Hardground with borings

Sooo....

If large "antediluvian" rock slabs were rafted by gas in the waters of The Fludd, then Noah's Ark would have been pelted by "rockbergs" & sunk like the Titanic, eh?

Figure 1 on Page 10 of Woodmorappe's "paper" pretty much summarizes the entire work; "Massive Gas Emissions."

What a pretentious piece of hokum; no experiments done and it smells like methane and sulphur dioxide.

And let us not forget the minimum energy scenario for the alleged flood; 40 kg of TNT going off every second over every square meter of the Earth's surface for 40 days and nights, atmospheric pressure going to 850 atmospheres, and atmospheric temperture rising to something like 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit in less than a week. All other techtonic scenarios are far, far more energetic.

Who was there to witness this flood?

Conventional hardground-related thinking is so profoundly steeped in uniformitarianism that it takes a great deal of mental effort to free oneself from actualistic mental boxes. Far from being an insuperable obstacle to Flood geology, ancient hardgrounds provide the investigator with a wide-open fi eld of research initiatives that could reconcile Phanerozoic hardgrounds with the universal Deluge. Much experimentation is needed to clearly understand the ability of waterborne transport processes to account for such things as individual “encrusting” organisms, turbidite-mediated transport of imbricated hardground slabs, gasmediated fl otation of both individual and collective hardground constituents, etc. Such experimentation appears to be very much underperformed by uniformitarians, especially with relevance to hardgrounds. The understanding of Phanerozoic hardgrounds as the outcome of pseudokarstic/submarine instead of conventional-submarine processes suggests its own set of research projects. Analogies with the hardgrounds found in modern submarine caves are intriguing but, owing to the matter of scale, can only be of limited value in this regard.

Mike Elzinga said: From the conclusion of Woodmorappe's paper:

Conventional hardground-related thinking is so profoundly steeped in uniformitarianism that it takes a great deal of mental effort to free oneself from actualistic mental boxes. Far from being an insuperable obstacle to Flood geology, ancient hardgrounds provide the investigator with a wide-open fi eld of research initiatives that could reconcile Phanerozoic hardgrounds with the universal Deluge. Much experimentation is needed to clearly understand the ability of waterborne transport processes to account for such things as individual “encrusting” organisms, turbidite-mediated transport of imbricated hardground slabs, gasmediated fl otation of both individual and collective hardground constituents, etc. Such experimentation appears to be very much underperformed by uniformitarians, especially with relevance to hardgrounds. The understanding of Phanerozoic hardgrounds as the outcome of pseudokarstic/submarine instead of conventional-submarine processes suggests its own set of research projects. Analogies with the hardgrounds found in modern submarine caves are intriguing but, owing to the matter of scale, can only be of limited value in this regard.

Woodmorappe takes three gassy paragraphs to say, "We just sit around making up crap; it is the responsibility of others to do the experiments to prove us wrong." These characters have no clue about what scientists know.

...it takes a great deal of mental effort to free oneself from actualistic mental boxes.

Such experimentation appears to be very much underperformed by uniformitarians…

Uniformitarianism was an assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

I can think of several ways in which one might check whether physics might have operated differently in the past:

Look at galaxies X light years away, see if they behave differently than nearby galaxies, or galaxies at distance Y light years.

Compare sediments of different ages, to see if they have the chemistry that would be expected of similar sediments forming today. Compare dates computed using different radioisotope dating techniques.

Compare physical constants as measured today with the same constants as measured when we first started measuring them (taking into account differences caused by lack of knowledge in the earlier measurements).

Its an idea. I don't know about this idea.
The facts are that turning sediment into stone etc is a big deal.
I suggest instead the sediment was suddenly laid with the creatures in it. the tough boring types managed to bore up desperately but were then stopped by more flow events depositing more sediment and that turned to stone by the overlying pressure. All this happening in days or hours or at most a week or two.
its hypothesis based on the raw data.
No one saw it happen.

Just a reminder....John Woodmorappe is a high school science teacher in Illinois...or was back in 2008. His real name is Jan Peczkis.
More at http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/01/dishonesty-of-john-woodmorappe.html
Which reminded me of his quoting himself.

Robert Byers said: Its an idea. I don't know about this idea. The facts are that turning sediment into stone etc is a big deal. I suggest instead the sediment was suddenly laid with the creatures in it. the tough boring types managed to bore up desperately but were then stopped by more flow events depositing more sediment and that turned to stone by the overlying pressure. All this happening in days or hours or at most a week or two. its hypothesis based on the raw data. No one saw it happen.

Wait, there's more. Young-earth creationists also dismiss radiometric dating techniques on the grounds that the half-lives of the isotopes concerned might have been far shorter in the past, and nobody can say otherwise. (The familiar were-you-there argument.) Of course this involves dismissing the entire field of atomic theory, too, on the equally familiar grounds that it's only a theory.

The longest periods that can be measured using long half-life isotopes are on the order of four billion years. Rocks have been dated at that age. If those rocks are really only six thousand years old, that would mean that the half-life of those isotopes would have to have been six orders of magnitude shorter then than now.

Perhaps someone more versed in atomic physics than I could provide a synopsis of the necessary implications of this. I suspect that at the very least, all antediluvian life forms must have suffered from terminal radiation sickness, and that God would have had no need for a flood. I also suspect that, for example, uranium ores would have reached critical mass without enrichment, and we wouldn't have any bodies of such ore today - and furthermore, would be able to observe the results of multiple nuclear chain reactions all over the planet.

Such rebuttals of creationist nonsense will not signify to them, of course. Nuclear physics means as little to them as astronomy or geology or the whole of the life sciences. Or science itself. Still, it's amusing to draw the implications.

Robert, it is all about The universal Deluge the hypothetical Noah's Flood, and Alternative Hypotheses for Hardground Origins.

Too much hyphothesising going on there Robert. You all pull hypotheses from your butt, that's why all you have to show for your effort is crap.

Science takes an intellectual effort that neither you nor Woodmorappe Jan Peczskis are capable of.

Charley Horse said: Just a reminder....John Woodmorappe is a high school science teacher in Illinois...or was back in 2008. His real name is Jan Peczkis. More at http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/01/dishonesty-of-john-woodmorappe.html Which reminded me of his quoting himself.

Dave Luckett said: Wait, there's more. Young-earth creationists also dismiss radiometric dating techniques on the grounds that the half-lives of the isotopes concerned might have been far shorter in the past, and nobody can say otherwise. (The familiar were-you-there argument.) Of course this involves dismissing the entire field of atomic theory, too, on the equally familiar grounds that it's only a theory. The longest periods that can be measured using long half-life isotopes are on the order of four billion years. Rocks have been dated at that age. If those rocks are really only six thousand years old, that would mean that the half-life of those isotopes would have to have been six orders of magnitude shorter then than now. Perhaps someone more versed in atomic physics than I could provide a synopsis of the necessary implications of this. I suspect that at the very least, all antediluvian life forms must have suffered from terminal radiation sickness, and that God would have had no need for a flood. I also suspect that, for example, uranium ores would have reached critical mass without enrichment, and we wouldn't have any bodies of such ore today - and furthermore, would be able to observe the results of multiple nuclear chain reactions all over the planet. Such rebuttals of creationist nonsense will not signify to them, of course. Nuclear physics means as little to them as astronomy or geology or the whole of the life sciences. Or science itself. Still, it's amusing to draw the implications.

TomS said: And there is more. Consider the argument from the design of the world to make life possible. The Anthropic Principle, that the laws of physics and the parameters are so fine tuned, that if they differed by as little as a few percent, life as we know it would not be possible. In order for things like radioactive decay, or the speed of light, to be consistent with the universe being less than 10,000 years old - it would mean that physics would have to differ by far more than a few percent - things would have to differ by orders of magnitude (that is, by multiples of 10, many thousands of percent). The argument from design would be worthless.

Dave Lovell said: Nice try TomS, but it won't wash with Creationists. Even if they accept your argument, they will simply claim it shows that other parameters will have had to have been constantly re-finetuned over the last ten thousand years as the speed of light and half-lives changed. The Creator is more necessary than ever.

Dave Luckett said: I suspect that at the very least, all antediluvian life forms must have suffered from terminal radiation sickness, and that God would have had no need for a flood.

It's either fine tuning or variable rates over time, you can't have it both ways. If there are other combinations of variables that could have been different and still produced life, (not just life as we know it but any kind of life), then the fine tuning idea is undermined, perhaps fatally so. At least they will be forced to do some hand waving math instead of just claiming that one and only one combination of variables would suffice.

Probably YECs will give up fine tuning before they will give up the young age of the earth and OECs will give up the young age of the earth before they will give up fine tuning. Either way, the big tent just got a little bit smaller. Let them fight it out amongst themselves to see which misrepresentation of real science they want to go with. When you choose to ignore reality, consistency is not something that is likely to result.

DS said: It's either fine tuning or variable rates over time, you can't have it both ways.

eric said:

DS said: It's either fine tuning or variable rates over time, you can't have it both ways.

Interesting point, I hadn't thought of that before. Another 'can't have it both ways' bit about the fine tuning argument: is it (1) the fragility of human-supporting conditions (i.e. only extremely specific parameters allow us to survive) bespeaks design, or is it (2) the robustness of human supporting conditions (i.e., the universe fits us very very well) that bespeaks design? Can't have both.

Probably YECs will give up fine tuning before they will give up the young age of the earth and OECs will give up the young age of the earth before they will give up fine tuning. Either way, the big tent just got a little bit smaller. Let them fight it out amongst themselves to see which misrepresentation of real science they want to go with. When you choose to ignore reality, consistency is not something that is likely to result.

Mike Elzinga said: So photons coming at you would be traveling at infinite speed and have infinite energy, and traveling away would have speed c/2 and have half the energy. E = mc² would be infinite coming at you and be 1/4 as much going away.

Mike Elzinga said: So photons coming at you would be traveling at infinite speed and have infinite energy, and traveling away would have speed c/2 and have half the energy. E = mc² would be infinite coming at you and be 1/4 as much going away.

Good grief. That belongs on the BW. Website behaving very strangely.

Just Bob said:

Mike Elzinga said: So photons coming at you would be traveling at infinite speed and have infinite energy, and traveling away would have speed c/2 and have half the energy. E = mc² would be infinite coming at you and be 1/4 as much going away.

The nonscientist with elementary math skills asks: What is 1/2 or 1/4 of infinity?

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Its an idea. I don't know about this idea. The facts are that turning sediment into stone etc is a big deal. I suggest instead the sediment was suddenly laid with the creatures in it. the tough boring types managed to bore up desperately but were then stopped by more flow events depositing more sediment and that turned to stone by the overlying pressure. All this happening in days or hours or at most a week or two. its hypothesis based on the raw data. No one saw it happen.

But we have modern examples of just what you are describing. Just look at the valleys surrounding Mount St. Helens, or other volcanic mountains. Or look at the mud flows in the Chilean valleys. Valleys full of mud, rock, and debris were laid down in a matter of days for the volcanoes and hours for the mud slides, just as you describe. And guess what. The valleys full of mud and debris don't magically turn into stone. That takes thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of years, and lots of heat, and tremendous amounts of pressure. And guess what. No one has ever seen your hypothesis wild ass guess happen. On the one hand, you admit that you don't know the first thing about this ridiculous idea. Yet, because no one was alive when it happened, because no one saw it happen (and we know that visual observation, or personal witness are the only things that you consider to be "evidence"), you therefore conclude that your wild guess that you just now pulled out of your butt is just as good as the conclusions that actual scientists reach after decades of doing experiments and the study of actual data. Do I have that right?

Robert Byers said: Creationists want to know!

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Its an idea. I don't know about this idea. The facts are that turning sediment into stone etc is a big deal. I suggest instead the sediment was suddenly laid with the creatures in it. the tough boring types managed to bore up desperately but were then stopped by more flow events depositing more sediment and that turned to stone by the overlying pressure. All this happening in days or hours or at most a week or two. its hypothesis based on the raw data. No one saw it happen.

But we have modern examples of just what you are describing. Just look at the valleys surrounding Mount St. Helens, or other volcanic mountains. Or look at the mud flows in the Chilean valleys. Valleys full of mud, rock, and debris were laid down in a matter of days for the volcanoes and hours for the mud slides, just as you describe. And guess what. The valleys full of mud and debris don't magically turn into stone. That takes thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of years, and lots of heat, and tremendous amounts of pressure. And guess what. No one has ever seen your hypothesis wild ass guess happen. On the one hand, you admit that you don't know the first thing about this ridiculous idea. Yet, because no one was alive when it happened, because no one saw it happen (and we know that visual observation, or personal witness are the only things that you consider to be "evidence"), you therefore conclude that your wild guess that you just now pulled out of your butt is just as good as the conclusions that actual scientists reach after decades of doing experiments and the study of actual data. Do I have that right?

Your case is right. these debris flows do not turn to stone or ever will. It is a recipe. You gave the answer yourself. It is the pressure overtop that does the trick. With this pressure there is heat. A option that heat is needed in the recipe. Yet there is no need for thousands of years. Just a quick squeeze. in fact the very power organizing the sediment being deposited would be that power. If you needed the time then the pressure/heat would not only be unlikely to be going on but why is it needed? or why is the pressure/heat so ineffective although the operative factor, that it needs time?? Creationists want to know!

The borings seem to be aligned with the lighter streaks of the rock. I would say it was boreholes made by Noah's Spirit and Opportunity testing the ground for habitability after the flood :)

Robert Byers said: Creationists want to know!

Robert Byers said: Creationists want to know!

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Creationists want to know!

We tell you. Scientists tell you. The greatest Nobel Prize-winning experts in the world tell you. You never believe them. Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that all living things are related through evolution and that the Earth is billions of years old?

Yeah, he "thinks" that the different sciences have huge gaps between them, when really the division of science into subjects is for the convenience of the people dealing with it.

DS said:

Robert Byers said: Creationists want to know!

Just Bob said: We tell you. Scientists tell you. The greatest Nobel Prize-winning experts in the world tell you. You never believe them. Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that all living things are related through evolution and that the Earth is billions of years old?

Yes. Bio sci evidence. You know, actual living things going on in actual living things. Nothing atomic or unproven. No old stuff or dead stuff. Just stuff that doesn't mean that the earth is old or evolution is true. That's all booby will accept.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Its an idea. I don't know about this idea. The facts are that turning sediment into stone etc is a big deal. I suggest instead the sediment was suddenly laid with the creatures in it. the tough boring types managed to bore up desperately but were then stopped by more flow events depositing more sediment and that turned to stone by the overlying pressure. All this happening in days or hours or at most a week or two. its hypothesis based on the raw data. No one saw it happen.

But we have modern examples of just what you are describing. Just look at the valleys surrounding Mount St. Helens, or other volcanic mountains. Or look at the mud flows in the Chilean valleys. Valleys full of mud, rock, and debris were laid down in a matter of days for the volcanoes and hours for the mud slides, just as you describe. And guess what. The valleys full of mud and debris don't magically turn into stone. That takes thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of years, and lots of heat, and tremendous amounts of pressure. And guess what. No one has ever seen your hypothesis wild ass guess happen. On the one hand, you admit that you don't know the first thing about this ridiculous idea. Yet, because no one was alive when it happened, because no one saw it happen (and we know that visual observation, or personal witness are the only things that you consider to be "evidence"), you therefore conclude that your wild guess that you just now pulled out of your butt is just as good as the conclusions that actual scientists reach after decades of doing experiments and the study of actual data. Do I have that right?

Your case is right. these debris flows do not turn to stone or ever will. It is a recipe. You gave the answer yourself. It is the pressure overtop that does the trick. With this pressure there is heat. A option that heat is needed in the recipe. Yet there is no need for thousands of years. Just a quick squeeze. in fact the very power organizing the sediment being deposited would be that power. If you needed the time then the pressure/heat would not only be unlikely to be going on but why is it needed? or why is the pressure/heat so ineffective although the operative factor, that it needs time?? Creationists want to know!

Hi Robert, As noted in the past few comments, as any YEC, you're still pulling crap out of your butt, and you (and the rest of us) are constantly amazed at what you find there. We're no longer talking biology here. We're talking plain old basic chemistry, a change in the chemical make-up of the material that will eventually become rock. Something else you know nothing about, but are perfectly happy to make extravagant claims about. Have you ever baked a loaf of bread? Perhaps a pan of brownies? Have you tried to bake that loaf of bread in 5 minutes, instead of the 1 to 2 hours required by the recipe? It doesn't work, does it. The chemical reactions that make bread out of wheat flour require specific amounts of heat for specific periods of time. If you vary those conditions, you get something from the process, but it isn't bread. In a similar way, the chemical reactions that create rock require specific temperatures at specific pressures for specific periods of time. If you change the temperature, or pressure, or time, or ingredients, you end up with different kinds of rock. By doing experiments, we know what temperatures, pressures, ingredients, and time are required to make different kinds of rock. For example, there are lots of different kinds of granite. The granites in Yosemite valley are very, very hard with large grains; hard enough to create huge cliffs 3,000 to 4,000 feet high. It is impossible to create such rocks with just a "quick squeeze", as you say. I repeat, it is impossible to create such rock in less than millions of years. If it took less time, the result would be a different kind of rock than what we see today. (I'm no geologist, and I know that this is a gross simplification and (perhaps) in error, but the general notion is the same.) If you really wanted to know, ask Mr. Google about "granite". Mr. Google has lots of information about how rocks are made. But since you can't be bothered to actually find out what is already common knowledge, I presume that your comment that "Creationists want to know" is, in fact, a lie. You don't really want to know anything about anything. You really prefer to ignore any actual experiments or evidence from geology, chemistry, physics, or any other branch of Science. You would much rather pull coprolites from your butt, and claim that God did it. That's soooo much easier than all that hard sciency and maths stuff.

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Creationists want to know!

We tell you. Scientists tell you. The greatest Nobel Prize-winning experts in the world tell you. You never believe them. Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that all living things are related through evolution and that the Earth is billions of years old?

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Creationists want to know!

We tell you. Scientists tell you. The greatest Nobel Prize-winning experts in the world tell you. You never believe them. Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that all living things are related through evolution and that the Earth is billions of years old?

Correct me if I'm wrong but i don't think they give a nobel for geology, or biology, or evolutionary biology(not really biology). Yes chemistry but dealing with sediment turned into stone might be not what they mean. Nobel's often go to those with , a cut above, imagination or insight, or plain harder research. So that includes options for correction to old paradigms. The formation of sedimentary rock, relative to time, being a option.

Robert Byers said: YET it was pressure and so a curve on the graph.

Al the different times were short.

Its relative, To turn sediment into stone would with great pressure do it quicker then low pressure. Otherwise the pressure quanity would be irrelevant and even pressure not needed.

Correct me if I'm wrong ...

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Creationists want to know!

We tell you. Scientists tell you. The greatest Nobel Prize-winning experts in the world tell you. You never believe them. Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that all living things are related through evolution and that the Earth is billions of years old?

Correct me if I'm wrong but i don't think they give a nobel for geology, or biology, or evolutionary biology(not really biology). Yes chemistry but dealing with sediment turned into stone might be not what they mean. Nobel's often go to those with , a cut above, imagination or insight, or plain harder research. So that includes options for correction to old paradigms. The formation of sedimentary rock, relative to time, being a option.

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Creationists want to know!

We tell you. Scientists tell you. The greatest Nobel Prize-winning experts in the world tell you. You never believe them. Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that all living things are related through evolution and that the Earth is billions of years old?

Scott F said:

DS said:

Robert Byers said: Creationists want to know!

Just Bob said: We tell you. Scientists tell you. The greatest Nobel Prize-winning experts in the world tell you. You never believe them. Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that all living things are related through evolution and that the Earth is billions of years old?

Yes. Bio sci evidence. You know, actual living things going on in actual living things. Nothing atomic or unproven. No old stuff or dead stuff. Just stuff that doesn't mean that the earth is old or evolution is true. That's all booby will accept.

Exactly. And the "bio sci evidence" can't be anything related to "math" or "physics" or "chemistry" or dots connected by lines, or comparing two living organisms. It has to be observed by eyeball within a single living organism, preferably before the observer gets bored and falls asleep. Oh, and it helps if the "bio sci evidence" is attested to by a revered authority figure to whom the "bio sci evidence" has been revealed as "true". And proteins and genetics and heredity and stuff like that also don't count as "bio sci evidence", because nobody has seen those things either. That's all just more dots on a page. Never mind that what Robert is viewing right now is just virtual dots on a virtual page connected by virtual lines all the results of math, chemistry, and physics. He can see his computer screen, so it is "obviously" "real", in some sense, though he's not sure how. Robert "knows" something is real when he can see it. Ergo, if he can't see it, it isn't real. Pretty simple and straight forward, really. That's about the level of comprehension of the world of an 8 month old child.

Excellent analogy (would apply well to gun fetishists, too).

But in many, maybe most, cases, I don't think they really chose their religion. Not in the sense of having none, looking over all (or many, or even just several) from a neutral position, with an adult's maturity, then choosing fundamentalist Protestantism as the one true faith. They were born there, raised there, educated there, and whether they are "free" to leave is more a matter of psychology and sociology than law.

Robert Byers said: Correct me if I'm wrong but i don't think they give a nobel for geology, or biology, or evolutionary biology(not really biology).

Nobel's often go to those with , a cut above, imagination or insight, or plain harder research. So that includes options for correction to old paradigms. The formation of sedimentary rock, relative to time, being a option.

Robert, suppose Jesus comes to your house. Yes, the REAL Jesus. He looks and sounds and acts and smells exactly like you would expect him to. He turns your bottle of Dasani into chianti. He walks across your swimming pool, and brings your grandpa back to life, just to establish his bona fides. Then he says, "Robert, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no flood a few thousand years ago that covered the whole Earth, and God made people over a couple of million years by gradually modifying apes."

Would you believe Him? Or would such statements prove to you that he could not possibly be the real Jesus, despite all the proof and miracles, because Jesus could never say such a thing?

Just Bob said: Robert, suppose Jesus comes to your house. Yes, the REAL Jesus. He looks and sounds and acts and smells exactly like you would expect him to. He turns your bottle of Dasani into chianti. He walks across your swimming pool, and brings your grandpa back to life, just to establish his bona fides. Then he says, "Robert, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no flood a few thousand years ago that covered the whole Earth, and God made people over a couple of million years by gradually modifying apes." Would you believe Him? Or would such statements prove to you that he could not possibly be the real Jesus, despite all the proof and miracles, because Jesus could never say such a thing?

Dave Luckett said: Perhaps someone more versed in atomic physics than I could provide a synopsis of the necessary implications of this.

I don't see how hypothesizing an accelerated rate of decay at hundreds of millions times today's rate is better than just saying that God can do anything.

Is there any evidence for such a acceleration? Is there any hint that there has been any acceleration like that, ever, of a lesser amount - say, "only" ten times - or a few percent?

What might be the mechanism for producing such an acceleration? And for the deceleration to today's rate? Today's rate of acceleration/deceleration is essentially zero.

Does the acceleration actually account for anything?

I agree TomS. Why bother trying to sham-science an explanation? Just say God did and we have no idea how, when, or why, but God can do anything.

Michael Fugate said: I agree TomS. Why bother trying to sham-science an explanation? Just say God did and we have no idea how, when, or why, but God can do anything.

TomS said: I don't see how hypothesizing an accelerated rate of decay at hundreds of millions times today's rate is better than just saying that God can do anything. Is there any evidence for such a acceleration? Is there any hint that there has been any acceleration like that, ever, of a lesser amount - say, "only" ten times - or a few percent? What might be the mechanism for producing such an acceleration? And for the deceleration to today's rate? Today's rate of acceleration/deceleration is essentially zero. Does the acceleration actually account for anything?

It's raining here. With occasional thunder.

phhht said:

Michael Fugate said: I agree TomS. Why bother trying to sham-science an explanation? Just say God did and we have no idea how, when, or why, but God can do anything.

It's science envy. The appeal to pseudoscience is a tacit concession that even the believers themselves recognize how dubious miracle stories are, and that the scientific method actually yields trustworthy results.

The believers say to themselves, subconsciously, “If only we build airplane-shaped miracles out of palm fronds and coconuts, we can fly every bit as well as those atheists!”

