Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

spendius wrote:

At least he's civilised unlike you Setanta.

It amazes me that the mods put up with you. You won't even address people by their chosen name.

Your language is intemperate and a sad reflection on your country, your education and your state of mind.

You are the sole arbiter of what is pertinant and your stubborn refusal to answer questions others think are pertinant is paraded continually. You define what "idiocy" is and a number of other words.

You seem to be in a permanent rage.

What's marriage to an atheist? A deal is the only answer. What's a baby in the womb to an atheist? A glob of protoplasm I suppose or a bloody nuisance.

Again - well stated & accurate Spendius.

I suppose that I could ask the member setanta to define the word; "pertinent" - however his ability to provide any definition is null. Not sure if it's a learning disability or simply digging his stilleto's in, but much like stale beer - it is what it is. :wink:

0 Replies

The pressure for this has come from Christian groups.

Quote:

Sainsbury, Morrisons and the Co-op said this weekend that they would ban or phase out the sale of eggs from caged hens. Eggs from battery hens have already been removed from Marks & Spencer and Waitrose.

The move is likely to mean that within three years most supermarkets will sell only eggs from barn, free range and organic hens.

The move coincides with a campaign by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver to persuade consumers to demand better welfare for hens.

The Coop is expected to announce a similar move and Morrisons said it planned to stop selling eggs from caged hens in its own brand eggs by 2010.

Asda insists that it is "working hard" to phase out the use of eggs from caged hens, but has not set a deadline. Tesco said it was reducing shelf space for eggs from caged hens and it will now come under renewed pressure to announce a ban.

Darwin was in some difficulties over experiments on animals and his attitude to pigeons left a lot to be desired in most people's estimation.

0 Replies

Back to the subject:

CHAPTER 6

ABIOGENESIS

Abiogenesis is the term used to describe the historical event in which atoms and molecules became organized as living conglomerates, a complex transition as profound as the conversion of raw sand, gypsum, wood, silica and metal ores into an office building. There is a massive schism between an aggregate of the basic elements comprising the universe swirling around on a dead planet and the first extremely complex, functional structures we call living things represented by fossils of thermophilic blue-green algae, thought to be 3.9 billion years old. In order to get a feel for how vast this gap is, consider the bridge that would be necessary to travel from a chemical mixture being energized randomly with super-heated water, lighting bolts or radiation from space to the miracle of complexity and information detailed below. It is a simple living cell, the most basic form of what we consider life, described by micro-biologist Michael Denton in his book, "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis." That cell, magnified a thousand million times until it is 15 miles across, would appear thus.

"What we would see then would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port-holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials are being transported to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell.

We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly complex pieces of molecular machinery, each one consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation. We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine - that is one single functional protein molecule - would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved until at least the beginning of the (21st century). Yet the life of the cell depends on the integrated activities of thousands, certainly tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of different protein molecules.

We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory bands for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.

What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle. ...

...Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith, holder of three PHDs, the first in physical organic chemistry, gave the Huxley Memorial Lecture at Oxford University in 1986. Although his thesis proposing an alternative to naturalist theories of life's origin was well received even by his opponents, he has since been unable to have it published by any reputable scientific journal. (His alternative introduced a factor representing intelligent input for the origin of teleological (purposeful) information, the type of information theorists say appears in DNA.) Any criticism of naturalist/Darwinism has been effectively censored at the professional level and the lay-public never hears it. This is the climate we find ourselves in as we search for truth.

The truth can be censored but not eliminated however. A detailed analysis of information theory relating to the genome effectively buries the philosophy of naturalism. One is sufficient but naturalism has suffered from three deadly blows.

1. The only evidence presented as support for naturalist/evolution, the fossil record, was originally organized by evolutionists in order to jell with the assumptions of Darwinism but in reality it indicates stasis and huge gaps between sub-groups of living things, past and present.

2. The reality of the big bang mandates a universe with a beginning, thus eliminating an infinite universe both spatially and in time as a naturalist bulwark and necessitating a first cause or creator. It also necessitates intelligent design as an explanation for the finely tuned structure of the universe and the solar system.

3. The huge quantity of information and complexity contained in the DNA molecule and a living cell prohibits any possibility of their chance random assembly, and their accidental organization is also prohibited by thermodynamic laws of organic chemistry.

The obvious conclusion many scientists are now reaching is that nature alone as an explanation for the origin of life is grossly erroneous. Science is finally doing its job, admitting its mistakes and gradually leading us down the path of truth. But of course science is limited by the "Singularity", the big bang, and so eternal truth must be found elsewhere.

Source: http://www.williambrugman.com/BeyondaSahdowChapters6through9.html#Chapter%206

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

I suppose that I could ask the member setanta to define the word; "pertinent" . . .

It were no surprise to learn that you don't know the meaning of pertinent any more than you apparently know the meaning of the word evidence. In that passage of idiocy on your part, you used the word evidence, alleging that you have "plenty"--but when asked to demonstrate that you had plenty of evidence by linking posts in which the evidence had been presented, you defaulted to the favorite bible-thumper technique, you attempted to play a word game. You were told repeatedly to use the definition of evidence which you had in mind when you claimed you had plenty of evidence--of course, you only responded by continuing your lame attempt to play a word game. That simply demonstrated the poverty of your claim, which you apparently were unable to support with links to the "plenty of evidence" you alleged.

Here i did introduce the word pertinent. I made the not unreasonable mistake of assuming that you would have known the word and it's meaning. However, having admitted your ignorance, you deserve the bare consideration of a response to that.

Answers-dot-com, citing the American Heritage Dictionary, wrote:

pertinent adj.

Having logical precise relevance to the matter at hand. See synonyms at relevant.

[Middle English, from Old French partenant, pertinent, from Latin pertinēns, pertinent-, present participle of pertinēre, to pertain. See pertain.]

Source

Your Dictionary-dot-com, citing several 'Webster's' dictionaries wrote:

per·ti·nent adjective

having some connection with the matter at hand; relevant; to the point

Etymology: ME < MFr < L pertinens, prp. of pertinere: see pertain

Source

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary wrote:

pertinent

Main Entry:
per·ti·nent

Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin pertinent-, pertinens, present participle of pertinēre
Date:
14th century

: having a clear decisive relevance to the matter in hand

Source

Yes, i suppose you should ask for yet another definition--after all, you're always short on support for your crack-pot theses, but always long on playing word games rather than substantiating your claims. It's about the best you've got going for you.

Do you have any answers for Terry's pertinent questions, or are you just going to continue to dance?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

[: having a clear decisive relevance to the matter in hand

Source

Setanta wrote:

Do you have any answers for Terry's pertinent questions...

Well hallelujah!!! I have to admit that you completely surprised me set. And I apprecaite the multiple choice format too. As history shows; I prefer to utilize Merriam Webster, so let's go with that choice and proceed.

Which of Terry's questions do you feel are pertinent to the subject of this thread?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Do you believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib?

When did God create viruses and other disease organisms?

Do you believe that there was a world-wide flood and that all existing species descended from the specimens on Noah's ark?

Is everyone (including Africans, Asians, Aborigines and Native Americans) descended from Noah?

Did God cause the plagues in Egypt and murdered all of the first-born?

Did Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego walk around in a blazing furnace in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics?

Did God confuse languages and scatter the people over the earth to keep them from achieving anything?

All of them, of course, except for this last one:

Quote:

How do you shut off the logical part of your brain in order to believe stuff that is obviously untrue?

Which is just icing on the cake of comic relief which this thread represents.

0 Replies

All Terry questions are trivial.

The complexity is indescribable, unimaginable and irreducible.

In the face of it human beings have attempted "narratives" which vary, often dramatically, from time to time and place to place, to vainly try to give meaning to life.

These narratives can serve other purposes. They are shot through with myths and legends and traditions and hopes and fears. The Christian narrative, in a very short period of time, has delivered to us capacities which we both love and fear.

Some people think the need for a narrative is a weakness but atheism itself is a narrative. One philosopher claimed atheism as a sect of Christianity.

But whether the need for a narrative is a weakness or not it is seemingly a given fact of the human condition and any denial of that may well serve other purposes. An excuse to rant for example. Or an excuse for indulging in behaviour which the narrative rejects on the grounds that such behavior is destructive.

All the dictionary definitions provided are tautologies and assertions. It is well known that dictionaries contain a complex interlocked tapestry of tautologies. Probably irreducibly complex as Vico and others have said. The words are defined in terms of other words. Even a word like "clear" is opaque when studied. "Decisive" is a mere assertion. So is "relevance" and "the matter in hand" is what anybody wishes to say it is.

The word "pertinent" is one of those words, like "lovely", which one might find used very loosely at afternoon teas where ladies of a certain type gather in order to find something to do with part of the day as having nothing to do, especially when there's money in the bank, and sometimes when there's not and indebtedness is reached for, is unbearably boring.

It is used usually in an attempt to steer the conversation in the direction the user of the word wishes it to go and its derogatory subtleties are often reinforced by intonations and facial gestures and suchlike.

Setanta obviously knows nothing about linguistic philosophy which is probably just as well because if he did he might find himself speechless.

There was a famous Persian carpet discussed for half an hour on BBC4 tonight and mention was made of the symbolisms in the pattern. Such a carpet woven from the same materials by an atheist would obviously, for efficiency purposes just have lines of colour varying in width according to the specifications of dyed wool. It would be just as comfortable to walk on and for the fleas to breed in as the carpet in the film.

Now- you atheists- you answer a question. Which carpet would you buy or. better, which one would your wife let you buy? Avant-garde furnishings are based on such a principle and those who patronise furnishings of that nature, plastic Venitian blinds for example rather than plush velvet flower-patterned drapes, are generally considered a bit whacko or exhibitionistic or both.

A proper dinner party at an atheists ought properly, to avoid him looking silly I mean, utilise a plastic canteen table and tinned food with the wine being drunk from the bottle rather than wasting some of it on the surfaces of fancy glassware. Efficiency dictates it. I have read of some practicing it.

The nearest you can get to a properly atheistic room in the ordinary household is the khazi and even in there a degree of inefficient fancy has begun to make itself felt. That's really naff for an atheist. Even a full sized door is a bit iffy. 36 inches high is quite sufficient as everybody is quite familiar with his feet and head.

I'm sorry BD. I couldn't resist. I have resisted bringing Rabelais up so I should be given some credit.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

All Terry questions are trivial.

The complexity is indescribable, unimaginable and irreducible.

In the face of it human beings have attempted "narratives" which vary, often dramatically, from time to time and place to place, to vainly try to give meaning to life.

These narratives can serve other purposes. They are shot through with myths and legends and traditions and hopes and fears. The Christian narrative, in a very short period of time, has delivered to us capacities which we both love and fear.

Some people think the need for a narrative is a weakness but atheism itself is a narrative. One philosopher claimed atheism as a sect of Christianity.

But whether the need for a narrative is a weakness or not it is seemingly a given fact of the human condition and any denial of that may well serve other purposes. An excuse to rant for example. Or an excuse for indulging in behaviour which the narrative rejects on the grounds that such behavior is destructive.

All the dictionary definitions provided are tautologies and assertions. It is well known that dictionaries contain a complex interlocked tapestry of tautologies. Probably irreducibly complex as Vico and others have said. The words are defined in terms of other words. Even a word like "clear" is opaque when studied. "Decisive" is a mere assertion. So is "relevance" and "the matter in hand" is what anybody wishes to say it is.

The word "pertinent" is one of those words, like "lovely", which one might find used very loosely at afternoon teas where ladies of a certain type gather in order to find something to do with part of the day as having nothing to do, especially when there's money in the bank, and sometimes when there's not and indebtedness is reached for, is unbearably boring.

It is used usually in an attempt to steer the conversation in the direction the user of the word wishes it to go and its derogatory subtleties are often reinforced by intonations and facial gestures and suchlike.

Setanta obviously knows nothing about linguistic philosophy which is probably just as well because if he did he might find himself speechless.

There was a famous Persian carpet discussed for half an hour on BBC4 tonight and mention was made of the symbolisms in the pattern. Such a carpet woven from the same materials by an atheist would obviously, for efficiency purposes just have lines of colour varying in width according to the specifications of dyed wool. It would be just as comfortable to walk on and for the fleas to breed in as the carpet in the film.

Now- you atheists- you answer a question. Which carpet would you buy or. better, which one would your wife let you buy? Avant-garde furnishings are based on such a principle and those who patronise furnishings of that nature, plastic Venitian blinds for example rather than plush velvet flower-patterned drapes, are generally considered a bit whacko or exhibitionistic or both.

A proper dinner party at an atheists ought properly, to avoid him looking silly I mean, utilise a plastic canteen table and tinned food with the wine being drunk from the bottle rather than wasting some of it on the surfaces of fancy glassware. Efficiency dictates it. I have read of some practicing it.

The nearest you can get to a properly atheistic room in the ordinary household is the khazi and even in there a degree of inefficient fancy has begun to make itself felt. That's really naff for an atheist. Even a full sized door is a bit iffy. 36 inches high is quite sufficient as everybody is quite familiar with his feet and head.

I'm sorry BD. I couldn't resist. I have resisted bringing Rabelais up so I should be given some credit.

Any time Spendius. Credit well earned. Thanks for the belly-laughs - they are few & far between.

Setanta: Once again - Spendius is spot-on.

0 Replies

Translation: You're not prepared to answers Terry's questions, so you will dance. You are not prepared to answer Terry's questions because your thesis is a crock of sh*t.

No surprises--ever--with you, in matters such as these.

0 Replies

They are trick questions. And you know they are.

I've explained the narrative. How many more times?
We "believe" all sorts of things. It helps us stay together. Religion is a binding institution. Does Mrs Clinton "believe" the things she's saying. Or any of the others.

You might as well ask the Pope does he believe those things. If he said he did would you believe him.

You are arguing Setanta to destroy our narrative and offer no other narrative to put in its place except meaningless loneliness which many people have actually faced up to. Do you think all 300 million Americans are ready to face up to that just because you think you are. And starting at school.

What do you say to a congregation if you walk into a service and expose the preacher as a hypocrite?

You answer that. That's a real question. Do you tell them that they are merely a way station between the food industry and the sewage disposal system as an atheist once told me I was and thus, by taint, all of us. He laughed at dogs having pet names.

But he was a serious atheist. To him a cradle was a tomb. He loved Ilkley Moor 'baat 'At.

0 Replies

spendius.
Give yah 9 outa 10 for your trick replies

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Translation: You're not prepared to answers Terry's questions, so you will dance...

Wrong. Like Spendius says in so many words; those questions will only lead to a dance.

What are your thoughts on the chapter concerning 'Abiogenesis'? Have you ever read any of Dr. Wilder Smith's material?

0 Replies

Quote:

The truth can be censored but not eliminated however. A detailed analysis of information theory relating to the genome effectively buries the philosophy of naturalism. One is sufficient but naturalism has suffered from three deadly blows.

1. The only evidence presented as support for naturalist/evolution, the fossil record, was originally organized by evolutionists in order to jell with the assumptions of Darwinism but in reality it indicates stasis and huge gaps between sub-groups of living things, past and present.

2. The reality of the big bang mandates a universe with a beginning, thus eliminating an infinite universe both spatially and in time as a naturalist bulwark and necessitating a first cause or creator. It also necessitates intelligent design as an explanation for the finely tuned structure of the universe and the solar system.

3. The huge quantity of information and complexity contained in the DNA molecule and a living cell prohibits any possibility of their chance random assembly, and their accidental organization is also prohibited by thermodynamic laws of organic chemistry.

