666...the Devils Moving Average

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:


This is the core of your argument and this one does not make sense. Yes, the firmament or canopy is like a concentric circle. And, yes, it is in the "heavens". You are an English-speaker so heavens to you means in "space" or "where God lives". That is not true with ancient Greek and that's obviously not true here. Moses did not even understand space - why would he be saying that water flew down from space? And, again, Moses is not a preschooler: he's not saying that the rain mystically was coming down from the throne of God or something. He's simply describing the concept that there is a dividing point where the water went up and down between and, of course, that's the definition of a water cycle.

If that is what Moses is saying then Moses isn't saying anything that a preschooler couldn't make up. That the water (rain) of the sky is separate from the water of the earth, is so obvious it doesn't even need to be considered as enlightened thinking.

And shoeshine, that is not a water cycle ! Evaporation, Condensation , Precipitation , Collection - each and all - and the understanding of how each plays its part, is description of the water cycle. Just saying the water cycle is a space between the sky water and the land water is purile. (No discourtesy intended)

 

[stu]

shoeshineboy,

(1)God made everything in one go and at one time flash./ Snap -OR-
(2) God made everything...over time - 6 days exactly –OR-
(3) between 6 days and billions of years.-OR-
(4) billions of years


What you are saying is... it is #(3).... between 6 days and billions of years.

Therefore you are saying are you not , that in effect, Genesis gives no reliable or ascertainable measure of time for which it says God took to make the universe and earth and all the creatures on it.?

I am simply trying to get confirmation where Genesis confirms in the way you say it does, to the creation of the universe matching scientific knowledge.

Here's what I am saying: the days represent long periods of time which, as I mentioned in a previous post, is perfectly allowable in Hebrew. Here is what I said:

"I think the confusion here is over the idea of a "day". The Hebrew word for day is transliterated "yom" and can mean any of the following three things:

a) sunrise to sunset, b) sunset to sunset or c) a segment of time w/o any reference to solar days from weeks to years or an age or an epoch.

The latter is similar to our usage in English of "the Day of the Dinosaurs" or "in my grandfather's day". In our language, a day does not always mean 24 hours and it did not in Hebrew either. A great example agreed upon by I think all Hebrew scholars is Hosea 6:2 for general interest."

I really do think you are displaying a most ridiculously impossible extension of meaning when you try to use the the word "yom" in this respect .

Yom is not expressed on its own anyway, it has quantitive values attached to its use in each verse of Genesis. I see nowhere in the Genesis Hebrew text which allows yom to be taken as " the day of".

The only place where you may try to introduce a contortion into the meaning is to not follow any idiomatic translation and 'misinterpret' yom sheni [ yom (day) sheni ( second) day ], but still this does not allow much misrepresentation. The idea of someone saying "day second " still corresponds to second day (day two) and has obvious meaning and relationship .

The Hebrew is specific in its use of "yom" in connection to the mentioning of days in Genesis by the following manner...

Genesis 1:5 ..... yom echad day one (echad = the cardinal number 1)
Genesis 1:8 ..... yom sheni second day (day two)
Genesis 1:13......yom shlishi third day (day three)
Genesis 1:19..... yom revi'i. fourth day (etc....
Genesis 1: 23 yom chamishi fifth day
Genesis 1:31 .....yom hashishi sixth day

Thereby in the Hebrew text of Genesis there is specific denotation of each day in a period of 6 days.

On day 1 it states that God made "shamayan erets" which in Hebrew means the "entire physical universe".

The Hebrew is " Bereishit bara Elokim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz".....(In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth). It says nothing of the "entire physical universe".

Now we know that it makes perfect sense: on day 1 the entire matter, energy and time of the universe was created in the first stage of the universe just as day 1 says

That makes no sense , So It took day 1 to make heaven and earth (not the universe, apparently they had no notion of 'universe'), where day 1 = any time period. How does that make any sense? That says nothing at all.

You may as well say it took banana 1 where a banana 1 = anytime period.. Both day and banana are absurd as they have no qualifier.

You are seeming this is creating a seeming logical absurdity. On day 1 supposedly everything was made and yet on days 2 - 6 it describes how many things (certain animals, man) were made.

Yes it is absurd

Why does Genesis demarcate creation into "periods" unless it is to do exactly that. Separated into distinct sections of time the distinguishable separate events in a chronological order.


How could anyone know that 30+ centuries later, science would provide the answer? Now we know that it makes perfect sense:

Thank goodness for science then, as Genesis makes no sense

on day 1 the entire matter, energy and time of the universe was created in the first stage of the universe just as day 1 says. Out of these raw materials everything thereafter was made including stars, galaxies, planets, etc. as well as the advanced planetary and life steps described in days 2 - 6.

All you are doing is expressing a truism of the earth and heavens. If it means "in whatever time it took" It's simply stating the bleeding obvious. The day 1 period is meaningless . By the same token day 2 is any time period and Genesis just becomes a list whose events are out of sync with known science.

The problem is you see it didn't happen that way. If you say "day 1" was the creation of everything

The problem is you are not making any sense of meaning. You just said "day 1" was the creation of everything. Can you really not see the silliness of this. I can say the universe took 2 months to create and I would be correct too. It's completely nonsensical.

Again, I feel that you are trying to push the ancient text into a logical absurdity that even a my preschooler would not commit.

I am doing this why ? because I am reading what the ancient text actually says? Because I see the words in Hebrew of yom sheni, yom shlishi etc.. in Genesis. Is that what pushing to absurdity is? Don't you think saying "yom sheni" means 14 billion years is absurd??

If not Perhaps you should put your preschooler on the line, we might get to find out how the hell he/she was able to convince the school governors that it is ok to teach kids that a period of time - known as day 1 - is anything you want it to be. The Little Johnny of biblical times would have been happy though, he could take the rest of his school life off and call it a day 1 vacation .

 

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

The lunar event is an incredible (of course in my opinion) example of Design. Let me give a little background before I get to the details:

The change in the earth's atmosphere (in its early history) presents a serious challenge to scientific understanding. The rule of thumb in planetary formation is tha the greater a planet's surface gravity and the greater a planet's distance from its star, the heavier and thicker its atmosphere. Yet earth departs from that rule. Theoretically, Earth should have an atmosphere heavier and thicker than that of Venus, but in fact it has a far lighter and much thinner atmosphere. This leads us to the "Moon Miracle".

The solution to this mystery apparently lies with the Earth's moon. Most moons in our solar system are formed from the same solar disk material that generated the planets. As such, the are relatively small compared to their planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that have been captured. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It orbits a planet that is close to the sun and it is huge compared to its planet.

The moon is younger than the Earth. According to the Apollo's lunar rock samples, it is only 4.25 billion years old, compared to earth's 4.59 billion years. The same lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's. Its distinct chemical makeup and its youger age establish that the moon and Earth did not form together.
Astronouts have seen and measured the moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and the slowing of Earth' rotation. Their calculations suggest that the moon was in contact or near contact with Earth about 4.25 billion years ago. This implies some kind of collision at that time.

Only one collision scenario fits all the observed Earth-moon parameters and dynamics: a body at least the size of Mars, possibly twice as large, made a nearly head-on hit and was absorbed, for the most part, into Earth's core. Such a collision would have balasted almost all of Earth's original atmosphere into outer space. The shell, or cloud of debris, arising from the collision would orbit Earth and eventually coalesce to form our moon.

This remarkable even, if it occurred as the evidence indicates delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atomosphere and produced a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface. It increased the mass and density of Eaarth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight 18) for billions of year, but no so high as to keep life-threatening quantities of ammonia (molecular weight 17) and methane (molecular weight 16). It also elevated the iron content of Earth's crust as to permit a huge abundance of ocean life. (Algae is dependent on iron and is the basis for all ocean life.)

I could go on and on about the Design aspects of this: how it tilted our planet, left our planet spinning at the exact right angular velocity, etc., etc. for life. But I've got to go. Suffice it to say that 4.25 billion years ago the Earth was the 8 ball and imo opinion someone perfectly hit us with a cue ball...

And that's why I've got to research your post a little more. There's a lot going on in the early stages of the earth's formation and I don't want to state anything incorrectly with regard to Genesis and the surrounding events...

This is all very nice but just what are you trying to do?

There is no evidence that after a 1st atmosphere was dispersed - the sun's light was blocked from the earth by a second atmosphere - which then cleared - to let the sun's light reach earth - which is what you want - to somehow fit with a further version you have of Genesis, - which you then says all works together - to show everything matches perfectly.

