Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: legislatures and judges...was: teaching YEC

Expand Messages
  • Alan C
    ... Alan: Don t know if there s any implications there, but there are job-related technical forums and more family duties for me than apparently for most. As
    Message 1 of 35 , Nov 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      >Joe: STILL WAITING ALAN. Almost a month now.
      >
      >
      Alan: Don't know if there's any implications there, but there are
      job-related technical forums and more family duties for me than
      apparently for most. As I said in the "Thanks for the Forum" post, once
      you get to know me, you'll know you'll never catch me running away from
      a subject. If I don't know something, I say so, and have done so.

      +==========================

      Joe> Whatever "evolutionists" admit the point still remains that YEC
      cannot muster a single scientific hypothesis about a young
      earth/cosmos that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

      Alan: Define "scientific scrutinty", as used with your meaning in this sentence. - Alan


      > YECs make wild claims about "Flood geology," vapor canopies, runaway
      > tectonics, "fountains of the deep," and many others in an attempt to
      > justify a literal interpretation of Genesis. Even a cursory
      > examination of the claims from a scientific standpoint reveals that
      > the claims are just that, claims, with no scientific basis in reality.
      >
      >Point in case. Alan, present the strongest argument FOR a young earth and we'll debate it on scientific evidence supporting it.
      >
      >
      That statement is very very broad, and actually describes this entire
      forum. If the "strongest argument" wording is an attempt to focus on a
      particular topic, I'd have to say that I don't believe there is any such
      one, that it's a complete basket in both directions.

      - Alan



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Joe Martin
      STILL NO ANSWER ON THIS ONE HARRIS. STUMPED? _____ From: Joe Martin [mailto:martinjd@telus.net] Sent: December 6, 2004 3:44 AM To:
      Message 35 of 35 , Dec 18, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        STILL NO ANSWER ON THIS ONE HARRIS. STUMPED?

        _____

        From: Joe Martin [mailto:martinjd@...]
        Sent: December 6, 2004 3:44 AM
        To: 'OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com'
        Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: legislatures and judges...was: teaching YEC



        From: peaceharris [mailto:peaceharris@...]
        Sent: November 18, 2004 10:03 PM
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: legislatures and judges...was: teaching YEC




        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Martin" <martinjd@t...>
        wrote:

        >
        > Joe > First, what geologist has ever referred to the last ice age
        as
        > Noah's Flood?

        Harris:
        I don't believe what geologists believe.



        Joe> What you *believe* or don't believe is irrelevant.



        Geologists believe that ice
        could flow uphill.
        " The ice could have flowed up, and over, the top of the quartzite
        ridge. "
        This quote is taken from

        http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~museum/devils_lake/text/iceagestory.htm



        Joe> Then let's put it IN context, Harris. shall we? Your "quote" in +++



        "Here is another piece of evidence that says "the glacier did it". The
        Baraboo Hills are an 800-foot-high ridge of super-hard quartzite rock. The
        ridge is 25-miles long and is oriented east-west. The eastern half of the
        ridge got polished and scratched by something--even at the very top. The
        scratches are aligned parallel to the crest of the ridge, not in the
        downhill direction. Could water polish and scratch the crest of the
        quartzite ridge? The rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon were polished
        by the Colorado river, but unless water flowed uphill, it could not polish
        and scratch the top of the Baraboo Hills. Besides, water can polish rock but
        not scratch it.

        What about ice? We think the ice was thousands of feet thick in Wisconsin.
        +++The ice could have flowed up, and over, the top of the quartzite
        ridge.+++ Glaciers act like sandpaper. Just think about it--thousands of
        feet of ice, pressing down on boulders, and sliding across the rock. Many
        glaciers around the world are melting back today. We always see scratches in
        the rock where they have melted back. This means ice could have scratched
        the quartzite, but not water.

        The scientists think the Wisconsin glacier was moving east-west in the
        Baraboo area, parallel to the quartzite ridge. This is precisely the
        orientation of the scratches on the ridge. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
        only ice could have done this to the quartzite."



        Harris> The above website represents conventional wisdom where the author
        argues that the 'ice age' was due to ice, not water.



        Joe> Let's see. Ridge = 800 ft. Ice = "several thousand feet" so "up and
        over is relative then isn't it?



        The link below is a voice in the wilderness, where the author argues
        that the 'ice age' was indeed the 'water age':

        http://www.sentex.net/%7Etcc/gtprob.html

        Joe:
        > Second. to which ice age are you referring? There has been more
        than one
        > ice age.

        Harris:
        I am referring to the ice age which ended about 10000 years ago based
        on c14 dating and conventional wisdom. Refer:
        http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/c14

        I have shown in my website that an 10k years based on c14 dating
        corresponds to Noah's flood which occured about 4500 years ago.



        Joe> You have "shown" no such thing, Harris. You assume Genesis is
        historically and chronologically accurate for the beginning of time. (Error
        #1) you need to establish this premise before you can use it as an axiom
        that c14 corresponds with Noah's Flood. (Error #2) You need to establish the
        occurrence of Noah's (or ANY) global flood occurring 4-5000 YBP, before you
        can make assumptions about c14 errors based on the Flood. Your entire essay
        crashes and burns on take-off.




        Here's a question to check whether you understand my essay:



        Joe> Your essay doesn't need understanding. it needs corrections! You are
        basing your conclusions on assumptions that you are attempting to use as
        axioms for your proof. You want my serious consideration? Prove the
        chronology and history of Genesis independently of scripture. Then you can
        use it as an axiom in your essay.


        Assume that the assumptions I used in my essay is correct and a tree
        has been growing from the creation and is buried during the flood.



        Joe> Without a "Flood" this house of cards tumbles in construction, doesn't
        it? Establish (scientifically) the occurrence of a global flood 4-5000
        years ago scientifically (independent of Genesis)



        >
        >
        >
        > Back to my original statement. The pre-Cambrian shield show no
        signs of
        > ever being flooded and especially in the last 6000 years so YEC is
        > falsified.
        >

        Harris:
        Do you atleast believe conventional wisdom which says that ice
        covered most of Canada during the pleistocene?

        Joe> There is evidence supporting this, yes.

        Harris:

        Do you believe conventional wisdom which says land can 'rebound'?

        Joe> Yes, this has been measured using GPS. The rebound is about an inch or
        so per year. Can you supply scientific evidence of a global flood 4-5000
        years ago independent of Genesis? If so which strata were deposited by the
        flood? Which strata are Pre-flood? Which are post flood deposits?

        Joe



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.