@gabriel_baptist: "Yet more evidence that shows that contradicts the "millions" of
year age of fossils, and instead points to a young earth.
============================================
<url>
The Associated Press reports this week on what they consider
�something amazing�: a nearly complete mummified1 dinosaur,
currently undergoing extraction from its rock �tomb� in North
Dakota.
The fossilized Edmontosaurus dinosaur, which has been dubbed
Dakota, was originally discovered in 1999 by a Yale University
paleontology student in his uncle�s Badlands ranch. The actual
unearthing of the fossil didn�t begin until 2004, and a team in
the basement of North Dakota Heritage Center is now chiseling
away at the rock that still surrounds Dakota.
What makes this story of a dinosaur fossil different than most,
though, is the incredible preservation of Dakota. The AP reports
that the duckbilled dinosaur fossil includes fossilized skin that
is �as hard as iron.� It thus joins only four other such
mummified dinosaurs �of any significance� in the world, according
to project consultant Stephen Begin.
Begin added, �It may turn out to be one of the best mummies,
because of the quality of the skin that we�re finding and the
extent of the skin that�s on the specimen.� He explained that
most dinosaur mummies lack sufficient skin to be useful for
research or education.
The team used a CT scanner to examine the dinosaur, which is
still partially hidden in nearly five tons of sandstone. Though
the creature�s skeleton is somewhat curled up, its original
length would be around 30 ft (9m).
Toeing the line of evolutionary timetables, Dakota was assumed to
have fossilized some 65 million years ago. The researchers,
according to the Associated Press, �say Dakota must have been
buried rapidly and in just the right environment for the texture
of the skin to be preserved,� since animal tissue otherwise
decomposes shortly after death (the tissue that isn�t consumed by
scavengers, that is). Manchester University paleontologist
Phillip Manning, a team member, explained what happened
concisely: �The process of decay was overtaken by that of
fossilization, preserving many of the soft-tissue structures.� He
continued:
�This is the closest many people will ever get to seeing what
large parts of a dinosaur actually looked like, in the flesh. . .
. This is not the usual disjointed sentence or fragment of a word
that the fossil records offer up as evidence of past life. This
is a full chapter.�
It will take a year or more, according to North Dakota Geological
Survey paleontologist John Hoganson, to fully extract the
carcass, after which it will be displayed in the Heritage Center
and may eventually go on tour. Nevertheless, the fossil has
already inspired two books (one for children) and National
Geographic television programs.
What about the date?
So why the date of 65 (or 67) million years?2 Hoganson explained,
�[The Badlands are] one of the few places in the world where you
can actually see the boundary line where the dinosaurs became
extinct, the time boundary. In the Badlands, this layer is
exposed in certain places.� Hoganson is referring to the K�T
extinction boundary, which allegedly divides the Cretaceous
Period from the Tertiary Period in the fossil record and marks
the extinction of the dinosaurs. Thus, the team must date the
find as at least 65 million years old�despite any evidence
otherwise�just so it lines up with evolutionary theory and the
uniformitarian understanding of the fossil record.
That said, we find a few flaws in assigning this date to
Dakota�and it�s important to remember that that�s what scientists
do: assign dates based on circumstantial evidence. Fossils don�t
come stamped with exact dates!3
The scientists explain how Dakota must have been �buried
rapidly.� That is exactly the explanation creation scientists
give, but we have a clear, global explanation for the millions of
fossils we have, which are time and time again shown to have been
buried rapidly and catastrophically: the Flood of Noah�s day,
which unleashed catastrophes worldwide and covered the world in
water for a year. Starting from this viewpoint, we can make sense
of these many fossils buried rapidly and recently�just a few
thousand years ago.
Ultimately, this news shows us once again that science is
beholden to one�s worldview. In this case, as in many, the old
ages required by the fossil record�which are in turn required by
the time line evolutionary theory needs�dictate the dating of the
fossil. Starting from Scripture, we have the answers that explain
why we find millions of fossils laid down catastrophically in
rock layers all over the earth: the global Flood that the Bible
describes."
    @lunch: "On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:15:07 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism 
"adman" <email_address> wrote in
<nZZEj.33013$<email_address>>:
<quote>
You keep making claims that show your ignorance of science, indifference
to knowledge and willingness to shill for religious liars. 