I don't see your point in making posts which do nothing to support your Genesis 'proposal' ..... Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent, i.e. sun, moon and stars became visible on the earth for the first time. (1:14-16)

To me you seem to be refuting the "Word of God" in Genesis 1 by stating it says (both in the Hebrew text and English translation) something which it does not, whilst at the same time trying to unsuccessfully stretch any meaning of "science" unrelated or not to your Genesis 1 'proposal' , until it appears to correspond (to you?) to Genesis 1.

My view is that consequently you are reducing Genesis 1 and its affirmations, to nothing more than that which is obviously conspicuous at the most basic level , that is..... there is an earth, there is water on the ground, there is water from the sky, there are fish , there are animals !

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from stu:

This is all very nice but just what are you trying to do?

Several important things:
1. Answer your question. In your thread you asked what I meant by lunar event.
2. Point out that the original situation is more involved than we originally thought.
3. This thread is also about Intelligent Design and so this another example of that as well.
4. Provide another example of how the earth is an extemely low probability event which is germane to the probability of life on earth ever occurring randomly in our universe.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

By the way, I found a great list of the first 30 or so of these design characteristics. (These were not even included though in the 10 to the 30th probability calculation above.) This shows in a quick blurb how if these physics parameters had been tweaked slightly above or below, then the universe could not possibly have contained life:

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly|
if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production
electromagnetic force constant
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
velocity of light
if larger: stars would be too luminous
if smaller: stars would not be luminous enough
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation for a long enough time
if smaller: the sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed,
galaxy cluster type
if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
if larger than 0.06: matter is unstable in large magnetic fields
decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
mass excess of the neutron over the proton
if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior of solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
supernovae eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient flourine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient flourine production
if too late: flourine made too late for incorporation in protoplanet
ratio of the mass of exotic matter to ordinary matter
if smaller: galaxies would not form
if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars can form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if smaller: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist and life would be impossible
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars will not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies will be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies will not form; universe expands too rapidly
if larger: galaxies will be too dense; black holes will dominate; universe collapses too quickly
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain essential life chemistry reactions will not function properly
if larger: certain essential life chemistry reactions will not function properly
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small; certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great; certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if too large: universe will expand too quickly for solar type stars too form

 

[Doubter]

A 'Cosmic Jerk' That Reversed the Universe
By DENNIS OVERBYE

Published: October 11, 2003


LEVELAND, Oct. 10 — Astronomers said on Friday that they had determined the time in cosmic history when a mysterious force, "dark energy," began to wrench the universe apart.

Five billion years ago, said Dr. Adam Riess, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, the universe experienced a "cosmic jerk." Before then, Dr. Riess said, the combined gravity of the galaxies and everything else in the cosmos was resisting the expansion, slowing it down. Since the jerk, though, the universe has been speeding up.

The results were based on observations by a multinational team of astronomers who used the Hubble Space Telescope to search exploding stars known as Type 1a supernovas, reaching back in time three-quarters of the way to the Big Bang, in which the universe was born. The results should help quell remaining doubts that the expansion of the universe is really accelerating, a strange-sounding notion that has become a pillar of a new and widely accepted model of the universe as being full of mysterious dark matter and even more mysterious dark energy.

"This gives great confidence that we've been on the right track," said Dr. Riess, who announced his results at a meeting here on the Future of Cosmology sponsored by the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University and the Kavli Institute.

Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, an astrophysicist at Case Western, called the turnaround from slowing down to speeding up important confirmation.

"The big surprise," Dr. Krauss said, "would have been if it hadn't happened."

Dr. Joseph Lykken, a physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, known as Fermilab, in Batavia, Ill., said, "I could go home now and be happy."

Knowing how and when the jerk occurred, astronomers said, was an important step in figuring out just what the dark energy is.

"He gave us information about when the universe hit the gas pedal," said Dr. Michael S. Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago who is director of mathematics and physics at the National Science Foundation. Different theories of dark energy, Dr. Turner said, predict different times for the transition.

"The supernovae have come through," Dr. Wendy L. Freedman, director of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, Calif., said. "The whole result could have disappeared," referring to the dark energy acceleration.

A result was also a vindication for Dr. Riess, who was a pivotal member of one of two competing groups, the one led by Dr. Brian P. Schmidt of the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories in Australia. The other team was headed by Dr. Saul Perlmutter of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory of the University of California, who discovered the cosmic acceleration five years ago. The groups used supernovas to chart the expansion of the universe at different times in the past.

The goal was to measure how much the universe was being slowed by the collective gravity of the cosmos and determine whether the universe would go on forever or recollapse in a "Big Crunch" on one distant day.

The groups found, though, that nearby supernovas looked dimmer than they should, implying that the universe was growing faster than expected, speeding up, under the influence of some form of antigravity — perhaps embedded in the fabric of spacetime itself.

The results were buttressed by studies of radiation left over from the Big Bang that suggested that two-thirds of the mass-energy of the universe resided in this dark energy.

"But there was always a nagging doubt," Dr. Riess told his colleagues today, that dust or some other astrophysical effect was dimming the supernovae, mimicking the effects of acceleration. If that were the case, supernovae even farther away than the ones already observed should be even dimmer.

On the other hand, if it was really an antigravity energy in space, then as space expanded, the push from this dark energy would grow along with it. In the early years of the universe, the dark energy would have been too small to counteract the gravity of the matter in the universe, and the expansion would have initially slowed. After the universe grew big enough, though, the dark energy would dominate, and the universe would start to expand.

Dr. Riess described the difference between the matter, most of which is dark, and dark energy as, "One pulls, the other pushes."
________________________________________

Another 180 degree turn. Slowing to now accelerating. They expect their credibility to keep going up with every turn. Amazing!

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from axeman:

Here is one of Sagans great analogies in the Demon Haunted World.

Myth believers argue like this all the time.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

peace

axeman

Now I can't help jump in at the mention of "Sagan" and "myth believers" in the same post. Sagan is obviously The Man for you guys - you've commented about him at least a dozen times.

But I have one big problem with him when it comes to the Intelligent Design debate and I believe he was directly responsible for perpetuating a myth that still exists in the mind of most Americans. In 1966 he and Shklovski estimated (and popularized I might add) the idea that the average probability of life on any given planet in our universe is about .001 based on just a couple of very simple parameters (distance to the star, type of star, etc.).

However, as the years went by and astronomers began discovering the incredible number of design characteristics necessary for advanced life, Sagan never pointed that this probability was ridiculously optimistic. Of course, Sagan was brilliant and I can't possibly know what he was really thinking, but I can't help believe that he ignored the new design characteristics of the universe as they were discovered by various universities and labs over the next few decades. He certainly never corrected himself, at least that I know of, and stated the extremely low probability of life on other planets.

As I mentioned in a previous thread (p. 18 bottom and p. 34), science has found so many of these design characteristics that even taking into account that there are approximately 10 to the 22nd stars in the unverse, the chance of a planet even being capable of bearing advanced life is less than 10 to the -30.

I think that Sagan and others like him should have had the intellectual honesty to say that science currently has no explanation as to how this could have happened.

Of course, maybe he did not know about any of these, but I find it very hard to believe since he was extraordinarily well-read and well-connected...

 

[Doubter]

"The amount of water on Earth greatly exceeds that on any other planet in the solar system. Liquid water, which is essential for life and has unique and amazing properties, covers 70% of Earth’s surface. Where did all Earth’s water come from?

If the Earth and solar system evolved from a swirling cloud of dust and gas, practically no water would reside near Earth’s present orbit. Any water (liquid or ice) that close to the Sun would vaporize and be blown by solar wind to the outer reaches of the solar system, as we see happening with water vapor in the tails of comets.

Comets, which are about 85% water (by mass), did not bring much water to Earth, because comets contain too much heavy hydrogen, relatively rare in Earth’s oceans. For an evolutionist, comets also contain too much argon. If comets were the source of only 1% of Earth’s water, then, using evolutionist’s assumptions, our atmosphere would contain 400 times more argon than it does. The few types of meteorites that contain considerable water also have too much heavy hydrogen.

These observations have caused some to conclude that water was transported from the outer solar system to Earth on objects that no longer exist. If so, many of these “water tankers” should have collided with the other inner planets: Mercury, Venus, and Mars. These planets should have similar water characteristics as Earth, but those characteristics are dissimilar.e Instead of imagining “water tankers” that all disappeared, perhaps Earth was created with its water already present. "
Dr. Walt Brown
__________________________________________

I am beginning to see whay it takes so many scientists to figure out contortions to go through to explain and defend their predetermined evolutionary beliefs and theories. I guess on the bright side it keeps them employed if not productively.

