. I'm betting if I go back into the Hebrew we'll see all this means "land" animals.

Later gators.......really wanted to tackle that peer-review Cacto. I'll do that later and Baker get some sleep you do sound a bit cranky.....I did read what you had to say. I just didn't think you wanted a comment on them since you said you didn't want to revisit those things so I didn't engage you in them. .

Frankly, yes, I'm angry at myself for taking this discussion seriously. By the second page I should have seen that you were just going to breeze over answers to questions you pose and just ask them again. When I read your idea that we can't have 4,000 year old bones because they'd rot, I should have known for sure.

Live in ignorance with Mr. Ham to predigest the world for you, I don't care. My patience is finally exhausted.

be careful, your bias is showing.......well this is actually what the bible does say.....

I think it's more ignorance - I was just seizing on what someone else said about the ark containing every animal that breathes. As a non-biblist I couldn't be bothered reading the bible too closely. I don't believe the flood was a planet-wide cataclysm, so it's not a big deal to me.

Although I guess I am biased if that means I don't accept arguments without proof from actual repeatable experiments. My strong 'bias' against creationism is largely based on the flimsiness of the arguments and the lack of support that I've seen time and time again.

I've yet to come across an argument that suggests young earth without requiring the belief that the earth is young to begin with. Nor have I come across evidence that is as convincing to the atheist or Hindu as it is to the biblist Christian.

how old was the pitch noah used to seal the ark? how, why and when did it, coal and oil come to be? why was so much so generously placed under what is now muslim territory rather than beneath the promised land?

for that matter, why are tar pits filled with the remains of very large & now very extinct mammals but none of the dinosaurs with whom you claim those mammals rubbed shoulders? mammals--including humans--are dumber than dinosaurs?

do you wear a diamond wedding ring? why? diamonds aren't even close to being rare gemstones. diamonds are associated with marriage in our culture because they symbolize eternity. is yours really only 6-10k years old?

lastly, how many young earth and/or literal creationists are employed as petroleum geologists?

I think it's more ignorance - I was just seizing on what someone else said about the ark containing every animal that breathes. As a non-biblist I couldn't be bothered reading the bible too closely. I don't believe the flood was a planet-wide cataclysm, so it's not a big deal to me.

ok, at least you're honest. But if someone told you this was wrong....maybe the local flood idea could be wrong as well. Why don't you believe the flood was universal? Is it because someone told you this?

All the difference in the world. I'm a political scientist by education, so naturally when I want an impartial study of the issues on Communism, say, I don't go to either the Red Workers Daily or Patriot! Magazine. I go to one of the great peer-reviewed journals of the field (peer-reviewed means that the article has been checked by a panel of experts in the field and it's findings subjected to criticism before publication.)

exactly, you wouldn't go to the Democrats to learn about the Republicans either. That's the same thing with the journals.

Everything written comes with a bias. It's impossible to be unbiased. Every word and thought has come from a biased opinion that has been created by your worldview. I have admitted my bias. I'm coming from a biblical worldview.

Every single science journal out there is coming from the evolutionary worldview. They are biased as well. Every single peer viewed journal is based on the evolutionary worldview some more than others. Some rarely acknowledging this because of the topic matter. For instance the Journal Nature is so pro-evolution it's sickening, but with something like the journal of neurophysiology or journal of cell biology you wouldn't really notice as they are more concerned with how things work rather than how things evolved.. So the harshest you'll get in those types of journals is articles that mention little tid bits of evolution to explain how certain mechanisms work.

The same with the Christian Sceintists. Some get into the bible more than others. Some articles are loaded with scripture and some hardly touch on it simply wanting to examine the evidence from a scientific standpoint.

There is not a single science journal out there that could hint at any form of creation and get published in it.
It just won't happen. In fact I believe it was the Journal Nature who fired an editor for allowing an article to get printed that talked about creationism (it didn't support it or anything it just mentioned it as a belief system).

So you can look at the Christian Scientists and the Evolutionary Scientists sort of like the Republicans vs the Dems........a Dem would not be invited to publish his findings in the Rebublican's journals any more than a Rebublican would be welcome into the journals of the Dems.

have a minor issue with that article. It states that sandstone formation in that example could not have happened over millions of years

I don't have a clue really about sandstone although I've seen this topic show up before.

All I'm saying Cacto is your opinion is based on your worldview. Somewhere along the line you adopted the evolutionary worldview that this world is defined and is the official position of the American National Assoc of Biology Teachers which states:.

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

I would believe in the exact opposite that this world is a result of a loving God who with his own hands crafted and made the whole world and all that is in it. I see his fingerprints all over the universe.

how old was the pitch noah used to seal the ark? how, why and when did it, coal and oil come to be? why was so much so generously placed under what is now muslim territory rather than beneath the promised land?

well I think I know where you're going with this.....but have you thought about the pitch coming from trees? Here's an excerpt and a link for you to check out.

The pitch for Noah's Ark was probably not bitumen but the gum based resins extracted from pine trees. Such manufacturing practice has ancient origins, and timber ships were waterproofed by tree resin pitch well before the petrochemical industry was born. This substance is not necessarily "pitch black" either, this refers to coal tar or bitumen - a more recent invention. The core ingredient of a tree resin pitch is gum rosin [6] which can be extracted from a variety of tree species, notably pines.

Link

From a scriptural standpoint the pitch which is the Hebrew word "Kapher" is the same word for Atone. This whole ark was a picture of Christ just like the whole OT is about Him. Noah was safe beneath the atonement much the same way we as Christians are saved by the atonement of the Cross in the NT. There you have the wood and the atoning blood of Christ. Notice how the ark was built like a big coffin. No helm, no bow, no stern.

Why do the Arabs have all the oil and the Jews don't? Do you think that materialism is what God wants for us? Give us this day our daily bread he said should be all we need. He knows what takes us away from him. No, it's not in physical riches, but in spiritual riches he bless us with. Give me neither poverty nor riches it says in Proverbs. I would rather be poor and rely on him then be rich and depend on my riches that will do nothing for me in the long run. No matter how rich you get materially, it's never enough.

I heard a story once about a guy in Texas who lived in a community that everyone but he and his family found oil on their land. One by one these neighbors got stinking rich. Yet he had no oil on his land. He was a Christian and questioned God. He wondered why God didn't bless him in this. For years he wondered until one day he realized something. The riches his neighbors had acquired quite suddenly ended up destroying them. He saw marriages break up, drugs and alcohol problems, families splinter and the anger that permeated throughtout and he realized that yes, he was the one who was rich. He had the love of his family and the love of God and his questions were now answered.

Again I think of Robin Williams who said......Cocaine is God's way of saying you have too much money.

Now let me ask you a question.....if the Jews don't have all that oil that the surrounding countries have, why all the fuss over the land of Israel? Why do they all want that tiny piece of land over there? That is the real question.

Here's another link on the pitch....

Link

pitch1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pch)
n.
Any of various thick, dark, sticky substances obtained from the distillation residue of coal tar, wood tar, or petroleum and used for waterproofing, roofing, caulking, and paving.
Any of various natural bitumens, such as mineral pitch or asphalt.
A resin derived from the sap of various coniferous trees, as the pines.

tr.v. pitched, pitch·ing, pitch·es
To smear or cover with or as if with pitch.

When I read your idea that we can't have 4,000 year old bones because they'd rot, I should have known for sure.

no I said that most would have decayed unprotected by the elements, and I did go on to explain that I did agree that although I do believe in the dust to dust account I do acknowledge that there are bones that even have red blood cells in them. How could that be if I felt they all rotted away? But you did not answer the fact that this lines up more with creationist thinking than evolutionary. I'm talking thousands of years maybe 4500 and you're talking millions of years.

From Emil Silvestru, Ph.D (Babes Bolyai University, Cluj, Romainia, a geologist and is a world authority on the geoogy of caves)

"The discovery of dinosaur flesh attached to an unfossilized bone and the presence of elastic blood vessels in the flesh (Science 307(5717):1952, March 25,2005) was so shocking that the discoverers didn't even try to explain how unfossilized flesh, blood vessels and bones could be preserved for 70 million years. Then there are fossils found in places they could not have possibly lived, like Sequoias, turtles and varanids beyond the Artic Circle!! The discoveries on the Axel Heiberg Island in Northern Canda have puzzled geologists and plaeontologists alike from the very beginning and to this day they find it difficult to explain how wood could be preserved for 45 million years without being fossilized and buried. Wht if the wood was only 4,500 years old?"

"no I said that most would have decayed unprotected by the elements, and I did go on to explain that I did agree that although I do believe in the dust to dust account I do acknowledge that there are bones that even have red blood cells in them. How could that be if I felt they all rotted away? But you did not answer the fact that this lines up more with creationist thinking than evolutionary. I'm talking thousands of years maybe 4500 and you're talking millions of years. "

We have lots of bones from humans and animals, older than 4,500 years that weren't carefully protected, and you know it. We do NOT have red blood cells from dinosaur bones. The "bone" those came from was a rock, a fossil, not a bone. They were not red blood cells, either, it was only stated that they appeared to be consistant with heme, and "resembled" red blood cells. Both are speculation and hardly accepted science at this point.

If you had read the link I supplied you regarding that "blood" in bone crap, you'd already know what my answer would be. You don't, though. You make an argument, then you skim the answer, and then later you just make the argument again and pretend not to know that anyone already answered you.

"But you did not answer the fact that this lines up more with creationist thinking than evolutionary. I'm talking thousands of years maybe 4500 and you're talking millions of years. "

No, it's just the opposite. If they do start finding more preserved specimens, it will just mean that things can be preserved in nature longer than we think. No one that isn't irrationally biased or patently dishonest would believe that dinosaurs and people lived in the same time period given the obvious difference in how and where we find their remains; a problem you refuse to address.

I see no reason to discuss it further with you, since all you have to do is go off and find any loon and quote them. It's like arguing with conspiracy theorists and alien abduction believers; creationists can just make up their answers. If you differ, then you're in on evil they are righteously fighting.

I started the conversation expecting more from you, but to no avail. You esteem any nut or anonymous quote that agrees with you as being equal to anyone else, data or no data. You'll always be able to find some quote from some professional creationist with a correspondance course degree who says what you want to say.

If you think that guesses and supposition are equal to science, then what's the point? I might as well be arguing with someone that the Earth is on the back of a turtle, to borrow from your irresponsible evangelist. Scientists work to prove their points with evidence, and you and Ham will just declare yourselves correct. Why bother? Deal with cacto and kingbee, I'm done.

Baker

I did read that link when you first gave it. I do know why you do not tell me where you get your information from. It's that site. That site is notorious for hating the creationists. The guy who runs the site hates Ham. My son has conversed with this guy. I also noticed that's where you got your info from on Hovind. They called him a sham and so did you. So you take what they dish out and believe it. Have you watched any of Hovind's videos? Probably not.

I've given you many explanations or quotes from many sources including both from the evolutionary side and the creationist's side and you've chosen to ignore them by no comment. But I'm not cranking on you because of it. We all get our information from those who have gone on before us and have done the research. You on the other hand seem to like to surf the net in search of loony sites and pass them on to me as proof of what you believe. Baker, you've given me some looney sites you have to admit...starting with the JM rant because supposedly he had an silly argument on a theological issue regarding Christ. Anybody can post anything.....doesn't mean they are right. It can also mean they have an ax to grind. Those arre the sites you seem most attracted to.

This is what I pulled out from your site.
The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

and I can see that. They are all out attacking all the creationists. I see nasty articles directed at Ham, Hovind and Johnson. I do not get that on answersingenesis. I do not see that from the creationists articles. They stick to the arguments. Why are Ham, Hovind and Johnson such a threat if the evolutionists have all the answers? What are they afraid of?

check this out from your link.........

Link

all they are doing is bashing the creationists and you want me to read this stuff and believe it? Com' on.

this is why I didn't respond to you on your most recent link.....but you pushed the issue and now you know what I'm thinking here.

No one that isn't irrationally biased or patently dishonest would believe that dinosaurs and people lived in the same time period given the obvious difference in how and where we find their remains; a problem you refuse to address

I have addressed this more than once. You may want to go back and re read what I've said then regarding this. But I wouldn't mind adding more to this subject.

If you think that guesses and supposition are equal to science, then what's the point? I might as well be arguing with someone that the Earth is on the back of a turtle, to borrow from your irresponsible evangelist. Scientists work to prove their points with evidence, and you and Ham will just declare yourselves correct. Why bother? Deal with cacto and kingbee, I'm done.

you know better than that as I've said over and over I respect Science and what they've done. It's pseudo Science and theories I have trouble with. The creationist Scientist is using the same evidence but are coming to different conclusions using their worldview which shapes our thoughts and words.

I've never heard this before. Where do you get your source for this statement? I'd be interested in checking this out.

High school biology.

"They are all out attacking all the creationists."

You expect people who stand and proclaim falsehood and attack science not to get attacked in return? I'll take the very reasonable citations and references on Talk Origins over the supposition and hijacked study on answersingenesis any day. Hovind and Ham have made a career out of misrepresenting science to people who are too lazy to take the time to double check them. Many of the people published on the Talk Origins site have spent their life in study, not just smarting off and misrepresenting other people's work with correspondence course degrees.

"all they are doing is bashing the creationists and you want me to read this stuff and believe it? Com' on."

After reading that I am really sitting here wondering about your sanity. Have you read the tone of Ham's site? Are you really sitting there trying to foist the idea that Hovind and Ham aren't bashing scientists that promote evolution? You expect me to look at Hovind's deranged and infantile stuff objectively when you won't respect articles written by lifetime, dedicated scientists who bother to back up their speculation with evidence?

