Brian Oakley wrote:
If you look at the word "day" as it is used in the Hebrew language in
the OT, it means in almost every instance, a literal day. So why would
we want to imagine that it would mean anything else when the Bible is
pretty clear.

How could a "literal day" possibly exist before God
created the Sun on the 4th "day"???
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Brian Oakley wrote:

AS I wrote JB This is becoming tit for tat, and we're not likely to
accomplish much here, so I'll address one thing, and let you have the
last word, then I bow out. Unless you want to talk the research, there
isn't much point.


"The article is titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the
Higher Taxonomic Categories." The conclusion of the article, in brief,
is that design explains things that natural selection cannot.
Proceedings is a peer-reviewed publication. According to the
then-editor, the three reviewers were all faculty members of respected
universities and research institutions. The editor also stated that,
while the reviewers did not agree with the conclusions, they found
nothing scientifically invalid in the reasoning."
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intel...viewed-faq.htm

I'm not sure who the peers are who did the review, but the main thrust
of the paper is that the Cambrian period, in which differing life forms
proliferated, did not have much in the way of transitional fossils
before it happened. The life forms were too complex.

An explosion of new life forms after the Cryogenian is not terribly
surprising, given that the earth was largely in a deep freeze during the
Cryogenian.

The Ediacarian, which happened before the Cambrian, was in fact the time
when many of the basic body plans that exist today came about. It
recieved a bit of short shrift in the paper.

But what is interesting is the conclusion. There are some questions and
interesting things about the Cambrian. We don't know everything for
sure. He concludes the answer is that it must be designed. I look at it
and say thanks for the idea for new research projects.


Here's a good idea. Instead of taking peoples money and trying to get
ID insertd into schools curriculum, take that money and do good research!

Well, the research is out there. It seems to me that the darwinists
dont want to even allow their science to be scrutinized.

No conspiracy needed. Let's take another and similar issue, that of Cold
Fusion. When FLeischmann and Pons announced their discovery, a lot of
researchers flocked to reproduce thier results. They couldn't, and cold
fusion (at least at that time, was relegated to the back pages. The
internet is a haven for people who say that researchers were stymied or
discriminated against if they showed any evidence suggesting cold fusion
was real. And yet research goes on, if quietly. If someone comes up with
cold fusion, they will be a part of history.

IF I were a biologist, and IF I thought there was any chance that
Evolution wasn't real, you can bet your life I would be doing research
to find out the truth. The person who discovers that will completely
Rcck the entire scientific world to it's very core. And there are plenty
of people out there would be willing to do the research.

But the problem is that basic research that disproves evolution is just
not there. And looking at a lot of different papers and drawing a
conclusion is only step one. Now that your author has made his
conclusion - actually a hypothesis - synthesized from a number of other
papers, he has to act on it.

The main conclusion is that the complexity of Cambrian life forms is
beyond what is possible without purposful design. I would disagree,
given what happened in the ediacaran age, but disagreement is how
science moves forward.

Now they have to prove that

1. There are no transitional fossils

2. Come up with an adequate explanation of the lack of modern species in
the fossil record.

3. A "killer" would be to find anatomically identical animals along with
extinct of the same species in some provable ancient strata.


Now there is a danger in field research of item number one. Over the
years, the number of transitional fossils has grown quite a bit. The
Ediacaran and early Cambrian is a buzzing field at present, and there
may be more transitional animals to be found.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:

AS I wrote JB This is becoming tit for tat, and we're not likely to
accomplish much here, so I'll address one thing, and let you have the
last word, then I bow out. Unless you want to talk the research, there
isn't much point.


"The article is titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the
Higher Taxonomic Categories." The conclusion of the article, in brief,
is that design explains things that natural selection cannot.
Proceedings is a peer-reviewed publication. According to the
then-editor, the three reviewers were all faculty members of respected
universities and research institutions. The editor also stated that,
while the reviewers did not agree with the conclusions, they found
nothing scientifically invalid in the reasoning."
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intel...viewed-faq.htm

I'm not sure who the peers are who did the review, but the main thrust
of the paper is that the Cambrian period, in which differing life forms
proliferated, did not have much in the way of transitional fossils
before it happened. The life forms were too complex.

An explosion of new life forms after the Cryogenian is not terribly
surprising, given that the earth was largely in a deep freeze during the
Cryogenian.

The Ediacarian, which happened before the Cambrian, was in fact the time
when many of the basic body plans that exist today came about. It
recieved a bit of short shrift in the paper.

But what is interesting is the conclusion. There are some questions and
interesting things about the Cambrian. We don't know everything for
sure. He concludes the answer is that it must be designed. I look at it
and say thanks for the idea for new research projects.


Here's a good idea. Instead of taking peoples money and trying to get
ID insertd into schools curriculum, take that money and do good
research!

Well, the research is out there. It seems to me that the darwinists
dont want to even allow their science to be scrutinized.

No conspiracy needed. Let's take another and similar issue, that of Cold
Fusion. When FLeischmann and Pons announced their discovery, a lot of
researchers flocked to reproduce thier results. They couldn't, and cold
fusion (at least at that time, was relegated to the back pages. The
internet is a haven for people who say that researchers were stymied or
discriminated against if they showed any evidence suggesting cold fusion
was real. And yet research goes on, if quietly. If someone comes up with
cold fusion, they will be a part of history.

IF I were a biologist, and IF I thought there was any chance that
Evolution wasn't real, you can bet your life I would be doing research
to find out the truth. The person who discovers that will completely
Rcck the entire scientific world to it's very core. And there are plenty
of people out there would be willing to do the research.

But the problem is that basic research that disproves evolution is just
not there. And looking at a lot of different papers and drawing a
conclusion is only step one. Now that your author has made his
conclusion - actually a hypothesis - synthesized from a number of other
papers, he has to act on it.

The main conclusion is that the complexity of Cambrian life forms is
beyond what is possible without purposful design. I would disagree,
given what happened in the ediacaran age, but disagreement is how
science moves forward.

Now they have to prove that

1. There are no transitional fossils

2. Come up with an adequate explanation of the lack of modern species in
the fossil record.

3. A "killer" would be to find anatomically identical animals along with
extinct of the same species in some provable ancient strata.


Now there is a danger in field research of item number one. Over the
years, the number of transitional fossils has grown quite a bit. The
Ediacaran and early Cambrian is a buzzing field at present, and there
may be more transitional animals to be found.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

Of course if the research is repeatable, we should have rebuilt the dinos
because we would be able to create life, recreate life, and transition it as
well. We have lots of conclusion upon conclusion upon conclusion. As with
many theoretical belief systems, we construct intricate theories upon
preconceived notions.

We don't know what gravity is but we take note of it's existence. So we
construct intricate theories, but don't really know if some breakthrough
will suddenly make it all clear.

We have evidence of miracles, although they are often not repeatable nor
observable to a peer group. We have C14 dating that is corroborated by
Geological Strata theory, but Geological Strata theory is not reliable
because we assume that the Earth has been re-arranged significantly in ways
we can't always explain.

I prefer to leave some things unresolved and let others devote their lives
to their pursuits, but I take issue with God hating mad scientists seeking
to rule the world, or enabling evil. There are those who have decided that
there is no right or wrong, heaven or hell, no evil or morality and that it
would be just as well if a whole lot of other people could just be food or
step off the planet to leave more for the animals.

I leave it in God's hands though. He does what he wants.

I doubt the sincerity
of what this "might be."
You got that right. Just exercising a line of thought.


If the Soviet economy was indestructible then it's only because people
weren't. You have made my point about mad scientists, and now philosophers
and other intellectuals too, considering the world holocaust that way
overshadows the Nazi atrocities. It is interesting that it is always so
fashionable to beat Hitler, the Monster, over and over while Stalin, Uncle
Joe, and many others of his kind keeps getting a free pass.

What makes you think you wouldn't be so easily expendable as well. There
would be no need for those who demoralize and destabilize after the crisis
unless to maintain the crisis away from home. KGB made that policy. Notice
that the "Labor Union" was the Government, Employer, Management and owned
all the money, food, housing too. Call it State Capitalism or Imperialism.

If the US and the Whole World economies and environment are destroyed, it
will be because of everyone trying to get something for nothing. Not a good
thing for anyone to get something for nothing, nor to be envious.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:56:14 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Wherever men see themselves as the authority, there is potential for
corruption in any institution. My beef is not specifically with science,
but with the arrogant who seek to re-engineer everything in the world to
their own ideal, including American society and world climate, heedless
of
the damage. Is Christianity such a threat that hysterical administrators
should throw people out of school for praying, or to utter the name of
Jesus?

My beef is not specifically with religion, but with the arrogant who
seek to re-faith everything in the world to their own dogma. I won't
expand on "including" American society and world climate because that
is already explicit in "everything in the world" unless, of course,
there is some divine perspective that combines American society and
the world climate that is unshared with "everything in the world." Is
science such a threat that hysterical pulpit pounders should
excommunicate people for embracing an irrational Pi, or because
Einstein was a Jew just as much as Jesus was?

Oh to have the insight of Joseph or Daniel.

Or any number of others....

Let us take "Global Warming" for an example. The environmental storm
troopers

Less than subtle holocaust framing.

are all set to institute great changes and restrictions on the way
we do business in an attempt to "correct" climate change. This might be
a
good thing

In light of the frame built around this picture, I doubt the sincerity
of what this "might be."

if it can be done without harming the economy.

The only indestructible economy ran behind the iron curtain for 70
years. In the same span of time the western economy suffered many
plunges that wrecked it and the Commies smiled in their infinite
wisdom. So much for shedding tears over harming an economy.

Why? If you will
notice, the major environmental damage around the world exists in
impoverished nations where the population lives for the day at the
expense
of the future.

The glorification of consumption and celebration of decadence in the
enriched nations has easily eclipsed their plight.

It is a good thing to be wary for the environment if you can
afford the luxury of it.

Doing nothing is vastly more expensive. The luxury card is
narcissistic.

Climate change might be a good thing if we were
completely aware of all of the causes and results of it.

Another limp sincerity in that "might be."

But all
indications are, if the human race can't even reduce wasteful and
hazardous
use of resources, any idea of intervention beyond that could only risk
overcorrecting since anything that can actually be set into motion seems
to
have to progress to near disaster before we change course.

The Bible is a great study of the folly of man, and the only Hope for
salvation.

If the Qur'an has no hope then the gospels have been discarded in that
statement. The Torah, likewise. The Bhagavad Gita possibly
end-arounds these dismissals - but easily speaks to the issues.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:23:55 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I doubt the sincerity
of what this "might be."
You got that right. Just exercising a line of thought.

I will skip the rest of the fluff.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:23:55 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I doubt the sincerity
of what this "might be."
You got that right. Just exercising a line of thought.

I will skip the rest of the fluff.


Just when it was getting good! We were close to hearing how the Somalian
pirates believe in evolution, and I was hoping to get a Jeffrey
Dahmer/evolution connection.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Cecil Moore wrote in news:YQXHl.5960$Lr6.2997
@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:

Brian Oakley wrote:
If you look at the word "day" as it is used in the Hebrew language in
the OT, it means in almost every instance, a literal day. So why would
we want to imagine that it would mean anything else when the Bible is
pretty clear.

How could a "literal day" possibly exist before God
created the Sun on the 4th "day"???

He created light on the first day.

Gordon wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:YQXHl.5960$Lr6.2997
@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:

Brian Oakley wrote:
If you look at the word "day" as it is used in the Hebrew language in
the OT, it means in almost every instance, a literal day. So why would
we want to imagine that it would mean anything else when the Bible is
pretty clear.
How could a "literal day" possibly exist before God
created the Sun on the 4th "day"???

He created light on the first day.

Well, consistent with that, records seem to indicate there was a big
flash of it at one point. And if that was Him, then He is also
responsible for all the stars and planets which subsequently coalesced.
At which point there began an enormous and complex organic chemistry
project which, given the amount of time He's allowed it to work, has now
provided almost an infinite variety of results, including the inhabiting
of at least (and perhaps only) one of the planets with intelligent life.

There are of course a variety of simplified, abridged, and age (or
epoch) appropriate versions of this history, the actual scale of which
is only slowing revealing itself to us. So it's apparent that if a
creator created all of what is, then He is responsible for a far more
intelligent design than the history books give Him the credit for; far
too intelligent perhaps for us to comprehend. Or maybe He is the simple
minded guy with anger management issues they wrote about hundreds of
years prior to sanitation. I don't claim to know.

ac6xg

Gordon wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:YQXHl.5960$Lr6.2997
How could a "literal day" possibly exist before God
created the Sun on the 4th "day"???

He created light on the first day.

That may be, but a 24 hour day, i.e. sunrise to
sunrise, was impossible without the sun which was
created on the 4th day.

Actually, The Bible says that 1000 years in the
life of man is like one day to God. So why can't
2 billion years just as easily be like one day to
God?

The sun was indeed created about 8 billion years
after the Big Bang. 8 billion years divided by
"4 days" is indeed 2 billion years.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Gordon wrote:
....

Well, consistent with that, records seem to indicate there was a big
flash of it at one point. And if that was Him, then He is also
responsible for all the stars and planets which subsequently coalesced.
At which point there began an enormous and complex organic chemistry
project which, given the amount of time He's allowed it to work, has now
provided almost an infinite variety of results, including the inhabiting
of at least (and perhaps only) one of the planets with intelligent life.
....

ac6xg

Which planet was that?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH