"SCIENCE VS SCRIPTURE"

[EarlyActs]

There are a lot of hoaxes out there. In academia there is a professional peer review process to establish claims and verify fact from fiction. Are there any professional peer reviewed research publications that you can direct me to or point to that help establish these claims as legit?

That would be like asking Fact-checkers who are deliberately set up to harden people into Blackrock bots.

Surely you know of creationwiki.com. 8000 articles too technical for me in details, but I read the summaries.

If you’ll have a look at the expose of the Smithsonian by West in the doc HUMAN ZOOS, and multiply that by 100 you’ll get the idea. Other docs with 15-20 guest scientists each include Tacketts IS GENESIS HISTORY? and Carson’s DARWINS ACHILLES HEEL.

I’m surprised not to hear response to The 3 Lewis pieces by now. Given that he was answering inquiries at Oxford in the 40s and 50s, there was no convenient way for conventional-Huxleyan Science to silence him, like they did Pelegríni and Bretz.

Lewis spoke of our need for regular interaction with fiction, not Bc all fiction is true, but Bc we get regular practice with worlds other than what a closed system of mathematics defines:

Professor: ‘what Lucy said—what was it like?’
‘It was like talking to a lunatic!’ Answered Edmond.
‘No, no, scowled the Professor, not her, I meant, what was the place she found like.’

A minutes reading, of course, shows that the events of the Bible are such a ‘place’ that was fact. No subsequent piece of the narrative cancels or disposes of the previous. The sum of the accounts is collected by Joseph by ch 39 so that it can be written down , so that the indentured tribe has its own distinct identity, in his time.

 

[TB2]

That would be like asking Fact-checkers who are deliberately set up to harden people into Blackrock bots.

Surely you know of creationwiki.com. 8000 articles too technical for me in details, but I read the summaries.

If you’ll have a look at the expose of the Smithsonian by West in the doc HUMAN ZOOS, and multiply that by 100 you’ll get the idea. Other docs with 15-20 guest scientists each include Tacketts IS GENESIS HISTORY? and Carson’s DARWINS ACHILLES HEEL.

I’m surprised not to hear response to The 3 Lewis pieces by now. Given that he was answering inquiries at Oxford in the 40s and 50s, there was no convenient way for conventional-Huxleyan Science to silence him, like they did Pelegríni and Bretz.

Lewis spoke of our need for regular interaction with fiction, not Bc all fiction is true, but Bc we get regular practice with worlds other than what a closed system of mathematics defines:

Professor: ‘what Lucy said—what was it like?’
‘It was like talking to a lunatic!’ Answered Edmond.
‘No, no, scowled the Professor, not her, I meant, what was the place she found like.’

A minutes reading, of course, shows that the events of the Bible are such a ‘place’ that was fact. No subsequent piece of the narrative cancels or disposes of the previous. The sum of the accounts is collected by Joseph by ch 39 so that it can be written down , so that the indentured tribe has its own distinct identity, in his time.

Every claim I know has turned out to a hoax or people not understanding what they were seeing like the human bone finger in dino age sediment that Carl Baugh found and has in his Creation museum. One of my profs personally analyzed it. It's just a rock concretion.

 

[EarlyActs]

Every claim I know has turned out to a hoax or people not understanding what they were seeing like the human bone finger in dino age sediment that Carl Baugh found and has in his Creation museum. One of my profs personally analyzed it. It's just a rock concretion.

??? Every single thing just mentioned in the mountain of material I just listed? So the scientists who became catastrophists Bc of looking clearly at Mt St Helens are now merely hoax-goons? Or the subject of opisthotonics? Or the UCLA scientist saying in the LAT about Hell Creek MT collagen that ‘she didn’t want people thinking these creatures were alive a few thousand years ago’? Want?

“Within 20 years of Bretz material finally open to the public, Whitcomb and Morris wrote THE GENESIS FLOOD. It covers all these questions and no one has countered. There are now more catastrophists than ever.” —J Montgomery, UW geology, in his Harvard address on the history of geology in the church, @2015.

 

[TB2]

??? Every single thing just mentioned in the mountain of material I just listed? So the scientists who became catastrophists Bc of looking clearly at Mt St Helens are now merely hoax-goons? Or the subject of opisthotonics? Or the UCLA scientist saying in the LAT about Hell Creek MT collagen that ‘she didn’t want people thinking these creatures were alive a few thousand years ago’? Want?

“Within 20 years of Bretz material finally open to the public, Whitcomb and Morris wrote THE GENESIS FLOOD. It covers all these questions and no one has countered. There are now more catastrophists than ever.” —J Montgomery, UW geology, in his Harvard address on the history of geology in the church, @2015.

Mt St Helens is not any different from catastrophic evidence geologists already accept. The flesh in dinos is not fresh flesh but preserved by crosslinkages the same way formaldehyde works. You can preserve indefinitely that way even millions of years by arresting the decay process. And the woman who discovered all that is a Christian and she's not trying to suppress her own research that has made her famous but YECs misuse and misrepresentation distortion of the facts! Whitcomb and Morris plagiarized a lot of their ideas from seventh day adventists. Either way everything in the book has been debunked. Bretz showed evidence of a regional flooding event not a global. Geology accepts catastrophic and non catastrophic. Both are recognized. This tired old myth about geologists only assuming slow deposition is a straw man argument that hasn't been true now for over 60 years back to the first publication of the Genesis Flood.

 

[EarlyActs]

Mt St Helens is not any different from catastrophic evidence geologists already accept. The flesh in dinos is not fresh flesh but preserved by crosslinkages the same way formaldehyde works. You can preserve indefinitely that way even millions of years by arresting the decay process. And the woman who discovered all that is a Christian and she's not trying to suppress her own research that has made her famous but YECs misuse and misrepresentation distortion of the facts! Whitcomb and Morris plagiarized a lot of their ideas from seventh day adventists. Either way everything in the book has been debunked. Bretz showed evidence of a regional flooding event not a global. Geology accepts catastrophic and non catastrophic. Both are recognized. This tired old myth about geologists only assuming slow deposition is a straw man argument that hasn't been true now for over 60 years back to the first publication of the Genesis Flood.

Whitcomb and Morris plagiarized a lot of their ideas from seventh day adventists
This is a ridiculous idea. Meaning that it is moot. May I ask: what exactly are you afraid of? So Montgomery has no idea what he is saying by 'there are no counters'?

Ever been to a pond and watched 1/4 of it have a 'catastrophe,' and nothing any where else in the pond? Give me a break. Bretz was speaking of half of a continent; I've read that much. That's why the AK state museum line adds up.

Your answers are glib, trite and 'fundamentalist.' I would say, estimating, that the number of topics you have said nothing about is around 100. I won't accept one-liners.

As you may know when Montgomery surveyed church history and got to circa 1900, he realized that fundamentalist Christians (see the 5 points) accepted a Caspian Sea flood for Genesis because 'scientists' said so. They were willing followers, too!

So there is still a mountain for you to look at, but not expected today. Take your time.

Here's Snelling of Australia:

A leading catastrophist, Dr. Andrew Snelling, Australia, writes: ...the mass destruction of myriads of animals and plants and their burial around the globe at the same relative levels in the geologic record unmistakably testifies to global-scale catastrophe events. ... many strata are now known to cover vast areas across the continents, with distinctive features… rapid sediment transport on a massive scale by swift currents in deep water...

--GRAND CANYON—a different view

 

[EarlyActs]

Let's examine the war on common sense another way (that's the war of Lyell when he said present processes explain the past, which Lewis 'debunked.').

I go just about anywhere in Cascadia. Streams come down to the sea all over, in canyons that are about 200x the volume of the winter high each year. At the Elwha, WA, site (recently returned to natural state after a dam removal), about 5 years after the removal a surge came through. Changes of channels, etc, but nothing you can fly over and say 'catastrophic.'

But these ravines are not usually in bedrock, they are in sediment. So there was a deposition, as high as 2000 ft with rounded stone already in it (already 'lapidated' by rough events), and then the current ravine with its current winter high only 1/200th of the volume that created the ravine. There is no scouring up the sides (unless a slide), nothing has happened since the 200x volume event.

Common sense: the energy of the one-time hydrologic event looks something like \___. The \ could even be years; catastrophists usually refer to 4-500 years before current stability.

Thoughts?

 

[TB2]

Whitcomb and Morris plagiarized a lot of their ideas from seventh day adventists

I admit plagiarize may be too strong a word. But borrowed heavily from Price, Harold Coffin and others (who came up with ecological zonation) absolutely. It's well known and documented.

Bretz was speaking of half of a continent;

No he wasn't. West Montana to East Washington. I personally studied the area on site out in the field myself

Your answers are glib, trite and 'fundamentalist.' I would say, estimating, that the number of topics you have said nothing about is around 100. I won't accept one-liners.

No, I just don't have a lot of time, energy, or patience to debunk things that have already been debunked! It's like reproving all over again to a flat earther that the world is round!

Here's Snelling of Australia:

A leading catastrophist, Dr. Andrew Snelling, Australia, writes: ...the mass destruction of myriads of animals and plants and their burial around the globe at the same relative levels in the geologic record unmistakably testifies to global-scale catastrophe events. ... many strata are now known to cover vast areas across the continents, with distinctive features… rapid sediment transport on a massive scale by swift currents in deep water...

Yeah, Snelling wrong and not a respected scientist. Please go back and review my "Why the Fossil Record Can't Be the Result of Noah's Flood" (and my other posts in that thread)

I go just about anywhere in Cascadia. Streams come down to the sea all over, in canyons that are about 200x the volume of the winter high each year. At the Elwha, WA, site (recently returned to natural state after a dam removal), about 5 years after the removal a surge came through. Changes of channels, etc, but nothing you can fly over and say 'catastrophic.'

But these ravines are not usually in bedrock, they are in sediment. So there was a deposition, as high as 2000 ft with rounded stone already in it (already 'lapidated' by rough events), and then the current ravine with its current winter high only 1/200th of the volume that created the ravine. There is no scouring up the sides (unless a slide), nothing has happened since the 200x volume event.

Common sense: the energy of the one-time hydrologic event looks something like \___. The \ could even be years; catastrophists usually refer to 4-500 years before current stability.

Thoughts?

See my post on the fossil record and Noah's Flood

 

[TB2]

If you want to know the true facts of the situation get this book written by Christian geologists

 

[TB2]

You just need to be careful on these things. We're already fools for Christ (which I'm okay with). There's no need to be fools for foolishness sake.

Back in 1993 there was a Southern California actor who staged a TV documentary hoax claiming he had discovered wood from Noah's Ark. USC helped chemically treat the wood to make it look old. It was all a staged hoax for publicity and a lot of Christians bought it hook line and sinker, once again making us look like unsuspecting fools who will believe anything.

Admitting ‘Noah’s Ark’ Hoax : Television: A man who claimed on a CBS special to have located the ark now says it was a setup.​

BY DANIEL CERONE
OCT. 30, 1993 12 AM PT

 

[EarlyActs]

The source of the W&M is irrelevant! So what if they borrowed; I'm not in favor of that legally as an author, but for our discussion it means you can't answer something.

Bretz was referring to the break up of all of the ice age, at the location of MT--WA--OR. Likewise, the start of Niagara. He new Morse collapsed about the same time. You needlessly divide a whole picture.

You bring up stray point after point like one finger of concrete, and movies stars, when I'm talking about piles. I actually am talking about piles--on opisthotonics. I'm talking about NOVA producing utter stupidity for the masses in a special on 'Building the Earth' from Peru etc.

You prob do have a point here and there (like Ager missed a point here and there) but the denial of the whole is glaring, as much as Ager's. Have you read Ps 104 yet? Any clues to why it is hard to tell if he means creation or cataclysm? And by the way, if we are talking about an event confined to the ANE, why are we dealing with examples from all over the world? And narrative references from all over the world? Have you not seen the charts like Montgomery's at the 10th min of that video which have hundreds of locations and common features? (He only shows 10-15 but to his credit they are sourced worldwide).

In 'Man Or Rabbit?' Lewis asks if we as humans ever proceed to accept 'help' from a faith we know is not true. He says no. Only rabbits do that. Where are you on that?

 

[EarlyActs]

A native Alaskan friend of mine says one of the first oral memories of his Tlingit tribe is that they moved south on the ongoing ice and came to a volcano (Edgecomb near Sitka). Exactly was we would expect in the generations after.

What hydrologic conditions would exist for 'the fountains of the great deep' (a place also mentioned in the Enuma Elish) to break open and fill the sky with water, and for the AK state museum display board to read 'mega-fauna was suddenly encased in mile-deep ice'?

 

[EarlyActs]

Back to the streams: what hydrological conditions make 2000 ft piles of already rounded rock in a mix with decomposing sediment? I just want you to answer, not refer off .

 

[TB2]

Like I said if you want to know the true facts of the situation get this book written by Christian geologists

 

[EarlyActs]

I admit plagiarize may be too strong a word. But borrowed heavily from Price, Harold Coffin and others (who came up with ecological zonation) absolutely. It's well known and documented.

No he wasn't. West Montana to East Washington. I personally studied the area on site out in the field myself

No, I just don't have a lot of time, energy, or patience to debunk things that have already been debunked! It's like reproving all over again to a flat earther that the world is round!


Yeah, Snelling wrong and not a respected scientist. Please go back and review my "Why the Fossil Record Can't Be the Result of Noah's Flood" (and my other posts in that thread)

See my post on the fossil record and Noah's Flood

Btw, there is a detail you are missing about Bretz. The burst of Missoula, smashing the Cascades (if they were as full sized as now) was not limited to E. WA. I have seen several maps that show soil movement to Eugene OR. I was walking around there one day and some excavation was stopped near Autzen UO stadium, because a mammoth had been found, and the sediment was from MT, according to the info board.

 

[EarlyActs]

On a more general note, what are we to make of Jesus' remark in his predictions that the end would be like Noah's flood. We could restrict to people's indifference, but that would not work in 2 Peter 3, where the previous world was destroyed with water, but the present world would be by fire.

I would think you would have some kind of view that 1, recognizes destruction by water and 2, would refer to the whole world, and that your objections to CPT are only a matter of details or mechanisms. And yet we have a half of a continent here that looks like a car wreck by comparison with gradualism. And similarities all over the world.

Or again, there is Daniel 9 using the destructive flood analogy about the 1st century but limiting it to Israel.

 

[TB2]

Btw, there is a detail you are missing about Bretz. The burst of Missoula, smashing the Cascades (if they were as full sized as now) was not limited to E. WA. I have seen several maps that show soil movement to Eugene OR. I was walking around there one day and some excavation was stopped near Autzen UO stadium, because a mammoth had been found, and the sediment was from MT, according to the info board.

Yes, good attention to detail. A portion of Oregon too. East Washington bore the brunt. But the point is he wasn't "speaking of half the continent"

 

[TB2]

On a more general note, what are we to make of Jesus' remark in his predictions that the end would be like Noah's flood. We could restrict to people's indifference, but that would not work in 2 Peter 3, where the previous world was destroyed with water, but the present world would be by fire.

I would think you would have some kind of view that 1, recognizes destruction by water and 2, would refer to the whole world, and that your objections to CPT are only a matter of details or mechanisms. And yet we have a half of a continent here that looks like a car wreck by comparison with gradualism. And similarities all over the world.

Or again, there is Daniel 9 using the destructive flood analogy about the 1st century but limiting it to Israel.

The biblical Flood is described in bigger terms beyond global but cosmic judgment involving partial reversal of the events of the creation week. I don't know how to harmonize with geology. But again, Scripture doesn't teach the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood, and there are scientific and biblical reasons to believe there are not. What we can't do as believers is force the fossil record to fit our expectations. It doesn't work and then we become guilty of pounding a square peg into a round hole.

The best we can do right now is acknowledge what the Bible says (which you are very *right* and *correct* to point out), while acknowledging that we don't know how it fits in with science (at least at the present time). I'm enjoying our discussion, and wish continued blessings to you.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, good attention to detail. A portion of Oregon too. East Washington bore the brunt. But the point is he wasn't "speaking of half the continent"

That part was referring to the ice breaking.

 

[TB2]

@EarlyActs

I encourage you to get the "Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth" book, if anything just to be aware of opposing arguments. It's always a good idea to compare both sides of the argument. I've read this book, and I've also read the opposing "Monument to Catastrophe" book.