Msg # 242 Date: 12 Jun 92 05:28:23 To: Rusty Ward Subj: Re: God _ EID:10ca 14358b87 MSGI

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Msg # 242 Date: 12 Jun 92 05:28:23 From: Jeff Jones To: Rusty Ward Subj: Re: God ____________________________________________________________________________ EID:10ca 14358b87 MSGID: 1:202/323 2a3878df PID: Telegard 2.7.b6 More ICR BS? Fine. *** Quoting Rusty Ward to Jeremy Sammons *** RW> man, Right? Well then Explain the Exsistence of Dinosaur and RW> Hman Footprints RW> found in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, RW> Illinois, and in RW> other U.S. Locations. And in Arizona and Rhodesia, there are Recently a dinosaur was discovered which, when running, leaves human-looking footprints; but not nearly as human-looking as those found in Africa made by Lucy. Foolishly, the creation-scientists, wanting desperately to believe that dinosaurs walked with man only a few thousand years ago, saw what they wanted to see, even though a close examination clearly shows they were not made by humans. RW> pictures of RW> dinosaurs on cave walls, drawn by man. Explain that. To me they don't look like dinosaurs. To Erich van Danniken some bas reliefs in South America made by ancient civilizations look like astronauts; does this prove aliens helped build the South American pyramids? RW> 3. An ancient mayan relief sculpture of a bird resembling the RW> Archaeopteryx RW> has been found. This indicates a descrepancy of about 130 Similarly, this could represent anything, not necessarily archaeopteryx. Just because some creationists see it does not mean that it flew over South America recently. If the geological column is so flawed, why is it that there are no dinosaurs dated to be only a few thousand years old? Or homo sapiens that are hundreds of millions of years old? RW> 4. June 1, 1968, William Meister in Utah found the fossils of RW> several RW> Trilobites in the fossilized, sandaled footprint of a man! But I can think of many explanations for this ranging from perhaps it only _appeared_ to be a sandalled footprint to so what if it was a sandalled footprint? It could have easily been made millions of years after the trilobites were fossilized. Again, where are all the trilobite fossils dating from only a few thousand years or sandalled feet dating millions of years old? On the subject of radioactive dating, allow me to quote a collegue: +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | CONCORDANCE AMONG DIFFERENT RADIOMETRIC DATING METHODS | R +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ E | GEOGRAPHIC DATED AGE | F | LOCATION | ROCK MINERAL DATED | DATING METHOD | (error <5%) | S +-------------+---------------------+---------------+---------------+ | NORTHERN | STRATA OVERLYING | FISSION TRACK | 2,800,000 | 1 | ETHIOPIA | A. afarensis FIND | K-Ar | 2,700,000 | 1 +-------------+---------------------+---------------+---------------+ | REDSTONE NH | GRANITE ZIRCON | U(238)-Pb | 187,000,000 | 2 | | ZIRCON | U(235)-Pb | 184,000,000 | 2 | | ZIRCON | Th-Pb | 190,000,000 | 2 | | BIOTITE | K-Ar | 182,000,000 | 2 | | BIOTITE | Rb-Sr | 185,000,000 | 2 +-------------+---------------------+---------------+---------------+ | SPRUCE | GRANITE ZIRCON | U(238)-Pb | 370,000,000 | 2 | PINE NC | ZIRCON | U(235)-Pb | 375,000,000 | 2 | | BIOTITE | K-Ar | 349,000,000 | 2 | | BIOTITE | Rb-Sr | 375,000,000 | 2 +-------------+---------------------+---------------+---------------+ | ROMTELAND | PEGMATITE URANINITE | U(238)-Pb | 890,000,000 | 2 | NORWAY | URANINITE | U(235)-Pb | 892,000,000 | 2 | | URANINITE | Th-Pb | 900,000,000 | 2 +-------------+---------------------+---------------+---------------+ | BLACK | URANINITE | U(238)-Pb | 1,610,000,000 | 2 | HILLS SD | URANINITE | U(235)-Pb | 1,615,000,000 | 2 | | MICROCLINE| Rb-Sr | 1,630,000,000 | 2 | | MUSCOVITE | K-Ar | 1,590,000,000 | 2 +------------ +---------------------+---------------+---------------+ | NORTHERN | PEGMATITE MUSCOVITE | K-Ar | 2,480,000,000 | 2 | MINNESOTA | MUSCOVITE | Rb-Sr | 2,500,000,000 | 2 +-------------+---------------------+---------------+---------------+ | COOKE | PEGMATITE URANINITE | U(238)-Pb | 2,600,000,000 | 2 | CITY MT | URANINITE | U(235)-Pb | 2,640,000,000 | 2 | | MICA | Rb-Sr | 2,750,000,000 | 2 | | MICA | K-Ar | 2,500,000,000 | 2 +-------------+---------------------+---------------+---------------+ | WESTERN | AMITSOQ GNEISS | Rb-Sr (ISO) | 3,700,000,000 | 3 | GREENLAND | GNEISS | Lu-Hf (ISO) | 3,550,000,000 | 3 | | GNEISS | Pb-Pb (ISO) | 3,800,000,000 | 3 | | GNEISS | U(238)-Pb | 3,650,000,000 | 3 | | GNEISS | Th-Pb | 3,650,000,000 | 3 +-------------+---------------------+---------------+---------------+ REFERENCES: 1. M. Ruse, 1982, DARWINISM DEFENDED, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA; p. 318. 2. E.A. Olson, 1978: "Dating, Relative and Absolute" ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 15th Edition, Macropaedia Volume 5, p. 507. 3. G.B. Dalrymple, 1982, FEDERATION PROCEEDINGS (of the Federation Of American Societies for Experimental Biology) 42(13):3022-3042 (OCT 1983) Yep, sure looks like this radioactive dating is all screwed up, huh? Continued next post... --- * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS 619-697-8872 San Diego CA 9600v32 (1:202/323) SEEN-BY: 13/13 133/2 135/41 151/100 119 1000 1003 363/320 369/35 373/2 SEEN-BY: 374/1 12 14 17 98 302 PATH: 202/323 309 1 209/209 13/13 151/1003 374/1 14 Msg # 243 Date: 12 Jun 92 05:32:38 From: Jeff Jones To: Rusty Ward Subj: Re: Faults with Evolution Part 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ EID:10ca 14358b88 MSGID: 1:202/323 2a3878e0 PID: Telegard 2.7.b6 *** Quoting Rusty Ward to Jeremy Sammons *** RW> Processes Which Indicate A Young Earth RW> RW> 1. The Earths Magnetic Field - The Earths Magnetic Field has You're losin' it, Russ. I wrote a reply to you on all these points not too long ago. Are you just throwing them out without reading them, or are you not reading the replies? But let's move on to more evidence for radioactive and other forms of dating. Another quote: You've heard the old expression, "If it LOOKS like a duck, WADDLES like a duck, and QUACKS like a duck, it probably IS a duck," right? Let's look at the fossil record, see if it "looks, waddles & quacks" like evolution: The FOSSIL RECORD as it is found in the GEOLOGIC COLUMN reveals that... BACTERIA/BLUE-GREEN ALGAE appeared over 3,000,000,000 years ago; GREEN ALGAE appeared about 1,300,000,000 years ago; MULTICELLULAR GREEN ALGAE appeared about 900,000,000 years ago; INVERTEBRATES appeared about 700,000,000 years ago; JAWLESS FISH appeared about 600,000,000 years ago; MOSSES appeared about 430,000,000 years ago; JAWED FISH appeared about 400,000,000 years ago; FERNS appeared about 360,000,000 years ago; AMPHIBIANS appeared about 350,000,000 years ago; REPTILES appeared about 320,000,000 years ago; GYMNOSPERMS appeared about 260,000,000 years ago; MAMMALS appeared about 220,000,000 years ago; BIRDS appeared about 160,000,000 years ago; ANGIOSPERMS appeared about 100,000,000 years ago; PRIMATES appeared appeared about 60,000,000 years ago; HOMINIDS appeared about 20,000,000 years ago. Evolution explains this! How does "special creation" (particularly creation a la verbatim literal Genesis) explain this? Moreover, as we move up through the geologic column (starting in the preCambrian) looking for vertebrate ----- fossils we first find FISH, /|\ then next we find AMPHIBIAN-LIKE FISH, | then next we find FISH-LIKE AMPHIBIANS, | then next we find AMPHIBIANS, (over then next we find AMPHIBIAN-LIKE REPTILES, 400 then next we find REPTILES, million then next we find MAMMAL-LIKE REPTILES, year then next we find REPTILE-LIKE MAMMALS, period) then next we find MAMMALS, | then