Evolution/geology

[PhilVaz]

As promised…

In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, edited by John Ashton (2000)

There are 3 creationist geologists in the book.

Geologist #1: Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology from the Univ of Sydney

He begins his chapter:

“So why do I believe in the biblical account of creation by God over six literal days as the origin of life on earth, followed later by a year-long global geological catastrophe that totally renovated the earth’s surface, as described in the biblical account of Noah’s flood? The reason is that the Bible clearly teaches a literal six-day creation and a global flood, not only in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis, but also throughout the Old and New Testaments, including being confirmed by Jesus Christ himself. No matter how clever we scientists are in our research, we can only study all the evidence today (as it exists today) and then extrapolate backwards into the past. In doing so we have to make assumptions, and we can never be absolutely certain that our assumptions are correct and, therefore, our interpretations of what happened in the past is correct. On the other hand, the Bible claims over 3000 times to be the Word of the transcendent, personal God, who has always existed, who is all knowing, and is totally truthful.” (pages 291-292)

Geologist #2: Elaine Kennedy, Ph.D. in geology from USC

She begins her chapter:

“As a geologist, I do not find much evidence for the existence of a fiat creation. I just have not found any geologic data that convinces me that God spoke and ‘it was.’ So it probably seems strange to some that I believe God created this world in six literal days…” (page 314)

“As a Christian, I find abundance evidence for the existence of a Creator and the greatest evidence is found in my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This is my experience and it is from this platform of faith that I look at the geologic data.” (page 315)

“Those of us who believe in a short chronology and a six-day creation do not have an adequate explanation for radiometric dates; however, we do know that much research needs to be done and we know multiple interpretations of the distributions concerning the processes involved are possible. Despite this possibility, dates are often used to refute biblical chronologies as though no questions or arguments oppose these conclusions. When interpreting scientific data, I use the same techniques and approaches as my colleagues, but my assumptions come from my biblical paradigm. I often recognize conflicts; indeed, the geologic literature reminds me daily that conflict exists, and many aspects of the geologic record are difficult to explain to the satisfaction of my colleagues or myself.” (page 315)

She ends her chapter:

“I believe that our Creator revealed to us in the Bible an honest and accurate account of our origins and weekly I rejoice in the memorial of that six-day event…I realized that I consider God’s revelation more valid than human reason, because I experience His recreative power in my life daily.” (page 316)

Geologist #3: Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, studying (amazingly) under Stephen Jay Gould

He ends his chapter:

“…it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis…Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear. Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.” (page 355)

Do I really need to comment on any of this? In short, definitely not a Catholic view (Catechism 159, 283-284).

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

Sorry about my last post (#99). I accidently hit submit and wasn’t able to come back to the post for more than 20 minutes, so I couldn’t edit it. I have requested the administrator remove the post. Here is what I wanted to write:

Just a general reply to this thread, but addressed to those who have a problem with evolution or the age of the earth as taught by science. If you wish to believe in a young earth and that Genesis is literally true, the Church will have no argument with you. Please understand and admit that you are doing so based on your faith, which is a good thing. I honor your faith in those matters, even though I disagree with them. To me, it isn’t something that will get you to or keep you out of heaven.

That being said, if you chose to argue your faith by using science, please be prepared to be challenged. Make sure you understand what science is and what it isn’t. Study the subject, making sure you research both sides, not only the side you agree with. Understand that there is a terminology in science that may make you misunderstand what is being said if you apply common usage to the words. There are many here with advanced educations that have spent a large amount of time studying the science that so many are willing to either ignore or villify. Be prepared to be called out if your post indicates either a poor understanding or misstatement of the science. Be especially ready if you continue to post incorrect science after someone has corrected you on it.

Your faith is a great thing. However, please don’t try to use a misconception of science as an apologetics tool. You will drive people away from the faith.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Still mad that you were wrong in saying its not physics…couldnt even concede that point, huh…(typical)

Who ever said it wasnt chemistry, too? Did you even read what I wrote?..here Ill type it bigger for you…IT IS BOTH PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY…ALSO GEOLOGY AND BIOLOGY.

Clear enough for you?

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT WASNT PHYSICS…AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. SORRY.

The formation of coal is a chemical process. chemistry.anl.gov/carbon/coal-tutorial/coalgeneral.html Clear enough for you?

Neither does yours, friend. What models do you have. By the way, models are not fact…I hope you know that.

Well, actually, the commonly accepted model of coal formation does account for the heat. Yours doesn’t.

According to your own scientists, youre as in the dark as you say my position is:

"Article by E.C.Jeffrrey, Harvard Univ in the Journal Science"

For over a century and a half a controversy has raged in regard to that all important mineral, coal. On the one hand it has been maintained that its raw materials are the result of transport by water and that consequently coal is essentially of the nature of an aqueous organic sediment. On the other hand, the opinion has been held that coal is in the main the result of vegetable accumulations similar to those in actual circum-polar peat bogs consisting of the subaerial deposits, representing the successive generations of fallen peat plants. The first view of the origin of coal is usually called the allochthonous or transport theory. The second is known as the autochthonous or in-situ hypothesis. European geologists have in the main in recent years held to the latter view and their American colleagues have for the most part followed them in this opinion. It is important to emphasize however that the earlier and even the current views in regard to the origin of coal are for the most part arrived at in complete ignorance of its organization. Except in very recent years figures revealing the organization of coal are conspicuously absent in geological works, even in those which particularly deal with coal. It is apparently not without significance that the French who above all others gave early attention to the actual organization of coal, are supporters of the transport or aquatic hypothesis of the origin of coal. Although new methods and improved old methods now give us real insight into the organization of coal, there is yet unfortunately in general little observable rational improvement in geological theories regarding the formation of coal deposits.

If your response is such a fact, and not theory, then what is this guy talking about?

My response is that some coals are derived from materials deposited by moving water, but most weren’t. How do you explain the coal that isn’t the result of moving water? If you say that it is because the flood, over time, became a standing body of water, then how do you explain root traces found in the sediments below the coal? Oh, yeah, how do you explain the sediment below the coal if the coal is the result of masses of animals and plant material sinking before the sediment did during the flood?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

You cant be serious. Wow. Ummm, maybe because thats where it is. Oh, also, we dont have absolutely catastrophic worldwide floods every week that just deposit coal into our trucks. That was funny. Thanks for the laugh.

You didn’t even understand that simple question, did you? OK, I’ll try again. If coal can be made by humans in a matter of minutes, why risk miners like those in West Virginia to dig it out of the ground?

Yes, really, my theory is plausible, and billions of dead humans, dinosaurs, and animals would be heavier than saturated sediment particles (and would tend to group themselves in nice centralized deposits).

Ignoring the basic fact that coal is made up almost exclusively of plant remains, please provide some data to back up your statement. I would like to see the densities of floating organic material versus quartz sand. If you can’t or won’t provide that info, I will accept your lack of response as an admission that you are wrong on this point.

Oh, also, God could probably just make coal for us. But that wont go far with you athiests.

Yes He could. Us athiests, huh? Sooooooo typical.

You deny God can just make coal, like he made everything else(in a young earth theory), but you cling like death to your contention that the “Universe” created the “Universe”. HAHA. Yes it created itself. Matter came from nothing. Wheres some lab experiments that have done that?

Just proved you wrong (again) with my response above. By the way, we were not discussing the creation of the universe. You aren’t about to go off on a tangent on me, are you?

Can you prove that God didn’t just make the coal himself, at any point in time he wanted to. He created you and your brain, which are a little more complex than coal. No you cant prove that.

Strawman.

Um, usually an arguement starts with stating what evaporites prove in your THEORY. Please use evaporites to logicall prove something. I have no problem with evaporites, shale,sandstone, limestone.

I will tell you how evaporites fit into “my” theory, but first let me ask you if you understand why I asked that question. What is an evaporite?

Simply stating questions wont get us far.

Especially when you can’t or won’t answer them.

Heres some for you.
Why is there matter? Did matter create matter?
Why is there a universe?

These have nothing more to do with the formation of coal than does the question Bilbo Baggins won his magic ring from Gollum does (What have I in my pocket?)

Why are there no trees over 5,000 years old?

Just a guess, but how about they don’t live longer than that? As others have now pointed out to you, there are plants that have longer lives than trees. I don’t expect that you will respond to that, though.

Why do you have a conscience?

Nothing to do with the formation of coal. However, I have a conscience because God gave me one.

Just fine…and how do they fit in yours…Once again, if you are making a point and providing me with evidence, usually you should say why they fit into your theory, but not mine.

I’m sorry, but I thought that when you claimed to be a person who follows science, you understood a little geology. Maybe this isn’t your field of expertise.

I made a point that you didn’t even understand was a point. Kind of hard to argue your point of view if you don’t understand the science, isn’t it?

But I guess formation of limestone caves and dissolving rates is what your point is about…if not please let me know.

Nope, not what I was referring to. You claim that sedimentary rocks were laid down during the flood. My question is how do you explain carbonates? Just like my question regarding evaporites and eolian deposits. Do a google and learn a little about these three specific types of sedimentary rocks and then get back to me regarding how they fit into your “theory”.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Have you ever studied the deposits of a world wide flood? Do you even understand the catastrophic nature of 20,000 ft. of water covering the entire earth?

So, you haven’t studied flood deposits. I’m surprised.

Floods of recent origin translate absolutely zero information to the behavior of a worldwide flood.
You cannot even comprehend what effect a world wide flood would have on the earth.

Why? Was physics different during the flood than it is now? Did sediment move in water differently than it does now? Was gravity different?

A better question would be where did heat come from? Answer that and Ill answer yours.

I’ll take that as a “I can’t answer that question” answer.

It did. Its called diamond mines and graphite deposits. Different thermodynamic systems(with extemporaneous variables which would be caused by a never before seen worldwide catastrophie) would produce different results(you do understand that, dont you?)

How many diamonds are formed in sedimentary rock? How about graphite? Why did some organic material become diamonds or graphite, but the majority became coal?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Funny, I would contend that fantasy land would start with your matter creating matter. Where does that fit in logically?

We are not discussing the creation of matter, we are discussing the creation of coal.

I wouldnt call a flood that lasted for a year and then took more years to evaporate moving water. Please. So I should just stop here, but Ill explain further.

Yep, you should have stopped there, that was bad enough.

Even if the flood was exposed to massive turbulence throughout its duration(which is ridiculous) moving water would not matter in the deposition of evaporites or carbonates(Im assuming your talking about carbonate-containing salts.)

Don’t assume. Quick, what is a carbonate? What is an evaporite? How do they differ from one another?

Simple chemistry would tell you that at the right conditions, right temperatures, and the introduction of certain coumpounds, precipitation of salts, carbonates would occur. Thats just chemistry this time.

You are close. That is a nice, general explanation of evaporites. Carbonates are not generally deposited that way, but I’ll eventually come back to that, I’m sure. Next question regarding evaporites. Once the evaporite deposits are formed, how do you get sandstones, shales and even, in some places, coal deposited over them if all the water has evaporated?

Once again…not moving…and if you knew anything about hydrostatic pressure and weight, you would not say this.

