gadgetlady

I see your point, but then if you quote the entire thing you get accused of being verbose. You have to choose to cut off a quote somewhere, or you'd be quoting the entire life's work of everyone. In this particular case, I don't think it's a misquote, especially since I indicated that he was still an evolutionist when he said it. I think you can infer from that the he didn't find creationism compelling even though he said what he said.

LOL! You have in no way been offensive at all. It's unfortunate that a lot of people haven't done their homework in a LOT of areas, but continue to spout their mouths off like they know what they're talking about. I have a personal question for you: have you ever researched creation theory in detail or did that start with this thread? The reason I'm asking is because most people reject it outright due to what they've heard in the media and the like, without ever having researched it.

All he really adds is: My own view is that this does not strengthen the creationists' arguments. There's nothing in his quote to dispute the fact that he said what I said he said. According to YOUR website, At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." That's precisely what I was saying before (BTW, this is one of the 85 "misquotes" cited); he DID say what he was quoted to say; he just doesn't find it compelling enough to change his viewpoint away from evolution theory.

laurend, I just have to say that I am really enjoying this dialogue with you. I can't tell you how pleasant and intellectually challenging it is to respond to actual questions. I generally find that those who mock or degrade simply don't have the facts to defend their perspective and so they resort to snide comments and mockery. Not so with you. Thank you!

OK, from the 2nd link, "entire books have been published" with quotes, but, 85 "errors" have been found. Many of these "errors" or "misquotes" are simply clarification from the author that even though they already said there are siginificant things that are doubtful about evolution, they still believe it. I don't consider this a misquote or error, but rather a flaw in the author's logic.

Are you saying Edmund Ambrose did NOT say "We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists."

As an aside, the Intelligent Design movement is specifically NOT Christian and does not espouse Biblical Creationism. They hold that life is to complex to have evolved or happened by chance, but they do not point to any of the potential "designers" as "THE" one and only designer. Many proponents of ID do not believe in the God of the Bible. They simply believe that there is a designer rather than random forces.

I didn't leave that out for any nefarious reason; I have been asked to be succinct and I didn't see that posting when ICR was established or from where it derived was pertinent. Lest you still infer devious intent, I DID, after all, post the link. Perhaps you might want to cite an example of a graduate school cult? Bear in mind, this institution offers graduate degrees in Biology, Astro/Geophysics and Geology. That's not really underwater basket weaving, you know. One guy, a "researcher" at the Stanford Daily newspaper believes we should oppose Creationism and he writes an editorial as such, and he stands for the whole of Stanford? He's a guest columnist and he's written (drumroll please) ONE ARTICLE for this student newspaper? PUHLEEZE.

Sure, BJean: Dr. Grady McMurty (degree in science from Berlekey) Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short Dr. Charlie Lieberts (Chemist) Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist & Paleontologist) Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist) Dr. Alan Galbraith (Wathershed Science) Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist) Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist) Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General) Dr. Robert V. Gentry (Nuclear Physicist) Dr. Gerald Aardsman, Ph.D. (physicist and C-14 dating specialist) (sigh) I'm getting tired of cutting and pasting. Is that enough or do you want more? Becuase there are plenty more. Here are a few creation scientists, but I'm not sure if they were ever evolutionists (I've also included short bios): Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist) U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory. Dr. Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist) Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Raymond V. Damadian (inventor of the MRI) Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title 'super-scientist' but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods. If you'd like bios from any of the first list I'd be happy to provide. Here's an interesting quote from an evolutionist: "We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists." (Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose) There's a bunch more similar quotes talking about how evolution theory is on the rocks -- mind you, some of them from evolutionsts -- here: http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/squotes.html LMK if you'd like more. I appreciate the request; I much prefer responding to actual questions rather than mockery, which seems all to frequent on this board.

No, that's not what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for average people who abandoned what they were taught in Catholic school or parochial school or their church once they got to college. I'm not even looking for average people who eventually became scientists who used to believe in creationism because of the way they were raised. I'm looking for degreed scientists who, while ensconced in their field, changed from believeing in creation theory to believing in evolution theory.

From http://www.icr.edu/: The ICR Graduate School was approved by the State of California Department of Education for the Master of Science Degree programs in Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology, and Science Education. Sounds pretty serious to me. Especially since the State of California Department of Education, not generally known as a bastion of conservatism or Christianity, granted it. From http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/: Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation science is "religion". When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies — not their awareness of scientific facts.

That knife cuts both ways, doesn't it? You should listen to what some of these former evolutionists have to say about why they no longer believe in a theory to which some of them devoted their lives. And what they have to say about the agenda of those pushing that theory.

I see you are unwilling to accept creation science or intelligent design as a serious discipline, so I guess I'm asking everyone ELSE the question. There are quite a few degreed scientists who used to believe evolution theory but now instead believe creation theory. Just because you choose to disregard an entire belief system with cute, pithy comments doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Bumping this up. Anyone know of a scientist who's gone from creationist to evolutionist instead of the other way around?

So do you believe that the billions of intact fossils that we find all over the earth are a result of small local floods or volcanos and the like? What do you make of the various reports of "living fossils", of animals that haven't changed at all over the course of "120 million years" etc.?

LOL! That reminds me of that old joke: "I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken."

Huh? I'm confused. I assume you're referring to my question as to whether or not he was Muslim. You can be Muslim and also a natural-born American. It's a religion, not a nationality.

Thanks, laurend. I'm headed out the door for dinner, but I'll check it out when I get back. If you have any more sources other than his own website, I'd appreciate it.

That's funny, BJean. I was asking a question, asking for more information that I couldn't find myself. I never asked if he was related to Saddam. Do you know a lot of non-Muslims with Muslim names?

I agree with you. I had been trying not to post whole articles but rather links so people can read them themselves, but I felt that I had to respond to some specific issues. I will try to go back to my original methodology

"Bones can survive for over a year before being buried." That is very true, but let me ask you a question. If a cat dies in your back yard and you don't discover and dispose of it, will it become fossilized intact over [insert your favorite number] years? It's doubtful. It will likely be carried away by other animals or have its remains otherwise distributed in random fashion. When a fish dies, does it sink to the bottom of the ocean and lay there and become a fossil? Why do we have so many intact fossils buried in rock? Why are there fossils of animals eating other animals, giving birth, etc., if their death was not catostrophic but natural?

Did anyone hear the rumor that Obama is a Muslim or used to be? I heard it from a friend but I don't have any details. This friend also said his middle name is Hussein. Looking for anyone who's heard anything about it.

Morris then went on to explain that “large fossils...are found which extend through several strata, often 20 feet or more in thickness” (p. 102). Ken Ham has noted: “There are a number of places on the earth where fossils actually penetrate more than one layer of rock. These are called ‘polystrate fossils’ ” (2000, p. 138). Such phenomena clearly violate the idea of a gradually accumulated geologic column since, generally speaking, an evolutionary overview of that column suggests that each stratum (layer) was laid down over thousands (or even millions!) of years. Yet as Scott Huse remarked in his book, The Collapse of Evolution: Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it (1997, p. 96). Probably the most widely recognized of the polystrate fossils are tree trunks that extend vertically through two, three, four or more sections of rock—rock that supposedly was deposited during vast epochs of time. However, organic material (like wood) that is exposed to the elements will rot, not fossilize. Thus, the entire length of these tree trunks must have been preserved very quickly, which suggests that the sedimentary layers surrounding them must have been deposited rapidly—possibly (and likely) during a single catastrophe (see Ham, 2000, p. 138). As Leonard Brand explained, even if the trees had been removed from oxygen, “anaerobic bacteria cause decay unless the specimens are buried rapidly” (1997, p. 240). Consequently, it is irrational to conclude from such evidence that these formations built up slowly over millions of years. The logical explanation for such formations is that they must have been formed quickly under cataclysmic conditions. Ken Ham has observed: “For example, at the Joggins, in Nova Scotia, there are many erect fossil trees that are scattered throughout 2,500 feet of layers. You can actually see these fossil trees, which are beautifully preserved, penetrate through layers that were supposedly laid down over millions of years” (p. 138). In what surely must be a classic case of understatement, Rupke wrote concerning the Joggins polystrate fossils: “Only a wholly uncommon process of sedimentation can account for conditions like these” (1973, p. 154). [For reviews of the Joggins polystrate fossils, see: Corliss, 1990, pp. 254-256; Rupke, 1973, p. 154.] In other words, these erect fossil trees required a speedy burial to be preserved fully. What better evidence for a catastrophic event than trees fossilized in an upright position and traversing multiple layers of the geologic column? As Paul Ackerman remarked, the polystratic tree trunks “constitute a sort of frozen time clock from the past, indicating that terrible things occurred—not over millions of years but very quickly” (1986, p. 84). This type of phenomenon is not an isolated one. Rupke produced a photograph of “a lofty trunk, exposed in a sandstone quarry near Edinburgh [scotland], which measured no less than 25 meters and, intersecting 10 or 12 different strata, leaned at an angle of about 40°” (1973, p. 154). Thus, this particular tree must have been buried while falling down! In fact, one scientist who examined the tree, George Fairholme, commented on the fact that an inclined trunk constitutes a much stronger testimony for rapidity in deposition than an upright one because ...while the latter might be supposed to have been capable of retaining an upright position, in a semi-fluid mass, for a long time, by the mere laws of gravity, the other must, by the very same laws, have fallen, from its inclined to a horizontal position, had it not been retained in its inclined position by the rapid accumulation of its present stony matrix (1837, p. 394, emp. added). In his book, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, R.L. Wysong presented a photograph of another extremely unusual polystrate tree. The caption underneath the photograph read: This fossil tree penetrates a visible distance of ten feet through volcanic sandstone of the Clarno formation in Oregon. Potassium-Argon dating of the nearby John Day formation suggests that 1,000 feet of rock was deposited over a period of about seven million years or, in other words, at the rate of the thickness of this page annually! However, catastrophic burial must have formed the rock and caused the fossilization, otherwise the tree would have rotted and collapsed (1976, p. 366; see Nevins, 1974, 10[4]:191-207 for additional details). After discussing the effects of the May 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Trevor Major commented: “...upright tree stumps found in many coal beds represent, not the remains of trees growing in a peat swamp, but the effects of a flood or similar disaster” (1996, p. 16). William J. Fritz, an evolutionist, recognized the phenomenon in fossilized trees at Yellowstone National Park and stated: “I do not think that entire Eocene forests were preserved in situ [in place—JD/BT] even though some upright trees apparently were preserved where they grew (1980a, p. 313, emp. added). In another article published the same year in the same scientific journal, Fritz wrote: Deposits of recent mud flows on Mount St. Helens demonstrate conclusively that stumps can be transported and deposited upright. These observations support conclusions that some vertical trees in the Yellowstone “fossil forests” were transported in a geologic situation directly comparable to that of Mount St. Helens (1980b, p. 588, emp. added). Evolutionary uniformitarianism would have us believe that the same processes going on in nature today have formed the Earth—as opposed to large-scale catastrophes (like, for example, the Flood of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-8). However, in light of the evidence from polystrate fossils, creationists believe that just the opposite is true. Some scientists have suggested that the fossil forests in Yellowstone may have been transported by geologic and/or volcanic activity possibly associated with the Noahic flood (see: Brand, 1997, p. 69; Roth, 