As usual, your claim here was false. Why don't you go learn something?"
    @lunch: "On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:16:54 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism 
Pastor Dave <email_address> wrote in
<email_address>:
<quote>
They aren't. You are, once again, repeating lies told by religious
zealots who cannot abide the fact that the doctrines they teach are
incompatible with actual evidence. "
    @gabriel_baptist: "On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:34:59 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
<quote>
<url>
<url>
<url>
<url>
<url>
<url>
<url>"
    @paulbryantsr: ""John Baker" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
You are of course entitled to your opinion; but mine differs from yours and 
I believe mine at the very least just as strongly as you do yours.  I would 
add that I believe mine to be true and yours to be false and guess what? 
Yep, we will both find out the 100% exact total truth after we die, and one 
of us is going to be surprised; but I don't believe it will be me.
.         /}
@###{ ]888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4yber Knight for Christ888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4>
.         \}
Gods Words Are my Strength and Sword"
    @ananias917_: "On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:07:36 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
<email_address> spake thusly:
<quote>
Not too bright, huh?
An idiots response.  While claiming to be
scientific, you respond as a child.
The Last Days were in the first century:
Romans 13:11-2
11) And that, knowing the time, that NOW
it is high time to awake out of sleep:
for NOW is our salvation nearer than when
we believed.
12) The night is far spent, the day is
AT HAND: let us therefore cast off the
works of darkness, and let us put on
the armor of light.
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: <url>"
    @paulbryantsr: ""VoiceOfReason" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Although this is true of things *man* makes; but it is *not* true of things 
God makes.  God is a multidimensional being living in the *now* , which is 
living in the past, present and the future all at the same moment.
Your logic is flawed; because one can have a decent science education at the 
same time not agree with what they have been taught.  This is always the way 
it is in education; because were it not so then science would never have 
progressed.  Had the students not surpassed and or not agreed with the 
teachers nothing *new* would have came to light.  for instance had the 
students that were taught that going faster then the speed of sound or 
breaking the *sound barrier* was imposable would not have attempted creating 
aircraft to do so.
Only if they believe such.  Your statement is non sequeter; because it 
doesn't logicly follow what my point was.  I said "An evolutionist is anyone 
that buy into the theory which contradicts Gods having *created* everything 
iow, anyone that believes that *after* life emerged it *evolved* into ever 
more complex forms of life"
if they do not believe God created everything then most defiantly *yes*
Anyone that believes that God did not create everything contradicts God. 
Where do you find that the *majority* of the worlds Christians believe in 
evolution?
Hubris is man believing that he is the epitome of intellect.  Actually I do 
not say that I am 100%  right far from it.  I only say that I am on a 
journey with the final destination being the truth.  I was once an agnostic 
and bought into all the evolution and that man was superior to every other 
life form.  I was not actually raised in a church family; because I only 
ever remember going to church about 2 or 3 times when I was 9 or 10 years 
old; but my mom and dad did believe in God all their life.  Jr High was when 
I became an agnostic; but it was also the start of my journey to find the 
truth.
And you say I have a faulty science education?  Although there was a theory 
for a steady state universe there was also a theory for a *static* state 
universe: 
<url> 
On Thermodynamic Equilibrium in a Static Einstein Universe 
<url> On the 
stability of the Einstein static universe 
<url>  When Dutch 
astronomer Willem de Sitter proposed a static model of the universe in the 
early 1900s, he was some 3 trillion years ahead of his time.  So you see I 
was not in error because science most certainly *DID* at one time believe in 
a *static state universe* and some of today's scientist believe that in 
about 3 trillion years we will indeed have a static state universe (btw I 
disagree with that, lol)
True; but I believe what they need to do is to allow for the possibility of 
Gods existence to take more prominence in their calculations and they might 
just get a better understanding of how it all works.
Only confirmed to those that believed in it in the first place.
Because God created it old
Considering that God created the isotopes in the first place and that he 
created them with their already having released or went through half life 
deterioration what's your point?
