Why Do Isolated Locations Have Unique Forms Of Life? (worship, Biblical, God)

[calmdude]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Closed minded Atheist - love it. Over-generalizations are not arguments. "jargon" - did you look at some of those articles - far from just jargon. Every one has biases, that is not the issue, but the points being made, deal with those. Humphreys and Baumgardner are far from perpetuating "mythology" covered up as science.

Simply throwing out links from sites of Christian scientists does not make you "open minded" - it simply shows your gullibility. Science has a process by which it reviews new developments (from scientists who are atheists or of different religions - you know the kind that have scientific and not religious agenda) and comes out on the other side of many beliefs you have. Throwing out links not reviewed by a large majority of scientists is the equivalent of arguing using the logic "... but the bible/quoran says so".

Religious people need to worry about "why" and let scientists worry about "how".

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Closed minded Atheist - love it. Over-generalizations are not arguments. "jargon" - did you look at some of those articles - far from just jargon. Every one has biases, that is not the issue, but the points being made, deal with those. Humphreys and Baumgardner are far from perpetuating "mythology" covered up as science.

Creationist sites are intentionally the most dishonest on the web. We all know that, even you.

[sanspeur]

Ok Shiloh, I checked out your sites...It's my turn.

Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism

[Shiloh1]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Ok Shiloh, I checked out your sites...It's my turn.

Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism

OK, I will check it out. By the way Humphreys did make predictions about the magentic field before voyger pasted Neptune and Uranus which was confirmed later on. So did ICR and the RATE Project. Also, many articles are peered reviewed but I suspect that you mean by Atheist who are monetarily and polictically driven not to consider results or even theories or hypotheses which contradict thier own - it must be nice to think that there is no biases on their part as well as to have a corner on the 'Peer Reviewed' market. That is why we should just deal with the claims and not just dismiss it by appealing to the High Preists of Academia. And please do not tell me that this sort of bias does not go on - it does. Many of the web pages I sited have links to articles - it is not just some editor giving his general thought on the matter.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

OK, I will check it out. By the way Humphreys did make predictions about the magentic field before voyger pasted Neptune and Uranus which was confirmed later on. So did ICR and the RATE Project. Also, many articles are peered reviewed but I suspect that you mean by Atheist who are monetarily and polictically driven not to consider results or even theories or hypotheses which contradict thier own - it must be nice to think that there is no biases on their part as well as to have a corner on the 'Peer Reviewed' market. That is why we should just deal with the claims and not just dismiss it by appealing to the High Preists of Academia. And please do not tell me that this sort of bias does not go on - it does. Many of the web pages I sited have links to articles - it is not just some editor giving his general thought on the matter.

Ahhh, don't bother with my link if you are going to pull the conspiricy theory on me....Science could care less about YEC theories one way or the other, but I see you bring your own bias to the table here.

[Shiloh1]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Ahhh, don't bother with my link if you are going to pull the conspiricy theory on me....Science could care less about YEC theories one way or the other, but I see you bring your own bias to the table here.

Of course, both sides have biases it is almost unavoidable. No conspiracy just the way power and politics and money play out.

[calmdude]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Of course, both sides have biases it is almost unavoidable. No conspiracy just the way power and politics and money play out.

Agree to a small extent. But, overall, in science, knowledge carries much more weight - kinda like unquestioned faith does in religion. (Mis)use of science to prove religious theories is about politics, influence and possibly money.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Closed minded Atheist - love it. Over-generalizations are not arguments. "jargon" - did you look at some of those articles - far from just jargon. Every one has biases, that is not the issue, but the points being made, deal with those. Humphreys and Baumgardner are far from perpetuating "mythology" covered up as science.

I will have a go at one of your links - the first one starts off with:

Before the 1960s, most geologists were adamant that the continents were stationary.

Interesting that there are no references or citations

A handful promoted the notion that the continents had moved (continental drift), but they were accused by the majority of indulging in pseudo-scientific fantasy.

Non sequitur statement - no citation

Today, that opinion has reversed—plate tectonics, incorporating continental drift, is the ruling theory. Interestingly, it was a creationist, Antonio Snider, who in 1859 first proposed horizontal movement of continents catastrophically during the Genesis flood.1

Amazing how they always cite dead scientists and medieval nonsense. I am sure science in the 19th century was far more advanced that today's with all our satellite technology and modern coring techniques, regression in geologic understanding and many other fields of science where we have lost knowledge and understanding. And in their first citation they contradict their opening statement.

Back in the early 80's (when science was better than today) I watched a documentary that was dealing with the flood and included the continental drift. I cannot remember who did it but it was likely not National Geographic.

However, in the film, it suggested that when the "fountains of the deep" erupted, it shot water 20 miles high into the atmosphere.together with this, the fountains were between the continents which were then all joined together. The continents then drifted apart due to the water fountains at a speed of 40-60 mph.

Of course the Americas came to a sudden stop causing the inertia to force the western Rocky and Andes mountains up as the ground skimmed across the surface. They did not bother with the other locations as this was obviously an American YEC pseudo science. Part of the evidence is the folded mountains one sees.

They forgot to explain other mountain ranges like in Africa that are also west coast and or course Africa never moved. Or Australia's and how they formed. Maybe it has something to do with the rotation of the planet?

The whole argument is flawed as it accepts that land floated on water. So what kept the pressure of the landmass from squishing out the fountains of the deep in the first place?

This is why the YEC sites are not credible. They feed you BS and likely the authors never learned proper science to start off with.

While you are on about your YEC "scientists" read up on a rebuttal to all their claims and misinformation.

Creationist Frauds
300 Creationist Lies

[sanspeur]

Here is a critique of some of Humphrey's claims by a Christian site.

The Unraveling of Starlight and Time | Reasons to Believe

[Shiloh1]

Alright now we are getting a little carried away with the shotgun approach. This thread started out about unique forms of life, now we are onto the starlight problem - how this is for or against evolution or even a God I do not know.

But let me say some things anyway. I brought up Humphreys in regard to the magnetic field not starlight. There are alternatives to the Big Bang model - which in itself has problems of its own (CMB, horizon problem, dark matter, ect.) pointing out problems with a theory should not necessitate its abondonment, if this is the case then the Big Bang must be thrown out as well. Harnett reviews 5 possible solutions to the starlight problem and considers 2-3 of them worth further scientific study (See True Orgins article 'A New Cosmology solution to the starlight travel time problem' for a quick overview or his book would be better.) Setterfield (speed of light slower in the past - which is not just a Creationist idea) has continually updated his model to include SED physics with a plasma model - both of which are pursued as alternatives to QED physics by non Creationists. Humphreys also has updated his model esp. since the 1999 article by Ross that one of you guys cited.

I only cited articles to you guys, posting stuff that was somewhat off topic, in order to give a balance and now in each turn it procedes to some new subject. We are not going to get very if we do not stay focused. Some asked a questioned about definition of 'kinds' I then gave some articles to help and then the random shotgun appraoch kicked in with all kinds of questions on different topics. I then tried to give some answers regarding them and they were then dismissed and of course a new question arises on a completely different plane. Is this how this is going to procede. I can't not answer 5 different ??'s on many different subjects at one time. Is this how you guys proceed to arrive at some understanding?