Changes

== American Time ==

== American Time ==

Since you are pro-american, you should use an america based timezone

Since you are pro-American, you should use an America based timezone

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 19:43, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 19:43, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Therefore, if God said that "such-a-man lived so-many years and begat such-a-son," then you can bank on it. And if God gives us a long string of years-at-birth-of-sons, then you can reliably add them up--and you can be sure that only so much time has passed since the beginning ''of'' time--at least by an earthly clock, which is the only sort of clock that need matter to us.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 14:27, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Therefore, if God said that "such-a-man lived so-many years and begat such-a-son," then you can bank on it. And if God gives us a long string of years-at-birth-of-sons, then you can reliably add them up--and you can be sure that only so much time has passed since the beginning ''of'' time--at least by an earthly clock, which is the only sort of clock that need matter to us.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 14:27, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::It just seems like a rather shaky way to interpret the Bible, is all. Genesis can be true without being literal, and you don't have to fight against all of this seemingly contrary evidence. If He could make the universe however he wanted, why would God have made it to look like something other than what He has layed down in the Bible? You may dissagree with conclusions of traditional scientists, but you can't deny that it sure looks like the earth is billions of years old, and God would have known this when he layed down the scripture. It does explain why people try so hard to compare 21st century science to a 10th century BC unattributed doccupment.

::::It just seems like a rather shaky way to interpret the Bible, is all. Genesis can be true without being literal, and you don't have to fight against all of this seemingly contrary evidence. If He could make the universe however he wanted, why would God have made it to look like something other than what He has layed down in the Bible? You may disagree with conclusions of traditional scientists, but you can't deny that it sure looks like the earth is billions of years old, and God would have known this when he layed down the scripture. It does explain why people try so hard to compare 21st century science to a 10th century BC unattributed document.

::::And all of this really goes back to TheisticEvolution's question: who cares? Must you declare your belief in a young earth before you ask God to redeem your sins? Can you go to heaven if you believe the scientific explanation of creation? In the scheme of things this is the much more important question, and the one that gets overlooked because of all the disagreement over the rest. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 15:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::And all of this really goes back to TheisticEvolution's question: who cares? Must you declare your belief in a young earth before you ask God to redeem your sins? Can you go to heaven if you believe the scientific explanation of creation? In the scheme of things this is the much more important question, and the one that gets overlooked because of all the disagreement over the rest. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 15:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::How can Genesis "be true without being literal" when it is making truth-claims?

:::::How can Genesis "be true without being literal" when it is making truth-claims?

:::::According to the CP [[Genesis]] page, it was written somewhere in the vicinity of 1400-500BC. There is also considerable question as to who authored it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::According to the CP [[Genesis]] page, it was written somewhere in the vicinity of 1400-500BC. There is also considerable question as to who authored it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: You've explained well how something can be true but not literal, but your example was not of a truth-claim, i.e. claiming that something specific is the case, and you've not applied your reasoning to the Bible.  How can you read Genesis 1 as "true but not literal", when it is making specific non-metaphorical claims about history?

:::::: You've explained well how something can be true but not literal, but your example was not of a truth-claim, i.e. claiming that something specific is the case, and you've not applied your reasoning to the Bible.  How can you read Genesis 1 as "true but not literal", when it is making specific non-metaphorical claims about history?

:::::: I've heard a number of people claim that the Earth simply ''looks'' old, so no, I didn't realise that you didn't mean what you appeared to be saying.

:::::: I've heard a number of people claim that the Earth simply ''looks'' old, so no, I didn't realize that you didn't mean what you appeared to be saying.

:::::: 1400-500 B.C. is not synonymous with the 10th century B.C., is it?  And although the [[Genesis]] article mentions the later date as being promoted, that date has no credibility.

:::::: 1400-500 B.C. is not synonymous with the 10th century B.C., is it?  And although the [[Genesis]] article mentions the later date as being promoted, that date has no credibility.

:::::: The Bible claims to be written by God, but "ghost-written" by human authors.  In ''some'' cases, there is no certainty about who those human authors were, and when it comes to the Bible, some people will question the truth of every last point, so there will be those who question the human authorship of those parts where the authorship is not in doubt, but that doesn't all add up to it being "unattributed".

:::::: The Bible claims to be written by God, but "ghost-written" by human authors.  In ''some'' cases, there is no certainty about who those human authors were, and when it comes to the Bible, some people will question the truth of every last point, so there will be those who question the human authorship of those parts where the authorship is not in doubt, but that doesn't all add up to it being "unattributed".

:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Again you are being difficult. I am obviously not a Biblical historian so why in the world are you giving me such a hard time about trying to recall the date of Genesis from memory? I remembered the 1000, so I thought 10th century. And all your arguing still doesn't change the meaning of my statement. And it's an insult to my intellegence to assume that I think you can physically look at the earth and see it's 4.54 Ga old. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Again you are being difficult. I am obviously not a Biblical historian so why in the world are you giving me such a hard time about trying to recall the date of Genesis from memory? I remembered the 1000, so I thought 10th century. And all your arguing still doesn't change the meaning of my statement. And it's an insult to my intelligence to assume that I think you can physically look at the earth and see it's 4.54 Ga old. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: As you are taking offence at some of my responses, I'll limit my response here to just your last point, by reminding you that I've had many people claim that the Earth simply ''looks'' old, so it was an understandable, even if incorrect, way to read your comments.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: As you are taking offense at some of my responses, I'll limit my response here to just your last point, by reminding you that I've had many people claim that the Earth simply ''looks'' old, so it was an understandable, even if incorrect, way to read your comments.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Mr. Jazzman, I shall ask you to produce your "seemingly contrary evidence"--more on that word ''seemingly'' later on. I ask this to challenge you. But I am not challenging you to fight. I am merely challenging you to think, and think ''hard'', about the quality of what you take to be the evidence contrary to a young earth.

First of all, Mr. Jazzman, I shall ask you to produce your "seemingly contrary evidence"--more on that word ''seemingly'' later on. I ask this to challenge you. But I am not challenging you to fight. I am merely challenging you to think, and think ''hard'', about the quality of what you take to be the evidence contrary to a young earth.

:You know very well what arguments are used, especially if you have done as much research as it seems you have. I don't really see any point in listing them, as we both know what we are talking about. Though I would like to see some examples of outright fraud within the mainstream scientific community. And no fair using sources from a creationist; the scientific community is peer-reviewed so unless you are claiming some sort of systemic conspiracy to ensure old earth theory reigns (for which there is no motive or profit), you should be able to find this fraud through mainstream resources.

:You know very well what arguments are used, especially if you have done as much research as it seems you have. I don't really see any point in listing them, as we both know what we are talking about. Though I would like to see some examples of outright fraud within the mainstream scientific community. And no fair using sources from a creationist; the scientific community is peer-reviewed so unless you are claiming some sort of systemic conspiracy to ensure old earth theory reigns (for which there is no motive or profit), you should be able to find this fraud through mainstream resources.

:I have also done research on creation theory and a lot of that doesn't hold water as well. For example, many of the assertations are that if you were to take X pattern (such as the decay of the earth's magnetic feild or the depletion of the Mississippi river delta, etc) back 4.5 billion years you would get some obviously incorrect result. In other cases they find things that can't yet be explained (or at least they say they can't be explained; since I'm not an expert I just have to believe that the creationists are telling the truth), so therefore all of old earth theory ''must'' be wrong. But these are both plagued by incorrect assumptions; the former assumes that any pattern must have been that way from the beginning of time, the latter that old earth theory currently has an answer for everything. (I can't comment specifically on your examples because you have stated them as fact with no way for me to review the evidence myself).

:I have also done research on creation theory and a lot of that doesn't hold water as well. For example, many of the assertations are that if you were to take X pattern (such as the decay of the earth's magnetic field or the depletion of the Mississippi river delta, etc) back 4.5 billion years you would get some obviously incorrect result. In other cases they find things that can't yet be explained (or at least they say they can't be explained; since I'm not an expert I just have to believe that the creationists are telling the truth), so therefore all of old earth theory ''must'' be wrong. But these are both plagued by incorrect assumptions; the former assumes that any pattern must have been that way from the beginning of time, the latter that old earth theory currently has an answer for everything. (I can't comment specifically on your examples because you have stated them as fact with no way for me to review the evidence myself).