Flawed because they are baised upon faulty assumptions in that God created 
the earth as being old from the second it was made
modern tests are likewise flawed; because they do not take into account that 
the earth was created old
Creationists have anything but *weak* faith.  In fact their faith is quite 
strong, else they would not survive against so much criticism
I believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific *error* 
To accept this error or to treat it as fundamental evidence and as the 
*ONLY* truth is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance of Gods 
creation and believe it should not be transmitted to our children without 
first giving our children the *benefit* of Gods teachings as a means with 
witch to balance their education and allow them to see *both* sides of the 
debate so that they can come to an educated conclusion as to the facts one 
way or the other for their self; because without establishing what we 
believe to be the *facts* of *BOTH* sides of the issue would be to do them a 
disservice by only allowing them to see one side or the other.  We believe 
that *BOTH* sides must be presented in a factual and forthright manner 
without bias being given to *either* side.  Furthermore because of the 
public school systems refusal to present *both* sides of the debate I 
believe that our children should be taught about God at home with as much 
exclusivity as what evolution is at school unless and until enough political 
might can be brought to bear to change the inequity of what is being taught 
in the public school systems.
Personally I am not worried about any atheism nor agnostic or non-believers 
in general; because their belief or more to the point their lack there of 
has no bearing upon my salvation.  I do however believe that I am to spread 
the good news so I do.  I do not however go into non believing groups where 
they do not want my beliefs and I would think that they would not want to do 
like wise; but it seems that non-believers want to come into believers 
groups.
.         /}
@###{ ]888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4yber Knight for Christ888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4>
.         \}
Gods Words Are my Strength and Sword "
    @gabriel_baptist: "On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
<quote>
You're free to actually show details to refute the scientific
claims they make, to show exactly how you claim it's not
scientific. Or you can snip it and act like your opinion is all
that's required. Unfortunately, it takes quite a bit more than
you snipping and offering your opinion. You're free to address
the specific details any time you're ready. But of course, you
never do, and you never will."
    @gabriel_baptist: "On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:40:09 GMT, Elmer
<quote>
They do have scientific information. But to address why it's so
hard to find anything under traditional "scientific" channels
*when it comes to origins and life*, it's because they blacklist
and smear the reputation of any scientist that dares to point out
actual scientific truth of what all the evidence is really
saying; what it's really pointing to. "Science" is nothing of the
kind when it resorts to guesses on life and origins of what
happened more than 5,000 years ago, let alone millions or
billions of years ago.
<url>
So the real question is: why can't they refute the specific
claims that many like AiG and ICR point out in such detail?
Because they can't. Why don't you instead take notice of the
non-truthful behavior of those who really just hate the truth
that anyone helps to shed light on? The truth of God and the
amazing saving grace of Jesus Christ!
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world,
and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds
were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light,
neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may
be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. 
John 3:19-21 KJVR"
    @mmman_90: ""Gabriel" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Well Gabe, they don't make scientific claims. If you care to present what 
you think is their best I'll take a mary12@example.com. "
    @72545: ""Free Lunch" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
| On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:54:23 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
| "adman" <email_address> wrote in
| <zW2Fj.7825$<email_address>>:
| >
| >news:<email_address>
| >| On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:15:07 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
| >| "adman" <email_address> wrote in
| >| <nZZEj.33013$<email_address>>:
| >| >
| >| >news:ZyZEj.299$<email_address>
| >| >| >
| >| 
 >news:<email_address>
| >| >| > | > Yet more evidence that shows that contradicts the "millions" 
of
| >| >| > | > year age of fossils, and instead points to a young earth.
| >| >| > |
| >| >| > | Yet more evidence that the average Creationist is ignorant of
| >science.
| >| >| >
| >| >| >
| >| >| > WRONG..
| >| >| >
| >| >| > It is More evidence of the truth.
| >| >| >
| >| >| > Anything more then 10,000 years old and science is GUESSING.
| >| >| >
| >| >| > And THATS the turth too.
| >| >| >
| >| >|
| >| >| No guessing is mary12@example.com. The earth is old and so is the
| >universe.
| >| >All
| >| >| scientific evidence says this. Masses of it. From anthropology, to
| >| >chemistry to
| >| >| physics, to astronomy, to cosmology, to geology, to biology. There 
is
| >| >simply no
| >| >| question about this.
| >| >
| >| >The age of the earth is not in question.
| >| >
| >| >Science's ability to accurately explain what happened a billion years
| >ago,
| >| >or beyond 10,000 years ago, is speculation and suspect.
| >|
| >| You keep making claims that show your ignorance of science, 
indifference
| >| to knowledge and willingness to shill for religious liars.
| >|
| >| As usual, your claim here was false. Why don't you go learn something?
| >
| >Man cannot cure the common cold, how can you believe man can reliability
| >date something billions of years old?
|
| Your logic is absurdly flawed.