I actually do know a bit about hydrostatic pressure and weight, but that doesn’t answer my question. How do eolian deposits form in either a moving or standing body of water? How does hydraulic pressure affect the formation of eolian deposits? How does the flood explain the existence of eolian deposits overlain and underlain by subaqueous sediments?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Funny again, I was thinking the same thing

Ok, let’s see who is being a little, ahem, disingenuous. From rossum’s post #98 regarding your post #66:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rheins2000 (post #66)
Oh, by the way, Here are a few of the many problems to be solved, before sand and water could change itself into living creatures:

This is a dishonest post, the only parts of it that you wrote yourself was the “Oh, by the way,” at the start and the closing two lines. You didn’t even bother to change the capital-H following your second comma. A quick google found the Pathlights site which contains the text you have posted here without attribution. That is plagiarism. Apart from being dishonest, plagiarism is also stupid since it gives your opponent an easy point to score against you. When you post quotes from other people you must indicate clearly what the quoted material is and where it came from. Anything less is dishonest.

What is your response to rossum’s post?

Wrong again. In order to fit your theory, your scientists have concluded, "Well if these fossils are there, then the climate must have been able to fit them, so, based on the fact that there is no way creationists are right, this must be the answer, because we have no proof that God exists. So then they conclude Wyomings climate was different. What’s there proof?..none…just interpretation of what they found based on their preconceived notions.

The conclusion is backed by observation, not because they are athiests that have no proof that God exists. Interpretation is bad? That is what all scientists do - they interpret data. Have you ever gone to a doctor when you were sick? Don’t you pay him or her for an interpretation of your symptoms?

Whereas creationists would use that evidence to say that these fossils could and probably were deposited.

Well, to be accurate, creationists don’t need any evidence, right?

You say it was millions of years of volcanic activity. I say it could have been the “fountains of the deep pouring forth”…and along the techtonic plate boundaries, this would result in the interbedding of volcanic and sedimentary rocks, as well as this fine theory:

Ignores your favorite subject - physics. Not physically possible.

Thank you, at least, for giving the source of this cut and paste. Here’s hoping that you will make a habit out of doing that.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Studied over the past 100 years. What do you think creationist scientists do, make food products out of play-doh and play video games.

Well, they must be doing something with all that free time they have!

as valid as what theories…are you calling evolution a theory?

THANK YOU!

and once again an evolutionist claiming that creationist theories arent as a result of study. HAHA, I have given you K40 dissertations using advanced mathematical derivations from creation scientists, and you dont think they study.

Give me a Break!

Evolution? I was under the impression we were discussing geology. However, I will concede that the theroy of evolution is a theory. A scientific theory (although I don’t expect you will understand the implication). Creation theories are not scientific theories.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Look at the figure reference in his paper. He creates this table before he gives his dating examples. And that is what evolutionists do. If they get figures of age for a fossil that doesnt fit their preconceived notion, they throw it out without thinking twice. AND THIS IS THE TABLE THEY DO IT WITH.

You are not only unfamiliar with geology, you appear to be unfamiliar with technical writing. It is part of the introduction, a place where it is appropriate since the purpose of the introduction is to INTRODUCE the topic discussed in the paper.

Um that was an evolutionists quote…do you even read my posts…or just pick out word and go on the evolutionary attack?

Yes, I do read your posts. You said that you agreed with the quote. I’m just taking your word for it.

You just explain how vertical trees, artifacts and fossils have been found spanning between layers that are supposedly millions of years between them like my source shows.

Trees have been found in a vertical position in coal. They are called “polystrate” fossils. In-situ human artifacts have not been found in coal. For a discussion of “polystrate” fossils, read this: talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Are you degree dropping to prove your point…Thats what you guys do…“Well uninformed person, lots of scientists with degrees say this, and you are dumb, so if you dont believe us, you will be labeled as an idiot.” Just stick with facts. I was just making the point that these people were scientists, which if I didnt mention that, you would explode.

This is in response to my reply to your direct question about my education. I gave the information requested and this is the response. I do note that you didn’t reply to my question about your education.

No, numbers are what you have been giving me the whole time. You keep telling me that most all scientists accept evolution. You make people think that there are only like 1 or 2 guys around that still cling to Creationism.

I don’t recall giving you a list of names. Please provide that link. You, however, did use a list of names as some sort of authority. Now that I have countered that argument, you are trying to wiggle out of the spot you are in. I don’t blame you. It’s pretty tight!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

My source was Catholic Doctrine. Maybe you ought to learn it, being that you spend so much time arguing against Catholics.

It can be found on Catholic.com for one www.catholic.com

So, did you write it based on your understanding of it or did you copy it from the link you provided? If the first, you don’t need a reference. If the second, well, you have been caught plagarizing in other posts, I don’t know why this should be any different.

Once again, stop writing lies and I will stop calling them lies and the one who tells them a liar. But if you think Im going to roll over for people writing lies about the Catholic faith, then you’re in the wrong place. I am truly sorry it hurts your feelings, but when someone writes statements like that, they are not playing nice. My sense of charity requires me to lead people away from lies.

Your sense of moral superiority is what leads you to call others liars, not your sense of charity.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

No kidding…thats what im telling you…and i know plenty of analytical tests that have no margin of error, thats the definition of analytical.

I’m waiting.

Mathematics is analytical, and anything that can be derived from mathematics is FACT, logic is analytical.

Mathematics is not a analytical test.

Your radiometric dating is hardly analytical, unless you are putting some spin on the meaning of analytical.

No spin. Only using the term as a scientist. How are you using it?

Funny you keep asking me for references, but then you say this without any grounds or references. Lets see the pictures. The only place your column exists in its entirety is in a text book.

I didn’t use a quote. See Phil’s post above for the specific references.

Do you understand what it is?

From Wikipedia: All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide.

Ok, you don’t know what it is. I didn’t ask for the assumptions used in the method. I asked if you understood what an isochron is. That was in response to you making a big deal of the fact that the data has variances in it. By posting a portion of a Wikipedia article about the assumptions made in the method tells me the answer to my question is “NO”.

Theres another assumption. Even uniformitarian geologists recognize the existence of false isochrons, so how do they distinguish good data from bad? The answer is whereever the sample fits in their little geologic column, just like every other flawed dating system. Nice try though. Talking to me like im an idiot helps.

No, the answer is to understand the method.

AND NEXT TIME DONT JUST THROW QUESTIONS OUT THERE…TELL ME HOW THEY SUPORT YOUR POSITION AND LOGICALLY HOW YOU COME TO A CONCLUSION

Most of my questions are so basic that I wouldn’t have to tell you the significance if you understood the subject being discussed.

Who in the world do you think you are…Come down off your high horse Mr. Science. Where do you think all your knowledge came from…

From a lot of hard work on my part, not some fundamentalist site.

Do me a favor, stop attacking and start addressing.

You have been given many answers and you refuse to acknowledge that they have been given even if you disagree with them.

I use quotes, because these people are experts in the field and could argue you under a table…thats the real reason.

Many of your “quotes” have been plagarized from fundamentalist sites, written by experts who have been refuted by their peers.

Now have I attacked your quotes and sources, calling you a quote miner?

I haven’t engaged quote mining.

…no…I take your quotes and address the quote, not you(unless you start quoting 3rd grade geology students…then Ill have to)…so dispense with your high horse mentality and come back down to Earth.

I have tried to have a discussion with you on the scientific merits of young-earth vs old-earth geology. You have not demonstrated a basic level of understanding of science, much less geology. I don’t claim to be an expert. A bachelors degree does not qualify one as an expert. However, what I have been trying to discuss with you is extremely basic geology. I can only do what I can do. If you don’t understand the subject, either learn it or find another cause to champion.

p.s. - There are many here that are much more knowledgable than myself. If you want to learn, read posts by hecd, rossum, steve anderson, zian, phil (and many others that I know I have neglected to mention - sorry ). They have some very good info for you.

Peace

Tim

 

[rheins2000]

rossum:

This is a dishonest post, the only parts of it that you wrote yourself was the “Oh, by the way,” at the start and the closing two lines. You didn’t even bother to change the capital-H following your second comma. A quick google found the Pathlights site which contains the text you have posted here without attribution. That is plagiarism. Apart from being dishonest, plagiarism is also stupid since it gives your opponent an easy point to score against you. When you post quotes from other people you must indicate clearly what the quoted material is and where it came from. Anything less is dishonest.

Do me a favor and dont call me dishonest. It was an honest mistake. As you can see from my posts, I have provided sources for my posts. When you get in a hurry, things like that can sometimes happen. And when someone has asked for the source if there is not one, I have shown them where it is or subsequently provided it.

Next time just tell me to give you the source if I forget, instead of writing out a doctoral thesis on what plagiarism is.

That would be charitable, instead of calling me dishonest and stupid. But then Im used to that from your side.

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

I’m waiting.Mathematics is not a analytical test.No spin. Only using the term as a scientist. How are you using it?

You seem to need to invest in a dictionary…I have to do this quite often…

From the Free Dictionary.com:

an·a·lyt·ic or an·a·lyt·i·cal
adj. **1. **Of or relating to analysis or analytics.
**2. **Dividing into elemental parts or basic principles.
**3. **Reasoning or acting from a perception of the parts and interrelations of a subject: “Many of the most serious pianists have turned toward more analytic playing, with a renewed focus on the architecture and ideas of music” Annalyn Swan.
**4. **Expert in or using analysis, especially in thinking: an analytic mind; an analytic approach. See Synonyms at logical.
**5. **Logic Following necessarily; tautologous: an analytic truth.
**6. **Mathematics **a. **Using, subjected to, or capable of being subjected to a methodology involving algebra or other methods of mathematical analysis.
**b. **Proving a known truth by reasoning from that which is to be proved.

**7. **Linguistics Expressing a grammatical category by using two or more words instead of an inflected form.
**8. **Psychoanalytic.

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

So, did you write it based on your understanding of it or did you copy it from the link you provided? If the first, you don’t need a reference. If the second, well, you have been caught plagarizing in other posts,

Get off your high horse…this isnt a doctoral thesis…I was just saving time…

Thats what you do…dont address the issue, address the person…you have been doing it the entire time, so why would I expect anything different.

Orogeny:

Your sense of moral superiority is what leads you to call others liars, not your sense of charity.,

You have no proof of my moral standing…so I would say you have the problem with moral superiority. Thats just a blatant and ignorant attack from someone on the losing end of this arguement. He wrote a lie, I called it a lie and him a liar. Simple as that. Youre not going to win this one.

 

[rheins2000]

Ill get to more tonight, but in order to prove my point, That EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT FACT like you are all claiming, let me give you some encyclopedia results:

From Wikipedia(all of these) emphasis added, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution copyright 2005 Wikipedia, The Wikipedia Corporation. United States of America, Earth, NYSE #WAC, Trading down 2 points today on the Exchange, Established 1994…is that enough for a discussion forum on the internet?

“The modern THEORY of evolution is based on the concept of natural selection”

"Because of its potential implications for the origins of humankind, the THEORY of evolution has been at the center of many social and religious controversies since it was first introduced "

LOOKS LIKE I WIN…IF YOU DONT THINK EVOLUTION IS A THEORY YOU ARE JUST IGNORANT…MY POINT THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE THREAD…YOU CALL US CREATIONISTS IDIOTS, BUT AT LEAST ILL TELL YOU THAT BOTH SIDES ARE THEORIES, UNLIKE THESE PEOPLE.

NOW, ONE MORE TIME, ARE YOU SURE ITS A FACT?

Ill get to the rest of the replies tonight

 

[steveandersen]

rheins2000:

Ill get to more tonight, but in order to prove my point, That EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT FACT like you are all claiming, …

Actually it is a theory and a fact
The factual part is phylogeny
The theoretical part is natural selection as the mechanism

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

You seem to need to invest in a dictionary…I have to do this quite often…

From the Free Dictionary.com:

an·a·lyt·ic or an·a·lyt·i·cal
adj. **1. **Of or relating to analysis or analytics.
**2. **Dividing into elemental parts or basic principles.
**3. **Reasoning or acting from a perception of the parts and interrelations of a subject: “Many of the most serious pianists have turned toward more analytic playing, with a renewed focus on the architecture and ideas of music” Annalyn Swan.
**4. **Expert in or using analysis, especially in thinking: an analytic mind; an analytic approach. See Synonyms at logical.
**5. **Logic Following necessarily; tautologous: an analytic truth.
**6. **Mathematics **a. **Using, subjected to, or capable of being subjected to a methodology involving algebra or other methods of mathematical analysis.
**b. **Proving a known truth by reasoning from that which is to be proved.

**7. **Linguistics Expressing a grammatical category by using two or more words instead of an inflected form.
**8. **Psychoanalytic.

Maybe I’m just stupid, but could you please point out to me where that says that mathematics is an analytical test?

Since you don’t seem to get the point, let me ask you this way. Please give me any analtyical test, such as that used in chemistry or physics, that has no margin of error. Examples include gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, DNA analysis, etc. These three examples are not the only three analytical tests available for you to use as examples of analtyical tests that have zero margin of error. You may pick any analtyical method one would find in a private or commercial laboratory. Good luck.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Get off your high horse…this isnt a doctoral thesis…I was just saving time…

You got caught just as you were claiming that I was doing the same thing. The only difference is that I wasn’t. As far as saving time goes, you took the time to go to that web page, copy the text and return here to paste it. How much longer would it have taken to go back, copy the url and paste it into your reply? 10 seconds?

Thats what you do…dont address the issue, address the person…you have been doing it the entire time, so why would I expect anything different.

I have been giving you answers. You just reject them outright and move off in another direction.

You have no proof of my moral standing…so I would say you have the problem with moral superiority. Thats just a blatant and ignorant attack from someone on the losing end of this arguement. He wrote a lie, I called it a lie and him a liar. Simple as that. Youre not going to win this one.

You have appointed yourself to decide that Phil is lying. In fact, he is not. Your position that he is lying is based on your sense of what the Church teaches and you feel that he is intentionally stating a falsehood against the Church. You are able to do that based on your much deeper understanding of Church teaching. That is a morally superior attitude.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Ill get to more tonight, but in order to prove my point, That EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT FACT like you are all claiming, let me give you some encyclopedia results:

From Wikipedia(all of these) emphasis added, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution copyright 2005 Wikipedia, The Wikipedia Corporation. United States of America, Earth, NYSE #WAC, Trading down 2 points today on the Exchange, Established 1994…is that enough for a discussion forum on the internet?

“The modern THEORY of evolution is based on the concept of natural selection”

"Because of its potential implications for the origins of humankind, the THEORY of evolution has been at the center of many social and religious controversies since it was first introduced "

LOOKS LIKE I WIN…IF YOU DONT THINK EVOLUTION IS A THEORY YOU ARE JUST IGNORANT…MY POINT THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE THREAD…YOU CALL US CREATIONISTS IDIOTS, BUT AT LEAST ILL TELL YOU THAT BOTH SIDES ARE THEORIES, UNLIKE THESE PEOPLE.

NOW, ONE MORE TIME, ARE YOU SURE ITS A FACT?

Ill get to the rest of the replies tonight

From my previous post:
orogeny post #107:

However, I will concede that the theroy of evolution is a theory. A scientific theory (although I don’t expect you will understand the implication). Creation theories are not scientific theories.

Now, would you like to explain how you came to the conclusion you did after what I originally posted? Do you bother to read my posts?

Is evolution a fact? Yes it is, just as gravity is a fact. Is evolution a theory? Yes it is, just as gravitational theory is a theory. Is creationism a fact? Well, God created everything, so from that standpoint, yes. However, it is not science. Is creationism a theory? No, it is not, at least in the scientific sense of the word.

Peace

Tim