User:Awc/101 evidences for an old age of the earth and the universe (current count: 102!)
Fare thee well
This may be rather abrupt, but I suddenly realized I am bored to tears. I don't regret coming here. I've learned a lot about dating, geology, paleontology, and, not least, creationism. But I'm not getting anything back from this site anymore. The only active editors are me and Philip, mostly me, and I have the impression there are not very many people even reading this site.
To Philip's credit, I must say he has never abused his position as site owner, but has always tried to justify his edits when challenged. He has, on occasion, admitted he was wrong. On the whole, however, he does not engage with the evidence.* ** It's as though he has not only decided what his conclusion will be, but also that whatever evidence turns up must necessarily support that conclusion. I have long entertained the fantasy that he would question his beliefs a tiny bit, if only I amassed enough evidence and presented it clearly. It seems now that wasn't enough.
I plan to leave this site to its fate. I will probably continue to lurk, and may occasionally let myself be drawn into an exchange, but as for the science, which is always what has interested me most, there is already plenty there for anyone who really cares about it. I will still answer email and (probably, eventually) questions on my talk page.
Have fun, and if you can't have fun, at least learn something.
—Awc 09:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
* After some discussion of what I meant by this statement, in particular that I was only referring to his contributions to this site, whatever else he might do outside this site, Philip agreed with my assessment. I asked, "Or are you saying you want to engage with the evidence but you can't for some reason?", and he responded, "I'm saying that I'd like to, but that I don't think it would be a good use of my time." —Awc 09:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- If ...
- the choice were between a world thousands of years old and a world billions of years old,
- you had no presuppositions about which choice is true,
- you limited yourself to scientific reasoning, and
- your only source of evidence was articles in aSK concerning physics, astronomy, and geology, in their present forms [or perhaps the forms of those articles as of spring 2011],
- ... what would be your scientific, and therefore tentative, conclusion?
- If ...
- —Awc 07:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Wiki editing like the pros: User:Awc/Idioms
- User:Awc/Where I Stand — Rather than only picking apart other people's arguments, I thought I should also say where I stand.
- User:Awc/Question Evolution and Get Answers — These are my considered answers to the questions posed by Question Evolution!
- User:Awc/The Gretchen Question — The crucial question for creationists is the age of creation.
- User:Awc/young earth evidence
- User:Awc/K-Ar applied to young rocks
- User:Awc/Changing decay rates
- User:Awc/RATE - personal notes on the RATE documents
- User:Awc/Astronomical dating - transferred to Research:Radioactive dating#Astronomical dating
- User:Awc/Ice core - transferred content to Research:Ice core chronology
The list of Rules and regulations for this site is short and is silent on many important issues. One of these would be something equivalent to WP:WEIGHT. Before I started editting here I asked for clarification from Philip:
- Me: I browsed the site quite a bit but am still unclear on one point. Is it the intention of aSK to include a description of the major non-Biblical worldviews on topics where it makes a difference, including (in appropriate, not excessive, detail) not just what the others believe, but also why they believe it?
- Philip: Yes. Although the worldview could influence our considerations on what things are relevant, the main effect will be on what things are presented as true. So depending on the popularity of the particular non-biblical worldviews, it is quite relevant to know about them (including their rationale), and they would therefore be quite appropriate to include (as is already the case, with articles about Islam and evolution, for example), as long as they were not presented as true.
I document that here because Philip is currently talking a different talk at Talk:Radioactive dating#Continuing problems with the evolutionary spin, so I may want to refer to it. —Awc 11:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Geochronology kata John Woodmorappe, Steven H. Schimmrich, 1997-2003 - very detailed (discusses many examples of "false" dates) "This is a critique of the paper "Radiometric Dating Reappraised" by John Woodmorappe which originally appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (Volume 16, September 1979)."
- History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth, adapted from the book The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (Eerdmans, 1995) by Davis A. Young, an evangelical Christian geologist from Calvin College - long but looks interesting, at least as background
- homepage of Thomas Waschke, in German
- Six bad arguments from Answers in Genesis (Part 6) - discusses “Flood evidence number six” from Answers in Genesis is called “Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured.”
- Soft-sediment deformation article from Rational Wiki
- The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology - THE GREAT DELUGE - DESERT DEPOSITS - FOSSIL FORESTS - THE EARTH'S CRUST - CORAL REEFS - EVAPORITES AND SHALES - FOSSIL SPECIES - FLOOD GEOLOGY VS. ORTHODOX GEOLOGY
- SOME BASIC CONCEPTS UNDERLYING THE SCIENCE OF GEOLOGY
- geochronology article from Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, especially Nonradiometric-dating section
- I promised an article about fossil sorting; here it is. It is quite long. - has good material on paraconformities, varves, fossil forests, ...
from In Memoriam A.H.H., by Lord Alfred Tennyson
You say, but with no touch of scorn,
Sweet-hearted, you, whose light-blue eyes
Are tender over drowning flies,
You tell me, doubt is Devil-born.
I know not: one indeed I knew
In many a subtle question versed,
Who touch'd a jarring lyre at first,
But ever strove to make it true:
Perplext in faith, but pure in deeds,
At last he beat his music out.
There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds.
He fought his doubts and gather'd strength,
He would not make his judgment blind,
He faced the spectres of the mind
And laid them: thus he came at length
To find a stronger faith his own;
And Power was with him in the night,
Which makes the darkness and the light,
And dwells not in the light alone,
But in the darkness and the cloud,
As over Sinaï's peaks of old,
While Israel made their gods of gold,
Altho' the trumpet blew so loud.
from Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, by Albert Schweitzer
As of old Jacob wrestled with the angel, so modern theology wrestles with Jesus and will not let him go until he bless it -- that is, until he will consent to serve it and will suffer himself to be drawn by the modern spirit into the midst of our time and civilization. But when the day breaks, the wrestler must let him go. He will not cross the ford with us. Jesus of Nazareth will not suffer himself to be modernized.
- Wie weiland Jakob mit dem Engel, so ringt die deutsche Theologie mit Jesus von Nazareth und will nicht von ihm lassen, bis er sie segne, bis er ihr dienstbar wird und sich vom germanische Geist bezwingen läßt, mit ihm mitten in unsere Kultur und in unsere Zeit hineinzutreten. Wenn aber der Morgen kommt, muß sie von ihm lassen. Er geht nicht mit über die Furt. Jesus von Nazareth läßt sich nicht modernisieren. Als historische Erscheinung bleibt er in seine Zeit gebannt. Er antwortet nicht auf die Frage: Sage doch, wie heißest du in unserer Zeit, in unserer Sprache? Aber er segnet die, welche mit ihm gerungen haben, da sie, auch ohne ihn mitnehmen zu können wie er ist, als die so Gott von Angesicht gesehen haben und deren Seele genesen ist, ihre Straße ziehen und mit den Mächten der Welt kämpfen.
For that reason, it is a good thing that the true historical Jesus should overthrow the modern Jesus, should rise up against the modern spirit and send upon earth not peace but a sword. He was not a teacher, not a casuist; he was an imperious ruler...He comes to us as one unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lakeside, he came to those men who knew him not. he speaks to us the same word: "Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which he has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey him, whether they be wise or simple, he will reveal himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in his fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience who he is.
from "A Vision of the Last Judgment", by William Blake
"What," it will be Question'd, "When the Sun rises, do you not see a round disk of fire somewhat like a Guinea?" O no, no, I see an Innumerable company of the Heavenly host crying, `Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty.'