My Common sense, which is something you seem to lack, is flawless..
|
| >As i said: "more then 10,000 years old and science is GUESSING."
|
| You are repeating your false claim after the error of your claim was
| pointed out to you. That makes you a liar.
Only if your assumption that i am wrong is correct. Which it is not.
How can you possibly believe that mankind can accurately depict the earths 
state of condition a billion years ago when mankind has trouble solving the 
simplest of things today? I was being generous saying science can be 
accurate within 10,000 years. Carbon dating the age of fossils is not a 
flawless procedure and can be skewed by many things.Living penguins have 
been carbon dated and the results said that they died 8,000 years ago. This 
is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.
"Students studying the relationship of lava flows have discovered that 
certain lava flows on the island of Hawaii are very similar to each other 
and related to each other. That indicates that they were expelled within a 3 
to 6 month time frame to each other. The reason for that short time frame is 
suggested by the fact that in the process of lava extrusion, the magma 
chamber becomes depleted in various elements. This, in turn, causes changes 
in the makeup of lava flows over time. Therefore, when very similar lava 
compositions are found, this suggests very short periods between extrusions. 
Radiometric dates show millions of years between these lava flows. Therefore 
the results of chemical composition and radiometric dates do not match. This 
is not understandable unless the ages are not correct."
<url>
The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the 
results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago ("The Illustrated 
Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor)
"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian 
lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 
and 1801.("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)
<url>
As you can see kook, carbon dating the age of fossils is not, I repeat IS 
NOT, a flawless procedure.
So when Gabriel wrote:"Yet more evidence that shows and contradicts the 
"millions" of year age of fossils, and instead points to a young earth" 
he/she was correcct.
Ok, you may insert your usual childish ranting below."
    @lunch: "On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 04:09:25 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism 
"adman" <email_address> wrote in
<P6pFj.9412$<email_address>>:
<quote>
...
So you assert. You are mistaken.
I am not assuming that you are wrong. I am pointing out that you are
wrong based on the evidence. Your problem is that you refuse to look at
the evidence and keep shouting at the top of your lungs "I can't hear
you". 
Where did you get the idea that curing a family of viruses that mutate
fairly quickly is a simple thing? Clearly, you do not understand
biology.
Scientists would not carbon date fossils. Your story about carbon-dated
penguins is erroneous, but since it fits your biases, I expect you to
repeat it again and again. Dishonesty, they name is Theism.
The author of the article you cite had no idea what is going on in
radiometric dating and he appears to rely on Velikovsky. You have chosen
to provide a reference to a complete fool. That does reflect on your
research abilities and your understanding of science. Why don't you
actually use scientific papers instead of the evidence-free claims of
religious flakes next time?
More misleading claims from religious zealots.
It is always a flawed procedure to carbon date a fossil. Scientists do
not carbon date fossils. Those who make claims about carbon dating of
fossils are lying to you.
Gabriel knows no more about science than you do.
Learn some science."
    @lunch: "On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:38:59 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism 
"adman" <email_address> wrote in
<AAwFj.8413$<email_address>>:
<quote>
Yes, it was. Why do you rely on it?"
    @72545: ""Free Lunch" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
| On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 04:09:25 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
| "adman" <email_address> wrote in
| <P6pFj.9412$<email_address>>:
| >
| >news:<email_address>
| >| On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:54:23 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
| >| "adman" <email_address> wrote in
| >| <zW2Fj.7825$<email_address>>:
|
| ...
|
| >| >Man cannot cure the common cold, how can you believe man can 
reliability
| >| >date something billions of years old?
| >|
| >| Your logic is absurdly flawed.
| >
| >My Common sense, which is something you seem to lack, is flawless..
|
| So you assert. You are mistaken.
|
| >|
| >| >As i said: "more then 10,000 years old and science is GUESSING."
| >|
| >| You are repeating your false claim after the error of your claim was
| >| pointed out to you. That makes you a liar.
| >
| >Only if your assumption that i am wrong is correct. Which it is not.