Re "If only we build airplane-shaped miracles out of palm fronds and coconuts,"

De plane! De plane!

Well, keep in mind too, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance with some (many) believers. For a universe supposedly sporting an ALL-POWERFUL EVERYGOD, things are both boringly mundane and amazingly predictable. Every time a True Believer gets in a car and unflinchingly starts and drives to some destination without the road turning into a snake or a Mobeus Loop or gold simply reaffirms that maybe science is onto something. So many try to rationalize their beliefs to themselves (and the apostates) by trying parley similar (sounding) sciency-stories to support their faith-stories. It hasn't been going well for the last hundred years or so...

TomS said: I don't see how hypothesizing an accelerated rate of decay at hundreds of millions times today's rate is better than just saying that God can do anything. Is there any evidence for such a acceleration? Is there any hint that there has been any acceleration like that, ever, of a lesser amount - say, "only" ten times - or a few percent? What might be the mechanism for producing such an acceleration? And for the deceleration to today's rate? Today's rate of acceleration/deceleration is essentially zero. Does the acceleration actually account for anything?

Scott F said: One way to resolve this is [for them] to assume whatever is necessary to assume to make "science" and the Bible agree. Hence, they make the assumption that the "laws" of physics were different, back in the day, typically due to The Fall(tm), though they never bother to explain how that might work. They have to put on their "bible-colored glasses" in order to "properly" "interpret" the data, in order to make the data fit their beliefs and to make themselves feel better.

Yet the God of the Bible can cause deaths without it being murder. After all, God's ways are inscrutable.

And God can take away one's most valued possessions, without it being theft.

Why is it not that God might have perfectly good reasons to let us believe things that aren't true? It isn't as if we have a right to the facts. We deserve eternal punishment in Hell. Is it so much worse to let us believe something that isn't true? It isn't that God is lying to us (no more that he is murdering or stealing).

And if we're just talking about Intelligent Designers: Nature can be subtle, but it takes a intelligence to be deliberately deceiving.

TomS said: Is there any evidence for such a acceleration?

Is there any hint that there has been any acceleration like that, ever, of a lesser amount - say, "only" ten times - or a few percent?

What might be the mechanism for producing such an acceleration? And for the deceleration to today's rate?

Jon Fleming said:

Is there any hint that there has been any acceleration like that, ever, of a lesser amount - say, "only" ten times - or a few percent?

Not for any relevant isotope under conditions possible on a solid Earth. Several isotopes change decay rates by a little under 1% under extreme but achievable conditions, such as 7Be. Stripping all the electrons from 187Re increases its decay rate a millionfold; stand in awe as you contemplate the temperature that requires.

I think the problem they have isn’t cognitive dissonance, so much, though I assume that there is some of that. I see it as having conflicting requirements/assumptions that they need to resolve.

1. The Earth is 6,000 years old, and Genesis is literally true, for some definition of “literal”. 2. Their God is not a deceitful or lying god. 3. They also believe in science (little “s”) 4. Because they believe in miracles, they also don’t believe in Uniformitarianism. So, here’s the problem. The Bible says “6,000 years”. Science says “4.5 billion years”. They want to believe the Bible, and they want to believe “science” (or, rather, they don’t want to appear entirely foolish), *and* they know that their God would not lie to them.

Just Bob said: Robert, suppose Jesus comes to your house. Yes, the REAL Jesus. He looks and sounds and acts and smells exactly like you would expect him to. He turns your bottle of Dasani into chianti. He walks across your swimming pool, and brings your grandpa back to life, just to establish his bona fides. Then he says, "Robert, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no flood a few thousand years ago that covered the whole Earth, and God made people over a couple of million years by gradually modifying apes." Would you believe Him? Or would such statements prove to you that he could not possibly be the real Jesus, despite all the proof and miracles, because Jesus could never say such a thing?

There is a long history of people understanding that the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are not to be taken literally. The earliest Christian that I am aware of who took a "day" to mean "a thousand years" is the 1st-2nd century author of the Epistle of Barnabas. Augustine (in the 5th century) took the days as not referring to any span of time.

This is not to suggest that anyone before the modern era thought that the Bible was compatible with much more than a few thousand years.

Just because you've figured out how it's done, doesn't mean that God didn't do it, all the good things as well.

Marilyn said: Just because you've figured out how it's done, doesn't mean that God didn't do it, all the good things as well.

Marilyn said: Just because you've figured out how it's done, doesn't mean that God didn't do it, all the good things as well.

Marilyn said: Just because you've figured out how it's done, doesn't mean that God didn't do it, all the good things as well.

Dave Lovell said:

Marilyn said: Just because you've figured out how it's done, doesn't mean that God didn't do it, all the good things as well.

Perfectly true Marilyn, though don't forget he must also be responsible for all the bad things too. Some sort of Supernatural Being may well have created the Laws of Physics and then kicked off an experimental Universe to see where it led. We can never know. He might well have had the intention to design a set of Physical Laws that would produce a Universe capable of evolving intelligent life in at least one obsure backwater. But that is not the God of the Bible who reportedly used to meddle in the detail of the course of his experiment without leaving any evidence beyond hearsay. And even if he could work miracles then, if he tries it now modern Science will be able to see his fingerprints all over his meddling.

Creationists possibly do real science, but possibly wouldn't do in a classroom now due to the difference in language between rules and regulations that stop how their explanations are expressed and put across and would get the sack for contradicting the school books if that was the case, that they were contradicting or pointing in a direction that an evolutionist didn't agree with because they can't see past the 'petri dish' - science. Finding cures and engineering products that help form a better future is what both creationists and evolutionists work for, I would think. It's not only prayer that would stop the Zika virus, there has to be prayers and studies in how it happens and fully understand whats going on so the source is tackled, and it takes a lot of hard work and dedication from any person who takes that on, humans have proved their endurance in these tasks. I can't see a monkey taking up the initiative and could do this, put a white coat on and sort it out in a science lab. I do think this is where God shows His presence in humans, I also think God shows His presence in animals as well but they have their tasks and humans have theirs, to overcome the wrongs and replace them with the right. I don't think God medals He just shows that there is a light at the end of the tunnel making you realize that that is where it is and need to work towards it, and there might be some things in the way that need to be overcome in the most civilized way possible.

Finding cures and engineering products that help form a better future is what both creationists and evolutionists work for, I would think.

TomS said: Unless he created quantum uncertainty and the butterfly effect to mask his meddling.

Marilyn said:...there has to be prayers...

Marilyn said: Creationists possibly do real science, but possibly wouldn't do in a classroom now due to the difference in language between rules and regulations that stop how their explanations are expressed and put across and would get the sack for contradicting the school books if that was the case, that they were contradicting or pointing in a direction that an evolutionist didn't agree with because they can't see past the 'petri dish' - science. Finding cures and engineering products that help form a better future is what both creationists and evolutionists work for, I would think. It's not only prayer that would stop the Zika virus, there has to be prayers and studies in how it happens and fully understand whats going on so the source is tackled, and it takes a lot of hard work and dedication from any person who takes that on, humans have proved their endurance in these tasks. I can't see a monkey taking up the initiative and could do this, put a white coat on and sort it out in a science lab. I do think this is where God shows His presence in humans, I also think God shows His presence in animals as well but they have their tasks and humans have theirs, to overcome the wrongs and replace them with the right. I don't think God medals He just shows that there is a light at the end of the tunnel making you realize that that is where it is and need to work towards it, and there might be some things in the way that need to be overcome in the most civilized way possible.

Marilyn said: I don't think God medals meddles He just shows that there is a light at the end of the tunnel making you realize that that is where it is and need to work towards it, and there might be some things in the way that need to be overcome in the most civilized way possible.

