The Statler Waldorf Recovery Room

[Thor]

[Statler Waldorf]
Well as far as fossils go. If a global flood did occur the fossil record is exactly what we would expect to find. Creation research has shown that an event like this can cause accerlated radio-metric decay, so the fossils buried earlest would under go this accerlated effect longer than the animals buried later. So we would expect the animals towards the bottom of the fossil column to radio-metrically date to be older than the ones higher up which they do.

SW likes to ask if every youtube video we post has been "peer reviewed". Well, has this so-called "creation research" been peer reviewed? If so, by whom? And can you show us where this peer reviewed research was published?

I'm betting you can't. In which case, I'm calling this assertion about "accelerated radiometric decay" to be utter bullshit.

[Ace Otana]

@ DarkestofAngels, I agree with you completely. Yesterday I just wasn't in the mood.

I must admit, SW's beliefs are quite funny.

[Sam]

Well as far as fossils go. If a global flood did occur the fossil record is exactly what we would expect to find. Creation research has shown that an event like this can cause accerlated radio-metric decay, so the fossils buried earlest would under go this accerlated effect longer than the animals buried later. So we would expect the animals towards the bottom of the fossil column to radio-metrically date to be older than the ones higher up which they do.

I'm sorry Statler, but this is all completely baseless with no evidence available in any reliable source (Out of courtesy I just spent thirty minutes searching). As previously pointed out, the fossil and sedimentary record contain absolutely no traces of a global flood. If you still believe they do; I'd need to ask you to specify exactly how.

Now, these claims regarding radiometric decay; so not only do you believe that decay rates change over time but you also hold that the vary when exposed to large volumes of water? I have to ask what mechanism this creation 'research' has suggested in this theory. Unfortunately, after a number of years reading and studying geology, physics and other pertinent subjects I have never heard anything of the sort and therefore would doubt the reliability of this work.

Evolutionists claim that the fossil record moves from simple to complex as you move up, this is actually inaccurate. "Simpleness" is an arbratrary measurement and a lot of animals are thought to be simpler just because of their placing in the record like reptiles vs. birds. Are reptiles really more simple than birds? Not really. Another problem with this view is that many of the animals that appear to be morphologically simple are actually genetrically complex. Some species of amoebas have been found to have just as much DNA as humans.

Rather the fossil record is best explained by mobility and intelligence. The less intelligent and less mobile animals would be buried first. We see this. The more mobile but less intelligent animals would be next, small mammels and dinosaurs. We would expect that very few intelligent and mobile creatures would even be fossilized because they woudl excape the initial sediment flows and their bodies would then float to the surface and never be fossilized (i.e. humans and greater apes). Almost all cases of fossilizatoin indicate a quick and surprising buriel. A dinosaur fossil was actually recently discovered that was in the process of giving birth. The dinosaur tracks we find all appear to be fleeing something. All of this would indicate a global catastrophe.

'Simpleness' as you refer to it is often used when discussing fossil progression, in many cases with regards the development of more complex features or development within species. In all the cases I've seen this has been correct, while I don't claim this infalible it is supported by all the evidence I have seen. I think Oro, covered this amzingly well in his post though so I'll leave it there.

As for plate tectonics. There are two branches of thought on this subject in the Creationist camp. One group actually does not believe in true plate tectonics and continental drift (whcih there are secular scientists who deny it as well).

Actually the theory of plate tectonics is well established in the field and is supported by evidence from the fossil record, current plate motion measurements, tomographic imaging of fossil slabs in the mantle and orogenic geology. The (relatively) few opposing theories have yet to explain the current tectonic situation and gain said supporting evidence, in terms of mainstream contining work, plate tectonics is almost unanimously accepted.

They believe all the animals would have been wiped out on these continents and then they would have just been re-populated by animals using ice bridges during the Ice Age. The second group believes in catestrophic plate techtonics. There is a computer model built that shows how the runaway subduction of negatively buoyant ocean lithosphere into the Earth’s mantle could happen in a very short period of time due to the flood. I tend to lean towards this second group because it solves the "not enough water" problem and helps to also explain the animals we see on different continents.

Unfortunately Statler there is no evidence for the rapid subduction of vast setions of oceanic lithosphere within the past '6,000-7,000' years. Recently I've been examinig a vast array of seismic tomographic images of the earths interior so allow me to share this with you; We can see the remanants of subducted crust within the mantle and there is nothing to suggest that abnormal sections of cold material were subducted into the mantle within recent geological time.

Also, the fact that we see animal on different continents is explained in a much clearer fashion by the theory of plate tectonic and the formation of 'supercontinents' whereby large landmasses were once connected allowing animals and plants to move between them. Surely you would accept this makes more sense than the oceans freezing during a short '1000 year' ice age?

As for ice cores, what is actually observed in ice cores is a very clear history for the last few thousand years. However, once you get past that point the ice starts to lose it's obvious layers and appears all "squished" together. So secular scientists just assume the annual accumulation thicknesses still apply and keep on counting the years through this portion of the ice. The creation looks at this and believes the majority of the ice prior to a few thousand years was deposited rather quickly and that would account for the apparent absence of "annual" layers. Again, it's two difference interpretations for the same observation.

Creationists beleive a lot of rapid speciation has occured in the last 6,000 years (hence why 30 million different species of animals did not need to be taken onto the Ark), but not the entire evolutionary model that involves common descent.

You really did start out well here; the ice in lower core sections appears 'squished' - almost as if there is a large ammount of ice on top of it? Ice that forms in this manner is formed on an annual basis from the compaction of snow to ice so rough thicknesses are distinguishable even in this compacted ice. Further more, pollen, foraminfearn and other indicators can be extracted from these cores and used to date the various sections which is concilliatory with the dates given.

Cheers

Sam

[orogenicman]

The original Hebrew makes it very clear that the stories in the Old Testament of the Bible were written as actual history so I interpret them that way.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...824AA6nhQm

Most Jews do not read the Bible literally. There is no dogma in Judaism. Judaism is a religion of action and proper behavior, not belief.

In Judaism, beliefs flow from behavior, while in Christianity, behavior flows from beliefs. The Jewish tradition doesn't ask us to believe in doing good, or even to feel good, before actually doing good. We're supposed to do it anyway.

While Jews and Christians might agree on the essentials of a golden rule of love of God and neighbor, Judaism, unlike Christianity, is less a religion of correct doctrine and belief and more a religion of communal practices and behavior. That does not mean that anything goes in Judaism when it comes to matters of belief or that there are no behavioral (ritual and ethical) expectations in Christianity. And that is where being an educated member of one's religious community becomes relevant. The Book of Proverbs reminds us: "Zeal without knowledge is not good."

When Nobel Prize winner Isaac Rabi was asked to what he attributed his success, he said he always remembered that every day when he came home from school his mother would ask him, "Did you ask any good questions today?" What he imbibed was that we ultimately gain more from questions than answers. Answers bring a subject to a close; questions open us up to ever more profound and deeper understanding. That perhaps more than anything else may explain Jewish genius. From youth we explore the Torah, Talmud and commentaries with inquisitive minds encouraged to ask even when no clear response is in sight. To do otherwise would be to imply that our faith cannot withstand scrutiny, that our commitment to God is so tenuous that it is afraid of critical analysis.
In Judaism, we are taught to think, to ask questions, and to be skeptical; we are encouraged not to accept things on faith, but to look for proof. This constitutes one of the biggest differences between Judaism and Christianity. While faith plays a vital role, Judaism places great emphasis on learning and education.