Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not really when leading evolutionary scientists are writing books teaching that DNA is the language of God.
Not really when leading evolutionary scientists are writing books teaching that DNA is the language of God.
I listed 25 different places and the references from which they came. The thing is, you did not comprehend my post concerning Woodmorappe's description of the geologic column. Woodmorappe's geologic column doesn't exist because it isn't the same geologic column as described by geologist, i.e., the International Commission on Stratigraphy. He misrepresents what it actually is and you and the entire creation science community has latched onto his misrepresented description of it, and that is what this thread is about, it's not a different view (creation sciences) of the same evidence, it's a misrepresentation as to what the evidence actually is.
It is also asserted in the article that it is not found complete anywhere on earth. Well, that is just false, it is known to be complete in 25 different locations globally. Understand that that does not mean that it is the same exact layers of strata like an onion. It is only a representation of a complete set of chronological layers of strata representing the sedimentary layers of the geologic column....................................... The only true thing described by Woodmorappe is that the geologic column "as described by Woodmorappe" does not exist, because the geologic column described by Woodmorappe and that by Geology are not the same.
Note to creation science proponents
. This is not the thread to post false claims that have been made in the mainstream scientific literature. They are well known, routed out by mainstream science, and not tolerated by the scientific community in the least, which is the direct opposite of creation science which does not expose or discipline such actions.
One of the examples I have often used is this article on ERV's.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_046751.html
In the article, it makes a lot of claims, one of which is this one:
"Out of tens of thousands of ERV elements in the human genome, roughly how many are known to occupy the same sites in humans and chimpanzees? According to this Talk-Origins article, at least seven. Let's call it less than a dozen.
What he endorses is basically theistic evolution. The thing 97% of Christians believe, outside of the United States.
As I would suspect seeing you start this thread - you are attempting to have your cake and eat it at the same time. IF he is defining it differently then it being different does not a lie make. For example in your quote above he makes it pretty obvious what he means by complete. Its in the very first paragraph!! His definition of complete is not merely the existing stratas but their own completeness. I don't really follow him closely but if he lays out what he means theres no solid basis for claiming he is lying nor distorting. So as far as I can tell you started the thread with a fail as your first example
Well as I read it this thread is supposed to exclusively be about deliberate dishonesty. I would think creationists proponent wold be happy to discuss that but I suspect the above directive to the extent it has any authority (pretty close to nil given its one sideness) would be in curtailing both sides from discussing anything except what relates to deliberate dishonesty.
You quote: "Recently however, there have been a number of recurrent claims that the geological column is more than a hypothetical concept and that it actually exists."
And you criticize: This statement is a dishonest misrepresentation..
You need to read his entire article, which I linked. He is not criticizing the geologic column that is describe by mainstream geology, he is criticizing what he says geology says it is, which isn't what geology says. That is using different evidence, not the same evidence.
You are entirely wrong. He is saying that the geologic column does not exist. He then goes on to describe the geologic column in a manner that is not the way it is described by geologists. Please reread my post on that and try to understand my context.
is a deliberate dishonest misrepresentation of the same evidence.
In this thread I would like to see specific examples showing this.
It has been claimed that the geological column as a faunal succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing.
Recently however, there have been a number of recurrent claims that the geological column is more than a hypothetical concept and that it actually exists.4 Some of these claims have been made on the Internet and, as an active creationist scientist
You or anyone (including Woodmorappe) is entitled to disagree with me. In doing so I expect credible evidence to be presented in support of that. Again, the simple fact is that his description of the geologic column is not the same as that of geology, and there lies the problem, not the same evidence.
The key being that they all have to be found at the same archeological dig, just as creationists expect the entire geologic column to be found at one site. Everything from the Exodus to King David to the early church have to be found in one hole no bigger than 5m by 5m.
Does that scientist think that species were separately created by divine acts?
Uh... SkyWriting... Have you ever tried living as though you lived in 500 BC? I guarantee you'll be able to measure a change in what we know!
You're talking to someone halfway across the world on a machine made up of millions of tiny switches in a house built from futuristic materials that are stable enough to weather all but the very strongest of storms.
It is said we may have documented half of the species on our planet.
We are not sure what is at the core of our planet.
But for the sake of argument, we can measure from the center of earth to the surface
and know all there is to know......then measure from there to the edge of the known Cosmos
then what we know has not changed...measurably.
You mean camping? As a pre-teenage scout we camped a lot, even sleeping outdoors and fishing for food.
My house is "stick-built" made from trees, just as most every house has ever been.
The roof is covered with tar paper. That's Tar plus wood fiber.
Did you build your own fishing rod, or did you buy one from a store? Did you have a tent? Did you have a sleeping bag? A bedroll? Clean water? A first aid kit? You do not understand how deep this goes; how many of the things you absolutely take for granted in your life that modern science made possible and without which you'd stand a good chance of dying.
We know more then we did 100 years ago and parts of the world are just now starting to catch up. Until we offered them a cell phone they were not all that much interested.
The question is what application does a 2500 year old teaching have for us today.
Psalm 102:18 "This will be written for the generation to come, That a people yet to be created may praise the LORD."
Romans15:4 For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
David is aware that he is writting for a future generation. So 3,000 years ago, he knew he was talking to us today. Paul says this was written for our instruction. So does that boggle your mind that someone 3,000 years ago is talking to you today and trying to instruct you in the way of righteousness?
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that I know David and David knows me.
Even though we have not yet met in person but someday we will. It was the 119 psalm where David really opened my understanding. When David talks about his love for the law and the ordinances of God. They were given to guide us and teach us, also to preserve and keep us strong and healthy.
For the same reason science is science, peer review.No. The first question is "why this bronze age story and not some other bronze age story?"
Not at all, this just shows how little you know. The foundation for his temple is still there in Jerusalem. Called the wailing wall. David gathered the materials for the building and his son Solomon actually did the construction work. Even though there was no sound of a hammer because all the pieces were already made and the building was ready to assemble. This has a lot of application for the church today, but you say your bored with the actual practical application of the Bible in our lives today.Because David firstly is a mythological figure.
Why? Because your dogma can not stand up to the truth?all this preaching is getting a bit boring.
So what it is that YOU have to prove is a deliberate dishonesty and saying that neither you nor even secular geologists describe the column a particular way is meaningless because he sets the context of what he means in the very first paragraph. Again the charge you made is HIS dishonesty and deliberateness not whether he is confused or he sees it differently than you or even me. (actually I think I saw in a mod post making such accusations against any known person has limits in the rules but thats their call).
So whats really on trial would be HIS context not yours. Heres a key early paragraph where he admits to the column being present
"It has been claimed that the geological column as a faunal succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing."
Now your objection would be the portion in red however yes as a point of fact I have heard people claim that we have unbroken record of the past in the geologic column almost as if there are distinctive layers across all continent. I remember years and years ago being surprised to find that that was a lot more spotty than previously suggested.
Unfortunately for you I don't think you knew what you were getting into when you started this thread. If your charge is deliberate dishonesty then we don't have to show a single thing YOU do. Its your premise and claim. YOU have to show clear evidence of deliberate dishonesty as you claimed in the OP and you haven't because he specifies what he is talking about and even claims some of the claims being made are related to the internet not scientific papers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?