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Creationists possibly do real science, but possibly wouldn't do in a classroom now due to the difference in language between rules and regulations that stop how their explanations are expressed and put across and would get the sack for contradicting the school books if that was the case, that they were contradicting or pointing in a direction that an evolutionist didn't agree with because they can't see past the 'petri dish' - science. Finding cures and engineering products that help form a better future is what both creationists and evolutionists work for, I would think. It's not only prayer that would stop the Zika virus, there has to be prayers and studies in how it happens and fully understand whats going on so the source is tackled, and it takes a lot of hard work and dedication from any person who takes that on, humans have proved their endurance in these tasks. I can't see a monkey taking up the initiative and could do this, put a white coat on and sort it out in a science lab. I do think this is where God shows His presence in humans, I also think God shows His presence in animals as well but they have their tasks and humans have theirs, to overcome the wrongs and replace them with the right. I don't think God medals He just shows that there is a light at the end of the tunnel making you realize that that is where it is and need to work towards it, and there might be some things in the way that need to be overcome in the most civilized way possible.

But there are no gods, Marilyn. In the entire, vast intellectual edifice of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, there are no gods. Gods play no role here in the real world. Gods are imaginary constructs, like vampires or superheroes. They are not real.

God is the unmovable spirit at the core of our soul; that's why Moses got the answer: I AM!

Kurt Vonnegut version:
http://vonnegut.wikia.com/wiki/The_Church_of_God_the_Utterly_Indifferent.

prongs said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Creationists possibly do real science, but possibly wouldn't do in a classroom now due to the difference in language between rules and regulations that stop how their explanations are expressed and put across and would get the sack for contradicting the school books if that was the case, that they were contradicting or pointing in a direction that an evolutionist didn't agree with because they can't see past the 'petri dish' - science. Finding cures and engineering products that help form a better future is what both creationists and evolutionists work for, I would think. It's not only prayer that would stop the Zika virus, there has to be prayers and studies in how it happens and fully understand whats going on so the source is tackled, and it takes a lot of hard work and dedication from any person who takes that on, humans have proved their endurance in these tasks. I can't see a monkey taking up the initiative and could do this, put a white coat on and sort it out in a science lab. I do think this is where God shows His presence in humans, I also think God shows His presence in animals as well but they have their tasks and humans have theirs, to overcome the wrongs and replace them with the right. I don't think God medals He just shows that there is a light at the end of the tunnel making you realize that that is where it is and need to work towards it, and there might be some things in the way that need to be overcome in the most civilized way possible.

But there are no gods, Marilyn. In the entire, vast intellectual edifice of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, there are no gods. Gods play no role here in the real world. Gods are imaginary constructs, like vampires or superheroes. They are not real.

Marilyn, Some think that God is the Gaussian Bell Curve - where rare, but not impossible, events become 'miracles', thus 'evidence' for God. If God IS the Gaussian Bell Curve, then He is indeed real, but not in the sense that most Christians would like. If the Gaussian distribution is responsible for Man's belief in 'God', then phhht's insistence that God is a delusion requires modification.

TomS said:

Marilyn said: Just because you've figured out how it's done, doesn't mean that God didn't do it, all the good things as well.

Just because you figured that God did it, that doesn't rule out that there is a natural account for it. That does not rule out the need for a natural account. God having done it does not tell us what happens, when or where, why or how, that things turn out as they do. For God is capable of anything, not only of things as they are, but endless other possibilities.

phhht said: But there are no gods, Marilyn. In the entire, vast intellectual edifice of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, there are no gods. Gods play no role here in the real world. Gods are imaginary constructs, like vampires or superheroes. They are not real.

Scott F said:

Jon Fleming said:

Is there any hint that there has been any acceleration like that, ever, of a lesser amount - say, "only" ten times - or a few percent?

Not for any relevant isotope under conditions possible on a solid Earth. Several isotopes change decay rates by a little under 1% under extreme but achievable conditions, such as 7Be. Stripping all the electrons from 187Re increases its decay rate a millionfold; stand in awe as you contemplate the temperature that requires.

That's pretty cool! Has this actually been done, or is it just theoretical?

prongs said: Marilyn, Some think that God is the Gaussian Bell Curve - where rare, but not impossible, events become 'miracles', thus 'evidence' for God. If God IS the Gaussian Bell Curve, then He is indeed real, but not in the sense that most Christians would like. If the Gaussian distribution is responsible for Man's belief in 'God', then phhht's insistence that God is a delusion requires modification.

harold said:

I think the problem they have isn’t cognitive dissonance, so much, though I assume that there is some of that. I see it as having conflicting requirements/assumptions that they need to resolve.

I agree strongly with the gist of this comment but would like to clarify a couple of things. Please people, that is essentially what the common term "cognitive dissonance" means. It's a concept that is well supported by experimental literature. It's the discomfort that people experience when they need to resolve an apparent contradiction.

Marilyn said:

phhht said: But there are no gods, Marilyn. In the entire, vast intellectual edifice of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, there are no gods. Gods play no role here in the real world. Gods are imaginary constructs, like vampires or superheroes. They are not real.

I have realized that the gods you talk about aren't real, and thats because they aren't God.

Hmm… I was under the impression that “cognitive dissonance” was referring to the corrosive effects of an internal subconscious conflict between mental states that were in opposition, but where the person did not consciously recognize or admit to the internal conflict. Kind of like the internal conflict that must result from the need for “double think”.

Instead, I was trying to describe a more conscious, systematic process of trying to reason out a least offensive solution to a set of external requirements that are recognized to be in “apparent” conflict.

A formal Creation Science (if you will), but a “science” that is willing to accept or create any fanciful notion as long as it “resolves” the conflict between a priori assumptions; like creating the notion of “kinds”, which resolves the problem of fitting all the animals on the ark, yet which raises the added (but lesser) problem of hyper-evolution within “kinds”.

For example, I don’t see the conflict between relativity theory and quantum theory to lead to “cognitive dissonance”. Perhaps the separation of internal mental or emotional conflict versus external “intellectual” conflict is an inaccurate distinction??

Marilyn said:

TomS said:

Marilyn said: Just because you've figured out how it's done, doesn't mean that God didn't do it, all the good things as well.

Just because you figured that God did it, that doesn't rule out that there is a natural account for it. That does not rule out the need for a natural account. God having done it does not tell us what happens, when or where, why or how, that things turn out as they do. For God is capable of anything, not only of things as they are, but endless other possibilities.

If some things are left to nature it's possible for things to go wrong, for an example if you don't cultivate the field of wheat other plants will intermingle and if left to continue in that direction it spoils and makes the harvests more difficult. So some kind of intervention of natural proceedings is needed to make things better. The wheat and other plant themselves however comes the same every time and knows which way to grow.

This should go up the list for relevance, and the following discussion.

Marilyn said:

TomS said:

Marilyn said: Just because you've figured out how it's done, doesn't mean that God didn't do it, all the good things as well.

Just because you figured that God did it, that doesn't rule out that there is a natural account for it. That does not rule out the need for a natural account. God having done it does not tell us what happens, when or where, why or how, that things turn out as they do. For God is capable of anything, not only of things as they are, but endless other possibilities.

If some things are left to nature it's possible for things to go wrong, for an example if you don't cultivate the field of wheat other plants will intermingle and if left to continue in that direction it spoils and makes the harvests more difficult. So some kind of intervention of natural proceedings is needed to make things better. The wheat and other plant themselves however comes the same every time and knows which way to grow.

harold said:

Scott F said: A formal Creation Science (if you will), but a “science” that is willing to accept or create any fanciful notion as long as it “resolves” the conflict between a priori assumptions; like creating the notion of “kinds”, which resolves the problem of fitting all the animals on the ark, yet which raises the added (but lesser) problem of hyper-evolution within “kinds”.

But at the conscious level they barely engage with the science, and they usually take a triumphalist and mocking tone. For example, some time back, when Jason Lisle came up with his convoluted scheme, he didn't say "I concede that YEC faces serious challenges, and I propose an initial working hypothesis for explaining how a YEC framework can be compatible with seemingly contradictory data". Instead, his efforts were announced with arrogant bluster. Another subconscious thing they make great use of is projection. Everyone else is always said to be hampered by their "need to reject God" or some such thing (even other religious people, of course).

Marilyn said: [ emphasis added ] If some things are left to nature it's possible for things to go wrong, for an example if you don't cultivate the field of wheat other plants will intermingle and if left to continue in that direction it spoils and makes the harvests more difficult. So some kind of intervention of natural proceedings is needed to make things better. The wheat and other plant themselves however comes the same every time and knows which way to grow.

