ICR Acts and Facts

[lasthero]

I did! eternal torment beats eternal bliss!

That's besides the point. What you said was untrue.

 

[pitabread]

post 839.

I then said are you accusing her of lying to the public because she is still doing research. YOu have failed to answer that!

This is what I said in #839:

She's not publishing anything in her fields. She's working for a religious ministry.

Please explain to me how any of the above statement suggests I am calling her a liar.

different styles no doubt, but a stock car engfine is a common design as a mini cooper engine- same purpose same basic design- and yes differing design as well to do the same purpose. but a fish tail is a fish tail (whales and dolphins are mammals as you know)

I'm not playing a semantics game over words like styles and designs.

Fish and whales have a significant number of fundamental differences in the way they are designed. How does "common design" explain that?

For several posts now you've yet to address that question.

 

[pitabread]

Well piuta they are scientists, and using known and provable science- they show that the beliefs of evolution are scientifically untenable.

I have no idea what the above sentence has to do with miracles being outside of the realm of scientific testing.

 

[pitabread]

the other two appeared worse for actual interaction with people.

But let me use your defense of these statistical surveys and draw a conclusion!

Richard Dawkins has come out on international television saying that bible believing parents should have their children removed from them and charged with child abuse if they teach them the bible is true!

I conclude that all scientists who believe in evolution believe that parents who teach their children the bible as ture think those parents are abusing their children!

YOu know what I have a stronger % of statistical sampling than the study you cited with 40 Muslims out of 400,000,000 fundamentalists in the world. Yours is a sampling of .00000001% of the potential pool,
While mine with only 480,000 scientists is .00001% of the potential pool. So my survey is more accurate than the one you cited!

The Dawkins stuff is a non-sequitur, so I'm going to ignore it. You're *still* not addressing two of the three studies I linked other than a hand-waving dismissal.

Perhaps I should explain what criticism is for you, since you appear to be struggling with it.

If you're making an argument about sample size, at best your argument is that a lower sample increases the margin of error. That's it. That doesn't inherently mean the study and its conclusion is wrong. It just means that there is a margin of error associated with the results.

Which is again why I cited three studies (not just one) that all pointed to the same conclusion: religious fundamentalists correlate with high need for closure.

Hand-waving them away because you think the methodologies are flawed or you don't think the sample sizes are big enough doesn't really change anything. (Although on the former point you still have yet to support why the methodologies are a problem.)

The problem is that none of this actually demonstrates that the results of the studies are incorrect. If you wanted to have a real argument, the appropriate line of response would be to find other studies looking at the same phenomenon but finding different conclusions.

Can you do that? Can you find me any studies that look at need for closure and religious fundamentalist beliefs and came to a different conclusion? I'm willing to bet not, but you at least have the opportunity to try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so then you must believe all YEC scientists are lying to the people then! Same myth, with the shoe on the other foot! Maybe your projecting your own beliefs onto me! for I don't think they are lying (at least intentionally)

There is no doubt that YEC's "scientist" are lying or are extremely delusional. For example Steve Austin when he dated the Mt St. Helens dacite had to know what he was doing wrong. Volcanic deposits, especially those that were from a violent even, very often have some older material mixed in. There are even terms for that material. In fact if you read Steve Austins work I do believe he even mentions that. Then he sent his samples to a site that tells they cannot date anything accurately that is less than 2 million years old. Then he acts surprised when the impurities that he knew were there gave a false date.


Also YEC's are so dishonest that they generated a special term just for them. They lie by quote mining. The take quotes out of context and try to claim the author meant something that he did not. If you had any training in the science you would understand why real scientists hold YEC's in utter contempt. There is really very little difference between them and Flat Earthers.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well let us use the smallest estimates (11-81km in diam) and (1X10 to the 15th to 4.6 X 10 to the 17th kg.)

So an asteroid larger than Manhattan, weighing 10,000,000,000,000,000 kg or 10,000,000,000,000 tons hitting the earth at c. 22,000 mph would cause a nuclear type winter for decades! That size, weight and speed would crack the mantle and cause massive tectonic and volcanic activity! It would spew billions of tons of ejecta into the atmosphere (not including the ash and toxins from the volcanoes it produced). This would be a near global killer! And if chixalub was one of the smaller as you say- then we have had many global killers hit the earth! HArd for evolution to thrive when asteroids are nearly wiping out all the species.

remember them little thecodonts they say we came from could not survive in a hibernatory state long enough for plants and seeds to regrow! It took several years for the flora around Mt. St. Helens to start to regrow and that was a sparkler compared to chixalub.

I'm aware of the impact (excuse the pun) of the event, there was actually a lengthy thread about it a few weeks ago, it might be of interest.

Asteroid Strike

Your assertion that it happened within the last 6000 years is utter unsupported nonsense, for many, many reasons.

 

[nolidad]

Oh, I very much know they belief what they say, and I doubt that many of them aren't intentionally lying. Ignorance should not be confused for malice (lying in this case), but the evidence of God's created world does not support their claims. And I believe thoroughly that God's actual creation, the world He created, and the actual study of His creation is of more import than those who claim that the word of men, the Bible, is more important that His creation.

So their PHD's, awards won in their fields, papers published, chairing science depts. in colleges, are all out of ignorance?

Who do you think Jesus is?

 

[nolidad]

I'm not here to argue religion or faith. That's not what this thread is about.
But I do know that this world was created by God, and actual scientists have a much better understanding of it than the folks at the ICR.

You talk of God's creation and you said you believe in God. I am just asking who do you mean by God seeing as you apparently reject the Bible as His revelation to mankind.

And now your bigotry comes out! Evolutionists are actual scientists you say and then you speak of ICR so you consider them noun scientists. Bigotry shown at its finest.

 

[nolidad]

But you arent talking about creation you are just threatening me with eternal torment (heh) because I dont deny reality.

Well as I cannot send anyone to torment- I cannot threaten you with it now can I. I am but a piece of dust messenger. If you accept micro mutations accumulating over eons of time has caused all the biodiversity we see then you have already denied reality!

 

[Speedwell]

You talk of God's creation and you said you believe in God. I am just asking who do you mean by God seeing as you apparently reject the Bible as His revelation to mankind.

You are still making the assumption that anyone who rejects your reading of Genesis must be rejecting the Bible as the inspired word of God.

And now your bigotry comes out! Evolutionists are actual scientists you say and then you speak of ICR so you consider them noun scientists. Bigotry shown at its finest.

They aren't scientists. They take an oath to set aside the scientific method in favor of the assumption that Genesis is 100% accurate literal history and any scientific evidence which contradicts it must be dismissed.

 

[nolidad]

"This 10-million-year estimate is comparable to the 14 million years that creation scientists calculated would be needed for all the continents to be planed down to sea level.2 Skeptics have criticized this argument, saying it naively assumes erosion rates have been perfectly constant over time. They also claim it fails to take into account factors such as mountain building and lava flows that can replace some of the eroded material.

Yes, the above calculation did assume a constant rate of erosion, but only to get a ballpark estimate, not to obtain an exact answer. Secular geologists have performed more sophisticated calculations that take into account factors such as climate, slope of the terrain, etc. These calculations still yield erosion rates fast enough to plane down the continents in just tens of millions of years."

Can they really do an estimate like that when plate tectonics are taken into account? With plates moving maybe 10-160 mm a year, I know that doesn't sound like much, but over 10 million years, that's a lot of movement and a lot of ground being pushed up.

The other problem I have is that average erosion is not universal erosion. Softer dirt is going to erode much faster than something like granite. So an average erosion rate isn't going to come anywhere close to planing the planet, unless I'm missing something.

In the article itself they said they just made an estimate in general to get a ballpark figure. So it is a rough estimate and not an exact figure. Yes lose soil erodes faster that granite mountains etc.

The point of the article is that the earth is eroding faster than expected and could not be 4.5 billion years old! for rocks and soil- one thing is certain-erosion!

 

[nolidad]

You are still making the assumption that anyone who rejects your reading of Genesis must be rejecting the Bible as the inspired word of God.

It is not my reading of Genesis- it is the plain normal usual way that form of literature should be read. It was the accepted way for Israel in B.C. times. It was acceptable for the church until Constantine helped corrupt Christendom. And it is acceptable by a majority of Americans despite being indoctrinated in evolutionism in the govt. schools since their early days!

They aren't scientists. They take an oath to set aside the scientific method in favor of the assumption that Genesis is 100% accurate literal history and any scientific evidence which contradicts it must be dismissed.

No they don't take an oath! they willingly sign a statement they accept the literal reading of Genesis as accurate of history. They do openly what has to be done subversively in all public universities. If you are a scientist who adheres to YEC in a public university (and most private as well) it won't be long before you used to work there!

And evolutionary believing scientists , though not publicly declaring by signature say they will not abandon evolution- believe in their heart and mind that evolution is settled science! So they do the ssame without signing a piece of paper.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So their PHD's, awards won in their fields, papers published, chairing science depts. in colleges, are all out of ignorance?

Who do you think Jesus is?

You talk of God's creation and you said you believe in God. I am just asking who do you mean by God seeing as you apparently reject the Bible as His revelation to mankind.

And now your bigotry comes out! Evolutionists are actual scientists you say and then you speak of ICR so you consider them noun scientists. Bigotry shown at its finest.

When you take an oath saying that no scientific evidence or fact will invalidate the Genesis account, then you are no longer a scientist, no matter what credentials you have, or had rather.

And rejecting the Bible does not mean I reject God. I'm just rejecting the claims of those who claim that a book is more important than God.

 

[nolidad]

And I so what if all the 'folks' at ICR are all scientists? A minuscule amount of American scientists already having preset religious convictions does not overturn a world's worth and a centuries worth of scientific discovery and testing.

Well then show me the empirical discoveries that positively show that micro mutations accumulated in a creature over eons of time that produced the biodiversity we see in the world today! That is evolution boiled down into a short sentence!

YOu cannot test a fossil for mutations! Rocks don't mutate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well then show me the empirical discoveries that positively show that micro mutations accumulated in a creature over eons of time that produced the biodiversity we see in the world today! That is evolution boiled down into a short sentence!

YOu cannot test a fossil for mutations! Rocks don't mutate.

Answer me this question honestly and truthfully: even if I did show you evidence of evolution, would you accept that evolution did indeed occur?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[nolidad]

Did you really count them all yourself or do you just like it as a soundbite?

I counted them all once (yes I need to know when a claim is made like that if it is accurate) and yes when you include gehenna, torment, outer darkness, and other terms used to describe the lake of fire as compared to Jesus speaking of the eternal heaven (and not just His 1,000 year kingdom on earth when He physically returns) then yes Jesus spoke far more of hell than He did of heaven! As to exact numbers, I would have to do the count again.

 

[nolidad]

Manhattan Island is about 20 km long and about 3 km wide. I can get the mass of approximately 10^16 kg by assuming a spherical impactor with a diameter of 20 km and a density of about 2500 kg/m³, but not for an impactor with the shape and dimensions of Manhattan Island. A mass of 10^16 kg with v = 22,000 mph (9.8 km/s) would have an energy E = 4.8×10^23 J, or about 40,000 times the energy of the largest earthquakes. Calculations of the scaling of the size of impact craters suggest that such an impact would make a crater with D ~ 230-250 km, much larger than Chicxulub, similar to the largest estimates for Sudbury, and not much smaller than Vredefort.

Chicxulub was not one of the smaller craters. No other authentic impact craters of the size of Chicxulub, let alone of the size of the crater produced by your supposed 'super-Manhattan' impact, have been identified in Phanerozoic or even in Middle or Late Proterozoic rocks, so we need not worry about their effects on the evolution of multi-cellular life-forms.