You just saunter over and look at the long list of the reviews EARNED by the Talk Origins site. The Smithsonian Institution, Scientific American, etc.Feel free to weigh the reputations of the organizations who have complimented that site, and then compare to who offers praise to your professional creationists.

You will just downplay them because they are all in on the big evolutionist conspiracy. That's why arguing with you is futile. Any data that proves you wrong isn't reliable; you don't even need to read it. The fact is I don't take ANYONE at their word, and I don't post anything that I don't do a google search first to see dissenting opinion. Not being blind, I don't need the blind to lead me.

"I have addressed this more than once"

No, you haven't, and even Ham admits there's no scientific explanation why dinosaurs and humans are preserved in completely different ways and why our finds look the way they do if the earth is only 6,000 years old. You may have 'addressed' it, but you certainly haven't offered a valid reason why the creationist model doesn't play out in terms of what we find in nature.

"you know better than that as I've said over and over I respect Science and what they've done. It's pseudo Science and theories I have trouble with. The creationist Scientist is using the same evidence but are coming to different conclusions using their worldview which shapes our thoughts and words. "

No, you only respect science that comes to the same conclusions as you. If they reject science and replace it with faith in a book you respect them, and if they don't you deem them pseudoscience. The fact that you pretend they use the same data when 90% of everything you post has no reference to data whatsoever is telling. Even when they do, they don't use their own data, they twist other people's findings to mean things that the scientists in question never intended.

High school biology.

hahaha I should have paid more attention to HS Science.

You expect people who stand and proclaim falsehood and attack science not to get attacked in return?

There's enough bashing to go around on both sides. I'm just not about that I guess. But I do see (maybe it's my bias) that Ham, and Johnson especially seem very professional. I don't see this type of thing like what I saw on Talk Origins. They may mention evolutionists believe this or that but I don't see a lot of going after specific individuals. Hovind is just sarcastic all over. But again I haven't seen him single anyone out by name either. Maybe he has, I've just not seen it.

You just saunter over and look at the long list of the reviews EARNED by the Talk Origins site. The Smithsonian Institution, Scientific American, etc.Feel free to weigh the reputations of the organizations who have complimented that site, and then compare to who offers praise to your professional creationists.

ok, I did this. This is what I noticed. First off this is what they said right off:

"[Scott] Chase warns of "phony" science FAQs from "wackos peddling their personal opinion." One place to find the real thing is this site that mirrors an MIT archive of FAQs. They run the gamut from the ozone layer to dodo extinctions and www.talkorigins.org, which debunks creationist arguments."The renowned periodical Scientific American had this to say about the Archive in its July 2002 issue: "Talk.Origins archive (www.talkorigins.org). This wonderfully thorough online resource compiles useful essays and commentaries that have appeared in Usenet discussions about creationism and evolution. It offers detailed discussions (some of which may be too sophisticated for casual readers) and bibliographies relating to virtually any objection to evolution that creationists might raise."

Again the whole thing is to attack creationists. Why? Why not just deal with the evidence? I'm wondering if they don't sell pictures of Ham, Hovind and Johnson for target practice.

Also, this seems kind of unreal if all that is true, actually absurd...Universities that use a website as literature for their science classes? People keep to their own, you know that. Evolutionists rule in science, and you know that as well. Of course they will approve and recommend each other. There are no Christian organizations so it's impossible for a Christian Science Organization to award or recommend AiG or ICR.

Ham has acknowledged that it's anti-Christians and Organizations that win the awards in Science so this is not news to the Creationists. . Check this out titled "The Not So Noble Decision":

Anticreationists often try to pretend that there is no prejudice against biblical creation in ‘the world of science’. But creationists have long known that things are not like that in the real world. We even have to publish our own peer-reviewed journals; any paper which does not bow to materialistic axioms on origins has a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace of getting published in a secular journal. In fact, some editors have made it very clear that they will go to great lengths to keep their respective journals free of such ‘corrupting influences’. Then there was the well-publicized case of Forrest Mims, the highly-skilled science writer. His employment by Scientific American was openly denied on the grounds of his creationist views—even though the subjects he was paid to write on were not remotely related to origins.

Read about what happened and notice what the rabid anti-Christian Ruse had to say (giving him credit for playing fair).

Having testified against creationism in major US trials, Ruse still opposes biblical creation with every fibre of his being. In fact, he says he feels ‘a certain sympathy’ for those who might say that creationists should be excluded from scientific recognition lest it give their ‘wrong … [even] dangerous’ views credibility. But his sense of fair play makes him say, ‘I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs.’ By those standards, he points out, the Nobel committee (whose deliberations remain sealed for 50 years) would also have had to reject Isaac Newton.

