I have added some content to Genesis Science Museum web site on the
philosophy of science and would like your opinion. I have more in progress
but this is the first.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Museum <http://gscim.com/>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pretty good but I like what Richard Feynman told a national science
teachers convention in 1966:
"We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people
make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on, but
these do not thereby become established science, established
knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of science--
analogous to the South Sea island airfields, radio towers, etc.,
made out of wood. The islanders expect a great airplane to
arrive. They even build wooden airplanes of the same shape as
they see in foreigners' airfields around them, but strangely
enough, their wood planes do not fly. The results of this
pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of
you are. You teachers who are really teaching children at the
bottom of the heap can maybe doubt the experts once in a while.
Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter
of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the
belief in the ignorance of experts." (The Physics Teacher, 7
September, 1969, 313-320)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Interesting reference did you get here?
http://amasci.com/feynexpt.txt
I like the way he defines science as "the belief in the ignorance of
experts."
I like so much I added it to the page on what is science.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Museum
_____
From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of WDOUGWILDER@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:14 AM
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Genesis Science Museum up date
pretty good but I like what Richard Feynman told a national science
teachers convention in 1966:
"We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people
make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on, but
these do not thereby become established science, established
knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of science--
analogous to the South Sea island airfields, radio towers, etc.,
made out of wood. The islanders expect a great airplane to
arrive. They even build wooden airplanes of the same shape as
they see in foreigners' airfields around them, but strangely
enough, their wood planes do not fly. The results of this
pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of
you are. You teachers who are really teaching children at the
bottom of the heap can maybe doubt the experts once in a while.
Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter
of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the
belief in the ignorance of experts." (The Physics Teacher, 7
September, 1969, 313-320)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://tinyurl.com/yc2898chttp://tinyurl.com/yf77fp6
Here are two links to articles about the Evo's latest so called Missing
Link. The second article is from AIG.
They claim that it is a link between four legged and two legged dinosaurs.
The main bases of this claim the shortness front legs.
There three problems that I see with their claim.
1. The incompleteness of the skeleton, specifically the fact that the one
front leg found us incomplete. This raises questions about the accuracy of
the depicted shortness of the front legs.
2. They recognize that the dinosaur walked on all fours at least some of the
time, so maybe it did not walk on two legs at all.
3. The big problem is that according to their own dating methods it lived to
late since both types already existed in the fossil record. So here we have
yet another case where the fossil is found out side the order they expect
and they still call it transitional, they simply assume the real ancestor
must have existed before this fossil even though they don't have any
evidence.
I can see two creationist interpretation of this fossil.
1. Suggested by AIG is that it's a separately created kind.
2. It's a malformed sauropod with under developed front legs. This type of
defect does occur. That is one thing Evolutionists never seem to consider
are malformed individuals that may never have had any kids. Evolutionist
would not expect to find such malformed individuals since it is statically
improbable that such rear individuals would get fossilized, but as
Creationists we would expect many malformed individuals living at the time
of the flood to get burred and fossilized.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Museum <http://gscim.com/>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
When the Lord cursed the "serpent" (reptile kind) to go upon it's belly; it
didn't happen instantly. Just like Adam and Eve didn't die instantly. The
serpent walked on it's hind legs, balanced by a long tell. He had a Dino type
body with arms and a long serpent neck. After the curse his offspring started to
change. An on going process, that was quicker at first, and has slowed until
present day changes. Filling the earth with a vast variety. All of which
changed so that they walked, then crawled closer to the ground.
This slow progressive change can be seen in the fossil record and closely
related reptiles of today. All of which crawl or slither on their bellies and
have many common traits that show their common ancestry of the serpent of the
Garden of Eden.
Probably looking something like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24898585@N02/4125150732/
--- On Sat, 11/21/09, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:
From: Chuck <chuckpc@...>
Subject: [CreationTalk] "Missing Link Dinosaur Discovered"
To: "CreationTalk" <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 4:38 PM
http://tinyurl. com/yc2898c
http://tinyurl. com/yf77fp6
Here are two links to articles about the Evo's latest so called Missing
Link. The second article is from AIG.
They claim that it is a link between four legged and two legged dinosaurs.
The main bases of this claim the shortness front legs.
There three problems that I see with their claim.
1. The incompleteness of the skeleton, specifically the fact that the one
front leg found us incomplete. This raises questions about the accuracy of
the depicted shortness of the front legs.
2. They recognize that the dinosaur walked on all fours at least some of the
time, so maybe it did not walk on two legs at all.
3. The big problem is that according to their own dating methods it lived to
late since both types already existed in the fossil record. So here we have
yet another case where the fossil is found out side the order they expect
and they still call it transitional, they simply assume the real ancestor
must have existed before this fossil even though they don't have any
evidence.
I can see two creationist interpretation of this fossil.
1. Suggested by AIG is that it's a separately created kind.
2. It's a malformed sauropod with under developed front legs. This type of
defect does occur. That is one thing Evolutionists never seem to consider
are malformed individuals that may never have had any kids. Evolutionist
would not expect to find such malformed individuals since it is statically
improbable that such rear individuals would get fossilized, but as
Creationists we would expect many malformed individuals living at the time
of the flood to get burred and fossilized.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Museum <http://gscim. com/>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
skeevescanga wrote:
>
>
> I am preparing to teach a Creation Class at my church next spring and
> the thought just struck me about how difficult it would be for an
> evolutionist to masquerade as a creationist, but I would bet it to be
> much easier for us to do the reverse.
>
> In that regard - do you have any applications from people trying to
> join this group that you have rejected? I would be really grateful to
> see a few. Actual names of the people submitting are not needed.
>
> The point that I'm trying to make in class is that without the saving
> grace of Christ, we are blinded and in darkness - so much that we
> can't even see the darkness and trying to masquerade as a christian
> (or creationist for that matter) is futile because it would require
> understanding that only a christian has. I would be especially
> interested in any submission sent to join this group by someone
> obviously trying to masquerade as a creationist.
>
Ravi Zacarias wrote about this. In my opinion it's not so simple. To
most of us creationists who have spent time in the subject area, it
would not take much to unmask them, since they don't really believe the
concept. Although there are many levels of deceit, and some of the most
prominent names known among Christians fool great numbers of Christians,
who have not grown enough to discern the difference.
If you know the genuine article well enough, you can tell a deceiver.
They have an agenda, and usually it's to sneak in and try to make their
"fellow believers" doubt here and there. Paul spoke of some of these who
had infiltrated the church back then.
What? You didn't think Satan would have willing volunteers for
intentionally disrupting the congregations of believers?
---
It's been said that Satan and his devils can imitate the gifts of the
spirit but not the fruits of the spirit.
Well, in the "time of the end" we are told in scripture that evil men
and seducers will wax worse and worse, and many shall come in Christ's
name ("in my name saying, I am Christ) and saying "the time draweth
near". He gave a long list of specific signs for when the time draweth
near, but this is a warning about following any wind of prophetic
preaching that comes around. (In my opinion that "near" reference is to
the same warning in II Thessalonians 2, the "any minute" idea).
Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and
shall deceive many. (Mark 13:6)
Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall
come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye
not therefore after them.
The false prophet of Revelation 13 will be able to do such great wonders
that "if it were possible he shall deceive the very elect".
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,
deceiving, and being deceived.
2 Thessalonians predicts a "falling away first" and "that man of sin be
revealed, the son of perdition;"... There are all kinds of such verses.
I have posted several exhibits under Hall of Science / Philosophy of
Science.
I would like some feed back from this group.
They are:
What is Science?
Scientific Objectivity
The Scientific Establishment
Historical vs Operational Science
Science and the Supernatural
Is Creation Science, Science?
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Museum <http://gscim.com/>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Recommended!!!
JD Mitchell
This is an excellent presentation of evidence to uncover the mysteries behind
the famous "poster child" of evolution. Was this creature a bird or a dinosaur,
or a discovered missing link? Mitchell has carefully researched these fossils
and has come to a compelling and satisfying conclusion. Find out for yourselves
in little more than an hour what is behind all of the evo-hype and what this
creature probably was. $15
http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_28_BOOK-DVD-STORE&mid=3\
1
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view
<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116657> &pageId=116657
Creationists have long known how the Scientific Establishment treats
scientists and data that then to support Creation and ID to the point of
persecuting a fellow Evolutionist who simply published an ID paper in his
journal that passed peer review. The above article presents further evidence
showing that this occurs out site the topic of origins. In this case the
topic is global warming but the approach is the same. This shows that the
persecution Creationists have faced for decades is the fate of any one
daring to challenge the ruling paradigm of the Scientific Establishment.