All this is, is the posting of someone elses ideas.
1The reliance on this statement re: the fossil record is an obvious statement by someone who has a vested interest in trying to minimize its existence. The fossil record is quite complete, there are gaps, which dont invalidate it, they merely show (mostly) intermediate morphological stepping stomnes of development. The gaps in the fossil record ALWAYS correspond to global tectonics or normal erosive mechanisms and indicate tranbsitional environments. There are entire companies of very competent , well paid scien tists who USE the fossil record for the eploration and discovery of many or our energy requirements now that the "easy stuff" has been located

2 Another piling up of "ifs" and "It must be so, because we dont understand it" The Multiverse has a level of understanding that is above most of our pay grades, and it doesnt automatically default to a "Creator" . Why should science do anything according to your authors logic vested in ID. You need to discuss things from a point of understanding rather than just standing back and pushing "send"

3The complexity of DNA is not a problem. WHo says that DNA was the information cache of the first lifeforms? Dr Wilder may be a "polished monkey" of the literalists, but he doesnt provide ANY evidence for his points, merely arguments resulting in contrary positions. He doesnt even use the scientific method to try to disassemble science.

0 Replies

Wilder SMith is another of the paraded experts who(while living) maded the chicken and peas circuit to argue Evolution.
He did a brilliant career move by dying in 1995 , just before the discovery of the surface chemistry reactions that offered insights into the geochemistry of the living state. He also wasnt around to beconfromnted with the findings that Hubble opens up, and further, he missed the decoding of genomes.

Hes as relevant as Desmond Morris. Its nice to want to feel the comfort of an all powerful Creator, a benevolent Creator. However, within the space of a few years I predict that we will have created not only one but two or three separate nuclear bases of living molecules.

I am amazed at how much the Creationist POV relies on the past. Science doesnt sit still, If you wanna try to validate SMith's point no. 1, you also have to discuss the"inconvenient evolutionary evidence" of whales or amphiiban/ fish or hominids from the advancing fossil record. Merely stating that there are gaps , is being the master of the frickin obvious. Science attempts to narrow these gaps by the predictive power of stratigraphy and paleo, and its doing quite well thank you. Tiktaliik was a perfect example wherein the paleontologists asked the geologists that "if there were an intermediate between lobed fish and true amphibians, it should be found in a specific age of sediments. ANd thats just how it happened The Creationist position keeps losing ground to empirical evidence.
You have inherited the science of "Christain desire" from its founders and are now invested in "information science" as your key line of defense. Menwhile, real science is carefully painting you into a corner with interrelated discoveries.

ANYWAY, he name of this thread was about the BIBLE as EVIDENCE for SCIENCE. not whether you strongly desire this to be true.
So far your arguments have been all circular
"If we had bacon, we could have bacon and eggs, if we had eggs"--George C SCott said that in a movie once and it is such a gem of a summary of the Creationist POV.

0 Replies

You're right on all counts fm. Particularly in concern to the obviously idiotic - Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith.

Dr. Wilder Smith's accomplishments & credentials in the world of science should certainly be questioned and discounted; as you so aptly claim.

Wilder-Smith is author and co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books which have been translated into many different languages. He was one of few scientists in the world to have three earned doctorates. Wilder-Smith was an expert on chemotherapy, pharmacology, organic chemistry, and biochemistry. He was also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a NATO three-star general...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Wilder-Smith

A real idiot I tell you!!!

0 Replies

POS there BD. Nowhere did I call Smith an "idiot" thats your statememnt entirely. My point has to do with Timeliness vs collection of degrees. Degrees conferred upon the "Scarecrow" mean nothing(He may not have a brain but hes got a diploma). Smith is dead and much of your very argument surrounding his "credentials" and contributions to the subject is, unfortunately post mortem.

Were he around today , hed have to argue the undeniable links that stretch to the horizon line which show that DNA , RNA , extrasomal DNA,and mDNA show how inextricablyALL life is conneted.
His "arguments" about the fossil record were amazingly ill informed and dimwitted at its time and even moreso today.

You may be im pressed with degrees, I am not. Its not at all a matter of what you did to "get your ticket punched" Its "what have you done to advance anything lately" SCience does not stand in awe of its overachievers in the degree department. Its what you do with it. Smith's contributions (valid as they are) hardly confer on him any more credibility than mine as an actual day to day worker with the "fossil record".
RL has frequently championed the very same argument based upon achieved degree "authority", and thats bogus as bogus can be. Plenty of SCientists , although degreed out the ying-yang were often dead wrong in their new lines of thought (marshall Kay, Steve Gould, Steve Austen,ALbert EInstein) Desmond Morris,)
Darwin, an admittedly underachieving individual, really only authored 3 really important works (out of the 13 he published) yet noone has knocked him off the pedestal for being the most important scientific mind of the MILLENIUM,(At least not yet).

I like Ray Charles music, but I think his later jazz covers are crap. Even "The Babe struck out a lot". So please dont fall into the trap of overlapping accolades based solely upon degree attainment. Dr Smith was a damned good pharmacologist , and , by extension, his training in microbio and biochem were useful at "boutiquing molecules" for pharma developments. So what? The fact is, he had very little experience with "the fossil record" or "Cosmology" and He was an amateur whose own religious beliefs carried all his weight in those fields. His biography lists "Creationist" in his accomplishments. Thats a stance thats not ever attained by evidence, its a belief that goes before all reliance on any evidence and whenever evidence is presented, the CReationist tries to align the evidence with his beliefs.

Ive listened to many a Bible huckster (who just so happened to hold a degree as a Phd chem E or a physicist,) These guys compose an entire layer of assigned authority within the Discovery Institute. If you look at their works , you will find much thats been published and also very much thats been only peered by like-minds, not peered by a questioning ed board.
Lets take a really critical look at SMiths "scientific contributions" and Ill wager a farthing that few or none had anything to do with his stance as a Creationist. He, like Steve Austen or Bill Demski, have used their scientific credibility(earned in one discipline) to huckster their religious beliefs in another.
You BD, like so many of the acolytes, prostrate yourselves in front of these guys and buy all their Worldview because, in your mind, A Phd in one field must certainly confer complete unquestionable expertise in another. ALl I can ask is that you develop a more critical eye and read more of all sides of an argument.
Ive found that, with Creationists especially, Ive read all their materials but few of them have invested the time to read what I consider evidence based literature.

0 Replies

BD, since youve tried to capture some kind of empathetic "high ground' Lemme let you know about what Ive known about Dr Smith.

He was always touted (since the late 1990's, ) as a scientist who was originally an Evolutionist who , later became a converted Creationist. Yet, weve found papers and Creationist tracts produced by Dr Smith That go back as far as 1946. Hardly a conversion based upon evidence.

He was supposed to have delivered the Huxley Memorial Lecture at Oxford in 1986. This was a total fabrication. A total lie based upon a "Wish list" manufactured by William Demski in the years after Smiths death. This made it appear that hed undergone this conversion at a time when "Evolution-A Theory in Crisis" was being hawked.

Smith was a staunch defender of the accuracy of the "PAluxy Footprints" a series of footprints in the Cretaceous sediments beneath the Paluxey River bed in Texas. In this fossil assmblage are (ichnofossils) of footprints of some dinosaurs "side by side" with human footprints. These have been debunked in the mid 1990's as part photography tricks coupled with some clever chipping of the rocks by the "scientifc Creatinonists"

Part of SMiths career as a Creationist is , at least questionable, if not actually fraudulent.

SO, watch out who ya parade in front of us as your "polished monkey" of the day. Some of us have heard of these guys beffore and the network is pretty good

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

...ALl I can ask is that you develop a more critical eye and read more of all sides of an argument...

Interesting concept - when will you give it a go? :wink:

0 Replies

Id expect nothing less from you in the miscomprehension department. I guess tht you wont accept thye TRuth about your Dr Smith? Just want you to know that you should read up on thee guys more carefully so you dont further embarass yourself.

Dr Smith has been more useful to the Creationist crowd since hes been dead (which is still, as I understand, his ongoing condition)

0 Replies

I put my critical eye on this fm-

Quote:

the discovery of the surface chemistry reactions that offered insights into the geochemistry of the living state.

What does it mean. Babies discover surface chemistry reactions before they can walk. And once discovered obviously they offer insights into the geochemistry of the living state. How could it be otherwise.

I think your prediction of living molecules is ridiculous but I'll agree that's an assertion based on a sense I have. But good luck. I like to see a lot of people in well paid jobs. It raises the general tone I feel.

0 Replies

Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know