Creationists are caught between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand, they really, truly, sincerely BELIEVE that Creationism is true. On the other hand, they bloody well know that SCIENCE WORKS—and that same SCIENCE tells them that Creationism is a pile of crap. Which leaves Creationists in a rather uncomfortable position. It would of course be simpler to just go with "God did it" and leave it at that, but that would be pretty much saying "science, schmience, who gives a damn about science?", which they can't do because, well, SCIENCE WORKS. So instead of a simple goddidit, it's SCIENCE WORKS WHEN IT'S DONE RIGHT, a position which allows them to say "Hey, we're doing SCIENCE right! Not those other guys!"

quentin-long said: Creationists are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they really, truly, sincerely BELIEVE that Creationism is true. On the other hand, they bloody well know that SCIENCE WORKS—and that same SCIENCE tells them that Creationism is a pile of crap. Which leaves Creationists in a rather uncomfortable position. It would of course be simpler to just go with "God did it" and leave it at that, but that would be pretty much saying "science, schmience, who gives a damn about science?", which they can't do because, well, SCIENCE WORKS. So instead of a simple goddidit, it's SCIENCE WORKS WHEN IT'S DONE RIGHT, a position which allows them to say "Hey, we're doing SCIENCE right! Not those other guys!"

it only returned YEC-friendly answers if you input YEC “data” to begin with.

That was the one glorious triumph of YEC “science” that FL could come up with.

Scott F said: What you are saying is that, when humans intervene in Nature to "cultivate" and "harvest", it requires even more human intervention in "Nature" in order to make the cultivation and harvesting easier. It's all a matter of perspective.

quentin-long said: Creationists are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they really, truly, sincerely BELIEVE that Creationism is true. On the other hand, they bloody well know that SCIENCE WORKS—and that same SCIENCE tells them that Creationism is a pile of crap. Which leaves Creationists in a rather uncomfortable position. It would of course be simpler to just go with "God did it" and leave it at that, but that would be pretty much saying "science, schmience, who gives a damn about science?", which they can't do because, well, SCIENCE WORKS. So instead of a simple goddidit, it's SCIENCE WORKS WHEN IT'S DONE RIGHT, a position which allows them to say "Hey, we're doing SCIENCE right! Not those other guys!"

Marilyn said: To stretch this further, if a fence isn't put round the domesticated chickens a fox will come and take them.

But the creationists do not uniformly reject modern science when it is in conflict with the Bible.

Geocentrism being the obvious example.

harold said: Yet, as several people have noted in this thread, they are desperately obsessed with seeming to respect science.

Just Bob said:

quentin-long said: Creationists are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they really, truly, sincerely BELIEVE that Creationism is true. On the other hand, they bloody well know that SCIENCE WORKS—and that same SCIENCE tells them that Creationism is a pile of crap. Which leaves Creationists in a rather uncomfortable position. It would of course be simpler to just go with "God did it" and leave it at that, but that would be pretty much saying "science, schmience, who gives a damn about science?", which they can't do because, well, SCIENCE WORKS. So instead of a simple goddidit, it's SCIENCE WORKS WHEN IT'S DONE RIGHT, a position which allows them to say "Hey, we're doing SCIENCE right! Not those other guys!"

When I asked our pet fundie fool some time back to name any practical product or discovery that has come from "creation science," using creationist assumptions, the only thing he could come up with was a computer simulation that was intended to show rapid (!) seafloor spreading after the flood (or something like that). Some mainstream geologists found the program useful if they put in real world parameters to model some real geological processes. But apparently it wasn't any earth-shaking or game-changing program; it's hard to find any references to it nowadays; and it only returned YEC-friendly answers if you input YEC "data" to begin with. That was the one glorious triumph of YEC "science" that FL could come up with.

I hate to be catty, But Dr. Danny Faulkner is finally picking on someone his own size: flat-earthers.

W. H. Heydt said: I hadn't heard that foxes paid much, if any, attention to fences. Do you have some evidence to back up that claim?

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: Yet, as several people have noted in this thread, they are desperately obsessed with seeming to respect science.

From what I have seen of their videos and their writings aimed at their followers, it's all about being a celebrity within their sectarian subculture. These characters are at the top of their subculture, with young people and ignorant adults looking to them for guidance and "wisdom." Their followers see them as having been through the fires of persecution in secular hell, having come out the other side still believing their literal interpretation of their holy book. Therefore these "stalwart soldiers of the gospel," waggling their PhDs, must have something important to say. If one goes over to Jason Lisle's blog, for example, one sees the dynamics of his interactions with the young students who show up there praising him and asking for his advice. Lisle also does some "snarky take-downs" - i.e., replies full of BS and bluster - of challengers who show up on his site. He is the beloved demon slayer on his own blog. This same dynamic is played out with other YEC "PhDs" in the ID/creationist movement. Stephen Meyer showing up on the cover of a national conservative christian magazine, Georgia Purdum giving advice to women about life and living. It's all about celebrity and adulation from adoring followers within an authoritarian subculture. Those letters after their names are the keys to achieving national recognition and respect within that subculture. They are far more "educated" than just about anyone else in that closed, sectarian world. Furthermore, they achieve this status almost instantly upon graduation. They don't go through the usual fires of peer review and demonstrating their credentials through successful research in the science community; they go directly back to their churches and are welcomed as heroic warriors returning from a successful campaign of walking through the fires of secular hell with their heads up. They successfully cowed the secular lions and survived. It is not about the science other than the patina of science giving them their official ordination within their churches. Most church leaders don't have PhDs in a scientific field; so these characters are "special."

A huge “advantage” for creationists is that science is a hard enough subject for those who bother to try to learn it. Millions of honest, well meaning, science-respecting students struggle. So in most cases, rather than understand and reject science, all they have to do is to prevent themselves from making any effort to understand it in the first place.

Marilyn said:

W. H. Heydt said: I hadn't heard that foxes paid much, if any, attention to fences. Do you have some evidence to back up that claim?

You're right they don't, sadly with my experience, it needs a good tall solid defence, and a good shed, but I was only illustrating that sometimes there is a need for some intervention in nature.

harold said: Most creationists can't deal with the sheer contradiction the way the likes of Lisle can. The usual outcome when a young, gifted, fundamentalist actually does get an advanced science degree, is an agonizing split from creationism. They often stray as little as possible, remaining "conservative Christians", but for many of them, the dissonance is just too great. The Jason Lisle types who can grit their teeth, power through a science PhD, and still reject it all, are indeed big fish in a small pond. Of course, there's also the easy way to do it, popular at the DI. Why bother with that PhD? Just go to law school and declare yourself a science expert.

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: Most creationists can't deal with the sheer contradiction the way the likes of Lisle can. The usual outcome when a young, gifted, fundamentalist actually does get an advanced science degree, is an agonizing split from creationism. They often stray as little as possible, remaining "conservative Christians", but for many of them, the dissonance is just too great. The Jason Lisle types who can grit their teeth, power through a science PhD, and still reject it all, are indeed big fish in a small pond. Of course, there's also the easy way to do it, popular at the DI. Why bother with that PhD? Just go to law school and declare yourself a science expert.

On a related note, there is a recent peculiar and "interesting" post by Dembski over on his blog. These wars between the OECs and the YECs are absolutely bizarre in the light of modern science. Somehow Dembski thinks goodness is a problem for atheists and wanted to argue for the OEC position by making the Fall retroactive to all the creatures that came before humans were created by his deity. It seems to me that the absolutely obsessive/compulsive entanglements these sectarians get into among themselves leads to their complete and utter blindness to what others outside their sectarian circles know about the wider universe and about human history. They are so wrapped up in their own self-righteousness that they treat all secular knowledge as no more relevant than a clam's knowledge.

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: Most creationists can't deal with the sheer contradiction the way the likes of Lisle can. The usual outcome when a young, gifted, fundamentalist actually does get an advanced science degree, is an agonizing split from creationism. They often stray as little as possible, remaining "conservative Christians", but for many of them, the dissonance is just too great. The Jason Lisle types who can grit their teeth, power through a science PhD, and still reject it all, are indeed big fish in a small pond. Of course, there's also the easy way to do it, popular at the DI. Why bother with that PhD? Just go to law school and declare yourself a science expert.

On a related note, there is a recent peculiar and "interesting" post by Dembski over on his blog. These wars between the OECs and the YECs are absolutely bizarre in the light of modern science. Somehow Dembski thinks goodness is a problem for atheists and wanted to argue for the OEC position by making the Fall retroactive to all the creatures that came before humans were created by his deity. It seems to me that the absolutely obsessive/compulsive entanglements these sectarians get into among themselves leads to their complete and utter blindness to what others outside their sectarian circles know about the wider universe and about human history. They are so wrapped up in their own self-righteousness that they treat all secular knowledge as no more relevant than a clam's knowledge.

harold said:

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: Most creationists can't deal with the sheer contradiction the way the likes of Lisle can. The usual outcome when a young, gifted, fundamentalist actually does get an advanced science degree, is an agonizing split from creationism. They often stray as little as possible, remaining "conservative Christians", but for many of them, the dissonance is just too great. The Jason Lisle types who can grit their teeth, power through a science PhD, and still reject it all, are indeed big fish in a small pond. Of course, there's also the easy way to do it, popular at the DI. Why bother with that PhD? Just go to law school and declare yourself a science expert.

On a related note, there is a recent peculiar and "interesting" post by Dembski over on his blog. These wars between the OECs and the YECs are absolutely bizarre in the light of modern science. Somehow Dembski thinks goodness is a problem for atheists and wanted to argue for the OEC position by making the Fall retroactive to all the creatures that came before humans were created by his deity. It seems to me that the absolutely obsessive/compulsive entanglements these sectarians get into among themselves leads to their complete and utter blindness to what others outside their sectarian circles know about the wider universe and about human history. They are so wrapped up in their own self-righteousness that they treat all secular knowledge as no more relevant than a clam's knowledge.

The interviewer says this to Dembski - "you cite Boethius in saying that goodness is a problem for the atheist in the same way that evil is a problem for the theist." In a sense, one cure for a "PhD wingnut welfare creationist" is to cut off their wingnut welfare. Dembski has not had much recent success getting a paycheck for ID/creationism, and he's now "disillusioned". And yet he's still playing the same creationist games. Changing the subject from evolution denial to an implied discourse between "nice neo-Platonism versus imaginary straw man Hobbesian atheism/materialism". I don't agree that "goodness is a problem for atheism", but if it were, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with ID, CSI, evolution denial, squeezing Darwin's head in a vice, declaring that the theory of evolution is at a 'Waterloo' or any of the rest of Dembski's nonsense. He didn't choose a career as a neo-Platonic philosopher champion of Boethius arguing against some exaggerated and meaningless version of "atheism". That might have been stupid enough. But he chose a career of denying the scientific theory of evolution with fake pseudo-mathematical arguments. Even if I'm wrong about the obscure philosophy and "goodness is a problem for atheism" - and I suspect any "investigation" of that proposal would just degenerate into idiot word games about the "definition" of "goodness" and the "definition" of "atheism", with enraged pedants "proving" that one or the other is true if we use their childishly arbitrary definitions of common English words that already have a real definition - even if I'm wrong about that, life still evolves and Dembski is still full of anti-evolution crap.

1) There is no non-YEC reason for evolution denial.

I am finally coming to that conclusion. That includes no scriptural basis for evolution denial. The Bible obviously has nothing to say directly about genetic changes in populations, relations between species, etc. - for the concepts would be grossly anachronistic in any Ancient Near Eastern culture. The only problem would be the amount of time available for evolution to generate major taxa.

2) The argument from Boethius

I have been burned enough times by taking a citation from a evolution denier at face value. Perhaps Boethius made that argument, but I would like to see an exact citation before making any comment on it. "If a creationist says that the sky is blue, check on that for yourself."

3) The atheist has a problem of explaining the good

This is a typical creationist ploy of avoiding the burden that they have of (a) describing their alternative to evolution by: (b) making it seem that evolution is atheism (c) making an argument that is so absurd that it will draw attention away from the failure of (a).

And, the YEC's that claim super-fast evolution after the "Flood" don't even have that reason for evolution denial.

Henry J said: And, the YEC's that claim super-fast evolution after the "Flood" don't even have that reason for evolution denial.

harold said: There is no non-YEC reason for evolution denial. If Dembski is now questioning fundamentalism and turning to neo-Platonic arguments from Boethius as a broad apologetic for spiritual beliefs, he needs to explain why the hell he spent so much time denying evolution, whether he now admits he was wrong, and whether or not he apologizes.

harold said:

harold said:

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: Most creationists can't deal with the sheer contradiction the way the likes of Lisle can. The usual outcome when a young, gifted, fundamentalist actually does get an advanced science degree, is an agonizing split from creationism. They often stray as little as possible, remaining "conservative Christians", but for many of them, the dissonance is just too great. The Jason Lisle types who can grit their teeth, power through a science PhD, and still reject it all, are indeed big fish in a small pond. Of course, there's also the easy way to do it, popular at the DI. Why bother with that PhD? Just go to law school and declare yourself a science expert.

On a related note, there is a recent peculiar and "interesting" post by Dembski over on his blog. These wars between the OECs and the YECs are absolutely bizarre in the light of modern science. Somehow Dembski thinks goodness is a problem for atheists and wanted to argue for the OEC position by making the Fall retroactive to all the creatures that came before humans were created by his deity. It seems to me that the absolutely obsessive/compulsive entanglements these sectarians get into among themselves leads to their complete and utter blindness to what others outside their sectarian circles know about the wider universe and about human history. They are so wrapped up in their own self-righteousness that they treat all secular knowledge as no more relevant than a clam's knowledge.

The interviewer says this to Dembski - "you cite Boethius in saying that goodness is a problem for the atheist in the same way that evil is a problem for the theist." In a sense, one cure for a "PhD wingnut welfare creationist" is to cut off their wingnut welfare. Dembski has not had much recent success getting a paycheck for ID/creationism, and he's now "disillusioned". And yet he's still playing the same creationist games. Changing the subject from evolution denial to an implied discourse between "nice neo-Platonism versus imaginary straw man Hobbesian atheism/materialism". I don't agree that "goodness is a problem for atheism", but if it were, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with ID, CSI, evolution denial, squeezing Darwin's head in a vice, declaring that the theory of evolution is at a 'Waterloo' or any of the rest of Dembski's nonsense. He didn't choose a career as a neo-Platonic philosopher champion of Boethius arguing against some exaggerated and meaningless version of "atheism". That might have been stupid enough. But he chose a career of denying the scientific theory of evolution with fake pseudo-mathematical arguments. Even if I'm wrong about the obscure philosophy and "goodness is a problem for atheism" - and I suspect any "investigation" of that proposal would just degenerate into idiot word games about the "definition" of "goodness" and the "definition" of "atheism", with enraged pedants "proving" that one or the other is true if we use their childishly arbitrary definitions of common English words that already have a real definition - even if I'm wrong about that, life still evolves and Dembski is still full of anti-evolution crap.

There is no non-YEC reason for evolution denial. If Dembski is now questioning fundamentalism and turning to neo-Platonic arguments from Boethius as a broad apologetic for spiritual beliefs, he needs to explain why the hell he spent so much time denying evolution, whether he now admits he was wrong, and whether or not he apologizes.

Robert Byers said:

harold said:

harold said:

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: Most creationists can't deal with the sheer contradiction the way the likes of Lisle can. The usual outcome when a young, gifted, fundamentalist actually does get an advanced science degree, is an agonizing split from creationism. They often stray as little as possible, remaining "conservative Christians", but for many of them, the dissonance is just too great. The Jason Lisle types who can grit their teeth, power through a science PhD, and still reject it all, are indeed big fish in a small pond. Of course, there's also the easy way to do it, popular at the DI. Why bother with that PhD? Just go to law school and declare yourself a science expert.

On a related note, there is a recent peculiar and "interesting" post by Dembski over on his blog. These wars between the OECs and the YECs are absolutely bizarre in the light of modern science. Somehow Dembski thinks goodness is a problem for atheists and wanted to argue for the OEC position by making the Fall retroactive to all the creatures that came before humans were created by his deity. It seems to me that the absolutely obsessive/compulsive entanglements these sectarians get into among themselves leads to their complete and utter blindness to what others outside their sectarian circles know about the wider universe and about human history. They are so wrapped up in their own self-righteousness that they treat all secular knowledge as no more relevant than a clam's knowledge.

The interviewer says this to Dembski - "you cite Boethius in saying that goodness is a problem for the atheist in the same way that evil is a problem for the theist." In a sense, one cure for a "PhD wingnut welfare creationist" is to cut off their wingnut welfare. Dembski has not had much recent success getting a paycheck for ID/creationism, and he's now "disillusioned". And yet he's still playing the same creationist games. Changing the subject from evolution denial to an implied discourse between "nice neo-Platonism versus imaginary straw man Hobbesian atheism/materialism". I don't agree that "goodness is a problem for atheism", but if it were, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with ID, CSI, evolution denial, squeezing Darwin's head in a vice, declaring that the theory of evolution is at a 'Waterloo' or any of the rest of Dembski's nonsense. He didn't choose a career as a neo-Platonic philosopher champion of Boethius arguing against some exaggerated and meaningless version of "atheism". That might have been stupid enough. But he chose a career of denying the scientific theory of evolution with fake pseudo-mathematical arguments. Even if I'm wrong about the obscure philosophy and "goodness is a problem for atheism" - and I suspect any "investigation" of that proposal would just degenerate into idiot word games about the "definition" of "goodness" and the "definition" of "atheism", with enraged pedants "proving" that one or the other is true if we use their childishly arbitrary definitions of common English words that already have a real definition - even if I'm wrong about that, life still evolves and Dembski is still full of anti-evolution crap.

There is no non-YEC reason for evolution denial. If Dembski is now questioning fundamentalism and turning to neo-Platonic arguments from Boethius as a broad apologetic for spiritual beliefs, he needs to explain why the hell he spent so much time denying evolution, whether he now admits he was wrong, and whether or not he apologizes.

This is so not true. ID are mostly non Yec folks. They deny evolutionism and heaps of common folk likewise. Evolutionism is a hypothesis never proven as its after the fact. Its not just YEC that demonstrates how unlikely the claims of big time evolutionism are wrong. I doubt this blog exists to fight YEC. it , i bet, exists to fight ID opposition from evolution. This because they have more scholarly credibility. Thats the big threat. The whole subject of biological origins moves through tiny circles of actual thinkers. thats why its not well defended and easily attacked. Its not Brigades fighting each other but only battalions or just squads. Then also finding biological scientific evidence for past and gone bioogical processes is very difficult. Because evolutionism is wrong ITS IMPOSSIBLE. Unless I'm missing something. It won't be long before the error is over. in fact who will the credit for the kill will be the discussion. YEC was here first.

To deny the theory of evolution, Byers, is roughly equivalent to denying the theory of internal combustion.

Evidence for its truth and reality are both common and easy to find. It is only willful ignorance which prevents you from seeing it.

For example, there is genetic engineering. The industrial production of insulin, human growth hormones, follistim (for treating infertility), human albumin, monoclonal antibodies, antihemophilic factors, vaccines and many other drugs would not work if the theory of evolution were false or even seriously flawed.

But that production does work, Byers, exactly as predicted and explained by the theory of evolution.

Sorry, stupid. You're just flat wrong.

Robert Byers said: Unless I'm missing something.

Because evolutionism is wrong ITS IMPOSSIBLE. Unless I’m missing something.

Does anyone have a citation to Boethius, where he says that there is a "problem of good" for atheists?

TomS said: Does anyone have a citation to Boethius, where he says that there is a "problem of good" for atheists?

For evil purposes are, perchance, due to the imperfection of human nature; that it should be possible for scoundrels to carry out their worst schemes against the innocent, while God beholdeth, is verily monstrous. For this cause, not without reason, one of thy disciples asked, "If God exists, whence comes evil? Yet whence comes good, if He exists not?" However, it might well be that wretches who seek the blood of all honest men and of the whole senate should wish to destroy me also, whom they saw to be a bulwark of the senate and all honest men. But did I deserve such a fate from the Fathers also?

Thank you.

Well good and evil come from exactly the same place, human beings. No god is required for either one. Apparently she just sits idly by and lets humans carry on as if she didn't exist anyway.

DS said: Well good and evil come from exactly the same place, human beings. No god is required for either one. Apparently she just sits idly by and lets humans carry on as if she didn't exist anyway.

TomS said:

DS said: Well good and evil come from exactly the same place, human beings. No god is required for either one. Apparently she just sits idly by and lets humans carry on as if she didn't exist anyway.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

For evil purposes are, perchance, due to the imperfection of human nature; that it should be possible for scoundrels to carry out their worst schemes against the innocent, while God beholdeth, is verily monstrous. For this cause, not without reason, one of thy disciples asked, "If God exists, whence comes evil? Yet whence comes good, if He exists not?" However, it might well be that wretches who seek the blood of all honest men and of the whole senate should wish to destroy me also, whom they saw to be a bulwark of the senate and all honest men. But did I deserve such a fate from the Fathers also?

Italics added. Consolation of Philosophy Certainly there not much is made of it. Atheists weren't really an issue, but the problem of evil definitely was. So fine, God exists in their understanding, but still, why is evil such a problem? It looks like a cute slogan, a simple retort to the problem of evil, but not a serious matter to be taken up, 'whence good if God doesn't exist?'

There is no non-YEC reason for evolution denial. If Dembski is now questioning fundamentalism and turning to neo-Platonic arguments from Boethius as a broad apologetic for spiritual beliefs, he needs to explain why the hell he spent so much time denying evolution, whether he now admits he was wrong, and whether or not he apologizes.

This is so not true. ID are mostly non Yec folks. They deny evolutionism and heaps of common folk likewise. Evolutionism is a hypothesis never proven as its after the fact. Its not just YEC that demonstrates how unlikely the claims of big time evolutionism are wrong.

I doubt this blog exists to fight YEC. it , i bet, exists to fight ID opposition from evolution. This because they have more scholarly credibility. Thats the big threat.

Because evolutionism is wrong ITS IMPOSSIBLE.

eric said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

For evil purposes are, perchance, due to the imperfection of human nature; that it should be possible for scoundrels to carry out their worst schemes against the innocent, while God beholdeth, is verily monstrous. For this cause, not without reason, one of thy disciples asked, "If God exists, whence comes evil? Yet whence comes good, if He exists not?" However, it might well be that wretches who seek the blood of all honest men and of the whole senate should wish to destroy me also, whom they saw to be a bulwark of the senate and all honest men. But did I deserve such a fate from the Fathers also?

Italics added. Consolation of Philosophy Certainly there not much is made of it. Atheists weren't really an issue, but the problem of evil definitely was. So fine, God exists in their understanding, but still, why is evil such a problem? It looks like a cute slogan, a simple retort to the problem of evil, but not a serious matter to be taken up, 'whence good if God doesn't exist?'

Actually the first thing I thought of when I read that was "did he write that after he was accused and imprisoned for treason? Because it sure sounds like he's complaining about how they were evil for doing it." If he wrote it before he was imprisoned for treason, then...interesting presagement.

Because evolutionism is wrong ITS IMPOSSIBLE.

Robert Byers said: Evolutionism is a hypothesis never proven as its after the fact.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Evolutionism is a hypothesis never proven as its after the fact.

You are wrong, Robert. Evolution, like all forms of Science, makes predictions about what will happen in the future. Young Earth Creationism is strictly about what happened in the past. It is all "after the fact". YEC makes absolutely no predictions about the future. Yet you seem to believe it any how. You don't complain that YEC is "after the fact". Intelligent Design, to the extent that it has anything to say about anything, is strictly about what happened in the past. It is all "after the fact". ID makes absolutely no predictions about the future. Read up on Neil Shubin, and Tiktaalik. Shubin used Evolution to predict when in the past a creature like that might have lived. He then used Evolution, Geology, and Geography to predict where and when in the future he might go to find a fossil like that. Evolution predicted that in the future, he would find such a fossil if he looked on Ellesmere Island, in Canada. He then went to Ellesmere Island, and lo-and-behold, he found just the kind of fossil that Evolution predicted he would find. Evolution made a prediction. Scientists then tried to test the prediction to see if it was true. They did an experiment. The experiment proved that the prediction made by Evolution had been correct.

I think...