1998, p. 246). Furthermore, as Morris and Parker have discussed in their book, What is Creation Science?: Polystrates are especially common in coal formations. For years and years, students have been taught that coal represents the remains of swamp plants slowly accumulated as peat and then even more slowly changed into coal (1987, p. 168). If polystrate fossils must form quickly in order to be preserved, and if (as many evolutionists believe) coal has been formed over periods lasting millions of years, how could there be so many (or any!) polystrate fossils in coal veins? The answer, of course, is that the evolutionary scenario requiring vast eons of time for the origin of coal (and, for that matter, oil) is wrong. Yet tree trunks are not the only representatives of polystrate fossils. Even animals’ bodies form polystrate fossils (like catfish in the Green River Formation in Wyoming—see Morris, 1994, p. 102). But perhaps the most famous of all animal polystrate fossils was that of a baleen whale discovered in 1976. Not only was the whale fossilized in diatomite, but it was buried on its back at a 60-degree angle (with its tail down and its head pointing up). K.M. Reese, a staff writer for the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Chemical and Engineering News, reported the find in great detail in the October 11, 1976 issue of that publication. Workers at the Dicalite division of Grefco, Inc. have found the fossil skeleton of a baleen whale some 10 to 12 million years old in the company’s diatomaceous earth quarries in Lompoc, California. They’ve found fossils there before; in fact, the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected anywhere. It was spotted by operator James Darrah and Dr. Barnes is directing the excavation. The whale is standing on end in the quarry and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet. The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long (1976, 54[4]:40). In the January 24, 1977 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Larry S. Helmick, professor of chemistry at Cedarville College in Cedarville, Ohio, wrote to the editor to comment on this unusual find, and suggested: K.M. Reese made no comment concerning the implications of the unique discovery of a baleen whale skeleton in a vertical orientation in a diatomaceous earth quarry in Lompoc, California. However, the fact that the whale is standing on end as well as the fact that it is buried in diatomaceous earth would strongly suggest that it was buried under very unusual and rapid catastrophic conditions. The vertical orientation of the whale is also reminiscent of observations of vertical tree trunks extending through several successive coal seams. Such phenomena cannot easily be explained by uniformitarian theories, but fit readily into an historical framework based upon the recent and dynamic universal flood described in Genesis, chapters 6-9 (1977, 55[4]:5). The amazing part of this story, however, concerns the response from the scientific community to the Reese report, and Dr. Helmick’s letter to the editor about the find. Read what one scientist, Harvey Olney, wrote in a letter to the editor of Chemical and Engineering News—and believe it if you can! Dr. Helmick, how dare you imply that our geology textbooks and uniformitarian theories could possibly be wrong! Everybody knows that diatomaceous earth beds are built up slowly over millions of years as diatom skeletons slowly settle out on the ocean floor. The baleen whale simply stood on its tail for 100,000 years, its skeleton decomposing, while the diatomaceous snow covered its frame millimeter by millimeter. Certainly you wouldn’t expect intelligent and informed establishment scientists of this modern age to revert to the outmoded views of our forefathers just to explain such finds! (1977, 55[12]:4, emp. added). There you have it. Rather than accept the straightforward facts at face value, and admit that gradualistic, uniformitarian processes simply do not work, we are expected to believe instead that a whale carcass stood on its tail—decomposing all the while—as millions of tiny diatom skeletons enshrouded it over a period of 100,000 years! [For an in-depth, technical report on the baleen whale polystrate fossil, see Snelling, 1995.] After Dr. Rupke (who, remember, coined the term “polystrate fossils”) cited numerous examples of polystrate fossils (1973, pp. 152- 157), he concluded: “Nowadays, most geologists uphold a uniform process of sedimentation during the earth’s history; but their views are contradicted by plain facts” (p. 157, emp. added). Contradicted by plain facts indeed! Rupke then wrote: “Personally, I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils constitute a crucial phenomenon both to the actuality and the mechanism of a cataclysmal deposition” (1973, p. 157). What “cataclysmal deposition” could have produced the types, and numbers, of polystrate fossils that have been discovered around the globe? How about the Noahic flood? from http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/184

3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans. a) Common fossils. There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free Water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks.3 A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noah’s Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres. Special examples. We’ve often featured in this magazine instances which are particularly spectacular, like the mother ichthyosaur apparently ‘freeze-framed’ in the process of giving birth. Then there are the fossil fish which are found either in the process of swallowing other fish or with undigested fish intact in their stomachs from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/howold.asp

You can choose to believe me or not, but it's the truth. I have used that phrase before IRL and have never been "called" on it -- until now. I have apologized to any I offended. I will not use that term again.