The article shows emails that discuss not the manipulating and hiding of
data contrary to global warming but included the discrediting of Scientists
and peer review journals that published papers against global warming. Sound
familiar? It should since they have been using the same tactics against
creationists for decades.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Museum <http://gscim.com/>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Climategate
What the climate scientists wrote and when they wrote it
National Post
Posted: 23 November 2009
8:40 PM | by NP Editor
________________________________
On Friday, news broke that a hacker had broken in to the computer systems used
by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in Britain,
obtaining more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents. The material, which
covers a period of more than a decade, has led many to conclude that climate
scientists associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
and various government agencies have been cooking the books to make the case for
man-made global warming. Climate researchers deny any wrongdoing, explaining
that the e-mails are innocent and have been taken out of context. The
University, while confirming the hacking, cannot confirm the authenticity of all
the stolen documents. Here is a sampling of some of the exchanges.
· From Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at East
Anglia University, to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, three U.S.
scientists who have produced the controversial “hockey-stick graphs” that
purport to show rapidly increasing temperatures in recent decades. Nov, 16,
1999.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for
Keith’s to hide the decline.”
· From Kevin Trenberth, a lead author with the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to Michael Mann, on Oct 12. 2009. The
email, titled “BBC U-turn on climate,” laments a BBC article that reversed
its long-held position on man-made global warming.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it is a travesty that we can’t. ... Our observing system is inadequate.”
· From: Michael Mann, Oct 27, 2009
“Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post... As we all know, this
isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”
· From: Edward Cook, June 4, 2003
“I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural,
Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone
from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in
dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc.
... If published as is, this paper could really do some damage … It won’t be
easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically
(...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review — Confidentially I
now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”
· From: Tom Wigley, Sep 27, 2009
“So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 C, then this would be
significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land
blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and
i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via
either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these).”
· From: Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005
“The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been
after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of
Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send
to anyone.”
· From: Phil Jones, May 29, 2008
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do
likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also
email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We
will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
· From: Keith Briffa, Sep 22, 1999
“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent
unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in
reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies
that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of
tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent
warming.”
· From: Michael E. Mann, Mar 11, 2003
“I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We
would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable
colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
· From: Tom Wigley, Apr24, 2003
“Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work
— must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with
people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.”
· From: Phil Jones, July 5, 2005
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science
could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being
political, it is being selfish.”
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/23/climateg\
ate.aspx
(accessed 26 November 2009)
________________________________
After Copenhagen, the end of the science
Rising uncertainty over science existed
long before the CRU emails surfaced
By Terence Corcoran
Posted 23 November 2009, 8:45PM
by NP Editor | National Post
________________________________
In the run-up to next month’s increasingly shaky Copenhagen global warming
policy negotiations, the official advice from the world’s climatists is that
the politicians and the rest of us should just pay no attention to the science
of climate change. It is settled, they say, and all we have to do — as the
Financial Times editorialized recently — is “follow the science” and get
on with the business of reconstruction and redistributing world economic
production. We must, in the words of Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker’s
resident climatist, maintain our “faith in science.”
Among true believers, holding on to that deep faith in the scientific process
must be something of a strain, not unlike holding on to the conviction that
Moses actually did part the Red Sea. That’s some trick! Before this past
weekend, doubts about the foundations of climate science were already being
seriously raised by climate observers who noted, among other anomalies, that
average global temperatures are no higher than they were in 1998 and may get
cooler in coming years? If the world is getting hotter, how come it’s not
getting hotter?
Other observations are also feeding public skepticism of the idea that man-made
global warming is a risk to planetary ecosystems and the future of human life on
Earth. One could fill pages with evidence either of global warming’s manifest
absence from our lives or its failure to show up on schedule or as expected.
Where are the hurricanes, the sea level increases, the floods in Europe, the
steady signs of warming? Fewer people believe the hype, one of the main reasons
politicians heading to the Copenhagen are shying away from major commitments.
If, as expected, Copenhagen fails to rewrite the rules of the world economy to
meet climate objectives, the next step in the process will be the slow collapse
of the science. It will not happen overnight — billions of dollars and
man-hours have already been invested in the science. It will take time to
unwind.
Already fraying at the edges, the science unravelled a little more over the past
weekend. Fresh reason for skepticism emerged with the release — via hackers or
internal leaks — of a massive cache of emails collected in the computer
systems at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in
Britain. The CRU is the prime source of global temperature data, and the emails
raise serious issues about some of the methods and practices of the leading
figures in the official science of global warming.
Climate skeptics have swarmed the email cache and are trying to turn it into
evidence of science skulduggery. There is evidence, they say, of science fraud
that should serve to discredit the work of the United Nation’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Defenders of the establishment claim
the emails are much ado about not much, beyond revealing routine inside-science
debates and conflicts. A few of the key emails from the massive collection are
reproduced elsewhere on this page, cherry-picked from more than 1,000 e-mails
and 3,000 documents that are now readily available to the curious in the
Internet.
Clearly climate science is not Louis Pasteur in his lab or Alexander Fleming
searching for antibiotics and discovering penicillin. Providing the proof for
man-made global warming is big business and big politics, backed by hundreds of
billions of dollar and deep ideological convictions. Have the convictions
overtaken the search for scientific proof? The CRU emails, while no smoking gun
of fraud and malfeasance, can only add to the already mounting scientific and
popular skepticism.
The coming end of certainty over man-made warming was already a possibility
before the CRU events. The idea that the science is not settled, or that it is
incomplete and uncertain, shows up in many places, even among the true
believers.
One of the CRU emails is from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis
Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado
and a leading member of the IPCC science team. Last month, in a letter to
Michael Mann, the inventor of the “hockey stick” graph, he asked: “Where
the heck is global warming?” It’s freezing in Colorado, he said, and “the
fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is
a travesty that we can’t.”
It could be more than a travesty if, over the next few years, global warming
doesn’t make a major appearance in the world’s climate. If world
temperatures — which are now no hotter than they were in 1998 — stay low for
the next five to 10 years, it suggests a major gap in climate models that
support global warming theory. The BBC’s science-based climate blogger
recently summarized the looming dilemma. Under long-range climate model
simulations of man-made global warming, it is supposedly impossible for there to
be no warming over a 15-year period. Since 10 years have passed, the next five
are crucial. If temperatures rise to above 1998 levels, the BBC’s Paul Hudson
writes, “then climate skeptics will have nowhere to hide.” But if in the
next few years temperatures “do not exceed 1998 temperature levels, then this
could cause big questions to be asked.”
Such big questions are already being asked at the highest scientific levels. The
official UN science community is currently totally at a loss to understand, let
alone explain, much of anything beyond their 100-year prediction of rising
temperatures brought on by increases in carbon emissions. They have the big
picture, but they have none of the little pictures of what will happen in five
years or 10 years or even three or four decades. Mojib Latif, of the Leibniz
Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel University, outlined the gaps in decadal
prediction at a conference in September.
Two or three decades of “cooling” may well happen, said Prof. Latif,
referring to a chart that shows temperatures below current levels as late as
2030. He also showed that hurricanes have not increased in frequency, there is
no evidence so far of rising sea levels, key rainfall measures show no trend
linked to global warming, and climate models can be off by as much as 10 degrees
locally.
Another new paper by NCAR’s James Hurrell and others in theBulletin of the
American Meteorological Society reviews the “profound gaps,”
“compromises,” “errors” and general failures and inadequacies in
existing climate models. He calls for massive increases in computer power to
resolve the issues. How much power? Scientists at the World Climate Conference
in September, where the science gaps were explored, endorsed an earlier
recommendation. “There is a compelling need for dedicated computational
facilities that are 1,000 times to 10,000 times more powerful than available
today.”
With public suspicion already high and current climate science already in some
doubt if not disrepute, and with politicians not quite willing to sacrifice
economy growth over computer modelled climate, that chances that scientists will
get that computer power seem to be diminishing.
For more from this author, visit the FP Comment blog
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/23/terence-\
corcoran-after-copenhagen-the-end-of-the-science.aspx
(accessed 26 November 2009)
________________________________
Let the climate debate begin
Why did almost every country buy into possibly bogus science?
By Peter Foster | National Post
Posted 24 November 2009, 8:19PM by NP Editor
________________________________
You’ve got to feel almost sorry for Elizabeth May and George Monbiot. The
leader of the Green Party and the prominent columnist and promoter of
catastrophic climate change from Britain’s Guardian are due, next Tuesday, to
debate Danish academic Bjorn Lomborg and former British Chancellor of the
Exchequer Nigel Lawson in Toronto on climate change. In the latest Munk Debate,
Messrs May and Monbiot will support the motion “Be it resolved climate change
is mankind’s defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response.”
