Re: Congress mandates use of "In God We Trust"


"Honus" <honus1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JlP8i.3175$UD4.946@xxxxxxxxxxx

"Brian Oakley" <brianoakley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f406ob01f3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Honus" <honus1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nSN7i.9965$4S5.9256@xxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>

You're repeating a lie when you say that scientists made the claim
that
they
were always time related, and I'm calling you on it. Repeating a lie
makes
you a liar. "Polystrate" trees are NOT a problem. You need to quit
listening
to your handlers and get out into the real world more. And while
you're
at
it, show me where "scientists" made that claim. You won't. You can't.

To be honest, I dont rember the documentary that talked about this. Its
been a couple of years ago but it did show that geological layering is
not
a
viable way to date anything. But thats exactly how scientists date
fossils,
by the layers they are in. And how do they date the layers? By the
kind
of
fossils they find in them!! How convienent! Circular reasoning!

You're doing nothing but repeat old, disproven canards that should have
died
a quiet death over a century ago. Here...this fellow (Jonathan L. Widger)
put it so much better than I ever could:

"Biostratigraphy is determined from three laws that are entirely
independent
of the theory of evolution. These three laws are (1) "sedimentary strata
are
initially deposited horizontally," (2) "younger undisturbed strata
invariably overlie older undisturbed strata," and (3) "fossils in the
strata
will always occur in the same sequence, regardless of geographic
location."
Thus, fossil sequences derive from the rocks; not the rock strata from
imposed fossil sequences derived from an evolutionary presumption.
Geologic
thrusting and overturning of strata account for the relatively few
out-of-order fossil sequences. The sequence of undisturbed strata is
consistent and reliable. Thus, index fossils "help determine the age of a
given rock formation, but only by correlation from a type section of rock
that is first defined to be a certain age, so no attribute of theirs,
including evolution, is necessary to date a rock." In addition,
radiometric
rock dating is independent of biostratigraphy. Agreement between the two
independent methods corroborates both, and both are independent of
evolution. Thus, contrary to creationists' claims, the fallacy of circular
thinking grounded in presumed evolutionary theory is no part of geology as
a
whole because evolution has nothing to do with dating rocks or fossils!"

Yes but radiometric dating has been shown to be only relativly accurate,
sometimes many thousands of years between datings of the same material.
There are several factors that can skew results. Its not as accurate as the
scientific community would have you believe.


I see that you've changed the subject. We were discussing polstrate trees,
and how they aren't the problem that you claim they are since scientists
don't make the statements about them that you claim they do. Again, show
me
where they make the claim. And again, I say that you won't, because you
can't. It's a lie, Brian. Put up and prove me wrong, or admit either your
deceit or your willful ignorance.

I think what I was refering to, is what you just addressed. The quote above
just said that sediment is deposited layer upon layer, undisturbed. If that
is so, and the fossils found in each undisturbed are different, then how do
you explain the trees through each undisturbed layer, many several feet
long?


Another interesting discovery is how canyons are created. They
demonstrated
that rather large canyons can be created by large floods, and showed
footage
of a before and after situation in which a 30 ft or so gorge was cut out
as
a result of a flood over about a week or so. Much different than the
eons
of time scientists purport that it takes.

<sigh> Yes, canyons can be created rapidly. What can't be created rapidly
is
the fossil evidence that shows canyons like The Grand One for example (I
know you were thinking of bringing it up) were made over eons of time.
They
can't be created rapidly through solid rock. Don't bring up Mount St.
Helens. I've been there; there's no comparing the two. The volcanic
eruption
caused erosion of soft layers; not erosion of cubic miles of solid rock,
even sedimentary rock. Scientists don't make the sort of blanket statement
that you're attributing to them. Again, you're lying. Back up what you
have
to say with cites. Don't try to tell us "that's what they say"; show it.
It
shouldn't be too hard.

Exactly how do you know that the rock in the Grand Canyon was in fact rock
at the time the erosion occured? It could very well have been soft layers.
Scientist work on assumptions that fit their agenda. Im still wondering how
that canyon got cut by the Colorado river, since the source of the river is
actually BELOW the top of the canyon.


And don't try to tell me that the rock that was washed away to create the
canyon was merely mud laid down by the flood, either. (Some of it was mud
at
one point. Miilions of years ago.

Youre makes assumptions that its that old...

Some of it was desert sand, too...complete
with fossils to support that assertion. (Google Coconino Sandstone and
fossil footprints.) The walls of the canyon are too vertical and tall for
that theory to hold any water. Get it? Oh, and don't forget the meandering
nature of the canyon, either. Water powerful enough to rip through solid
rock isn't going to meander. Water taking the path of least resistance
over
ages of geolical time will. I wonder why the fossils from when a sea
covered
the area where the canyon is aren't mixed in with the fossils that are
from
when it was a desert?

Thats not too difficult to answer. Assuming 2000 yrs before the flood,
there would be plenty of time and opportunity for a sea to lay down fossils.
Then at the time of the flood, the Canyon was partially cut (this even makes
sense if the upper layers were soft, which they usually are) then the waters
that remain (the very large river) would begin its cut through the soft rock
layers. This is speculation on my part but it seems very logical, but it
just goes to show you that explainations can be very easy to come by when
your objective isnt skewed toward an agenda.

Here do a little reading for yourself.
http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Here's a quote to whet the appetite of any interested in the article.
I'll
bet my left nut that -you- won't bother going there.

Youre right, because I could give you hundreds of links that would
answer
it. If you have something you wish to discuss, we can do that, or we
can
just send each other to links and be done.

The difference is that I can give you cites that are peer reviewed by
scientists working in these fields. You're going to have some difficulty
there.

See above website.


"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is
to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even
19th-century
literature refutes their presentations."

Thats an opinion. Again, would you like to post something to discuss or
just
link each other to death?

Oh, I see the trouble. Andrew MacRae didn't note that he has a doctorate
in
the field in his byline. Obviously, you thought you were reading the work
of
a layman.

So how much of that website I cited did YOU actually read?



Oh, wait...you didn't read it, did you. If you're going to blow everything
off as "opinion" (and I predict you will), what's the point?

When Mt St Helens exploded,
many trees went with it. Many of these trees were embeded in the
nearby
ponds and lakes. As the ash and dirt settled, it also settled in
these
lakes
and ponds building up layer upon layer around these tree trunks.
Scientists
happened to find these phenomenon by chance, but it explains how
wrong
scientists had been about those layers they were so sure were caused
by
long
time animal deposits. Very interesting what the Mt St Helens
explosion
brought to light. You should really study it. Typical?

Study it? Look who's talking.

Yeah, me. At least Im attempting to have a discussion, while you seem to
like calling names and belittlement, but hey, I expect that.

As you should, because you deserve it.

Well, all I can say is that Im not calling you names sir. You have a lot to
learn as far as respect. But should I expect anything else from someone that
has such an agenda?

FWIW, I don't recall calling you
names.

Doesnt really matter, you just stated that I deserved it.

I can start if you'd like, though; I know that you're main goal in
all of this is storing up treasures in Heaven for the persecution that
you've suffered here on Earth for the sake of Jesus.

You dont really have a clue here do you?

I'd give you the
chapter and verse for that, but it escapes me at the moment. Sorry.
Besides,
I've noticed that you don't like to respond to me when I use Bible verses
in
my posts.

LOL


As for archeology, it verifies that man has been around
about the same amount of time that the Bible says he has.

Which does nothing to prove the Bible should be taken literally.

Maybe not, but it does give evidence that the Bible and archeology
do
line

I remember when I was a fundie child, and someone somewhere would
discover
a
lost city that up to that time was only known from a Biblical
reference
and
everyone would marvel once again that the Bible had been proven
correct
and
true. Well, that's wrong. Using that standard, you can prove the truth
of
most any religious text. I would expect any text written
contemporaneously
with the history that it purports to tell of to get some of the
details
right. Of course some aspects of the Bible and archaeology are going
to
match. Just because there's a place called Jerusalem, and the Bible
mentions
it doesn't mean much.

Yes but when archeologists and historians say that so and so didnt
really
exist, he was just a character in the Bible, and then archeological
evidence
shows that he was in fact a real person, that tends to make
archeologists
that claim such things as being biased.

Examples, please.

Pontius Pilate, for one. I can find others if you wish. Or you can google
for yourself as you expect me to do.


Archeologists should just report
what the find, and speculate. Making a claim against what the Bible
says
because of lack of evidence is very popular among secular archeologists.

Yes, that's their goal in their academic careers. Making the Bible look
bad.
You guys have serious persecution complexes, you know that? Must have
something to do with that "storing up riches in heaven" thing.

You dont believe these guys have an agenda?? Again, you really dont have a
clue do you?



The fact that you make such a big deal out of it just
shows how weak your overall position is.

The only thing Im claiming is that the archeology backs up the
historical
accuracy of the Bible. If you verify the history of the Bible, it tends
to
lend accuracy to the rest of it. Many religious texts do not have
verifiable historic or archeological evidence, or prophetic predictions
that
have happened.

We're not discussing other religious texts. They're B.S. too.

Evidently we ARE discussing them.

You're
claiming that because an old set of documents accurately claimed that a
person or place existed, then it follows that the more outlandish claims
(like talking snakes and donkeys, for example) should be treated with more
confidence. (In your case, foot-kissing reverance.) It doesn't work that
way. Jupiter exists. I don't believe there's a computer named HAL up there
screwing around with a guy named Dave. Or will be. And if there ever is an
instance of that, I'm sure not going to consider Stanley Kubrick to be
some
sort of prophet.

When archeology and historical data back up what is stated in the Bible,
then the credibility of the Bible is made more and more sure. What would it
take for you? Digging up Adam and Eve? That probably wouldnt do it for you
either. When you realize science is imperfect, but as it progresses, more
and more of the Bible is shown to be correct, maybe you would open your
eyes.


Now, if the book had made some
unambiguous reference to something that was unknowable to the people
of
the
time, that might be something. And none of this Nostradamus stuff that
can
mean anything about anyone at anytime.

Actually the Bible predicted the restoration of Israel, which did take
place
back in the 1940s.
The people in Biblical times would not have understood that prophecy.

Actually, the Jews don't agree with you. I'm going to have to go with them
on this, it being their religion and language and all. Interpret however
you
like. They're the experts, and they're still waiting.

Still waiting? What do you mean they dont agree? Site references?

The Arabs don't agree
with you either. As a matter of fact, you're distinctly in the minority
here. You revel in that, though...don't you.

Ad hoc attacks again. Why dont you give yourself some credibility and act
like an adult?

Besides, some people believe
that particular prophecy was fulfilled in the book of Joshua. Which again
points out that any religious text so vague as to permit thousands of
interpretations is pretty much worthless. It's Nostradomus all over again.
No thank you.

Opinion again.


Archaeology and _The Adventure of Tom Sawyer_ line up. That doesn't
make
it
a science textbook.

No but it would lend itself to the historical accuracy of the times in
which
the story was placed.

Then we tend to agree on something, although IIRC there are
geographical/nameplace errors in the Bible. Only natural, since it isn't
entirely a document written contemporary with the times and events as it
claims to be.

site references?


Aside from that, as far as the issue of how long man has been here,
well...the Bible is clearly at odds with archaeology. Tell me, oh
Elusive
One, since the world is only 6,000 years old, just when did the
Noachian
Flood occur? It ought to be easy to figure, what with all of the
"begats"
and so on in the Bible. Or just make a guess.

Ill answer you if you will answer this.

Who says you get to make the rules? Be courteous and answer the question.

Courteous? You wish me to be curteous and you get to be as mean spirited as
you wish to be? If you want courteous, I think you might follow your own
advice sir.

I'm not going to play games like you have with some other posters. It's
fine
for them; it's not my style.

Ill make any rules I want to, as you do sir.


How old is the oldest known living
tree?

IIRC, it's a bristlecone pine named Methuselah, somewhere in California.
There used to an older one that was cut down some time ago. But they all
fall in the 5,000 year range, which is clearly where you're heading with
this. Namely, nothing living can be older than the flood, correct? Just go
ahead and say it. Since I know that's where we're headed, I'll just cut
you
off and save bandwidth. The oldest living "organism" is more like what
we're
looking for. Google for "mojave creosote bush" for something that's
pushing
12,000 years. Some say it's closer to 7,500 years old. Either way, it's
still a problem for anyone who believes the earth is 6,000 years old. Or
Google "box huckleberry" and learn about a plant that's 13,000 years old.
Or
Google "spore amber bee oldest". That's 30,000,000. You could also Google
"oldest living bacteria" and find some that are 250,000,000 years old.
It's
still being reviewed, looking for possible contamination, etc. And I can
hear you laughing from here.

I looked these up, and I see words like "think" and "believe" and "assume"
etc. This sounds an awful lot like speculation to me. I didnt find anything
to back up these claims.
The bacteria you mention actually live in water so...... And the spores
they found, obviously wouldnt be destroyed as other plants would by a flood.
Then you have the problem of the claims of the age of the items these spores
were found it. Its really speculation.


It's your turn. According to Ussher's chronology, when did the flood
occur?

Better yet, why don't we take this to an appropriate forum? I don't want
the
good netizens of r.c.c. plonking me for this. Let's take it to alt.atheism
or talk.origins where it belongs. That is, if you're even going to bother
responding.

I dont bother going in there, because it serves no purpose but to bash
Christians and their beliefs. I am just responding to the posts in here
that deserve to be challenged and called to account. There is a big double
standard in this ng which seems to allow the ungodly to run rampant, while
those of the Christian faith are belittled, bashed, and called names.
B


.

Relevant Pages

  • Utah route assistance
    ... Bryce Canyon NP ... (continuing east on Utah 24 thru) Capitol Reef NP ... I dont see anything that cuts through Canyonlands. ... missing on my map. ...
    (rec.bicycles.rides)
  • Re: New Song -Daniel
    ... I dont so it isnt. ... I dont know if you're interested in lyrics for your song or if they will ... I'm a rocker born to rock out ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: alias for a variable
    ... I dont want to waste memoryso i am ... If I use pointer I ... do a lot of mechanical changes(stuct to pointer to stuct) in one ... A rock is not a fact. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: OT Shit that IS expensive ( rock Tickets)
    ... you dont have to get ready. ... Probably wont bother our american readers as they dont do real rock bands ... know your still missing the king of American Rock Liberace:o) ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: poor righteous teachers
    ... so deeply is a quality that we should all posses. ... I dont know about ... No's new album "Exodus Into Unheard Rhythms". ... San Quinn - The Rock: ...
    (rec.music.hip-hop)