|
| I am not assuming that you are wrong. I am pointing out that you are
| wrong based on the evidence. Your problem is that you refuse to look at
| the evidence and keep shouting at the top of your lungs "I can't hear
| you".
|
| >How can you possibly believe that mankind can accurately depict the 
earths
| >state of condition a billion years ago when mankind has trouble solving 
the
| >simplest of things today?
|
| Where did you get the idea that curing a family of viruses that mutate
| fairly quickly is a simple thing? Clearly, you do not understand
| biology.
|
| >I was being generous saying science can be
| >accurate within 10,000 years. Carbon dating the age of fossils is not a
| >flawless procedure and can be skewed by many things.Living penguins have
| >been carbon dated and the results said that they died 8,000 years ago. 
This
| >is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.
|
| Scientists would not carbon date fossils. Your story about carbon-dated
| penguins is erroneous, but since it fits your biases, I expect you to
| repeat it again and again. Dishonesty, they name is Theism.
|
| >"Students studying the relationship of lava flows have discovered that
| >certain lava flows on the island of Hawaii are very similar to each other
| >and related to each other. That indicates that they were expelled within 
a 3
| >to 6 month time frame to each other. The reason for that short time frame 
is
| >suggested by the fact that in the process of lava extrusion, the magma
| >chamber becomes depleted in various elements. This, in turn, causes 
changes
| >in the makeup of lava flows over time. Therefore, when very similar lava
| >compositions are found, this suggests very short periods between 
extrusions.
| >Radiometric dates show millions of years between these lava flows. 
Therefore
| >the results of chemical composition and radiometric dates do not match. 
This
| >is not understandable unless the ages are not correct."
| >
| ><url>
|
| The author of the article you cite had no idea what is going on in
| radiometric dating and he appears to rely on Velikovsky. You have chosen
| to provide a reference to a complete fool. That does reflect on your
| research abilities and your understanding of science. Why don't you
| actually use scientific papers instead of the evidence-free claims of
| religious flakes next time?
|
| >The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and 
the
| >results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago ("The Illustrated
| >Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor)
| >
| >"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian
| >lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 
1800
| >and 1801.("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)
| >
| ><url>
|
| More misleading claims from religious zealots.
|
| >As you can see kook, carbon dating the age of fossils is not, I repeat IS
| >NOT, a flawless procedure.
|
| It is always a flawed procedure to carbon date a fossil. Scientists do
| not carbon date fossils. Those who make claims about carbon dating of
| fossils are lying to you.
|
| >So when Gabriel wrote:"Yet more evidence that shows and contradicts the
| >"millions" of year age of fossils, and instead points to a young earth"
| >he/she was correcct.
|
| Gabriel knows no more about science than you do.
|
| >Ok, you may insert your usual childish ranting below.
|
| Learn some science.
You are intellectually dishonest"
    @gabriel_baptist: "On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:51:38 GMT, Elmer
<quote>
Sorry but we need more than your word that someone is lying.
Please show specifically and exactly how *you* think they are
lying in your own words about the specific claims they make.
Thank you."
    @paulbryantsr: ""Elmer" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:3bdFj.339$<email_address>
<quote>
It applies equally to *ALL*
.         /}
@###{ ]888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4yber Knight for Christ888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4>
.         \}
Gods Words Are my Strength and Sword "
    @gabriel_baptist: "On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:36:57 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
<quote>
Can we stay on topic and please address the exact points made in
the specific article I quoted, and prove, in your own words,
exactly how what they say is completely false (according to you).
Thank you."
    @lunch: "On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:04:04 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism 
"adman" <email_address> wrote in
<8_DFj.8620$<email_address>>:
<quote>
There is ample, well-founded evidence for an ancient universe and
ancient earth. You deny those facts because you have chosen to be
ignorant.
I have offered to discuss the evidence with you. You have refused,
arguing about some silly, meaningless thing called 'proof'.
Your doctrines are completely without foundation or supporting evidence.
That is a fact. That is why you can never offer any evidence to us."
    @72545: ""Free Lunch" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
| On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:07:40 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
| <email_address> (Ted J L) wrote in
| <w9DFj.43888$<email_address>>:
says...
|
| >>No guessing is mary12@example.com. The earth is old and so is the universe. 