They have to take the stage in the wake of the devastating hack/leak from
Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre at the University of East
Anglia, which indicates extensive scientific chicanery to support the warmist
cause.
In fact, the deteriorating credibility of the science seems even to undermine
one of their opponents. Bjorn Lomborg some while ago — whether from genuine
belief, for strategic reasons, or simply because he couldn’t take the abuse
any more — stopped arguing against the alleged scientific “consensus” on
man-made climate change, and instead moved to the position that the policies
designed to deal with it were severely sub-optimal if you were genuinely
concerned about helping “the poor.” Professor Lomborg points out that there
are far more effective ways to spray billions at the Third World. In other words
he shares the redistributive urges of the UN-centred climate change industry,
it’s just that he wants to spend the money more effectively, which has
certainly never been any sort of priority down at UN headquarters. It will be
fascinating to see if he jumps back into the role of full-blown skeptic. Lord
Lawson, for his part, has already
called for an independent inquiry into the goings on at the CRU, which are
bound to reverberate around the world. He noted this week that “the reputation
of British science has been severely tarnished.”
Ms. May, co-author of Global Warming for Dummies, is presumably unlikely to
revise her work with the new title of “We Were the Dummies,” but she and Mr.
Monbiot will now doubtless be concentrating on damage control. In fact, Mr.
Monbiot on Monday produced an extraordinary column in which he at once seemed to
acknowledge the damage from the CRU emails, but went on to to ridicule the
implication of a broader conspiracy.
Mr. Monbiot noted that there was no use pretending that the CRU e-mails
weren’t a “major blow.” He went on to write that they could “scarcely
be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed
and deeply shaken by them… There appears to be evidence here of attempts to
prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that
was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails
suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to
keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I
believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign.”
This is dramatic stuff. But then came to first line of counterattack. Was this
“the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? “Not at all,”
wrote Mr. Monbiot. What we had here was merely damage to the credibility of
“three or four scientists.” Questions were raised only “about the
integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To
bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be
revealed.”
In an attempt to establish how utterly ridiculous such a notion was, Mr. Monbiot
concocted a smoking gun email to the alleged perpetrators of the conspiracy,
dubbed “The Knights Carbonic,” all about the plot to install a “Communist
World Government.” The fake e-mail suggested that such a scheme would have
involved the corruption of the entire scientific establishment for almost two
hundred years, plus virtually the whole global political establishment,
including even George W. Bush!
How Looney Tunes!
The most ridiculous notion of all, according to Mr. Monbiot’s fake e-mail, was
that “world government will be established under the guise of controlling
man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.”
But what’s so ridiculous about that? It is exactly what the UN-based climate
change industry has been saying for almost two decades. Except that they don’t
want world government, they just want “global governance.”
See the difference? No, neither do I.
Mr. Monbiot seeks thus to bury with ridicule the greatest issue of all: How and
why did virtually every government on earth buy into what might turn out to be
bogus science and potentially disastrous policy? How was a manifestly biased
IPCC process able to sell the line — along with its co-Nobel Peace Prize
winner, Al Gore — that the science was “settled.” What was the UN-based
system’s role in promoting radical environmental NGOs and allowing them into
the policy process? How did NGOs manage to scare the public, and threaten and
co-opt Big Business? What was the role of government bureaucracies in pushing
obviously self-interested plans to erect massive new programmes to control the
weather and dictate industrial activity? How were the vast majority of
democratic politicians sucked into this blatantly ideological process without
issuing so much as a peep of dissent?
Expect a ding dong debate next Tuesday, with lots more to follow in Copenhagen.
For more from this author, visit the FP Comment blog
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/24/peter-fo\
ster-let-the-climate-debate-begin.aspx
(accessed 26 November 2009)
________________________________
CRU’s climate ‘tricks’
By Myron Ebell, Financial Post
Published: 24 November 2009
________________________________
In the case of the apparently scandalous leaked e-mails from the Climatic
Research Unit in England, it's all a matter of getting the context right. That's
what Prof. Michael E Mann, the fabricator of the celebrated hockey stick graph,
told the Washington Post recently -- that skeptics "are taking these words
totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious."
Let's look at the context of a couple of these e-mails. Here's one that looks
pretty bad until you understand the context:
From: Ben Santer To: P. Jones, Oct 9, 2009. Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to
derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data
undermines integrity of global temperature record: "Next time I see Pat Michaels
at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very
tempted."
Now let's put that in context. Dr. Ben Santer is a researcher at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in California. In the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change's Second Assessment Report (1995), he was the lead author of a
chapter and cleverly cut off the early and later years of a dataset, so that the
resulting graph would show that global temperatures were only going in one
direction in recent years-rapidly upwards. In fact, temperatures were just as
high in earlier years and had declined in the most recent years, but that data
at both ends was cleverly deleted. This made the graph much easier to understand
correctly. So the first bit of context is that Dr. Santer is an outstanding
scientist of fine and upstanding character.
The next bit of context is that CEI -- the Competitive Enterprise Institute
(which is where I work) -- had filed a petition with the Environmental
Protection Agency to reopen a regulatory decision on the basis of an affidavit
by Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute. Michaels explained that it had
recently been revealed that Prof. Phil Jones, director of the CRU, had destroyed
much of the original raw data he used to compile the global mean temperature
record. EPA relied on the CRU global temperature record, but the lack of
underlying data means that the CRU record cannot be analyzed or reproduced. That
means that EPA must take Prof. Jones's work on trust, which of course is
standard operating procedure in all good climate research. Dr. Michaels is
clearly just being disagreeable. Everyone knows that we can trust Prof. Jones's
honesty and utter scientific competence.
Now, what is Dr. Santer writing in this e-mail to Prof. Jones? Clearly this is
the sort of high level scientific communication that ordinary people often can't
understand or de-code. It contains the kind of innocent remark that tip-top
scientists are always making. And you can see that Dr. Santer is a real wit. I
bet Prof. Jones couldn't stop laughing. The phrase "beat the crap out of him" is
a common pleasantry among this tip-top scientific crowd.
Here's another e-mail where the appearance looks bad. When Prof. Phil Jones at
CRU tells Ray, Mike and Malcolm of hockey-stick fame that he "just completed
Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps ... to hide the decline" we
should quickly put that in context before anyone draws the wrong conclusions.
For people who don't know any better, this looks like Jones is saying that he
has used a "trick" that he got from Prof. Michael Mann in order to "hide the
decline." First of all, we know that Prof. Jones of Pennsylvania State
University is a man of high integrity, so he would never do anything dishonest,
sneaky, or duplicitous. Second, "trick" is a technical term often employed by
the cream of climate scientists. It simply means employing a clever method to
accomplish some technical goal (in this case, "to hide the decline"). Anyone can
see that "trick" is a much shorter and more elegant way to say that. And you've
got to admire the verbal facility of these tip-top scientists. They are as
articulate and literate as they are scientifically tip-top.
What is the clever method that Prof. Jones learned from Prof. Mann? I think he
is referring to the way Prof. Mann constructed his celebrated hockey stick
graph. His proxy records showed flat temperatures for the past 1,000 years,
including the past century. But everyone knows that temperatures have gone up
rapidly in the past few decades. That's what the surface temperature record
compiled by Prof. Jones at CRU shows. And everyone knows that Prof. Jones's
temperature record is irreproachable, even though he destroyed the raw data. So
what Prof. Mann did was splice the last few decades of surface temperature
records onto his proxy record. Voila! -the hockey stick. What Prof. Mann did was
simply make sure that ordinary people weren't misled by the proxy data.
What does Prof. Jones mean, then, by "to hide the decline"? I'm not sure, but I
expect he's just doing what Prof. Mann did. He's got some obviously misleading
data, which he doesn't want people to see so they won't get confused and draw
the wrong conclusion. So he's hiding it for our own good.
Context is everything. And you've got to hand it to Prof. Michael E. Mann. He
sure knows his context. Pennsylvania State University can be just as proud of
him as the University of East Anglia undoubtedly is of their Climatic Research
Unit and its head, Prof. Phil Jones.
Myron Ebell is the director of Global Warming and International Environmental
Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2258374
(accessed 26 November 2009)
________________________________
Cooking the climate books
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
________________________________
Last Friday it was revealed that someone as yet unknown had hacked into the
computers of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Hadley, U.K. The CRU--or Hadley
as it is often referred to -- is the source of one of the four main temperature
records used by the United Nations and environmentalists to claim that the Earth
is on the verge of a global meltdown. It is also home to some of the most
prominent climate researchers in the world.