To suppose that any such impact has occurred during human history is, to put it bluntly, absurd. As you say, the impact would be a global killer, with no advanced life-forms surviving, and the crater could not possibly have escaped notice.

Well I was quoting numbers from a science website. I assumed they were correct.

As for Chixulub( thanks for the spelling correct) and it size- one here said chicxulub was one of the smaller.

The thecodonts were primitive archosaurs that lived during the Triassic period; they were more closely related to the dinosaurs than to mammals. Perhaps you are thinking of therapsids.

Could be. I was in a rush and didn't have time to look up what little critter was our first mammal that eventually evolutionist say became us!

 

[VirOptimus]

Well as I cannot send anyone to torment- I cannot threaten you with it now can I. I am but a piece of dust messenger. If you accept micro mutations accumulating over eons of time has caused all the biodiversity we see then you have already denied reality!

Then why do you keep threatening me?

And the ToE is incredibly well supported. Your ignorance doesnt impress.

 

[nolidad]

Of course you are viewing this through the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura but you are also burdened by the assumption that if Genesis is not 100% accurate literal history then God could not have inspired it. That's fine if that's what you want to believe, but nobody else has to.

Looking from the outside the situation is not the same. All we see is that the conclusions of modern science interfere with the theology of an eccentric Protestant minority sect. Why should we care? If modern science agreed with YECism but interfered with the theology of some other similar Protestant sect, the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses, say, how much would you care? Would you believe them when they complained that science must be a conspiracy to deny the existence of God?

Well when I look at the parables and stories and visions and apocalyptic language of scripture- I see either the bible telling us what the symbols or major portions of the vision mean. In paprables Jesus uses comparison terms so that people can have an understanding from human examples of the divine events.

But with Genesis you are saying that God inspired an account that is diametrically opposed to reality.

The bible clearly and without ambiguity says that God called forth everything in six days! each day He called forth a certain part of creation, and He called it all very good. He also had all the animals and man as herbivores. Then He inspired a chronology from Adam to Jesus. If evolution is true, then it was billions of years by random mutations, with death, disease, extinction, murder, cannibalism, and all sorts of things the average person considers bad to bring life to where it is today! No if God used evolution and inspired the Genesis story to be His Word on the matter- then He lied!

Whenever science interferes with a particular belief of a particular sect that is unbiblical - I don't care a whit. But when what you call science uses unproven assumptions based on theirpresuppositional bias and indoctrination into a belief system (evolutionsim) and call it fact and true science when it contradicts God's Word and that empirical, testable, observable, repeatable science all speaks against macro evolution- then yes I care.

 

[Speedwell]

It is not my reading of Genesis- it is the plain normal usual way that form of literature should be read.

How do you know what "form of literature" it is? What do you know about ancient Hebrew literary forms?

It was the accepted way for Israel in B.C. times.

It was one accepted way of reading it, but figurative readings of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself.

It was acceptable for the church until Constantine helped corrupt Christendom.

It is still acceptable, but what is not acceptable is insisting that it is the only possible way of reading Genesis to the point of being hostile to other Christians about it.

And it is acceptable by a majority of Americans despite being indoctrinated in evolutionism in the govt. schools since their early days!

That is definitely not true. YECs are a minority of Christians even in he US where most of them are found. YECism is just one more 19th century Protestant novelty sect like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses. If they didn't have a political agenda nobody would pay any attention to them.

No they don't take an oath! they willingly sign a statement they accept the literal reading of Genesis as accurate of history. They do openly what has to be done subversively in all public universities. If you are a scientist who adheres to YEC in a public university (and most private as well) it won't be long before you used to work there!

Good. Dogmatic rejection of the scientific method is not something which should be tolerated in a professional scientist.

And evolutionary believing scientists , though not publicly declaring by signature say they will not abandon evolution- believe in their heart and mind that evolution is settled science! So they do the ssame without signing a piece of paper.

Baseless slander. Real scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads.