One of the reasons for establishing the Origins forum (but I do understand the reasons why people are happier to continue the discussion here) was to create a safe place for Origins discussion, due to its observed tendency to turn nasty quite quickly.

And it's already happening - rush4hire is identifying those who disagree with him as 'scoffers', and steve is categorising them (us) with 'enemies'. I'll just keep on responding to the issues in a civil and thoughtful way, and ignoring the attacks. I hope others will choose to do likewise.

The C14 explanation given above is not correct. Equilibria are established all the time where the concentration of the products is not zero. The atmospheric C14 concentration is *already* at equilibrium, which is why we observe a constant concentration of it, rather than a decreasing concentration.

To take the water barrel analogy, it has two main flaws:

1. It would work as described for an infinitely tall barrel, but for most finite barrels (depending on the rate of inflow and the size and number of holes) the barrel would overflow before equilibrium was reached.

2. At equilibrium, there is still water in the barrel. At equilibrium, there is still C14 in the atmosphere.

>>I'm a Palintologist myself.<<

Aw, sheesh, Redwood. Can you put a hold on these humorous asides? There are the, such as myself, geezers out here who are geriatrically challenged with

ancient bladder control systems, otherwise known as ABCs - and are inconvenienced having to freshen-up.

:-o

>>rush4hire is identifying those who disagree with him as 'scoffers',<<

Having made only a quick perusal of this thread, I notice that it is only rush4hire who has been 'scoffing'.

Per the 'Origins' thread: I've generally avoided posting there as it was first established in clique-claquish fashion. I have ought against such practices.

Per ID: It is my assertion that the 'creationist', as he or she perceives him or herself, disfavors Gd by advancig such. Either one is a creationists or he is not. For the creationist to advance Intelligent Design is

to both dilute 'pure' creationism and to concur with such as myself.

Genesis apparently establishes both 'creationism' in its purest sense as well as intelligent design. EGW agrees - with her intimations of pre-flood genetic modifications. Amalgamation. In her instance, she seems to advance a theory of genetic modifications resulting from sexual concourse; whereas, I, though partially agreeing, rather, submit that pre-flood genetic modifications were

accomplished in scientific laboratories. Much the same is occurring vis-à-vis the present; witness such as: in today's news...

the Montauk monster and the duck with chicken feet, afraid of water...

Incidentally, the Origins forum is *not* for paying subscribers only. It is a by-invitation forum. I have just given permission for BobRyan, steve9534 and Lineman to post in the Origins forum. jasd, not sure whether you currently have permission, but if you'd like to post there just PM me. The intention was never to be cliquish, but simply to create a place where it was possible to discuss the issues without falling into pointless and circular 'flame wars'.

First of all - thanks for opening up the Origins forum - I will go over there as well.

Second - the C14 argument I was making is not that "there is no C14" or that "there should be no C14". My argument is that the SPR rate 18.8 atoms per gram per minute is still greater than the beta decay rate from C14 back to N14 which means we are in fact still accumulating C14 (in fact some measurements have thus up by as much as 20% faster than the C14 beta decay process is depleting.)

Simply put - the 5600 year half life of C14 results in a certain decay rate on average over time based on the total volume of C14. (which of course also means that this is not a claim that there is as much C14 as N14).

My argument is that the expected 30,000 year limit has not yet been reached for our current level of SPR.

in Christ,

Bob

It does not make sense to argue that to affirm the Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and ALL that are in them" claim made by God Himself - "disfavors God". If you have an argument to support that - please show us what it is.



I beg to differ. The ID argument is an argument from Science alone and so it is by definition the minimalist argument.

By contrast The YEC creationist argument is based on faith and the Christian world view much like the Darwinist argument is based on faith in naturalism and ultimately on the atheist world view as an opposing religious position to creationism.

ID is actual science and so it differs with the Darwinist follower who attacks ID on religious grounds. The religionist position of the Darwinist argument can not can not tolerate the academic freedom required for ID - at all.

ID being nothing more than pure science is far too minimalist to satisfy the YEC Creationist faith position however it makes for good science because it only affirms what it can see in the lab and makes no claims at all about the designer only that things can be seen to have the attribute of design in that they are not possibly by natural undirected processes alone.



Agreed.

All squares are rectangles -- the YEC argument is compatible with ID in that it predicts that science should be able to "detect the presence" of the attribute of design.

in Christ,

Bob

The biggest to me is where the genealogy of Jesus is traced all the way back to Adam:

Luke 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.



Good point. Evolution has to sift out data that doesn't fit into it's paradigm. Creationism can accept every thing nature can show us as a fearful revelation of God's infinite wisdom and power.

Moody - City of the Bees

I studied bees in high school, but I wasn't told the half of it. After I studied the data that creationists gather from bees and other creatures, I realized that our high school students are really being ripped off when it comes to knowledge of the natural world.

http://www.loudcry.org/main/video/moody/index.shtml



Right. Darwin had a degree in theology. He had no kind of degree that had anything to do with any kind of science.



I identify scoffers as scoffers. Scoffing and disagreeing with me are two different things. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, that I called someone a scoffer, when he wasn't scoffing, but just disagreeing with me, then let's see it, and I'll apologize and recant publicly.

And what attacks? I have no idea what I have said here, in the 1 post I made, before your comment, that you could have taken personally.

And why would you want to be so exclusive, so as not to share with the rest of the world? I've never seen a forum community that functions that way. It's really not healthy. In fact, Jesus even says:

Luke 14:13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:

If you want to be exclusive, that's the opposite of calling the poor to your feast.

And here again:

1 Cor. 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or [one] unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
14:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on [his] face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

How is that uninformed guy going to fulfill this, if he's not invited?



Again, what in that one post could you take the wrong way?

Here's the post:

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread..._YEC#Post189026

There's no exclusivity: anyone who agrees to adhere to the rules of that forum is welcome. And *every* forum has terms and conditions.