:But really there is no point with arguing the science. If every one of your pieces of evidence were proved beyond a reasonable doubt you still have your scripture and your faith; I would need to see mainstream physicists, geologists and mathemetitions disprove, starting from fundamental principals of science, every piece of evidence. This whole thing started because I wanted to know the theology, not the science. Why would God create a world with 800,000 layers of ice, when he could create a world with 6,000? Why would he make stars more than 6,000 light years away? And why is the earth round? Revelations has horsemen in four corners of the earth, and all of the world's population will whitness Jesus come down from the sky. Shouldn't the earth be flat? And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that neccessitate that Jesus was not our savior?

:But really there is no point with arguing the science. If every one of your pieces of evidence were proved beyond a reasonable doubt you still have your scripture and your faith; I would need to see mainstream physicists, geologists and mathematicians disprove, starting from fundamental principals of science, every piece of evidence. This whole thing started because I wanted to know the theology, not the science. Why would God create a world with 800,000 layers of ice, when he could create a world with 6,000? Why would he make stars more than 6,000 light years away? And why is the earth round? Revelations has horsemen in four corners of the earth, and all of the world's population will witness Jesus come down from the sky. Shouldn't the earth be flat? And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that necessitate that Jesus was not our savior?

:By the way, the internet is not a great medium for having a civil conversation; civility is often in the tone. I assure you that I am not trying to attack, but I am trying my hardest to remain civil. I believe that you are as well and I thank you for not resorting to low-ball attacks on my character. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:32, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:By the way, the internet is not a great medium for having a civil conversation; civility is often in the tone. I assure you that I am not trying to attack, but I am trying my hardest to remain civil. I believe that you are as well and I thank you for not resorting to low-ball attacks on my character. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:32, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::''And why is the earth round?'':  A) Because that's the way he designed it.  B) Because that shape is a good shape for an Earth.  Otherwise, there would be some ridiculously-high "mountains" on the corners of the cube (if it was as cube, for example).  God makes thing according to (His) good design, not according to whimsical fantasy.

::''And why is the earth round?'':  A) Because that's the way he designed it.  B) Because that shape is a good shape for an Earth.  Otherwise, there would be some ridiculously-high "mountains" on the corners of the cube (if it was as cube, for example).  God makes thing according to (His) good design, not according to whimsical fantasy.

::''Revelations has horsemen in four corners of the earth...'':  And we still use such ''metaphors'' today.  So what?

::''Revelations has horsemen in four corners of the earth...'':  And we still use such ''metaphors'' today.  So what?

::''...all of the world's population will whitness Jesus come down from the sky.'':  Possible if (a) all the world's population has television or similar, or (b) there is some supernatural display allowing this on a near-spherical planet.

::''...all of the world's population will witness Jesus come down from the sky.'':  Possible if (a) all the world's population has television or similar, or (b) there is some supernatural display allowing this on a near-spherical planet.

::''Shouldn't the earth be flat?'':  Why?

::''Shouldn't the earth be flat?'':  Why?

::''And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that neccessitate that Jesus was not our savior?'':  See my chronologically-previous post above about correctness vs. trustworthiness.

::''And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that necessitate that Jesus was not our savior?'':  See my chronologically-previous post above about correctness vs. trustworthiness.

::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::I'll try to respond to everything as succinctly as I can

::::I'll try to respond to everything as succinctly as I can

::::'''Peer review''': This was mostly a vocabulary ...thing... on my part. What I meant was: find me an example of fraud which was found by people who do not have a vested interest in doing so. In other words, a creation scientist finding fraud by himself would not be credible to me, because finding this fraud only helps his own work. If the creation scientist is the one who finds the fraud, but then the general scientific community (or a credible entry wherein) agrees that there were fraudulent actions, there's no reason ''not'' to believe that the fraud took place.

::::'''Peer review''': This was mostly a vocabulary ...thing... on my part. What I meant was: find me an example of fraud which was found by people who do not have a vested interest in doing so. In other words, a creation scientist finding fraud by himself would not be credible to me, because finding this fraud only helps his own work. If the creation scientist is the one who finds the fraud, but then the general scientific community (or a credible entry wherein) agrees that there were fraudulent actions, there's no reason ''not'' to believe that the fraud took place.

::::'''Incorrect creationist arguments''': I took these from the [[Young Earth Creationism]] page. "Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth" and "Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old." I don't think I'm being unfair with my interpretation (the former quotation is only partial, but the latter is the full quotation from the YEC page). Both of these assume that, when you take these trends back 4.5 billion years, they give you results that we know are wrong. This in no way shows that the old earth theory is "not as certain and absolute as it's usually made out to be." These are both straw man arguements. No serious old earth scientist would argue that the Mississipi river delta existed 4.5 Ga ago, so this argument does not hold water. No pun intended.

::::'''Incorrect creationist arguments''': I took these from the [[Young Earth Creationism]] page. "Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth" and "Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old." I don't think I'm being unfair with my interpretation (the former quotation is only partial, but the latter is the full quotation from the YEC page). Both of these assume that, when you take these trends back 4.5 billion years, they give you results that we know are wrong. This in no way shows that the old earth theory is "not as certain and absolute as it's usually made out to be." These are both straw man arguments. No serious old earth scientist would argue that the Mississippi river delta existed 4.5 Ga ago, so this argument does not hold water. No pun intended.

::::'''Why should...''': None of those answers (Philip) advanced the conversation. I say again, sometimes reading context is a useful skill. Obviously all of those questions were trying to get at the question I've been asking all along. If (a) God could design the universe anyway he wants, (b) you must take the Bible literally for it to be trustworthy, and (c) God is omnipotent, why would God create a universe which leaves certain clues which, when using Occom's razor principal, seem (to the majority of His creation) to destabalize His entire following? And you say that "four corners" was a metaphor! Why can Revelation be a metaphor but not Genesis?  

::::'''Why should...''': None of those answers (Philip) advanced the conversation. I say again, sometimes reading context is a useful skill. Obviously all of those questions were trying to get at the question I've been asking all along. If (a) God could design the universe anyway he wants, (b) you must take the Bible literally for it to be trustworthy, and (c) God is omnipotent, why would God create a universe which leaves certain clues which, when using Occom's razor principal, seem (to the majority of His creation) to destabilize His entire following? And you say that "four corners" was a metaphor! Why can Revelation be a metaphor but not Genesis?  

::::'''Great Flood''': I have had at least 4 college-level courses in which we studied phase diagrams, and one studying heat transfer, and I can safely say that ice couldn't form layers, and for the 800,000 layers (or 794,000) to form all within the timeframe of the flood the amount of cooling needed would be astronomical.

::::'''Great Flood''': I have had at least 4 college-level courses in which we studied phase diagrams, and one studying heat transfer, and I can safely say that ice couldn't form layers, and for the 800,000 layers (or 794,000) to form all within the timeframe of the flood the amount of cooling needed would be astronomical.

::::'''Relativity''': I know quite a bit about relativity, but I'm in no way an expert. The white hole view of the cosmos is either supported by Einstein or not.

::::'''Relativity''': I know quite a bit about relativity, but I'm in no way an expert. The white hole view of the cosmos is either supported by Einstein or not.

::::Again, my intent was never to argue the ''science'', the whole time I've been asking about the ''theology''. I ask for the third time: Who cares when the earth was made, so long as I take Jesus Christ as my lord and savior? Why fight so hard to get people to believe in the part of the Bible that has nothing to do with the important part, forgiveness of sin? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Again, my intent was never to argue the ''science'', the whole time I've been asking about the ''theology''. I ask for the third time: Who cares when the earth was made, so long as I take Jesus Christ as my lord and savior? Why fight so hard to get people to believe in the part of the Bible that has nothing to do with the important part, forgiveness of sin? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Almost all exposure of fraud is by those with a vested interest.  The Piltdown fraud was exposed by evolutionists who realised that Piltdown was inconsistent with what they "now" (at the time) believed about the evolution of man, so they had a motive to find fault with it.  But I think your main point is that fraud has to be demonstrated as such, not just claimed.  On that, I agree, but that can be regardless of motive and regardless of worldview (creationary or evolutionary).

