What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

It wasn't rough. It was within 24 miles of being perfect. Not only that, he proves that flat earthers were something that came afterward. The bible in no way teaches a flat earth. Flat earthers did not get their information from the bible.

No, that does not prove that Flat Earthers came later. How did you get that. It only shows that some Greeks knew that the Earth was spherical. It says nothing either way about what others knew at that time.

I don't think the translation is even remotely accurate. There was no controversy between science and religion in 430 AD that favored "science." I quote that because that word didn't even come into use until the 19th century.

That is your opinion. I posted links to three different sources. Do you need more? "Science" was often a translation of the Latin word for "knowledge" or "wisdom". The Latin word was almost certainly "scientia". It does not have the same meaning as "science" today, but in context it was probably the closest term possible.

 

[MIDutch]

I don't think the translation is even remotely accurate. There was no controversy between science and religion in 430 AD that favored "science." I quote that because that word didn't even come into use until the 19th century.

Wait, wait, wait. Did you even read the quote by Augustine? Where does he say the word "science" in it?

 

[Al Touthentop]

I have not read that book.

Does he reference the Noachian flood anywhere in it as a driver of the geological formations we see on the planet Earth?

It's four books and they were compiled together into one called "The Annals of the Former World."

I don't remember him referring to the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And ironically I have had this tab opened on my computer since yesterday:

How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin? - Common-questions

It is from a Christian site and the article specifically mentions this quote as well. My search was done on early Christians that did not believe the Bible literally. The claim that "all Christians believe the Bible" is one that I have run into far too often. And that is not the case. Some of the most revered Christians in history, such as St. Augustine, did not have that approach to the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's four books and they were compiled together into one called "The Annals of the Former World."

I don't remember him referring to the flood.

Probably because he almost certainly did not believe in it. By the way, he was not a geologist, but he did the right thing:

" A narrative table of contents provides an overview of the project, which largely consisted of a series of road journeys by McPhee across the North American continent in the company of noted geologists."

Annals of the Former World - Wikipedia

EDIT: Definitely not a YEC:

The Pulitzer Prize-winning view of the continent, across the fortieth parallel and down through 4.6 billion years

Twenty years ago, when John McPhee began his journeys back and forth across the United States, he planned to describe a cross section of North America at about the fortieth parallel and, in the process, come to an understanding not only of the science but of the style of the geologists he traveled with. The structure of the book never changed, but its breadth caused him to complete it in stages, under the overall title Annals of the Former World.

Like the terrain it covers, Annals of the Former World tells a multilayered tale, and the reader may choose one of many paths through it. As clearly and succinctly written as it is profoundly informed, this is our finest popular survey of geology and a masterpiece of modern nonfiction.

Annals of the Former World is the winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for Nonfiction. (less)

Annals of the Former World by John McPhee

 

[HitchSlap]

Probably because he almost certainly did not believe in it. By the way, he was not a geologist, but he did the right thing:

" A narrative table of contents provides an overview of the project, which largely consisted of a series of road journeys by McPhee across the North American continent in the company of noted geologists."

Annals of the Former World - Wikipedia

EDIT: Definitely not a YEC:

The Pulitzer Prize-winning view of the continent, across the fortieth parallel and down through 4.6 billion years

Twenty years ago, when John McPhee began his journeys back and forth across the United States, he planned to describe a cross section of North America at about the fortieth parallel and, in the process, come to an understanding not only of the science but of the style of the geologists he traveled with. The structure of the book never changed, but its breadth caused him to complete it in stages, under the overall title Annals of the Former World.

Like the terrain it covers, Annals of the Former World tells a multilayered tale, and the reader may choose one of many paths through it. As clearly and succinctly written as it is profoundly informed, this is our finest popular survey of geology and a masterpiece of modern nonfiction.

Annals of the Former World is the winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for Nonfiction. (less)

Annals of the Former World by John McPhee

Unfortuantely, the NYT's review stated that McPhee did not include a bibliography of his sources. But def not a YEC/flooder.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortuantely, the NYT's review stated that McPhee did not include a bibliography of his sources. But def not a YEC/flooder.

