Jack the Bodiless

Not an origin: a stage along the way.
Lack of transitionals = creationist fantasy.

Insistence that they do exist = statement of fact.
Creationist quote-mangling. I note that you deliberately snipped the following: ...(there are various ways of doing this, but there are obscure words like "isotope" involved, so I won't confuse you further)...
I guess you'll have to learn about radiometric dating after all.
What sort of example?

Contemporary: speciation.

Fossil record: too many to list, pick one!
...So you do believe that the Bible might be random beetle droppings similar to Hebrew and Greek letters?
...Who designed everything in the evolutionary "Tree of Life" sequence, not the Genesis sequence.
COMMON DESCENT produced the similarity.

You've noticed that kids tend to resemble their parents, right? Even though each child also has dozens of new mutations too?

RGD

Alas, I am not. Does he really believe that? But wouldn't that be a case of God removing free-will? And isn't free-will supposed to be something that God approves of?

I also note that WT is incapable of actually producing any physical evidence that the flood occured. Or at least none that he has presented.

Lysimachus

Hi guys, sorry about the delay. As it happens to be, my post is still under development. So please be patient.

And no, I haven't failed to answer anyone's questions. The only thing I've failed to do is type as fast as I would like in order to keep up with the amount of people that are demanding answers.

And to Jack the Bodiless,

You're not the only one demanding questions, and you're not the only one to answer regarding Baumgarbler, so excercise a little patience.

JonF

Yes, indeed the one to which Willowtree linked is more about geology. It includes a reprint of "Radiometric geochronology reappraised", Creation Res. Soc. Quart. 16: 102-129, 147, which is pretty well demolished in Geochronology kata John Woodmorappe and the linked articles. Interestingly Schimmrich does not mention my favorite example of Woodmorappe's "misinterpretations" (the kindest possible term): the Pahrump Group Diabase being dated at "no less than 34 billion years", Henke's account of which has to be read to be believed; see Woodmorappe Can't Read Rb-Sr Diagrams. I think it's within "fair use" for me to post the diagram to which Henke refers (this is a copy of the original, taken from "How Old is the Earth: A Response to 'Scientific' Creationism", G. Brent Dalrymple, from “Evolutionists Confront Creationists�, Awbrey, F. and Thwaites, W. (eds.). Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, AAAS 1, Part 3, California, AAAS. pp. 66-131.):



Dalrymple's caption is "Figure 6: The Rb-Sr “isochron� from the diabase of the Pahrump Group, interpreted by Woodmorappe (134) as giving a radiometric age of 34 billion years. The lines are actually “reference� isochrons, drawn by Faure and Powell (50) to illustrate the extreme scatter of the data. This scatter shows clearly that the sample has been an open system and that its age cannot be determined from these data. Radiometric ages on related formations indicate that the Pahrump diabase is about 1.2 billion years old. Original data from Wasserburg and others (130)."

Lysimachus

Jack the Bodiless,

Of course, the answer is a resounding YES. If you are able to prove to me that it may fictional, or that there is no possibility that the account can be true, then yes. That is the way we should be with everything, right?

RBH

Which is to say Lysimachus wants proof not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but proof beyond all doubt. That it may be fictional is easy to show ("prove"?), but proof of "no possibility" doesn't exist in the real world: no human can claim to have proved anything beyond all doubt. It is possible that it all might have been created last Tuesday. Therefore by using the phrase "there is no possibility", Lysimachus has insulated himself against the possibility of concluding that he is wrong about Genesis. That is not in fact "the way we should be with everything" because we never ever have proof beyond all doubt.

RBH

Clivedurdle

It is fascinating that out of 24 customer reviews 23 say it is brilliant and only one calls it fiction.....

Harry Bosch

Have you discovered the dominate scientic theory for how seashells are found on mountain tops. {Hint: They did not "land there".} It amazes me how people can debate an issue and not all of the sides.

Lysimachus

RBH,

I find your response to be quite saddening to say the least. My answer was more definite to Jack than the answer I received. I said "If you are able to prove to me that it may fictional", but you attacked the sentence AFTER this one, and failed to see the OR. How can you be this way in good concience? I am shocked that even after saying YES, you still come back and attack the way I said YES! Have you or any of the others here said "YES" this way to my original question? I cannot recall receiving a complete satisfactory answer. But have I kept haunting you about it? And here EVEN AFTER I say YES, I still get attacked!

I'm abhored with how you go about these things.

RBH

This is Lysimachus's original statement:The use of "prove" is what I was responding to. It clearly applies to both clauses: one must prove something to Lysimachus. I interpreted the clause beginning with "or" being of the nature of a subtitle, a definition and elaboration of the primary clause "prove ... that it may be fictional, ...". But that's the problem: "proof" has meaning in logic, math, and the law, but not in science.

RBH