About a month ago the White House announced that it was considering an executive order demanding all agencies subject their science based decisions to a peer review panel before issuing the decision. The agencies' scientists are screaming because they don't want a peer review. When things get this far out of whack something really smells about assumptions and their credibility.

 

[axeman]

Doubter,

Try quoting some credible scientists instead of your Dr Brown,
the creationist who is too scared to even debate
one of this OWN creationists on his ludicrous assertions.

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

I will not waste my time with quotes from people who will
say absolutely anything, to defend their preconceived conclusions,
like this Brown guy.

Just to give you a taste... here is a quote about this guys book.

"...the book is unique in explaining for the first time how twenty-five major earth features—including mountains, volcanoes, the Grand Canyon, and ice ages—resulted from a worldwide flood"

Ughhh yeah... All of modern science is wrong, and he alone
knows how these 25 earth features came about, and lo and behold
it's because of the "Great biblical flood". Need I say more?
The guy is a MIT PHD mechanical engineer, and although impressive,
does not have the qualifications, any more than I do, when
it comes to origins and these types of claims.


I'm outta here.... I need to work on trading systems.


By the way, you should change your name from "Doubter"
to "Believer". I don't see much skepticism coming from you,
if you can so easily swallow the creationist story.



peace

axeman

 

[Doubter]

Quote from axeman:

Doubter,

Try quoting some credible scientists instead of your Dr Brown,
the creationist who is too scared to even debate
one of this OWN creationists on his ludicrous assertions.

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

I will not waste my time with quotes from people who will
say absolutely anything, to defend their preconceived conclusions,
like this Brown guy.

Just to give you a taste... here is a quote about this guys book.

"...the book is unique in explaining for the first time how twenty-five major earth features—including mountains, volcanoes, the Grand Canyon, and ice ages—resulted from a worldwide flood"

Ughhh yeah... All of modern science is wrong, and he alone
knows how these 25 earth features came about, and lo and behold
it's because of the "Great biblical flood". Need I say more?
The guy is a MIT PHD mechanical engineer, and although impressive,
does not have the qualifications, any more than I do, when
it comes to origins and these types of claims.


I'm outta here.... I need to work on trading systems.


By the way, you should change your name from "Doubter"
to "Believer". I don't see much skepticism coming from you,
if you can so easily swallow the creationist story.



peace

axeman

_______________________________________

I have read of this disagreement about the debate but I have not heard Dr. Browns' side. This is all about a debate agreement and not about the science. Like I say contortions to deflect an argument. At least on your side that is what you would say. The deeper issue is about the debate over a flood, as in Noahs', which when concluded does nothing to diminish Browns' claims against the junk science he attacks. I happen to agree with his skepticism about evolutionist claims and he states them better than I do, at least in written form.

As to the Doubter handle it at least partly comes from skepticism of the establishment and junk science. After 7 years in federal court over junk science and related issues I have developed a very high level of doubt towards "scientists", their claims, their lack or peer review, their outright dishonesty, and their lockstep need to defend their preconceived conclusions.

As far as I am concerned all junk science can be traced back to a corporate need to defend the flawed evolutionary ideology and the secular humanism that drives it.

I personally treat all of this like the market, it could go up or down, and all of these claims on either side could be either right or wrong. But if you want concrete evidence from one side it should also be required from the other and so far for me evolution takes even more faith than creation because the positions have to be constantly changed to justify the discovery of something new that contradicts the former theory( as in the article I posted today). To me faith and creation involve belief and miracles, which I admit I don't understand, but at least for many years I haven't had to change or adjust my position because of some new discovery. In the future I may have to but it will only be done on concrete evidence not junk science which I do understand and witness everyday by a much wider margin than most people, I am sorry to say.

I haven't even gone into the years of personal observation in genetics that to me makes evolution in large vertebrates all but impossible on the macro-evolutional scale.

Besides you seem to be deflecting from my criticsm of the "unmentioned" limitations of carbon 14 or any other "decay"
measurement dating. The decay rate has to be absolutely constant and over 4 to 6 billion years it certainly takes a lot of faith to say for certain that is the case. Didn't the article I posted say there was probably a "cosmic jerk" and yet I am asked to believe that the decay rates have remained constant through all of this. I can hardly hold my sides from laughing.

To you I guess "credible"= establishment and that is definitely where we part company and permanently I would imagine. Don't forget majority doesn't always mean right.