Stolen and then released were over 1,000 emails and 3,000 research files that
appear to show that those at the CRU and other equally well-known climate
scientists around the world have been working together for years to "cook" the
data about climate change. The emails seem to suggest that much of what the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims is "settled science" is based
on data manipulated to confirm assertions that man is dangerously altering our
climate. Recent decades may not have been exceptionally warm. The planet may not
be warming as fast as these scientists have claimed publicly -- and it looks as
though they may have known it and tried to hide it.
If the emails are correct, CRU scientists also took glee in the death of a
prominent skeptic and did their level best to keep those who disagreed with them
from being published in peer-reviewed journals or invited to contribute to IPCC
reports. There is even one exchange in which some of the CRU scientists and
their colleagues elsewhere tried to have fired the editor of a peer-reviewed
journal that dared publish contrary research.
Okay, I can see where you might not trust me to give you a full perspective on
what is becoming known as Climategate. You may think I'm too biased against the
concept of man-made global warming. So read, then, what George Monbiot of The
Guardian newspaper published on Monday. Mr. Monbiot has been called "Britain's
Al Gore." His books, with titles such as Heat: How to Stop the Planet from
Burning, are bestsellers in Britain and sell well in North America, too. Among
British journalists, he is likely the best-known global warming adherent.
"It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow," Mr. Monbiot writes. The emails
"could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and
I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
"Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails
that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been
taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make
them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent
scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was
subject to a freedom of information request.
"Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of
work by climate skeptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should
now resign."
Mr. Monbiot then goes on to try and cut his movement's losses. He insist this
scandal involves the reputations and work of only "three or four scientists,"
and only calls into question the credibility of "one or perhaps two out of
several hundred lines of evidence" that a man-made climate disaster is upon us.
That is just so much backfill. He has been for years one of the most visible and
vocal champions for a high-profile cause; of course he has to dismiss the
revelations as ultimately meaningless. Throw three or four overboard to preserve
the many.
That, unfortunately, has been the reaction of far too many other
environmentalists, scientists and journalists, too.
Andrew Revkin of the New York Times -- himself a highly visible mouthpiece for
many of the implicated scientists -- published a piece Saturday that essentially
consisted of him interviewing the scientists whose emails have been intercepted
and printing their reassurances that the content was harmless and had merely
been misinterpreted or taken out of context. His story may as well have been
titled "Nothing to see here folks, move along."
Except there is something to see. One of the most prominent environmental icons
of the past decade has been the hockey-stick graph, which claims to show a
thousand years of stable temperatures (the stick), followed by a sharp upward
spike in the last 100 years of industrialization (the blade). Such a graph is
essential to the environmentalists' core contention that 20th century
temperatures were unusual and one-directional-- upwards.
Two different hockey-stick temperature records were devised by two prominent
scientists in the late 1990s, Michael Mann of the U.S. and Brit Keith Briffa at
Hadley.
The most frequently cited email so far released is from CRU head Phil Jones to
Profs. Mann and Briffa, and others, saying that for an article in Nature
magazine, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (i. e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
for Keith's to hide the decline" in late-20th Century temperatures. But this is
not the only highly damaging one.
Just last month, Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC lead author, wrote to Mr. Mann,
admitting "the fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can't. ... Our observing system is
inadequate."
First, these scientists never admit publicly there has been no warming for
years. And second, this is essentially blaming the instruments for the lack of
data supporting the theory. The warming is happening, we just can't detect it.
It's the thermometers' fault.
CRU head Phil Jones on the possibility of skeptics getting possession of his
files and emails back in 2005: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of
Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send
[it] to anyone." That note was followed last year by this one: "Can you delete
any emails you have with Keith ... Keith will do likewise. Can you also email
Gene and get him to do the same?... We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
There is page upon page like this. It goes way beyond the frank and candid
exchanges colleagues have when no one is listening.
Does this "drive a nail in the climate change coffin," as some skeptics have
asserted? No.
But it should do two important things: raise doubt that climate science is
settled and cause the public to question the need for any expensive,
big-government solutions such as Copenhagen, Kyoto, cap-and-trade, carbon tax or
carbon capture and sequestration.
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2262365
(accessed 26 November 2009)
________________________________
New Zealand’s Climategate
By Lawrence Solomon | National Post
Posted: 26 November 2009, 3:14 PM by Lawrence Solomon
________________________________
An agency of the New Zealand government has been cooking the books to create a
warming trend where none exists, according to a joint research projectby global
warming skeptics at the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate
Science Coalition. The chief cook? Dr. Jim Salinger, considered one of the
country's top scientists, who began the graph in the 1980s when he was at the
Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. CRU, of
course, has become ground zero of Climategate at Dr. Salinger has maintained
close relations with CRU since, as seen in the Climategate emails.
What do the uncooked books show? Rather than warming over the last hundred
years, New Zealand's temperature has been steady.
For the full story, visit the site of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition,
here.
For the rebuttal by New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
Research, visit here.
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probeand Urban Renaissance
Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up
against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/lawrence-s\
olomon-new-zealand-s-climategate.aspx (accessed 26 November 2009)
________________________________
Skewed science
By Phil Green | National Post / Financial Post
Posted: 26 November 2009, 8:05 PM by NP Editor
________________________________
The global average temperature is calculated by climatologists at the Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The temperature graph the
CRU produces from its monthly averages is the main indicator of global
temperature change used by the International Panel on Climate Change, and it
shows a steady increase in global lower atmospheric temperature over the 20th
century. Similar graphs for regions of the world, such as Europe and North
America, show the same trend. This is consistent with increasing
industrialization, growing use of fossil fuels, and rising atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide.
It took the CRU workers decades to assemble millions of temperature measurements
from around the globe. The earliest measurements they gathered came from the mid
19th century, when mariners threw buckets over the side of their square riggers
and hauled them up to measure water temperature. Meteorologists increasingly
started recording regular temperature on land around the same time. Today they
collect measurements electronically from national meteorological services and
ocean-going ships.
Millions of measurements, global coverage, consistently rising temperatures,
case closed: The Earth is warming. Except for one problem. CRU’s average
temperature data doesn’t jive with that of Vincent Courtillot, a French
geo-magneticist, director of the Institut de Physique du Globe in Paris, and a
former scientific advisor to the French Cabinet. Last year he and three
colleagues plotted an average temperature chart for Europe that shows a
surprisingly different trend. Aside from a very cold spell in 1940, temperatures
were flat for most of the 20th century, showing no warming while fossil fuel use
grew. Then in 1987 they shot up by about 1 C and have not shown any warming
since. This pattern cannot be explained by rising carbon dioxide
concentrations, unless some critical threshold was reached in 1987; nor can it
be explained by climate models.
Courtillot and Jean-Louis Le Mouël, a French geo-magneticist, and three Russian
colleagues first came into climate research as outsiders four years ago. The
Earth’s magnetic field responds to changes in solar output, so geomagnetic
measurements are good indicators of solar activity. They thought it would be
interesting to compare solar activity with climatic temperature measurements.
Their first step was to assemble a database of temperature measurements and plot
temperature charts. To do that, they needed raw temperature measurements that
had not been averaged or adjusted in any way. Courtillot asked Phil Jones, the
scientist who runs the CRU database, for his raw data, telling him (according to
one of the ‘Climategate’ emails that surfaced following the recent hacking
of CRU’s computer systems) “there may be some quite important information in
the daily values which is likely lost on monthly averaging.” Jones refused
Courtillot’s request for data, saying that CRU had “signed agreements with
national meteorological services saying they would not pass the raw data onto
third parties.” (Interestingly, in another of the CRU emails, Jones said
something very different: “I took a decision not to release our
[meteorological] station data, mainly because of McIntyre,” referring to
Canadian Steve McIntyre, who helped
uncover the flaws in the hockey stick graph.)
Courtillot and his colleagues were forced to turn to other sources of
temperature measurements. They found 44 European weather stations that had long
series of daily minimum temperatures that covered most of the 20th century, with
few or no gaps. They removed annual seasonal trends for each series with a
three-year running average of daily minimum temperatures. Finally they averaged
all the European series for each day of the 20th century.
CRU, in contrast, calculates average temperatures by month — rather than daily
— over individual grid boxes on the Earth’s surface that are 5 degrees of
latitude by 5 degrees of longitude, from 1850 to the present. First it makes
hundreds of adjustments to the raw data, which sometimes require educated
guesses, to try to correct for such things as changes in the type and location
of thermometers. It also combines air temperatures and water temperatures from
the sea. It uses fancy statistical techniques to fill in gaps of missing data in
grid boxes with few or no temperature measurements. CRU then adjusts the
averages to show changes in temperature since 1961-1990.
CRU calls the 1961-1990 the “normal” period and the average temperature of
this period it calls the “normal.” It subtracts the normal from each monthly
average and calls these the monthly “anomalies.” A positive anomaly means a
temperature was warmer than CRU’s normal period. Finally CRU averages the grid
box anomalies over regions such as Europe or over the entire surface of the
globe for each month to get the European or global monthly average anomaly. You
see the result in the IPCC graph nearby, which shows rising temperatures.
The decision to consider the 1961-1990 period as ‘normal’ was CRUs. Had CRU
chosen a different period under consideration, the IPCC graph would have shown
less warming, as discussed in one of the Climategate emails, from David Parker
of the UK meteorological office. In it, Parker advised Jones not to select a
different period, saying “anomalies will seem less positive than before if we
change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted.”
That’s hardly a compelling scientific justification!
It is well known to statisticians that in any but the simplest data sets, there
are many possible ways to calculate an indicator using averages. Paradoxically,
and counter-intuitively, they often contradict each other. As a simple example
of how the same data can be teased to produce divergent results, consider the
batting averages of David Justice and Derek Jeter. For each of three years in
1995-97, Justice had a higher batting average than Jeter did. Yet, overall,
Jeter had the highest batting average.
In addition to calculating temperature averages for Europe, Courtillot and his
colleagues calculated temperature averages for the United States. Once again,
their method yielded more refined averages that were not a close match with the
coarser CRU temperature averages. The warmest period was in 1930, slightly above
the temperatures at the end of the 20th century. This was followed by 30 years
of cooling, then another 30 years of warming.
Courtillot’s calculations show the importance of making climate data freely
available to all scientists to calculate global average temperature according to
the best science. Phil Jones, in response to the email hacking, said that
CRU’s global temperature series show the same results as “completely
independent groups of scientists.” Yet CRU would not share its data with
independent scientists such as Courtillot and McIntyre, and Courtillot’s
series are clearly different.
At the upcoming Copenhagen conference, governments are expected to fail to agree
to an ambitious plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Here’s a more modest, if
mundane goal for them: They should agree to share the data from their national
meteorological services so that independent scientists can calculate global
climatic temperature and identify the roles of carbon dioxide and the sun in
changing it.
Phil Green is a statistician, president of Greenbridge Management Inc. and
author of the upcoming book misLeading Indicators [sic]. Visit the FP Comment
blog
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-s\
cience.aspx(accessed 26 November 2009)
Christopher W. Ashcraft
http://ashcraft.nwcreation.net
Northwest Creation Network
http://nwcreation.net
CreationWiki
http://creationwiki.org
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Any one looked at the famous feather? It is among the other items found in
the same quarry as Archaeopteryx . It was found in 1860. Here is a modern
feather, no different that what is found today. Just that it was incased in
limestone.
I was doing other reading this weekend about massive rings around Saturn
(out side the visible one) and our solar system. These rings were found just
recently (Do to improvements in space telescopes) and are made of extremely
fine space dust. The article claimed that in order for these rings to exist,
they would need 50 tons of dust per second being added to them in order for
solar winds and other space effects no to sweep them away. This supply is
needed so that they can last, "Millions of Years". Otherwise, they would
disappear in 10,000 years.
Lowell
_____
From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of nine.arrows
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 11:56 AM
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CreationTalk] Archaeopteryx--What Was It? DVD
Recommended!!!
JD Mitchell
This is an excellent presentation of evidence to uncover the mysteries
behind the famous "poster child" of evolution. Was this creature a bird or a
dinosaur, or a discovered missing link? Mitchell has carefully researched
these fossils and has come to a compelling and satisfying conclusion. Find
out for yourselves in little more than an hour what is behind all of the
evo-hype and what this creature probably was. $15
http://www.creation
<http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_28_BOOK-DVD-STORE&
mid=31> engineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_28_BOOK-DVD-STORE&mid=31
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.84/2530 - Release Date: 11/27/09
07:58:00
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Triple-Alpha Theory seems to be the latest thing evolutionists have come up with
in an attempt to explain Stellar Evolution. I have been trying to study up on
the theory to find out what they are proposing with this new theory. So my
question is does anyone have any knowlege of the subject that would be able to
explain it to me further or can anyone link me to a sight that would provide me
with some more information so I can do some more research on the subject?
Thankyou.
--- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen" <stephensingleton42@...> wrote:
>
> Triple-Alpha Theory seems to be the latest thing evolutionists have come up
with in an attempt to explain Stellar Evolution. I have been trying to study up
on the theory to find out what they are proposing with this new theory. So my
question is does anyone have any knowlege of the subject that would be able to
explain it to me further or can anyone link me to a sight that would provide me
with some more information so I can do some more research on the subject?
Thankyou.
>
Eugene: I have never heard of it myself but Spike Psarris is probably the one to
contact concerning it. Although he is currently working on a paper for
publication about Lunar Recession he may have time to bring you up to date on it
or at least point you in the right direction.
spike@...
(For your laughing enjoyment)
A New Scientific Discovery!!??
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element
yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one
neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant
deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which
are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called
peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it
can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes
into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that
would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years
to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 6 years. It does not
decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of
the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,
Governmentiums mass will actually increase over time, since each
re-organization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists
to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a
critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as
critical morass.
Found on the Swedish climatescam today
(via Climate Audit comment)
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/12/trevor-davies-uea-on-leaked-documents-then-an\
d-now/
--
This is the Open discussion among iSeries Users (CPF0000) mailing list
To post a message email: CPF0000@...
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/cpf0000
or email: CPF0000-request@...
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/cpf0000.
I greatly dislike the Global Warming agenda. Dennis Miller has it right. IF
the conference was really interested in Global Warming, why did they not
make the whole event a tele-conference?
Also, they are so worried about the ocean's rising. Hello! Why is there so
many ancient civilizations under 180 feet of ocean water from 2500 to 3500
years ago? Even Egypt is now going to have an underwater museum for the
ancient artifacts that are under the ocean at Alexandria.
Also, 2 summers ago they found a city of the coast of India, West side, that
the historians always thought was a myth. It is also under about 200 feet of
water. A city from the time just after Babylon that had over 250,000 people.
Global Warming? Yes. It has been warming ever since the world wide flood.
Oh, that right, that never happen!
Lowell Baker
I find this very interesting as I have just stumbled upon these
undersea ruins within the last couple weeks. Off the coast of
Japan, Cuba, India and perhaps one in the middle of the Atlantic.
I did not know what to think at first because of all the talk
about Atlantis. The question in my mind was how many of these, if
any, could be the remains of civilizations Before Noah's Flood.
--- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell Baker" <lbaker70@...> wrote:
>
>
> I greatly dislike the Global Warming agenda. Dennis Miller
> has it right. IF the conference was really interested in
> Global Warming, why did they not make the whole event a
> tele-conference?
>
> Also, they are so worried about the ocean's rising. Hello!
> Why is there so many ancient civilizations under 180 feet
> of ocean water from 2500 to 3500 years ago? Even Egypt is
> now going to have an underwater museum for the ancient
> artifacts that are under the ocean at Alexandria.
>
> Also, 2 summers ago they found a city of the coast of India,
> West side, that the historians always thought was a myth.
> It is also under about 200 feet of water. A city from the
> time just after Babylon that had over 250,000 people.
>
> Global Warming? Yes. It has been warming ever since the
> world wide flood.
> Oh, that right, that never happen!
>
> Lowell Baker
>
Actually the general global trend since the about 1000 BC has been cooling.
There has been considerable fluctuations some of which have been
considerably large.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Also when you look at the last 30 years there really is no clear general
global temperature trend up or down.
http://tinyurl.com/bg7uhh
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Museum
_____
Global Warming? Yes. It has been warming ever since the world wide flood.
Oh, that right, that never happen!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Another possible unwater city (200 ft. Caribbean sea), by satilite imagery.
http://www.heralddeparis.com/previously-undiscovered-ancient-city-found-on-carib\
bean-sea-floor/65855
Also form NASA's Casini earth imagery. Earth's biosphere is blooming in the
last 20 years. By a whopping 10-20%. Possibly caused by global warming and CO2
emissions. It shows that the Earth is designed to self correct for imbalances.
One other side note: Jesus prophesied that "when all the trees put forth their
leafs. no that summer is at hand". He was speaking of his second coming.
--- On Fri, 12/18/09, Somebody <hugenex2000@...> wrote:
From: Somebody <hugenex2000@...>
Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Creation verses Global Warming
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 11:17 AM
I find this very interesting as I have just stumbled upon these
undersea ruins within the last couple weeks. Off the coast of
Japan, Cuba, India and perhaps one in the middle of the Atlantic.
I did not know what to think at first because of all the talk
about Atlantis. The question in my mind was how many of these, if
any, could be the remains of civilizations Before Noah's Flood.
--- In CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com, "Lowell Baker" <lbaker70@.. .> wrote:
>
>
> I greatly dislike the Global Warming agenda. Dennis Miller
> has it right. IF the conference was really interested in
> Global Warming, why did they not make the whole event a
> tele-conference?
>
> Also, they are so worried about the ocean's rising. Hello!
> Why is there so many ancient civilizations under 180 feet
> of ocean water from 2500 to 3500 years ago? Even Egypt is
> now going to have an underwater museum for the ancient
> artifacts that are under the ocean at Alexandria.
>
> Also, 2 summers ago they found a city of the coast of India,
> West side, that the historians always thought was a myth.
> It is also under about 200 feet of water. A city from the
> time just after Babylon that had over 250,000 people.
>
> Global Warming? Yes. It has been warming ever since the
> world wide flood.
> Oh, that right, that never happen!
>
> Lowell Baker
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I would highly suggest Graham Hancock's "Underworld" book. Although I do not
agree with his dates, he has been searching for the "lost civilization" for a
longtime. He has another great book "Fingerprints of the Gods" and others.
Underworld deals with a great civilation wiped out by a massive flood (hello?)
and believes this is where the ancient world got the "stories" from. But, he
turns orthodox ancient history and civilization on it's head. He is also
constantly criticized for going out on the fringe. But, as he always says you
must go where the "evidence" leads. Both books mentioned are really great when
put into a biblical perspective.
Derek
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2009, at 9:49 AM, howard motz <howiemotz@...> wrote:
Another possible unwater city (200 ft. Caribbean sea), by satilite imagery.
http://www.heralddeparis.com/previously-undiscovered-ancient-city-found-on-carib\
bean-sea-floor/65855
Also form NASA's Casini earth imagery. Earth's biosphere is blooming in the
last 20 years. By a whopping 10-20%. Possibly caused by global warming and CO2
emissions. It shows that the Earth is designed to self correct for imbalances.
One other side note: Jesus prophesied that "when all the trees put forth their
leafs. no that summer is at hand". He was speaking of his second coming.
--- On Fri, 12/18/09, Somebody <hugenex2000@...> wrote:
From: Somebody <hugenex2000@...>
Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Creation verses Global Warming
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 11:17 AM
I find this very interesting as I have just stumbled upon these
undersea ruins within the last couple weeks. Off the coast of
Japan, Cuba, India and perhaps one in the middle of the Atlantic.
I did not know what to think at first because of all the talk
about Atlantis. The question in my mind was how many of these, if
any, could be the remains of civilizations Before Noah's Flood.
--- In CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com, "Lowell Baker" <lbaker70@.. .> wrote:
>
>
> I greatly dislike the Global Warming agenda. Dennis Miller
> has it right. IF the conference was really interested in
> Global Warming, why did they not make the whole event a
> tele-conference?
>
> Also, they are so worried about the ocean's rising. Hello!
> Why is there so many ancient civilizations under 180 feet
> of ocean water from 2500 to 3500 years ago? Even Egypt is
> now going to have an underwater museum for the ancient
> artifacts that are under the ocean at Alexandria.
>
> Also, 2 summers ago they found a city of the coast of India,
> West side, that the historians always thought was a myth.
> It is also under about 200 feet of water. A city from the
> time just after Babylon that had over 250,000 people.
>
> Global Warming? Yes. It has been warming ever since the
> world wide flood.
> Oh, that right, that never happen!
>
> Lowell Baker
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
FYI The Discovery Institute ID simplified and how creationary science tends to
apply this idea.
The Discovery Institute (DI) and associated groups defined intelligent design
(RID) in the following manner.
(1) A pattern or a collection of patterns must have a specific purpose. Of
course, this purpose uses human modes of intelligence to describe.
(2) Statistical analysis is then applied in an attempt to determine the
probability that "known" physical processes could produce the pattern or
collection of patterns.
(3) If the probability is less than or equal to a specific value, then the
pattern or collection of patterns is defined as being intelligently designed.
(This is what the DI means by "complexity.")
(4) The notion of irreducible complexity is a subcategory for this form of ID.
(5) From (2), the ID results are provisional.
(6) The entity that has "designed" the pattern or collection of patterns is not
identified and the design is only indirect evidence for its provisional
existence. It can be an object within or without the physical universe.
(7) Such patterns are also indirect evidence for GID design by a
higher-intelligence, as are all the describable physical processes.
Unfortunately, unless GID is employed, a describable purpose is not a signature
that a pattern or collection of patters is intelligently designed since such a
design most often comes about via known physical processes. (This includes
models that predict statistical behavior.) Members of the creationary science
movement have written many articles and books that describe, from an esthetic
viewpoint, wondrous designs that appear within the physical universe. Also, they
stress the purpose notion. These are certainly worthwhile endeavors, but they
mostly do not indicate intelligent design using the RID notion. Of course, the
do satisfy the GID requirements.
The simplest "scientific" attack upon this DI approach, as proposed by atheists
and evolutionists, is its provisional nature. This is enhanced by the claim that
it is not science as they define the notion. They also state that for the
irreducible complexity notion such patterns are, for them, not "intelligently"
designed. They claim that human intelligence could design a "better" pattern by
including a significant amount of redundancy.
GID, which applies to everything, has a vast amount of direct evidence for its
defined notion of intelligent agency. (This notion starts with the verb "to
design.") Further, all patterns and collections of patterns that exist are
indirect evidence for an identifiable higher-intelligence But, RID, which
applies to very few entities, only yields indirect evidence provisionally for
the existence of two types of unidentified designers, one within and one without
the physical universe.
It is self-evident which of these two approaches I have chosen. I often wonder
why any Christian would choose RID over GID.
Dr. Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
FYI Higher ID simply characterized and the DI.
I point out that I have never read or heard any account that members of the
Discovery Institute (DI) or its many associated groups have ever mentioned
(General Intelligent Design) GID. Could this be due to the fact that GID is so
much more powerful than their restricted ID (RID) and RID only characterizes ID
for but a rather few entities, where the intelligence is only that of the human
being? After all, GID has only been around for 30 years. They might take
positive notice of it. I suppose they might trust statistical decision theory
more than pure mathematics. Isn't a fact that everyone knows statistical
decision theory and only a few know the most basic aspects of nonstandard
analysis? But individuals need not know nonstandard analysis if they trust the
Bible as a linguistic model for God's creationary behavior.
If one presents the GID notion of a higher-intelligence to a general audience,
can it be successfully presented without any technical terms? If this is so,
then maybe there is no actual reason not to present it unless, of course, it
contradicts the presenter's philosophic stance.
What is usually done, if it is presented in common terms and if it is
appropriate to do so, is to present references, where the results used for the
interpretation appear. This I do in this posting.
For common understanding, one needs to have some idea as to what the term
"infinite" means when compared to human thought and languages. Although it is
not the very best way to state it, one can use the dictionary definition, which
corresponds to the notation of the potential infinite.
Something most first have a property that fits the definition. Assuming for the
moment that it does, then one definition for the "common infinite" is that the
defined property can be "unlimited." Another definition is similar and is
stated in the terms of "bounds." In this case, one would state that the
"common infinite" means that the property is "unbounded."
When it comes to God, C. S. Lewis states and many, many others agree that "what
is behind the universe is more like a mind than any thing else we know." The
Bible linguistically characterizes the processes God uses to create and sustain
His creation. When I think, I do so mostly using a common language. I think in
words. If appropriate, I switch to images. But, mostly, it is in words. Thus, it
is appropriate to measure God's intelligence relative to thought and languages,
where these two notions are compared with those of His created. There is
nothing that has even been done by members of the DI that scientifically
predicts the following GID higher-intelligence attributes. (The letters at the
end of each of the following indicate the reference at the end of this posting.)
You have my permission to use these and the references anytime you wish.
(1) Human beings can use only a finite set of hypotheses to make a step-by-step
(mental) deduction. The GID higher-intelligence can use a finite or an infinite
set of hypotheses to make a deduction. (a)
(2) To make a deduction, human beings can only perform finitely many steps. The
GID higher-intelligence can make a deduction using finitely many as well as
infinitely many steps. (a)
(3) The language human beings construct is based upon use a finite set of
symbols. It contains meaningful words and phrases. The language the GID
higher-intelligence uses is conceptually based upon an infinite set of
"symbols." It contains words and phrases that have meaning for the GID
higher-intelligence and no meaning for human beings while they are in present
physical state. (b)
(4) Due to the speed by which the human brain functions, there is a lower
positive bound for the time it takes human beings to deduce but one conclusion
from a finite set of hypotheses. The GID higher-intelligence can deduce from a
finite or infinite set of hypotheses during "any" measured positive time
interval, finitely or infinitely many conclusions. (c)
(5) From a standpoint of other linguistic notions, a human being can ask
questions that could be answerable by the GID higher-intelligence, but it
requires the GID higher-intelligence to use portions of its language that have,
at present, no human meaning. (d)
There are other linguistic processes that can be compared, but I think these
five linguistic comparisons are sufficient to indicate how certain linguistic
attributes of the GID higher-intelligence compare to those of the human being.