next we find PRIMATES, | then next we find HOMINOIDS, \|/ then next we find HOMINIDS, ----- and finally we find MAN. In addition, phylogenetic charts of inferred evolutionary relationships made on the basis of physical morphology, and on the basis of DNA base sequences, and on the basis of protein amino acid sequences all juxta- pose nearly identically with each other, and all correspond with what we find in the fossil record! Boy, is that synergistic empirical corroboration, or what?! Evolution explains all this! How does "special creation" (particularly a la verbatim literal Genesis) explain this? Do you REALLY believe (or think WE should believe) that a god *independently* created all the dif- ferent "kinds" of life on earth within several *days* of each other, [At did it in such a way as to make it "LOOK, WADDLE and QUACK" like hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution? Me, I think if it "LOOKS, WADDLES and QUACKS" like evolution! ----------------------------- Continued next post... --- * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS 619-697-8872 San Diego CA 9600v32 (1:202/323) SEEN-BY: 13/13 133/2 135/41 151/100 119 1000 1003 363/320 369/35 373/2 SEEN-BY: 374/1 12 14 17 98 302 PATH: 202/323 309 1 209/209 13/13 151/1003 374/1 14 Msg # 244 Date: 12 Jun 92 05:35:57 From: Jeff Jones To: Rusty Ward Subj: Re: God ____________________________________________________________________________ EID:10ca 14358b89 MSGID: 1:202/323 2a3878e1 PID: Telegard 2.7.b6 *** Quoting Rusty Ward to Jeremy Sammons *** RW> The Bible has been around since the dawn of time, when it was RW> first beeing RW> written. And it has NO ERRORS! Really? Gee, and after Jeremy's long posts about all the errors in the bible, too. Very well, allow me to elaborate on the errors as they pertain to evolution (quoting again): WHAT IS THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION EVENTS? GENESIS 1:1-2:3 GENESIS 2:4-2:25 EVIDENT NATURAL HISTORY ====================== ===================== ======================= ORDER OF EVENTS (DAYS) ORDER OF EVENTS ORDER OF EVENTS 1: EARTH WITHOUT FORM 1: (NO DIVISION INTO 1. STARS (12-18 WATERS DAYS) billion years ago) LIGHT (DAY) DRY, BARREN GROUND 2. SUN (about 5 DARKNESS (NIGHT) billion years ago) 3. EARTH (about 4.6 2: FIRMAMENT (SKY) 2: MIST WATERS THE billion years ago) WATERS ABOVE THE GROUND 4. LIQUID WATER (3.5 FIRMAMENT. billion years ago) 5. LIFE - BACTERIA AND 3: DRY LAND AND SEAS 3: MAN (MALE) FROM ALGAE (around 3 VEGETATION THE DUST billion years ago) 6. WORMS AND JELLYFISH 4: SUN, MOON, STARS 4: VEGETATION (about a billion (GARDEN OF EDEN) years ago) 7. JAWLESS FISH 8. MOSSES 5: WATER CREATURES 5. RIVERS 9. JAWED FISH GREAT WHALES 10. FERNS BIRDS 11. AMPHIBIANS 12. REPTILES 6: LAND ANIMALS 6. BIRDS AND BEASTS 13. GYMNOSPERMS MAN & WOMAN 14. MAMMALS 15. BIRDS 7: REST 7. WOMAN FROM 16. ANGIOSPERMS MAN'S RIB 17. WHALES 18. PRIMATES 19. HUMANS Genesis Creation accounts do seem to contradict each other in what they plainly say regarding the SEQUENCE OF CREATION EVENTS, and they both are contradicted by the evident sequence of events in the natural history of the universe, earth and life as corroborated by a great preponderance of current scientific knowledge. Does this "prove" anything? No, it does not. But does this provide reasonable grounds for being skeptical of the claims of biblical inerrancy regarding even scientific matters? Yes, in my feeble, fallible thinking, it does, you betcha!! ---------------------- All quote reprinted with permission of the original author, Frank Lovell. --- * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS 619-697-8872 San Diego CA 9600v32 (1:202/323) SEEN-BY: 13/13 133/2 135/41 151/100 119 1000 1003 363/320 369/35 373/2 SEEN-BY: 374/1 12 14 17 98 302 PATH: 202/323 309 1 209/209 13/13 151/1003 374/1 14

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank