Answers to Creationist Attacks on C-14 Dating

[_Themis]

How are you to observe what God may have done 10 million years ago to adjust to course of genetic changes?
Or 250 million?
Why do you think God making a change must involve breaking a law of physics?

Natural selection would not be natural if God has to get involved. I assume God would not be involved in what we see, by say genetic engineering, simply because it would be very inefficient and in many cases poorly done. We are moving fast to being able to do some interesting things, so why wouldn't God do a much better, and significantly faster, job then humans are now able to do? A better theistic view to me seems to be God starting the process like the Big bang and then letting things happen on there own afterwards.

[_Maksutov]

The point, Nipper, is that essays against evolution were not written by Paul. These are modern Christian responses to a growing secular culture in America. They were the "religious right" of their day, promoting Prohibition long after it had been revealed as a social engineering disaster. They were also the enemies of Roosevelt's New Deal and friendly to domestic and foreign fascists.

I can appreciate that traditional Christians would have felt threatened. But institutionalizing antiscience attitudes and glorifying ignorance is a failed strategy. It depends on gross dishonesty and hypocrisy and that is what we have seen. It's very much similar to the Iranian revolution which installed the Ayatollah. You don't speak for Christians or Christianity, just for you, so your invocation of authorities from scripture or prayer are no better than anyone else's. You're guessing. Which is okay, but while you have time to cut and paste and guess, somehow you don't have time or energy to learn about geology, astronomy, biology, even to the level of a sixth grader. I sincerely hope you are not the product of a public school. I think you're certainly intelligent but suffering from mis- or under-education. You have an opportunity at this time of your life to correct some of that; you have some good classic sources available online to start with. It's up to you.

[Guest]

The point, Nipper, is that essays against evolution were not written by Paul. These are modern Christian responses to a growing secular culture in America. They were the "religious right" of their day, promoting Prohibition long after it had been revealed as a social engineering disaster. They were also the enemies of Roosevelt's New Deal and friendly to domestic and foreign fascists.

I can appreciate that traditional Christians would have felt threatened. But institutionalizing antiscience attitudes and glorifying ignorance is a failed strategy. It depends on gross dishonesty and hypocrisy and that is what we have seen. It's very much similar to the Iranian revolution which installed the Ayatollah. You don't speak for Christians or Christianity, just for you, so your invocation of authorities from scripture or prayer are no better than anyone else's. You're guessing. Which is okay, but while you have time to cut and paste and guess, somehow you don't have time or energy to learn about geology, astronomy, biology, even to the level of a sixth grader. I sincerely hope you are not the product of a public school. I think you're certainly intelligent but suffering from mis- or under-education. You have an opportunity at this time of your life to correct some of that; you have some good classic sources available online to start with. It's up to you.

There is no way to compare traditional biblical Christianity with Muslim fanaticism. Muslims move here and Christians don't generally move there for most obvious reasons. And the Founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger --- was an elitist, fascist loving, modernist. YOU don't speak for Christians at all. I use God's Word as the Standard for Christian thought and not anything unsupported by or contrary to the Bible. I'm not perfect, but I'm not without parameters. I am a product of the public school system, and as a result, I found myself without much direction when I could have used some real guidance early on. In the 50's the churches, schools, and parents worked together, but in the 60's it fast became separate ways. The parents don't go to church and don't want to have their children punished by educators. The public schools are aloof and cannot now interact with churches. And the churches are pretty much uncomfortable lecturing anyone for fear of reprisals.

[_Maksutov]

The point, Nipper, is that essays against evolution were not written by Paul. These are modern Christian responses to a growing secular culture in America. They were the "religious right" of their day, promoting Prohibition long after it had been revealed as a social engineering disaster. They were also the enemies of Roosevelt's New Deal and friendly to domestic and foreign fascists.

I can appreciate that traditional Christians would have felt threatened. But institutionalizing antiscience attitudes and glorifying ignorance is a failed strategy. It depends on gross dishonesty and hypocrisy and that is what we have seen. It's very much similar to the Iranian revolution which installed the Ayatollah. You don't speak for Christians or Christianity, just for you, so your invocation of authorities from scripture or prayer are no better than anyone else's. You're guessing. Which is okay, but while you have time to cut and paste and guess, somehow you don't have time or energy to learn about geology, astronomy, biology, even to the level of a sixth grader. I sincerely hope you are not the product of a public school. I think you're certainly intelligent but suffering from mis- or under-education. You have an opportunity at this time of your life to correct some of that; you have some good classic sources available online to start with. It's up to you.

There is no way to compare traditional biblical Christianity with Muslim fanaticism. Muslims move here and Christians don't generally move there for most obvious reasons. And the Founder of Planed Parenthood, Margaret Sanger --- was an elitist, fascist loving, modernist. YOU don't speak for Christians at all. I use God's Word as the Standard for Christian thought and not anything unsupported by or contrary to the Bible. I'm not perfect, but I'm not without parameters. I am a product of the public school system, and as a result, I found myself without much direction when I could have used some real guidance early on. In the 50's the churches, schools, and parents worked together, but in the 60's it fast became separate ways. The parents don't go to church and don't want to have their children punished by educators. The public schools are aloof and cannot now interact with churches. And the churches are pretty much uncomfortable lecturing anyone for fear of reprisals.

I just did compare it and showed how the reactions were similar.

Margaret Sanger was wrong about eugenics, so were a lot of other people at the time. Even Teddy Roosevelt.

If you went to public school, either it was a poor school or you refused to learn. That was a mistake you can still rectify. Or you can defend your ignorance in the name of God. Your choice.

[_LittleNipper]

There is no way to compare traditional biblical Christianity with Muslim fanaticism. Muslims move here and Christians don't generally move there for most obvious reasons. And the Founder of Planed Parenthood, Margaret Sanger --- was an elitist, fascist loving, modernist. YOU don't speak for Christians at all. I use God's Word as the Standard for Christian thought and not anything unsupported by or contrary to the Bible. I'm not perfect, but I'm not without parameters. I am a product of the public school system, and as a result, I found myself without much direction when I could have used some real guidance early on. In the 50's the churches, schools, and parents worked together, but in the 60's it fast became separate ways. The parents don't go to church and don't want to have their children punished by educators. The public schools are aloof and cannot now interact with churches. And the churches are pretty much uncomfortable lecturing anyone for fear of reprisals.

I just did compare it and showed how the reactions were similar.

Margaret Sanger was wrong about eugenics, so were a lot of other people at the time. Even Teddy Roosevelt.

If you went to public school, either it was a poor school or you refused to learn. That was a mistake you can still rectify. Or you can defend your ignorance in the name of God. Your choice.

And you may defend your ignorance and call it whatever you wish. You've proven even less than the Bible. Theory is still theory, and if observable it is no longer theory but fact. The theory of evolution is still just a theory---- but they do like to drop the word theory so they don't have to present the parameters with every discussion. Teddy Roosevelt didn't believe in abortion and he didn't become one of America's best loved/liked Presidents by being a woose
Theodore Roosevelt
“I can do one of two things. I can be President of the United States or I can control Alice Roosevelt. (His 19-year-old daughter.) I cannot possibly do both.”

As for Franklin D. Roosevelt, they were still teaching (into the 70's at least) in Social Studies and US History that the reason that the Depression ran for 10 years was likely because of the New Deal. The only thing that ended the Depression (directly caused by GREED in the stock market and buying nearly everything on credit) was World War II. And the one thing we can "thank" FDR for was that he missed every signal that the Japs would attack without provocation! I do respect him though. He tried -- but too much, too little, too late. Both England and America could have ended World War II before it started. They simply didn't want to start a war, and actually allowed Hitler run a muck at the start by trying to appease him! If they had done the Christian thing, they would have helped the Czechs and assisted the Jews (I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you).

Sorry, but I see what America IS and I saw what it was, and I observed how it got here. That is the blessing and curse of being a Baby-boomer. And the technology of today is entirely built upon the technology of the past and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but the fulfillment of practical need coupled with a spirit to imagine a better way of doing things. Progress has more to do with the Christian work ethic than hedonistic pleasure seeking.

[Guest]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017 ... sh-museum/

Researchers have reverse-engineered the ancient ritual practice that created one of the British Museum's most important artifacts—the Jericho Skull—revealing the face of a man whose remains were decorated and venerated some 9,500 years ago.

[_spotlight]

God warns against forgetting the Flood (in the Bible) 2 thousand years before it (the Flood) became passe'.

Thanks for proving the Bible is false. I wish those who hold onto a modified faith would see what the Bible truly teaches as clearly as you do.

DNA issues will even occur randomly during the life-cycle of organisms, so I don't see how anyone can be honest in such appraisals. There are far too many individuals who simply listen to each other lecture as Carl Sagan without a wick of real comprehension of all the shortcoming secular "science" possesses and none of the enlightenment God does reveal.

Yes we are only pulling each others leg about understanding DNA. We condemn people and clear people of the crime of murder based upon DNA evidence that we don't understand.

If we could only all follow your example then we'd truly be ignorant of any understanding of DNA and go back to our shallow cultural religious heritage.

[_The CCC]

LittleNipper.

NO! A fact is just an observation. Our sun is an observation. That is a fact. A Theory is the best explanation we currently have of that fact. That our sun is a giant ball of super-heated gas is the Theory. There is no collection of observations and/or theories that comes close to explaining a global flood during any time in human history.
SEE http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[_huckelberry]

How are you to observe what God may have done 10 million years ago to adjust to course of genetic changes?
Or 250 million?
Why do you think God making a change must involve breaking a law of physics?

Natural selection would not be natural if God has to get involved. I assume God would not be involved in what we see, by say genetic engineering, simply because it would be very inefficient and in many cases poorly done. We are moving fast to being able to do some interesting things, so why wouldn't God do a much better, and significantly faster, job then humans are now able to do? A better theistic view to me seems to be God starting the process like the Big bang and then letting things happen on there own afterwards.

I thought natural selection involved the idea that creatures better adapted to survive in their enviroment had more surviving children than creatures not so adapted.

Themis, I gather your main question is about efficiency. I have already stated I believe God created the pattern of events with the basic structures of things in the beginning. This would include atomic structure making possible the chemical combinations of which life consists. That is the traditional Christian belief. It is also the traditional Christian belief that God is not locked out of the world so may apply force to change events.

God being eternal has no shortage of time and no reason to rush the process of life's development along. I see no reason to think that Gods love did not include dinosaurs. I suspect God was happy to give them their time. At least I have no reason not to think so.

[_Maksutov]

If we could only all follow your example then we'd truly be ignorant of any understanding and go back to our shallow cultural religious heritage.

Fixed it for you.

What Nipper and Z-Man, Franktalk and some others need is a time machine so they can be transported back to the good old days before electricity, vaccines and the printing press. There would be less technology and high living standards to distract them from their spiritual adventures.