Don't you just love Google:

"In Basin and Range, McPhee traverses the Basin and Range province, from Utah to eastern California, accompanied by Kenneth S. Deffeyes, a professor of geology who has done extensive field work in Nevada. In Suspect Terrain follows McPhee from the outwash plains of Brooklyn to Indiana's drifted diamonds and gold, in the company of the United States Geological Survey's Anita Harris, a Brooklyn native. In
Rising from the Plains, he rides across Wyoming with David Love, a field geologist with a family history on the frontier and an unsurpassed understanding of Western geology. Assembling California takes McPhee across the Sierra Nevada and the Great Central Valley to the wine country of the Coast Ranges, the rock of San Francisco, and the San Andreas family of faults, with tectonicist Eldridge Moores as guide. In "Crossing the Craton," a new and final essay and the last link in the cross-country chain, he and Randy Van Schmus, a geochronologist, explore the midcontinent's Precambrian basement."

{{(global.pageOgTitle) ? global.pageOgTitle : global.pageTitle}}

 

[HitchSlap]

Don't you just love Google:

"In Basin and Range, McPhee traverses the Basin and Range province, from Utah to eastern California, accompanied by Kenneth S. Deffeyes, a professor of geology who has done extensive field work in Nevada. In Suspect Terrain follows McPhee from the outwash plains of Brooklyn to Indiana's drifted diamonds and gold, in the company of the United States Geological Survey's Anita Harris, a Brooklyn native. In
Rising from the Plains, he rides across Wyoming with David Love, a field geologist with a family history on the frontier and an unsurpassed understanding of Western geology. Assembling California takes McPhee across the Sierra Nevada and the Great Central Valley to the wine country of the Coast Ranges, the rock of San Francisco, and the San Andreas family of faults, with tectonicist Eldridge Moores as guide. In "Crossing the Craton," a new and final essay and the last link in the cross-country chain, he and Randy Van Schmus, a geochronologist, explore the midcontinent's Precambrian basement."

{{(global.pageOgTitle) ? global.pageOgTitle : global.pageTitle}}

Right. What was his purpose in bringing it up in the first place?

 

[Al Touthentop]

No, that does not prove that Flat Earthers came later. How did you get that. It only shows that some Greeks knew that the Earth was spherical. It says nothing either way about what others knew at that time.

In point of fact, flat earth wasn't a wide spread belief at any time among scholars. The idea that people believe the earth was flat is itself a myth. Cut it out already.

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[8]

And the bible says the earth was round before those scholars posited it.

That is your opinion. I posted links to three different sources. Do you need more? "Science" was often a translation of the Latin word for "knowledge" or "wisdom". The Latin word was almost certainly "scientia". It does not have the same meaning as "science" today, but in context it was probably the closest term possible.

I couldn't find a complete text online. But I did find an article that does support the genuineness of the quote yet points out that Augustine himself supported a literal reading of Genesis. So the quote does not argue against creationism as is implied.

Lessons from Augustine - creation.com

 

[pitabread]

The people who contributed their theories to that article are not just random idiots with no understanding of plate tectonics. I'm not a geologist or even a scientist. But I did find the theory posited there pretty interesting especially the parts regarding magnetic polar shift as recorded in solid magma.

I didn't say they were idiots. But they do have an ideological commitment to creationism, which invariably overrides any scientific considerations.

The reality is that YEC flood geology flies in the face of basic physics. No amount of appealing to authority changes that fact.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Wait, wait, wait. Did you even read the quote by Augustine? Where does he say the word "science" in it?

I didn't say that it had that word. I said that the controversy between science and religion didn't exist at the time he wrote it. What he's talking about there has nothing at all to do with a conflict between accepted science and biblical teaching.

Now also, you wondered in another post why I brought up McPhee's book. What is the controversy there? You're trying to invent a controversy. All I said was in spite of the fact that I have read that superb book, I am no geologist and don't pretend to understand geology.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I didn't say they were idiots. But they do have an ideological commitment to creationism, which invariably overrides any scientific considerations.

That is an assertion with no evidence.

The reality is that YEC flood geology flies in the face of basic physics. No amount of appealing to authority changes that fact.

Why? What physics are defied? In the case of evolution that's certainly true. The second law of thermal dynamics says there's no way for a more complex anything to arise from basic elements without energy being added.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Don't you just love Google:

"In Basin and Range, McPhee traverses the Basin and Range province, from Utah to eastern California, accompanied by Kenneth S. Deffeyes, a professor of geology who has done extensive field work in Nevada. In Suspect Terrain follows McPhee from the outwash plains of Brooklyn to Indiana's drifted diamonds and gold, in the company of the United States Geological Survey's Anita Harris, a Brooklyn native. In
Rising from the Plains, he rides across Wyoming with David Love, a field geologist with a family history on the frontier and an unsurpassed understanding of Western geology. Assembling California takes McPhee across the Sierra Nevada and the Great Central Valley to the wine country of the Coast Ranges, the rock of San Francisco, and the San Andreas family of faults, with tectonicist Eldridge Moores as guide. In "Crossing the Craton," a new and final essay and the last link in the cross-country chain, he and Randy Van Schmus, a geochronologist, explore the midcontinent's Precambrian basement."

{{(global.pageOgTitle) ? global.pageOgTitle : global.pageTitle}}

What do you think this proves?

 

[Al Touthentop]

No, that does not prove that Flat Earthers came later. How did you get that. It only shows that some Greeks knew that the Earth was spherical. It says nothing either way about what others knew at that time.

All science comes from the Greeks. They produced the first philosophers though one could argue that Solomon was the first true philosopher.

Flat earth was never a thing among scholars at any time.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Do you think 65 million years is "relatively quickly"?

I don't. And scientists are revising some events because the evidence is they happened in much shorter periods of time than they first supposed. I already gave an example of the mammoths with fresh grass still in their mouths. Then you've also got the recorded (in magma) magnetic reversal of the poles. Not a slow process.

 

[pitabread]

That is an assertion with no evidence.

Creationist ministries typically have faith statements they require members to adhere to.

The ICR is no different: Foundational Principles

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1–2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus, all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. ​

Why? What physics are defied?

Among other things, the energy release required would have vaporized the oceans.

You can read more about it here: CH430: Runaway subduction

In the case of evolution that's certainly true. The second law of thermal dynamics says there's no way for a more complex anything to arise from basic elements without energy being added.

If only there were a massive energy source near the Earth.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Creationist ministries typically have faith statements they require members to adhere to.

The ICR is no different: Foundational Principles

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1–2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus, all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.
​

This is a statement of belief, not an oath.​

Among other things, the energy release required would have vaporized the oceans.

You can read more about it here: CH430: Runaway subduction

The article from the IRC acknowledges this.

If only there were a massive energy source near the Earth.

If only there weren't that pesky law of physics. Now the scientists at Berkley have proposed, since DNA is required for every living organism from the least complex to most, that DNA and RNA rained down from the sky. LOL.

The sun does not cause a decrease of entropy. It facilitates it. Try again.

 

[pitabread]

This is a statement of belief, not an oath.

AFAIK, their members are required to adhere to those principles.

They also state this on the their scientific "framework":

All origins research must begin with a premise.1 ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. Further, the biblical Flood was global and cataclysmic, and its after-effects therefore explain most of the stratigraphic and fossil evidence found in the earth’s crust. It is within this framework that ICR research is conducted.
​

They've effectively adopted a conclusion from the start, which further speaks to the religious nature and not science in which they operate. - How We Do Research

I'll give them props for being upfront about this, but nobody should mistake what a creationist ministry does as real science.

The article from the IRC acknowledges this.

Which still makes it an untenable geological model.

If only there weren't that pesky law of physics. Now the scientists at Berkley have proposed, since DNA is required for every living organism from the least complex to most, that DNA and RNA rained down from the sky. LOL.

The sun does not cause a decrease of entropy. It facilitates it. Try again.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Which still makes it an untenable geological model.

They're arguing that it makes sense, they're not denying the physics.

You are contradicting yourself.

Perhaps you don't understand me then. Cause I didn't contradict myself.

 

[pitabread]

They're arguing that it makes sense, they're not denying the physics.

It doesn't make sense because their are physical consequences that make it untenable with in the context of what they are trying to describe.

Or do you think it's reasonable that Noah floated around on clouds of super-heated steam?

Perhaps you don't understand me then. Cause I didn't contradict myself.

Sure you did. You just claimed that complexity requires an outside energy source, then immediately tried to argue that the energy from the Sun increases entropy.

You don't seem to know what you're trying to argue.