All
| >>scientific evidence says this. Masses of it. From anthropology, to 
chemistry
| >>to physics, to astronomy, to cosmology, to geology, to biology. There is
| >>simply no question about this.
| >
| >You sound like a lawyer making an unsupported assertion in an attempt to
| >shift the burden of evidence to the other side, which is rather typical
| >of people who cling to a Darwinian world view.
|
| Your claim isn't supported by any evidence.
Neither is YOURS
|
| >You reject Jesus and/or
| >His support of the Genesis account [cf Lk 19:4-5],
|
| The physical evidence shows that a literal interpretation of the Genesis
| account is false. Those who teach Genesis literalism are telling us that
| God is a trickster god. The claims in the Bible about who Jesus was or
| what He might have said are completely unsubstantiated.
|
| >so you have no trouble at all rejecting the work of Creation science
| >which has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the physical evidence
| >is in perfect agreement with the biblical account of origins
| >and of the Genesis flood.
|
| Reality shows that anti-evolutionary creationism is a false doctrine.
|
| >See for example:
| >
| >Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson
| >The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris
| >Answersingenesis.com
| >Institute for Creation Research, ICR.org
|
| Each of them have been shown to be liars, not merely mistaken but
| intentionally misleading. Johnson, of course, was a lawyer who chose to
| misrepresent a number of facts in his fake trial of Darwin. No honest
| Christian would ever use any of the references you cited.
|
| >But as previously stated, you'd rather reject truth of evidence in favor
| >of a modified Darwinan explanation. That IS prophesied in the bible.
|
| The evidence is clear. Anti-evolution creationism is false. The only
| form of creationism that does not rely on lies and false doctrines is
| theistic evolution.
|
| >"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
| >ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,
| >who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
| >Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
| >for God hath shewed it unto them." Rom 1:18-19
| >
| >"Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death,
| >and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall
| >pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our 
refuge,
| >and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
| >Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation
| >a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he 
that
| >believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and
| >righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of
| >lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant
| >with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not 
stand;
| >when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden
| >down by it." [Is 28:15-18]
|
| Quoting the Bible will not change the facts. Young Earth Creationism is
| a lie. There was no global flood.
Yet you offer NO PROOF WHAT SO EVER.
Why is that?"
    @72545: ""Ted J L" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:hpFFj.43892$<email_address>
<email_address> says...
| >
| >On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:07:40 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
| ><email_address> (Ted J L) wrote in
| ><w9DFj.43888$<email_address>>:
says...
| >
| >>>No guessing is mary12@example.com. The earth is old and so is the 
universe. All
| >>>scientific evidence says this. Masses of it. From anthropology, to 
chemistry
| >>>to physics, to astronomy, to cosmology, to geology, to biology. There 
is
| >>>simply no question about this.
| >>
| >>You sound like a lawyer making an unsupported assertion in an attempt to
| >>shift the burden of evidence to the other side, which is rather typical
| >>of people who cling to a Darwinian world view.
| >
| >Your claim isn't supported by any evidence.
| >
| >>You reject Jesus and/or
| >>His support of the Genesis account [cf Lk 19:4-5],
| >
| >The physical evidence shows that a literal interpretation of the Genesis
| >account is false. Those who teach Genesis literalism are telling us that
| >God is a trickster god. The claims in the Bible about who Jesus was or
| >what He might have said are completely unsubstantiated.
| >
| >>so you have no trouble at all rejecting the work of Creation science
| >>which has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the physical evidence
| >>is in perfect agreement with the biblical account of origins
| >>and of the Genesis flood.
| >
| >Reality shows that anti-evolutionary creationism is a false doctrine.
| >
| >>See for example:
| >>
| >>Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson
| >>The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris
| >>Answersingenesis.com
| >>Institute for Creation Research, ICR.org
| >
| >Each of them have been shown to be liars, not merely mistaken but
| >intentionally misleading. Johnson, of course, was a lawyer who chose to
| >misrepresent a number of facts in his fake trial of Darwin. No honest
| >Christian would ever use any of the references you cited.
| >
| >>But as previously stated, you'd rather reject truth of evidence in favor
| >>of a modified Darwinan explanation. That IS prophesied in the bible.
| >
| >The evidence is clear. Anti-evolution creationism is false. The only
| >form of creationism that does not rely on lies and false doctrines is
| >theistic evolution.
| >
| >>"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
| >>ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,
| >>who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
| >>Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
| >>for God hath shewed it unto them." Rom 1:18-19
| >>
| >>"Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death,
| >>and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall
| >>pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our 
refuge,
| >>and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
| >>Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a 
foundation
| >>a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he 
that
| >>believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, 
and
| >>righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge 
of
| >>lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant
| >>with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not 
stand;
| >>when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be 
trodden
| >>down by it." [Is 28:15-18]
| >
| >Quoting the Bible will not change the facts. Young Earth Creationism is
| >a lie. There was no global flood.
|
| LOL there you go again prooving my point.  Darwinian apologists
| act like trial lawyers being unable to defend their case on the
| merits, and so resort to repetitious and increasingly hostile statements 
of
| what they want to be true.
In addition, they often ask for proof yet seldom provide proof for their 
assertions.
| All the while showing 2Ti 3:9 as another
| fulfilled prophecy of the bible:
| "But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest
| unto all men"
I have found this to be true. When stumped, they parrot the same things over 
and over because they simply caannot go any further.So 2Ti  2:0 is 
approiate.
The Darwinian apologists seem to have a very limited perspective of 
themselves,others, the world around them and life in general.
|
| The jig is up. Choose your faith: Darwinism, death and destruction; .
| or Jesus THE way, THE truth, and THE life.
Sadly, they are reluctant to keep an open-minded attitude to all truth. 
Having a closed mind they convince themselves by worshiping man made things 
such as science.
|
| "...I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing:
| therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" [Deut 30:19]
"My people perish for lack of knowledge" hoesa 4:6
Adman
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And he shall speak great words against the most High,
     and shall wear out the saints of the most High,.
          and think to change times and laws... -
                            Daniel 7:25
|
|  
| *Scripture references are quoted from The holy Bible, King James version
| Prepared for the University of Virginia Library Electronic Text Center
| <url>
| "
    @augray: "On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:36:57 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
<email_address> wrote in
<email_address> :
<quote>
[snip]
I must admit that I don't understand what the problem is. The original
Feduccia quote is accurate. He *did* apparently say that.
[snip]"
    @jwainwright: "<quote>
First off, I'm not exactly a big fan of religion, or religious fanatics.
But I have to agree with what adman is saying here. You do spend an 
inordinate amount of time (and bandwidth) demanding they give "evidence" 
for their beliefs, and yet, when asked that you do the same, you clam up 
and spout out what seems to be a few well-rehearsed one-liners that 
appear so empty and without any content whatsoever.
We each believe what we want to believe. Each side has the same amount 
of "evidence" to back them up. Neither side can conclusively prove they 
are correct. That's the way it's always been, and, from all indications, 
that's the way it will  stay.
Jerry Wainwright"
    @lunch: "On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:47:48 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism 
Jerry Wainwright <email_address> wrote in
<email_address>:
<quote>
...
I am trying to get religious zealots to acknowledge that their religion
is by faith alone and that they have no mary12@example.com. The particular
question that was asked was confirmed by the fact that he had no
evidence. If he wants to talk about science, I can cheerfully direct him
to evidence in any number of areas, but it seems clear to me that he
isn't interested. 
If you don't find any substance in the discussion it is because he
offers nothing to discuss. It is not my job to disprove a claim that he
makes and cannot back up with evidence. As long as he has nothing, he
has lost. 
False.
And self-described neutrals who buy the lies of theists are a part of
the problem."
    @jwainwright: "<quote>
All of this emotive animosity belies the confidence that you have in
your convictions. I've read quite a few papers containing compelling
evidence for the Theistic viewpoints. I find it interesting that you are
not able to provide any evidence for your suppositions. If you could do
that, it would certainly do wonders at relieving some of that hostility
and bitterness within you.
Jerry Wainwright"
    @lunch: "On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:04:56 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism 
Jerry Wainwright <email_address> wrote in
<email_address>:
<quote>
So, if you know of evidence, why don't you point it out to me? 
I keep asking for evidence and the theists all keep avoiding the
question."
    @jwainwright: "<quote>
It can all be found on the Internet, if you're really interested in 
reading about it.
I'd say a good place to start is here: 
<url>
But there are several other good websites as well.
Now going back to something you said earlier about "....trying to get 
religious zealots to acknowledge that their religion is by faith alone 
and that they have no mary12@example.com."  Have you ever asked yourself 
why that is so important to you? There is evidence for them to believe 
what they believe. I personally don't care what they believe or don't 
believe. They have the right to believe whatever they want to. That's 
only fair. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. But for someone to 
come along and tell them they are wrong for believing what they believe, 
that smacks of McCarthyism on one side, and Communism on the other. And 
that's not a fair and equitable thing to do.  I am afraid your method of 
remonstration leaves much to be desired.
Jerry Wainwright"
    @lunch: "On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 03:06:21 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism 
Jerry Wainwright <email_address> wrote in
<email_address>:
<quote>
You pointed me to an apologetics page. Apologetics is not evidence.
Reasons to Believe assumes that you will accept their unsupported
assertions rather than actual scientific evidence. They also assume that
you will be an ignoramus who can be easily conned by their religious
doctrines. I want evidence, not religious doctrines that are unsupported
by any evidence.
Yes.
No, that is not evidence. They may believe without evidence, but when
they claim to have evidence, they are repeating falsehoods. Look at the
Reasons to Believe website, they don't offer evidence. None.
You excuse their lies and false claims. Are you not like McCarthy's
gutless colleagues who allowed the lies to flourish?"
    @jwainwright: "<quote>
One second after sending my last post I somehow knew what your reply 
would be.
Have you ever heard of "predestination" ?
I'm starting to believe in it more and more.
Jerry Wainwright"
    @72545: ""BRAINIAC" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
|
| [snipped for brevity and focus]
|
| > > Carbon dating is not used for dating fossils, but for the dating of
| > > artifacts containing parts of plant or animal origin.
| >
| > You are correct; such methods as the potassium-argon or 
rubidium-strontium
| > methods are used to date fossils and I think the "article" referenced 
such.
| > However, I used the term "carbon dating" because it is a term more 
readily
| > understood and since both carbon dating and the two methods above use a
| > decay rate to establish dates, little meaning is lost to the layman that 
may
| > be reading. You OTOH wish to nitpick and argue details while missing the
| > overall point. That point being dating methods are not reliable as the 
links
| > i posted above and below prove.
| >
| > > And, as far as I am aware, nobody has ever attempted to carbon date a
| > > living organism to find out how old it is.
| >
| > Living penguins have been carbon dated; Living snails have been carbon
| > dated; As well as "The shells of living mollusks have been dated using 
the
| > carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having 
been
| > dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637) "
| >
| > <url>
| > <url>
| > <url>
|
| I don't wish to be unreasonable but these three websites are not
| exactly reputable sources.
|
| The first is a personal website, in which the author clearly declares
| that fossil bones were sent to a laboratory and implies that the
| scientists at this laboratory "didn't know" that these bones were
| fossils, an unlikely situation as a fossil of a bone is completely
| different to a bone in any other state.
It implies no such thing. The lab did not know what "kind" of bones they 
tested, so no assumptions could be made before hand.
Many people have "personal website"s. So what? It is the information on the 
web site that is important. And i believe you misunderstood the information, 
anyway. 1)they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of 
years ago. and then 2)"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating 
were dinosaur bones"
No where is it said the bones were not fossiles. The scientists just did not 
know what "Kind"of bones they were as i said.
|
| The second site uses materials from the less than popular Kent Hovind,
| who is considered something of a pariah by many other creationists as
| he persists in using arguments and allegations that have long since
| been discarded by the main body of creationists.
Here is another from a university that says the same thing:
<url>
Next, I guess you will say only a Harvard URL will do.
|
| And the third site, is well, an open site where anyone can upload
| anything they want in the form of a powerpoint presentation, which
| again casts doubts on the reliability of any information posted there.
|
| Here is a comment from the owners of that third site:
|
| "... and that SlideShare is not responsible for the accuracy,
| usefulness, safety, or intellectual property rights of or relating to
| such Submissions ... "
|
| In my opinion such sites are not exactly reliable sources of accurate
| information.
It seems to me that any proof offered that contradicts popular belief would 
be ignored on usenet.
|
| :)
| >
| > With All Credit Due to the authors of the websites for their research.- 
Hide quoted text -
| >
| > - Show quoted text -
| "
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 28, "forum_name": "alt.religion.christian.catholic.20150601.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.religion.parquet'}