Link

Cartoonist who takes shots at creationists wins Pulitzer Prize...........
Link

The fact is I don't take ANYONE at their word, and I don't post anything that I don't do a google search first to see dissenting opinion. Not being blind, I don't need the blind to lead me.

good, another thing we agree on. Maybe we should dwell on what we agree on? We do have a few things here. I'm the same way.....guess we're just coming to different conclusions.

You may have 'addressed' it, but you certainly haven't offered a valid reason why the creationist model doesn't play out in terms of what we find in nature

no, you're right here. I agree I haven't gone deep into this issue. Would you like to give me your thoughts first on this?

If they reject science and replace it with faith in a book you respect them,

I don't think Ham, Hovind, Johnson or myself for that matter reject science at all. Evidence is evidence. I am nowhere near a Scientist. My opinion really means not a twit in the whole scope of things. I never go by what I think. It doesn't take me that far.

My son who graduated with a degree in Molecular Cell was thinking of getting his Masters thru ICR but was advised against it by another (Christian) Scientist. He said to be credible my son had to go after his post grad degree in a secular organization. It would be better for his career to do so. He then got a full scholarship to Tulane University one applicant out of thousands. If they had found out he was a Christian, he wasn't sure he would have been chosen. It shouldn't be like that.

So don't tell me there is not a conspiracy or prejudice or whatever you want to call it out there.......because there is.

"So don't tell me there is not a conspiracy or prejudice or whatever you want to call it out there.......because there is. "

It isn't a conspiracy, it is protecting science from people like Ham and Hovind. Be sensible and look at what Ham does on his website. That isn't science, it's speculation. They are not devoted to science, and I believe that anyone who has an open mind can see it. You just think they are science-based because they spout the jargon and steal facts from other people's work.

Science for them is a resource, a place they go to dig for facts to prove the unprovable. Who cares what your son believes? Of course, though, when people brashly announce their unscientific biases before walking in the door they are looked down upon. Science isn't about coming to a conclusion and then grasping whatever evidence you can find to back it up.

That's what Ham does. They aren't scientists, they are people who sit around and watch other people's work, and snatch at bits and pieces of it to fill in the gaps for what they've already decided. That isn't science, not in the least. Worse, they rarely characterize the facts they glean accurately. It's "Red Blood Cells from a Dinosaur" that were found instead of "soft structures that have the appearance and characteristics of heme."

Don't think for a SECOND that creationists are any different. What are the odds that an evolutionist would be allowed in Ham or Hovind's dog and pony show? They are not only derisive and antagonistic to anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible, they have the added benefit of being able to tell people what God thinks about this and that. ANyone who finds against them is working against God and is in on the 'conspiracy'.

In reality they aren't any different than alien conspiracy people who do the same thing. Both have already decided what the truth is, and now they are working backwards, piecing together a quilt of unrelated and twisted facts. That is most certainly not science. It is paranoia.

As for Talk Origins, evidently you can't read it without bias. Could you find guidance on whether or not you should marry "non-Christians" on Talk Origins?

"Real biblical ‘interracial’ marriage If one wants to use the term ‘interracial,’ then the real ‘interracial’ marriage that God says we should not enter into is when a child of the Last Adam (one who is a new creation in Christ—a Christian) marries one who is an unconverted child of the First Adam (one who is dead in trespasses and sin—a non-Christian). These are the two ‘races’ of humans that should not intermarry. Examples of such ‘mixed marriages’ and their negative consequences can be seen in Nehemiah 9 and 10, and Numbers 25."

Wow, wanna talk about brash. You claim it is harder to get into school, when they are outright telling people not even to get into romantic relationships with "non-Christians". Do you think Talk Origins has an anti-Christian breeding agenda?

Also, do you think a scientist, in a scientific publication, should espouse the idea that UFOs are the work of the Devil?

"It is ludicrous to even consider that advanced extraterrestrials are traveling millions of light years across the universe (if they could find us in the first place) just to recondition our spiritual beliefs. Christians can see the obvious deception by Satan and his cohorts through the nature of these messages. Uncomfortable as we may be by the thought of increasing contact by the spiritual enemies of God, it is happening. The reason is that popular beliefs about evolution, extraterrestrial life and the possibility of interstellar space travel have made even the average person in the street susceptible to such deceptions and possibly contacts."

I'm currently writing an article on AiG, so I won't waste a lot of time doubling up here. There's PLENTY, though, so if you are going to call them a scientific organization you had better be ready to defend against a mountain of unscientific, and even anti-scientific expression on their part.