These GID higher intelligence statements seem to model, within the given
context, such statements, as "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are
my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." That His
"knowledge is . . . too lofty for me to attain. . . ." "How precious to me are
your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them." ". . . for God is greater
than man." "his understanding has no limit." "For His invisible attributes are
decried from the creation of the world being apprehended by His achievements . .
. ." "O, the depth of the riches and the wisdom and knowledge of God!" And many
more that can be applied to this context.
Now the following references need not be given unless asked for.
(a) This an interpretation using the notion of informal *-transfer of the basic
logic-system algorithm discussed in "The two meanings for modern intelligent
design," Journal of Creation 23(1) (2009) p. 66. These are further discussed in
"Hyperfinite and Standards Unifications for Physics Theories," International
Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 28(2) (2001):93-102, p. 94. (
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0105012 ) Improvements can be found in "General
Logic-Systems that Determine Significant Collections of Consequence Operators"
pp. 2 - 4.( http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0603573 ) The portions of this algorithm
are easily represented by simple mathematical functions and then interpreted in
the nonstandard model.
(b) For the language, see The Theory of Ultralogics. This book is found at
raherrmann.com or is composed of the two files http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9903081
and http://arxiv.org/abs/math.9903082 In particular, ultrawords would need to
have such symbols. Theorems such as 9.3.1, and 10.1.1 also yield this conclusion
from the "cardinality" viewpoint.
(c) Consider the definition of the refined development paradigm defined on pages
2 - 5 of http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0605120 A particular paradigm can correspond
to any standard time interval of any selected positive length. At the right-hand
end point "b" of any of these intervals there is a collection of nonstandard
primitive moments in time to the left. Let "a" be the left-hand end point. These
nonstandard primitive moments are between a and b. The portions of the
developmental paradigm (event sequence) that corresponds to these moments can be
composed of various repeated standards members of the common language L or they
can be compose of finite or infinitely many other members of the infinite GID
higher-intelligence language *L that are not members of L. As defined in
"General Logic-Systems and Finite Consequence Operators," Logica Universalis
1(2006):201-208, ( http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0512559 p.3 ) the GID
higher-intelligence logic-system that corresponds to the GGU-model identity
operator *I is a trivial example. This definition is basically defined on the
finite subsets of the language L. But, when the definition is used the general
logic-system is empty. The GID higher-intelligence's *logic-system applies only
to certain subsets of *L. It applies to each finite subset of the events between
a and b. It also applies to the certain infinite subsets between a and b called
hyperfinite. No matter what general logic-system one uses, it always deduces the
hypotheses. Hence, *I deduces from a finite set of hypotheses a finite set and
from the appropriate infinite set of hypotheses an infinite set. (Note: nothing
in this section restricts God only to these forms of deduction.)
(d) This is obtained by an application of Theorem 8.5 in "Introduction to
Nonstandard Analysis," Hurd, A. E. and P. A. Loeb, Academic Press, Orlando,
Florida, (1986), p. 107.
Dr. Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Eugene: There is a link on here for the Genesis Science Museum
<http://gscim.com/>
I clicked on it and went to the Physics section, one of my favorite
subjects and noticed spelling errors. "Mater" instead of "matter"
Please spell check before promoting the site to avoid hostile
criticism.
--- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
>
> Technically he's right; the origin of life is referred to as chemical
> evolution. However they are both part of General Evolution. I hope this
> helps.
>
>
>
> ------ Charles Creager Jr.
>
> Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Museum
>
> _____
>
> From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Stephen
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:34 AM
> To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [CreationTalk] Organic Evolution & Micro Evolution
>
>
>
>
>
> I was discussing organic evolution as the belief in origin of life with an
> evoltuionist. He informed me that organic evolution has nothing to do with
> the origin of life wrather it has to do with the presence of allels in an
> already exisiting population of organisms. If this is the case what is the
> difference between organic evolution and micro evolution? A little help
> please.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Forwarded from another list. I was unable to corroborate this date
within reasonable searching time, but it may be correct. I don't expect
any relief from prison for him, but Hovind has certainly proven to be a
powerful witness inside prison walls:
--Alan
>>>>
Dear Brethren;
Many of you are no doubt familiar with Kent Hovind of Creation Science
Evangelism. He is a great defender of creationism as recorded in the
KJV, and exposes the lies involved in the Evolution theory.
This has, of course, meant attacking the federal gov't also, because of
their promotion of this false theory. Over the years, they have
attempted to stop him with various charges (I think 4 previous times).
Two years ago, however, he was finally imprisoned. Laws which he had
followed were re-written by a judge in order to throw him into prison.
We have not actually been living under our constitution for a long time.
Anyway, his case is coming before the Supreme Court for review on
January 8th. Please hold him up in prayer, as well as those involved in
the review process. Let's believe the Lord for his release, and pray to
hold back the powers of darkness. Mrs. Hovind had also been
incarcerated, but for a far shorter time, and is well at home now.
PLEASE, PLEASE - PRAY-PRAY-PRAY-
PRAY-PRAY-PRAY; Our God is the Living God, and His hand is not shortened!
Thank you;
Andy
The Speed Redshift Theory is only one theory that attempts to explain the
redshifting of starlight (galaxies), there are a few other possible explanations
for galaxy redshifts. Assuming the Speed Redshift Theory is the correct one,
thus suggesting the universe is expanding, has the speed of that redshift been
calculated. If so, does anyone know what it is. I understand that the most
distant galaxies appear to be, supposedly, moving faster. My question is does
anyone know how fast?
From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Stephen
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 9:47 AM
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CreationTalk] The Speed Redshift Theory
> The Speed Redshift Theory is only one theory that attempts to
> explain the redshifting of starlight (galaxies), there are a few
> other possible explanations for galaxy redshifts.
Actually the main theory is that galactic red shift is a result of the
expansion of space itself as the universe expands.
> Assuming the Speed Redshift Theory is the correct one, thus
> suggesting the universe is expanding, has the speed of that
> redshift been calculated.
Yes the speeds can be calculated but the speed varies with the redshift. The
formula is quite simple actually.
> If so, does anyone know what it is. I understand that
> the most distant galaxies appear to be, supposedly,
> moving faster. My question is does anyone know
> how fast?
Assuming that these redshifts are from these galaxies; called Quasars;
receding from us, the farthest known ones would be going at about the speed
of light.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Museum
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hello Group,
I am not sure if this has been brought out here or up for comments...I have
been away for a bit and have not seen much. I was visiting Kent Hovind's CSE
BLOGs for legal updates and came across this note he posted on December 31,
2009. It is in reference to a petition being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court
tomorrow, January 9, 2010. Here it is copied directly from his BLOG. Thank
you...
***************************************Kent Hovind BLOG Post, December 31,
2009***********************************************
On January 8, 2010, the Supreme Court will
look at my “Motion for Reconsideration to Grant Writ of Certiorari.”
I’m no lawyer and don’t speak lawyer language; so, after much prayer, I
just wrote in plain English what God laid on my heart. Although I could
have chosen a dozen issues, I brought only two issues to the court.
They have the potential to affect many Americans.
I’m asking any who love God and our ministry and our country to pray
that the Supreme Court will grant my motion and then rule in our favor
on both issues. Below is a summary of my Motion. If God leads you,
please pray and fast with me on January 8, 2010.
09-5043
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
TO GRANT WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Kent E Hovind pro se
#0652-017
Federal Satellite Camp
Box 725
Edgefield, SC 29824
PETITIONER respectfully prays that this Honorable Court would GRANT
Petitioner’s Petition for Rehearing to resolve a Circuit split and to
clarify a matter of law.
The first issue is to establish the meaning of the word
“structuring.” In 31 U.S.C.§5324(a)(3); Ratzlaf v. United States; as
well as the 2nd Circuit; the 7th Circuit; the 9th Circuit, and the 10th
Circuit all say the amount structured in two or more transactions must
be more than $10,000.00. However, both the lower district court and the
11th Circuit Appeals Court say that a single transaction of more or
less than $10,000 violates the law and results in a five year prison
term, as was my case in which each single transaction of less than
$10,000.00 was charged separately as a crime.
I pray that this court will resolve this split; or, if the 11th
Circuit decision is now case law establishing that any transaction in
any amount can be declared a crime, please use the rule of Lenity. Our
withdrawals of ministry money received in legitimate ways to spend on
legitimate church ministry bills were withdrawn as the ministry had
need of them and were never a part of a large amount being broken down
for any illegal purposes.
I cannot find any cases where any court has ruled that withdrawals,
rather than deposits can be structured, nor can I find a case that
answers the question of whether a single transaction can be considered
a structuring crime. I pray that this court will grant my petition to
review this case to answer these issues.
The second issue the circuits are split on, is the 1995 PRA. 44
U.S.C. § 3505; the 10th Circuit in U.S. v. Collins, 920 F.2nd 619 fn 12
and 13; this court in Dole V. United Steelworkers; the 9th Circuit in
U.S. v. Hatch and the USGAO report from 2005 page 34 all agree that I
cannot be penalized for not filling out a “bootleg” form, yet the lower
court said 44 U.S.C. § 3505-12 cannot be relied upon and gave me five
years in prison for doing so. The 11th Circuit was silent on this issue
on appeal. The 10th Circuit has another case being appealed to this
court on this issue as well.
When 31 USC § 5322, 5324 was amended (See Money Laundering
Suppression Act of 1994 codified at 31 USC § 5322(a) and 5324(d) this
caused a Constitutional issue that requires this Honorable Court’s
clarification as it impacts the circuit split on structuring as well.
I pray this Honorable Court will GRANT my petition for rehearing to resolve the
splits and clarify the 1995 PRA.
Respectfully Submitted
Kent Hovind pro se
________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From Nov 2002 Science. Now, all we have to do is get the real time
durations, like the last 4500 years, and we see that Noah was real and there
was a flood. Also supports the book, Travels on Noah and the Establishment
of Government in Europe, published 1601 by Ray Lynche.
Ten men fathered Europe
_____
An international team of geneticists has found that virtually all European
men are descended from 10 genetic forefathers who migrated to Europe from
Central Asia and the Middle East.
In the journal <http://www.sciencemag.org/content> Science, the team report
that the genetic forefathers apparently came to Europe in three successive
waves, tens of thousands of years ago.
The researchers, led by Dr Ornella Semino of Pavia University in Italy,
studied the Y chromosomes of more than one thousand men across Europe and
the Middle East concluding that ten lineages account for about 95 percent of
the 1,007 European Y chromosomes studied.
They identified three types of distinct geography and culture. "The first
comprises Basques and Western Europeans, the second Middle Eastern and the
third Eastern European populations from Croatia, Ukraine, Hungary and
Poland."
Although Basques in Spain, Sardinians in Italy and Saami people in Finland
have distinct cultures, their genes look like those of other Europeans, the
researchers said.
The oldest male lineage found dates back to the Old Stone Age or
Palaeolithic period, which ended 15,000 years ago. It's genetic variation or
mutation is called M173 and is found in half the men in the study.
After examining the distribution of the genetic variation and mapping its
subtypes, the researchers suggest that "M173 is an ancient Eurasiatic marker
that was brought in, or arose in the group of Homo sapiens (modern humans)
who entered Europe and diffused from east to west about 40,000 to 35,000
years ago, spreading the Aurignac culture."
"This culture appeared almost simultaneously in Siberia, from which some
groups eventually migrated to the Americas."
Some of the genetic variations tie in with theories that groups became
isolated during the last Ice Age, which ended 13,000 years ago, the
researchers said.
Another marker, called M170, dates to about 22,000 years ago and is
associated with the Gravettian culture. This group was known for its Venus
figurines, shell jewellery and for using mammoth bones to build homes.
The third group - about 20 percent of the men - seem to date from more
recent times, having come into Europe between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago.
These men were probably the first Neolithic farmers who migrated from the
Fertile Crescent in the Middle East and, as might be expected, their genes
are found most frequently along the Mediterranean.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A while back I introduced the rapid-formation mode (RFM) l. I personally
consider this GGU-model possibility as highly significant. After all, how many
people in the world accept any creationary science model for a strict
interpretation of Genesis? On the other hand, how many accept one of the other
cosmologies that include the billions-of-years formation of our earth and its
local environment? Of these ancient earth models, how many individuals will
sooner-or-later accept an eternal cosmology like the quasi steady state or
branes model among a few others?
It is standard scientific practice to alter a theory as new evidence is
revealed. Although some may consider it as rather ad hoc, introducing such
notions as dark matter or energy as new parts of the Big Bang theory is not
foreign to general scientific practice. I highly doubt that such cosmologies
will be rejected based upon what, at present, may be unresolved problems. So,
to establish that each of these cosmologies satisfies a strict creation-day
interpretation of Genesis 1 is, to me, not an insignificant result.
I have written a more detailed article on how the RFM model yields any known
cosmology during a day-four single moment of observer time. How it solves the
starlight and time problem for any presently known cosmology. The only
difference between a strict Genesis 1 formation and these secular cosmologies is
in the realization of the portion of the cosmology that yields our earth and it
local environment. I have once again used the DVD illustration and show how the
model solves this "earth and local environment" problem by means of notion of a
lamination.
Now, I realize that within the creationary science movement others have expended
great effort in developing models that solve the starlight and time problem.
But, which one of these is the correct model? The fact that this can be done is
laudable. However, taking all of the presently known cosmologies or maybe one
yet to come, there could be one that is the closest cosmology that reveals how
God has actually constructed our universe. So, even if this "best" cosmology is
stated without any theological implications, the RFM applies and our strict
Biblical interpretation is also satisfied. I consider this a rather significant
fact.
The RFM has two extremes. It satisfies the in-transit model if one chooses that
or any of the time dilation models where the original earth and its local
environment are not placed in suspended animation but observer time is altered
by other physical means. However, the suspended animation process is a general
process that is easily obtained via event sequences and is not dependent upon
physical law.
Please See
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/rfm.pdf
Dr. Bob
Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D.
Professor of Mathematics (Ret.)
U.S. Naval Academy
www.raherrmann.com
"Science Declares Our
Universe Is Intelligently Designed"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This is a nice general model and one that insulates the Bible nicely from
scientific criticism, but its ability to satisfy cosmology also make it
untestable.
By the way basic branes model which is part of M-theory does have a lot of
apologetic value in that it provides a way of modeling both the supernatural
and eternity.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Mission
_____
From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Dr. Robert A. Herrmann
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 1:23 PM
To: CRSNET@...; CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CreationTalk] A detailed rapid-formation model
A while back I introduced the rapid-formation mode (RFM) l. I personally
consider this GGU-model possibility as highly significant. After all, how
many people in the world accept any creationary science model for a strict
interpretation of Genesis? On the other hand, how many accept one of the
other cosmologies that include the billions-of-years formation of our earth
and its local environment? Of these ancient earth models, how many
individuals will sooner-or-later accept an eternal cosmology like the quasi
steady state or branes model among a few others?
It is standard scientific practice to alter a theory as new evidence is
revealed. Although some may consider it as rather ad hoc, introducing such
notions as dark matter or energy as new parts of the Big Bang theory is not
foreign to general scientific practice. I highly doubt that such cosmologies
will be rejected based upon what, at present, may be unresolved problems.
So, to establish that each of these cosmologies satisfies a strict
creation-day interpretation of Genesis 1 is, to me, not an insignificant
result.
I have written a more detailed article on how the RFM model yields any known
cosmology during a day-four single moment of observer time. How it solves
the starlight and time problem for any presently known cosmology. The only
difference between a strict Genesis 1 formation and these secular
cosmologies is in the realization of the portion of the cosmology that
yields our earth and it local environment. I have once again used the DVD
illustration and show how the model solves this "earth and local
environment" problem by means of notion of a lamination.
Now, I realize that within the creationary science movement others have
expended great effort in developing models that solve the starlight and time
problem. But, which one of these is the correct model? The fact that this
can be done is laudable. However, taking all of the presently known
cosmologies or maybe one yet to come, there could be one that is the closest
cosmology that reveals how God has actually constructed our universe. So,
even if this "best" cosmology is stated without any theological
implications, the RFM applies and our strict Biblical interpretation is also
satisfied. I consider this a rather significant fact.
The RFM has two extremes. It satisfies the in-transit model if one chooses
that or any of the time dilation models where the original earth and its
local environment are not placed in suspended animation but observer time is
altered by other physical means. However, the suspended animation process is
a general process that is easily obtained via event sequences and is not
dependent upon physical law.
Please See
http://www.serve. <http://www.serve.com/herrmann/rfm.pdf>
com/herrmann/rfm.pdf
Dr. Bob
Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D.
Professor of Mathematics (Ret.)
U.S. Naval Academy
www.raherrmann.com
"Science Declares Our
Universe Is Intelligently Designed"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Offline 
Send Email
