It is ICC that is critical of his work-not ICR- 2 differing bodies. And a failure in peer review means the review broke down. Humphreys did not produce his work by fraud, his model has some inconsistencies that may or may not weork out, but I would like to know what failed in the review process- for it is the peer review thast failed not Humphreys work, and the article does not enumerate what failed in the review process.
Oh, my bad on ICC.
I am not implying that Humphreys produced his model by fraud (my apologies for the example, but it was the most fresh one I could think of). Do you understand how the peer review process works? When a scientists says that he has found certain things, the important question other scientists in the field ask is "is this repeatable?" That was what caused Hwang Woo-Suk to be exposed - other labs could not repeat his results, and in the end it was fellow scientists who figured out that he'd cheated.
Read the paragraph and follow the flow of events.
- Humphreys publishes his paper.
- Lots of critical replies.
- Particular colleagues present specific difficulties.
- Humphreys not able to resolve these difficulties.
- Therefore, ICC concludes that this paper has not survived the peer review process.
- Humphreys still fixing theory. God alone knows when he'll try and publish another paper.
- In the meantime, good job brother, no matter how it turns out.
"What" failed in the review process were the technical flaws in his paper pointed out by the others, which are spelled out very clearly in the paragraph.
Well that is a nice cushy answer that means nothing. All geologic samples undergo weathering to some degree. And a sample that is declared to be say 2.5 billion years- a geologist cannot determined how much weathering and how much leaching, He also cannot determine if parent or daughter elements were added to the sample and if it is determined there might have been this contamination, there is no mechanism to determine how much thus skewing the dates meaningless. Your turn.
I'm getting in the deep end of the pool here.
http://education.usgs.gov/schoolyard/RockDescription.html
http://geology.csupomona.edu/drjessey/class/Gsc101/Weathering.html
http://pr.water.usgs.gov/public/webb/bibliography/abstract029.html
Well I discussed thias with someone far more wise in the ways of physics than I and showed hiom this qoute and he told me immediately the radioactivity is emitted from the lead samples thus making them moderately radioactive. Now if you want to go down to the subatomic levels and detrermine if the lead that was emitting radioactivity had micro amounts of thorium or uranium- well email Oak ridge and ask them.
The Oak Ridge article itself says that there was contamination by known radioactive elements. Ask the friend who is wiser in the ways of physics what would happen if the lead had been chemically isolated from all the other isotopes to produce elemental pure lead.
Well then let me ask-- do you beleive he wasthe product of evolution via the standard chain or was he formed by God to be the first human to trod on the earth.
Both! God used evolution to create man!
(Now I'm really messing with your brains.
)
Well first off Romans 5 12 the a part. If you wish I can go into the differences of the word world gr. kosmos and also oikeumenie and evven aiaon). But for now suffice it to say that ksomos (as used here) CAN be used of men but because all men is ina contradistinction to the one man the world here is rendered the globe especially in light of a further verse in Romans 8:
Romans 5:12:
Therefore, just as sin came into the world (kosmon) through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men (anthropous) because all sinned--
(Romans 5:12 ESV)
What would oikonomia have to do with anything?
The Bible says sin entered the world (kosmon) and then death spread to all MAN (anthropous). Not that death spread to the whole WORLD (kosmon).
19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Creation itself was made subject to futility and painand death, which means at one time it was not futile and vain- before sin. Reread the curses God made in Genesis 3 after Adams fall.
I see "futility" in the passage. You are reading "sin" and "death" in by your own whims and fancies. They are not equivalent. Jesus died, and yet He was not subject to futility. On the other hand if Adam had eaten of the tree of life, He would have lived forever, and yet be subject to sin all his eternal life. We can see that you can have death without futility and futility without death. So why do you assume that "futility" automatically means "death"?
But the spiritual lessons can only be gleaned because the events literally happened and thus made subjects for our learning.
Did the parables literally happen?
Well after further review let me correct a misunderstanding. Lions do not sin. Only men do! Lions act on the basis of the instructions God embedded in their instincts. Only man can sin because only man was given the ability to rationalize with a eternal soul
But by your theories, lions are only predators because man sinned. As such, lions' predatory instincts are there only because of the advent of sin and represent a gross defect in the working of the world. When the world is renewed the lions will not be predators any more. So ... why is God comparing Himself to actions which are explicitly the result of sin?
Btw. It is precisely because animals do not sin that the death of animals is entirely amoral.
Well you can use "nested hierarchies but it still means the same something that wasn't a dog kept randomly mutating until it became a dog etc. etc. Lizards changed to birds, fish to lizards etc and we have no proof, just supposition.
Sigh.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
I could but no where near as technically as you appear to be able to. I understand the infinite denseness and all that, but simplisticly said- it was a huge explosion that caused space and matter to expand exponentionally. It really isn't that hard to make the complex into a simple explanation (of course the minute dtasils are noincluded but the general picture is given, just like when God told Adam how He spoke everything into ewxistence- He didn't get down to the minute details of special creation) And the empirical evidence that gives then the smoking gun to make this a fact is????? The best I have seen is just some amazingly intelligent astrophysicists taking what has been observed iin observable time and exropolating backwards to the initial infinitely dense grapefruit size mass of matter.
"Observable time" is somewhere around a few million years in astronomy. Unless you believe in the omphalos interpretation? And the empirical fact is the existence of the Hubble constant governing the outward movement of every observable galaxy in the universe over that past few million years.
Another flaw that the "huge explosion" model presents is that it makes the Big Bang look like it had a central point. Which is not true. Space at all times in a Big Bang model is reasonably isotropic (AFAIK) and we cannot say that the Big Bang actually
started from somewhere.
Really, you have to try and pretend to be God communicating with people who do not have telescopes, microscopes and electricity to see how dauntingly difficult the job is. What I believe is that the best model within which God could give them the moral framework of relating to a theistic universe was the six-day creation model. And so He told it as such, accommodating to their complete prescientific-ness.
Well you are getting there. Do you also beleive God spoke into existence all flora and fauna in the few days before He made man but after He created the universe?
Few days? God told creation to produce plants, fish, birds, and land animals, and creation went ahead and did as it was told - taking 4.5 billion years using the process of evolution to do so. (Funny, I'm veering towards a days-of-proclamation approach.)