:::::Almost all exposure of fraud is by those with a vested interest.  The Piltdown fraud was exposed by evolutionists who realized that Piltdown was inconsistent with what they "now" (at the time) believed about the evolution of man, so they had a motive to find fault with it.  But I think your main point is that fraud has to be demonstrated as such, not just claimed.  On that, I agree, but that can be regardless of motive and regardless of worldview (creationary or evolutionary).

:::::Okay, I retract (and replace) my comment about you misrepresenting the creationist arguments.  The page you relied on did not make the point clear (I have clarified it now), but it is true that most creationists (i.e. creationists associated with the main YEC organisations, such as ICR, CMI, AiG, and etc.) do not argue that the arguments listed on the [[Young Earth Creationism]] page ''prove'' scientifically that the world is not old.  The point of those arguments, despite it not being clarified in the leading paragraph of the relevant section of that page, is to show that arguments based on uniformitarian assumptions give inconsistent results, so such arguments are not absolute and not reliable.  The Mississippi example is to show that the ''evidence'', according to uniformitarian assumption, is inconsistent with the supposed age of the river, not that it is inconsistent with the age of the planet.

:::::Okay, I retract (and replace) my comment about you misrepresenting the creationist arguments.  The page you relied on did not make the point clear (I have clarified it now), but it is true that most creationists (i.e. creationists associated with the main YEC organizations, such as ICR, CMI, AiG, and etc.) do not argue that the arguments listed on the [[Young Earth Creationism]] page ''prove'' scientifically that the world is not old.  The point of those arguments, despite it not being clarified in the leading paragraph of the relevant section of that page, is to show that arguments based on uniformitarian assumptions give inconsistent results, so such arguments are not absolute and not reliable.  The Mississippi example is to show that the ''evidence'', according to uniformitarian assumption, is inconsistent with the supposed age of the river, not that it is inconsistent with the age of the planet.

::::: I find that if I "read in context" in cases such as these, I often misunderstand the context.  You need to be clearer as to just what you are getting at.  Creationists (by and large) don't argue that you must take the Bible literally.  They argue that you should take it the way it was meant to be understood, e.g. poetry as poetry, metaphor as metaphor, and literal history as literal history.  And if the literal history is not trustworthy, how can you have confidence that the spiritual pronouncements (e.g. that heaven exists) are trustworthy?  I believe that Occam's razor encourages us to take the creation account literally.  Which is the most straightforward explanation?  That the universe was created by a Being capable of creating it, or that the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason?  The problem is not God leaving "certain clues" to "destabilize", but man's rejection of God's testimony and his determination to find an explanation that leaves God out.  God clearly told us how long it took, so there is no ambiguity there.  As for metaphor, we all use metaphors all the time, yet almost everyone can understand when metaphors are used and when someone is being literal, simply by their understanding of the language.  That is, whether or not metaphor is used is dependent on the structure of the text.  Revelation uses many metaphors, Genesis uses a few, but not so many.  Genesis 1 uses almost none.  That's a simple fact about the text itself.  You can't claim something to be metaphor simply because it is inconsistent with an opposing claim.

::::: I find that if I "read in context" in cases such as these, I often misunderstand the context.  You need to be clearer as to just what you are getting at.  Creationists (by and large) don't argue that you must take the Bible literally.  They argue that you should take it the way it was meant to be understood, e.g. poetry as poetry, metaphor as metaphor, and literal history as literal history.  And if the literal history is not trustworthy, how can you have confidence that the spiritual pronouncements (e.g. that heaven exists) are trustworthy?  I believe that Occam's razor encourages us to take the creation account literally.  Which is the most straightforward explanation?  That the universe was created by a Being capable of creating it, or that the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason?  The problem is not God leaving "certain clues" to "destabilize", but man's rejection of God's testimony and his determination to find an explanation that leaves God out.  God clearly told us how long it took, so there is no ambiguity there.  As for metaphor, we all use metaphors all the time, yet almost everyone can understand when metaphors are used and when someone is being literal, simply by their understanding of the language.  That is, whether or not metaphor is used is dependent on the structure of the text.  Revelation uses many metaphors, Genesis uses a few, but not so many.  Genesis 1 uses almost none.  That's a simple fact about the text itself.  You can't claim something to be metaphor simply because it is inconsistent with an opposing claim.

::::: As far as the ice is concerned, I forgot to pick TerryH up on this.  The ice wasn't formed ''during'' the flood, but ''after'' the flood, in the [[ice age]] which lasted for several hundred years.

::::: As far as the ice is concerned, I forgot to pick TerryH up on this.  The ice wasn't formed ''during'' the flood, but ''after'' the flood, in the [[ice age]] which lasted for several hundred years.

::::::I'm going to gracefully bow out before this just turns into an exercise in mud-slinging. Philip, you are interpreting what I say in whatever way suits your purposes, and frankly it's insulting to me. I have responses to all of your newest arguments, but I don't see why I should even bother, since you will just twist them around, or subtly change your own arguments. I talked to my dad last night (who was a Methodist minsister) and he finally answered the theology for me. I'm confident in my interpretation of the Bible and that's good enough for me. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm going to gracefully bow out before this just turns into an exercise in mud-slinging. Philip, you are interpreting what I say in whatever way suits your purposes, and frankly it's insulting to me. I have responses to all of your newest arguments, but I don't see why I should even bother, since you will just twist them around, or subtly change your own arguments. I talked to my dad last night (who was a Methodist minsister) and he finally answered the theology for me. I'm confident in my interpretation of the Bible and that's good enough for me. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I'm sorry for any offence, but you are also offending me by claiming that my responses are not genuine ones.  And your comment about your father "finally answering" your theology question implies that I failed to do so, when I made an explicit attempt to answer that very question.  Furthermore, I try very hard to not indulge in mud-slinging.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I'm sorry for any offense, but you are also offending me by claiming that my responses are not genuine ones.  And your comment about your father "finally answering" your theology question implies that I failed to do so, when I made an explicit attempt to answer that very question.  Furthermore, I try very hard to not indulge in mud-slinging.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Wonder why my edit was reverted? That was my first contribution!!--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 17:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Wonder why my edit was reverted? That was my first contribution!!--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 17:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)

:"Everyone knows that radioactive decay is accelerated in catastrophic events" is far too strong a statement. All that I have ever read in the literature is that radioactive decay ''did'' accelerate, perhaps ''once'' in the history of the earth--perhaps during Creation Week, or just before the [[Great Flood]], or sometime in between. I never read any claim that where you get disaster, you get accelerated decay.

:"Everyone knows that radioactive decay is accelerated in catastrophic events" is far too strong a statement. All that I have ever read in the literature is that radioactive decay ''did'' accelerate, perhaps ''once'' in the history of the earth--perhaps during Creation Week, or just before the [[Great Flood]], or sometime in between. I never read any claim that where you get disaster, you get accelerated decay.

:Beaides: the problem is that ''not'' everybody knows. Our job is to ''tell'' people things that the schools aren't telling them. But we have to make sure that we're telling them the right things.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 22:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)

:Besides: the problem is that ''not'' everybody knows. Our job is to ''tell'' people things that the schools aren't telling them. But we have to make sure that we're telling them the right things.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 22:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)

thanks for explaining.I meant the nuclear delay acceleration during cataclysmal events like volcano eruption. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 09:30, 21 February 2008 (EST)

thanks for explaining.I meant the nuclear delay acceleration during cataclysmal events like volcano eruption. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 09:30, 21 February 2008 (EST)

:Got a citation for that? Because you know that the uniformitarians will demand one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 09:42, 21 February 2008 (EST)

:Got a citation for that? Because you know that the uniformitarians will demand one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 09:42, 21 February 2008 (EST)

:Yes, ''what'' "nuclear delay acceleration during cataclysmal events like volcano eruption"?  I'm intrigued—and sceptical.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:49, 21 February 2008 (EST)

:Yes, ''what'' "nuclear delay acceleration during cataclysmal events like volcano eruption"?  I'm intrigued—and skeptical.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:49, 21 February 2008 (EST)