% that accept evolution per state

[MikeCarra]

After observing this particular poster for a time, I pick number 3.

While I believe that gradyll is only interested in hearing those things which support his simplified view of science, and will go to whatever extremes he needs to (ranging from merely ignoring those things he doesn't like/understand to borderline libel of other posters) there is a 4th option.

Gradyll is, technically correct, when he points out that there is PHYSICAL weathering of igneous rocks. He points to "freeze-thaw" which can exploit fractures and cracks.

What he fails to do (and he thinks that this failure is his hypotheses' "salvation") is to take into account that just about ANYTHING that is attacking the granite will be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE attacking the nearby softer sedimentary rocks.

Grady is sowing "doubt for doubt's sake" again. It is only important for him to find a means of breaking down igneous rocks. Then his work is done.

This is understandable from someone who clearly hasn't even darkened the door of an intro geology class (that's actually kinda sad because a Geology 101 class is fun and usually pretty easy).

Here's a few pointers:

1. The surrounding rocks in the Spearfish Fm appear to be mostly siltstones and sandstones along with a layer of gypsum (the latter being a very soft mineral). Siltstone and sandstones are usually little grains cemented together so can be relatively friable (meaning they can break apart)

2. Devils tower is an igneous rock called a PHONOLITE which contains a lot of feldspathoids and feldspars (mohs hardnesses 5-6 or so) along with other minerals.

Yes BOTH will weather through physical processes. NO: THEY WILL NOT WEATHER AT THE SAME RATE. THE PHONOLITE WILL HOLD OUT LONGER.

It's a matter of rate (along with a bit more mineralogy)

 

[bhsmte]

While I believe that gradyll is only interested in hearing those things which support his simplified view of science, and will go to whatever extremes he needs to (ranging from merely ignoring those things he doesn't like/understand to borderline libel of other posters) there is a 4th option.

Gradyll is, technically correct, when he points out that there is PHYSICAL weathering of igneous rocks. He points to "freeze-thaw" which can exploit fractures and cracks.

What he fails to do (and he thinks that this failure is his hypotheses' "salvation") is to take into account that just about ANYTHING that is attacking the granite will be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE attacking the nearby softer sedimentary rocks.

Grady is sowing "doubt for doubt's sake" again. It is only important for him to find a means of breaking down igneous rocks. Then his work is done.

This is understandable from someone who clearly hasn't even darkened the door of an intro geology class (that's actually kinda sad because a Geology 101 class is fun and usually pretty easy).

Here's a few pointers:

1. The surrounding rocks in the Spearfish Fm appear to be mostly siltstones and sandstones along with a layer of gypsum (the latter being a very soft mineral). Siltstone and sandstones are usually little grains cemented together so can be relatively friable (meaning they can break apart)

2. Devils tower is an igneous rock called a PHONOLITE which contains a lot of feldspathoids and feldspars (mohs hardnesses 5-6 or so) along with other minerals.

Yes BOTH will weather through physical processes. NO: THEY WILL NOT WEATHER AT THE SAME RATE. THE PHONOLITE WILL HOLD OUT LONGER.

It's a matter of rate (along with a bit more mineralogy)

To me, Grady is the type of dude, who has a deeply held belief and he will seek information that supports his belief (or go against an opposing belief) with a significant amount of diligence. Why? Because he needs something to hold onto, that gives him a speck of hope that his belief is correct. If it requires ignoring the position of 1,000 scientists that disagree with him, and finding the 1 which gives him some life, he will cling to it like hanging onto the ledge of a building for his life, and ignore and deny all evidence necessary, to keep clinging.

The behavior is so predictable with creationists, you can set your watch by it.

 

[florida2]

probably by enslaved israelites, but what does this have to do with evolution? And please answer my question about devils tower.

The Egyptians used paid workmen, not slave labour, to build the pyramids.

 

[mzungu]

The Egyptians used paid workmen, not slave labour, to build the pyramids.

Indeed and those workers were very well paid and fed too.

 

[Naturalism]

probably by enslaved israelites, but what does this have to do with evolution? And please answer my question about devils tower.

You do realize the timing of the noah flood (~2400 BC) would have coincided with the 5th and 6th Egyptian Dynasties. Weird, those pyramids are still around. Water apparently erodes them, but a great world wide flood I guess nothing.

The timing is problematic for starters.

Assuming the pyramids were made prior to the flood, it can be asked where is the damage/erosion for a global flood? If creationists assume it had the power & energy to carve the grand canyon a mile deep for many miles long, where is the evidence for damage to structures made of sediment?

However, if we assume the pyramids were made after the flood we have to ask where oh where all the required labor came from to build them so soon after such a flood?

I guess that timing doesn't work out so well for the enslaved but whatever.

 

[CabVet]

You do realize the timing of the noah flood (~2400 BC) would have coincided with the 5th and 6th Egyptian Dynasties. Weird, those pyramids are still around.

Didn't you know? Carbon dating and Egyptian historical records are only valid when they support Biblical events, otherwise they are wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

You do realize the timing of the noah flood (~2400 BC) would have coincided with the 5th and 6th Egyptian Dynasties. Weird, those pyramids are still around. Water apparently erodes them, but a great world wide flood I guess nothing.

The timing is problematic for starters.

Assuming the pyramids were made prior to the flood, it can be asked where is the damage/erosion for a global flood? If creationists assume it had the power & energy to carve the grand canyon a mile deep for many miles long, where is the evidence for damage to structures made of sediment?

However, if we assume the pyramids were made after the flood we have to ask where oh where all the required labor came from to build them so soon after such a flood?

I guess that timing doesn't work out so well for the enslaved but whatever.

I have looked into it, there are problems with the dynasty dates for one. The pyramids were started no earlier than the third dynasty (sequential problems with the dynasty dates were originally spotted by Immanuel Velikovsky but more info found here: " It follows also that he was probably responsible for the design and construction of all the 3rd dynasty pyramids, including the Bent and Red Pyramids, and almost certainly the first of the three great pyramids of Giza, the one belonging to Cheops. And since his life overlapped the early years of Chephren and Mycerinus, the successors to Cheops, he may also have been involved in the planning for their pyramids. Since Imhotep is also famed as the likely founder of modern medical procedure" above quote from:Displaced Dynasties - History of Egypt - Dynasties of Egypt)

But secondly, this is off topic

 

[CabVet]

But secondly, this is off topic

But it's ok derailing this one, right?

 

[createdtoworship]

Didn't you know? Carbon dating and Egyptian historical records are only valid when they support Biblical events, otherwise they are wrong.

carbon dating like I said is usually wrong, but more accurate than other types of dates. For example they dated the top of the pyramids younger than the bottom. Unless you usually build your pyramid from the top down, I think it would be wrong. It's flawed as well as Dr Dino states:

" So what they do is compare the amount of carbon 14 in the fossil to the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. If the fossil only contains half as much carbon 14 as the atmosphere, it is assumed to have been dead for one half-life, or 5,730 years. While it was alive it should have had .0000765% carbon 14. If a fossil only has .00003825% of carbon 14 it has been dead for one half-life. In theory the amount of carbon 14 never goes to zero. However, for practical purposes we cannot measure passed a certain amount. There should be no measurable carbon 14 after about 40,000 – 50,000 years."
above quote from :

http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/...laws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/

in other words fossils were once living, they ate plants that had carbon in them. Now they assume all living things have the same amount of carbon, and if they have half the carbon, they were dead for a half life of decomposed carbon. See how silly it is?

check out the link for more info, I know Dr Dino is in jail for tax evasion, but please listen to some of what is being said here and don't strawman it.

 

[JGG]

carbon dating like I said is usually wrong, but more accurate than other types of dates. For example they dated the top of the pyramids younger than the bottom. Unless you usually build your pyramid from the top down, I think it would be wrong.

Why? I would think the top would be the last part to be constructed.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why? I would think the top would be the last part to be constructed.

Yes, they did it backwards:

"in his book Voyages of the Pyramid Builders, Boston University geology professor Robert Schoch details key anomalies in both radiocarbon studies; most notably that samples taken in 1984 from the upper courses of the Great Pyramid gave upper dates of 3809 B.C. (± 160yrs), nearly 1400yrs before the time of Khufu, while the lower courses provided dates ranging from 3090-2723 B.C (± 100-400yrs) which correspond much more closely to the time Khufu is believed to have reigned."

I usually don't look at JW forums but this one was interesting:

Above quote from:
NOAH'S FLOOD vs PYRAMIDS (1)

 

[createdtoworship]

But it's ok derailing this one, right?

you are absolutely right, why don't you start us back on track with an on topic post.

 

[CabVet]

you are absolutely right, why don't you start us back on track with an on topic post.

Sure, states where acceptance of evolution is low are also states where teen pregnancies are high:

Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that those states are the same ones that push abstinence education?

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure, states where acceptance of evolution is low are also states where teen pregnancies are high:

Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that those states are the same ones that push abstinence education?

at least one state is not in your favor, new mexico has high teen pregnancy and at the same time is high in acceptance of evolution (65-70 percent acceptance of evolution), texas has over half. So your map comment in innacurate based on external unknown factors.

 

[CabVet]

at least one state is not in your favor, new mexico has high teen pregnancy and at the same time is high in acceptance of evolution (65-70 percent acceptance of evolution), texas has over half. So your map comment in innacurate based on external unknown factors.

At least one out of how many?

 

[jzyehoshua]

This does actually correspond pretty well to the list of states by unemployment rate according to the U.S. Census Bureau:

1 NORTH DAKOTA 2.7
2 NEBRASKA 3.5
2 UTAH 3.5
2 VERMONT 3.5
5 SOUTH DAKOTA 3.8
6 WYOMING 4.0
7 HAWAII 4.4
7 IOWA 4.4
7 NEW HAMPSHIRE 4.4
10 MINNESOTA 4.5
10 MONTANA 4.5
10 OKLAHOMA 4.5
13 IDAHO 4.7
14 KANSAS 4.9
15 LOUISIANA 5.0
16 TEXAS 5.1
17 SOUTH CAROLINA 5.3
17 VIRGINIA 5.3
19 COLORADO 5.5
19 MAINE 5.5
19 MASSACHUSETTS 5.5
19 OHIO 5.5
23 PENNSYLVANIA 5.6
24 WISCONSIN 5.7
25 MARYLAND 5.8
25 WASHINGTON 5.8
27 INDIANA 5.9
28 DELAWARE 6.1
29 ARKANSAS 6.2
29 FLORIDA 6.2
29 WEST VIRGINIA 6.2
32 ALASKA 6.4
32 NORTH CAROLINA 6.4
34 MISSOURI 6.5
34 NEW MEXICO 6.5
36 NEW JERSEY 6.6
36 NEW YORK 6.6
36 TENNESSEE 6.6
39 CONNECTICUT 6.7
40 ALABAMA 6.8
40 OREGON 6.8
42 ARIZONA 6.9
43 ILLINOIS 7.1
44 CALIFORNIA 7.4
44 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 7.4
44 GEORGIA 7.4
44 KENTUCKY 7.4
48 MICHIGAN 7.5
49 NEVADA 7.7
50 MISSISSIPPI 7.9
50 RHODE ISLAND 7.9

 

[jzyehoshua]

Sure, states where acceptance of evolution is low are also states where teen pregnancies are high:

Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that those states are the same ones that push abstinence education?

That's a disingenuous claim, those are states where pregnancy in general is high, and teen pregnancy includes those 18-19, not necessarily minors.

 

[jzyehoshua]

Furthermore, the OP's premise that godly states will necessarily be wealthier isn't necessarily a presumption which will hold up since Biblically the poor tend to be more godly.

Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

Matthew 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

James 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

Luke 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

 

[CabVet]

That's a disingenuous claim, those are states where pregnancy in general is high, and teen pregnancy includes those 18-19, not necessarily minors.

Is the claim inaccurate?

 

[CabVet]

Furthermore, the OP's premise that godly states will necessarily be wealthier isn't necessarily a presumption which will hold up since Biblically the poor tend to be more godly.

Does that mean that the largest concentration of Christians should be in Africa?