±«Óătv

I'm looking forward to this. It's great to see the ±«Óătv funding what I'm sure will be a fantastic programme. I'm glad it'll be on ±«Óătvi too since the time slot makes it a bit late for my young children to watch.

Here's a good site with an overview of the geological history of N Ireland

My television will be be turned off at 9pm tonight. I, along with many others are disgusted that the ±«Óătv is using license payers money to spew out this filth over the airwaves. It is evolutionary nonsense, which is in complete opposition to the Biblical account of Creation. I agree entirely with what Cecil Andrews said on ±«Óătvs talkback today.

I doubt very much that evolution will be mentioned in the first programme.
The 'closed mind' attitude displayed by J Trimble is one of the main reasons that creatioism should have no place in schools.
I'm sure he'll continue to comment here on the series without watching it!

Really looking forward to the series William. I hope it's received well.

The series sounds brilliant will. i've enjoyed reading about the progress on the blog. readers of this blog have known about it well before the rest of the country that's now arguing about it! i will def be watching tonight. so pleased we're doing this in NI, it's about time we did grandscale TV that celebrates NI.

J Trimble- I know isnt it brilliant. And you really shouldnt beg the question. It is in direct opposition to the creation story and do you know why that is???? Because the creation story of Genesis is total rubbish written over 2000 years ago. You people want to get your heads out of the sand!

I was looking forward to this series and I wasn't disappointed. My only criticism is that it was over all too soon. I understand that there are budgetary restrictions with programs like these but would have preferred if this first installment of Blueprint had been stretched over two separate episodes.

Is there going to be a book to accompany the series?

I found tonights programme extremely interesting and informative. I am really looking forward to the rest of the series.

I am delighted that my license fee is contributing to programming of this quality.

Bravo, Will. Great job. I loved the Sligo beach. I think we can maybe forgive you for letting the young-earth creationist nutjobs have a "twofer" on Sunday Sequence yesterday. Just don't let it happen again :-)

Tonight's first episode was astonishing. I watched with my 12 year old and she was completely fascinated and we ended up talking about geology afterwards! Congratulations to the ±«Óătv for doing this. Stunning pictures and a great watch throughout.

The Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption in Washington State in May 1980 produced enough evidence during 1982 to turn the Blueprint documentary into a story of evolutionary fiction a “flaming snowflake” The Mount St Helens 1980 eruption produced the mature look but in actual fact was young in time debunking the deep time theory being propagated by the Blueprint program.

And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The entire Blueprint program over and over again pointed to the universal Genesis flood but no mention of this. The program made no sense whatsoever about who and what we are, God said in the Bible making sense of who we are, “Sinners” for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

William, There once was a brainy baboon who always breathed down a bassoon for he said, it appears that in billions of years I shall certainly hit on a tune. Keep blowing all I here is bum notes.

Great job Will!
One fantastic fact is that William missed out the first 4 billion years of the earths existance - but then that would have taken the full yearly budget for ±«Óătv NI !!
The sad thing is that not many YECist will change their views - perhaps one wlll prove me wrong?

That was a good way to spend a small hour of Monday evening. Some of the underground shots, both of caves and man-made tunnels, were interestingly surprising for me to see.

I fear though that William might soon be expecting a posse of angry YECs to show up at his home or place of work. Surely a great compliment for the program he made. :)

What a wonderful programme. Visually stunning! (The landscape, and camera work that is! LOL)

I watched it.
William was only 5 minutes into 'the blueprint' when he introduced the Cuilcagh Mountain as 'one of our best kept secrets'- the focus of 'an earth-shattering collision'.But then he spoils the build-up by finding 'crumpled and folded rocks' as 'the crumple zone of that collision'. Now we know that earthqukes today (caused by softer impacts than the one he was describing) do not leave 'twisted and folded layers of rocks' as an aftermath. Rocks break, shatter, fracture, abrade, etc. There is no secret about that. In fact, more in the 'best kept secrets' archive, there are geological sites where folded layers of rocks, supposedly differing in age by millions of years, have tree trunks 'growing' through them. Hilarious! Obviously all the layers were laid down in swift sequence, and, still soft and pliable, were subject to earth movements which caused folding. Think CATASTROPHE. Think FLOOD.
If you want a thought-provoking alternative presentation of a theory for rock and cave formations visit YouTubes Emil Silvestru, an eminent karstologist.
As William says, from another perspective, 'When you know how they were formed, you will start to see them in a completely different Light'.

Great job William. Brilliant first episode. It should get the attention of even the most disinterested.

And its great too see that the YEC loonies are getting all hot and bothered. Mount St Helens?? Hahaha............rubbish.

Ben D Rocks says 'THINK FLOOD'! that sound brilliant until the point were one asks 'did Noah really get two of every species on the planet onto his ark, literally? When they answer yes, which of course they have to, you will finally enter the warped world of the Young Earthers.

The problem for the Young Earthers is obvious. If the world is billions of years old, then one has to wonder what the hell God was doing until he decided to make us, in his image of course? The biblical literalists are clinging on for dear life. And as pathetic as it is to witness, it is also hilarious.

It was going quite well for them on Talkback today until the dreaded question about Noah's ark (see above). David Dunseiths reaction was brilliant!

I think it's a shame that in this place geology is argued purely from a theist/atheist viewpoint.
It's also intellectually corrupt as geology tells you nothing about either, "to talk about the earth" is just that and no more.

Come to think of it, that salt mine (I didn't even know the bugger existed!!) is sufficient evidence on its own to disprove creationism. How do our feathered friends explain *that* by "THINKING FLOOD"?

It seems that the contortions of creationists are even more impressive than folded rock strata (and BenDRocks' suggestion that they simply shatter shows a rather miserable grasp of geology and the behaviour of materials under sustained stress and pressure). It seems that no amount of scientific evidence can shift their purely psychological adherence to a simplistic Near Eastern set of creation myths. There is probably a lot to be learnt about human psychology by studying these aberrant processes. Why are some people not open to rational argument?

One of the repeated editions of Coast
dunno when it's on again!

On: ±«Óătv 2 Northern Ireland (Digital)
Date: Monday 31st March 2008 (Already shown)
Time: 13:15 to 14:15 (1 hour long)

Dublin to Derry. Series 2, episode 5.
Neil Oliver and the team take a journey around the coast of the British Isles. Between Dublin and Derry, Miranda Krestovnikoff joins the punters at a unique horse race by the sea

and Alice Roberts is sent to the Irish salt mines.

Mark Horton investigates a lost year in the life of the SS Great Britain, the world's first ocean liner, and Neil Oliver finds an eyewitness to the untold story of the surrender of the German U-Boat fleet.

If Amenhotep can explain how layers of folded rock strata were formed without fracturing I will explain creationism (I prefer 'Fall Theory') to him without contortions.
My post also said that 'Rocks break, shatter, fracture, abrade. etc.' Cleanly folded rock strata can be found in many places in the earth. While my knowledge in the field of materials may be practical rather than theoretical(diy.,bending tiles and blocks, etc.:))Amenhotep's knowledge of 'the behaviour of materials under sustained stress and pressure' would have him laughed out of a builders yard.

If Amenhotep can explain how layers of folded rock strata were formed without fracturing I will explain creationism (or 'Fall Theory') to him without contortions.
My post also said that 'Rocks break, shatter, fracture, abrade. etc.' Cleanly folded rock strata can be found in many places in the earth. While my knowledge in the field of materials may be practical rather than theoretical(diy.,bending tiles, kerbing, blocks, etc.:))Amenhotep's knowledge of 'the behaviour of materials under sustained stress and pressure' would have him laughed out of a builders yard.

quoting Orlock
I think it's a shame that in this place geology is argued purely from a theist/atheist viewpoint.
It's also intellectually corrupt as geology tells you nothing about either, "to talk about the earth" is just that and no more.

Exactly - Bluprint pt 1 just demonstrates that the earth is very old - nobody tries to bring God into the equation except the IDiots and YECists!!

Orlock #19-

I'll have to disagree with you there. To talk about the earth is also to talk about its history, and -inevitably- its origin. There are a great many people still around who believe the earth was created a few thousand years ago; thus the debate. I think it's an inescapable discussion on this topic.

If a solid body is enclosed on all sides by another solid body, of the two bodies that one first became hard which, in the mutual contact, expresses on its own surface the properties of the other surface.
In other words: a solid object will cause any solids that form around it later to conform to its own shape.

This Ben D Rocks, is how folded rock strata can be formed without 'appearing' to be fractured. You are talking about things that have happened over millions of years and you then want to compare that to what you observe on a damn building site? Ignorance mate, total ignorance. That is characteristic of people like you I am afraid. Please I want your response to what I have just explained to you.

... expect to see lots of maps carved in sand on beaches during the summer.

Quite amusing(but also depressing on reflection) to see some of the creationist comments which can only really be described as arguments from ignorance. Come on people- get out more or at least become aware of the work of those who did get off their backsides to go out and do some original research. Darwin voyaged around the world for a few years observing flora, fauna and geological processes. Alfred Russel Wallace who independently developed the idea of natural selection did extensive field work in the Amazon and in the Malay peninsula. William Smith who developed the first geological map of England and Wales spent his life studying rocks and the fossils contained in them and noted that each stratum of rock had a particular suite of fossils associated with it. In our own time we have had teams from America (GISP2) and Europe(GRIP) – go on google the acronyms and find out what they mean - drilling cores two miles down through the ice on the Greenland ice sheet and finding information about climate changes for the last 100,000 years. There are also teams involved in taking sediment cores from the bottom of the North Atlantic which show evidence for numerous ice ages over the last 1 million years. But it may just be easier to sit at home reading the bible and switching off the T.V when something which challenges your preconceptions comes on. Do these people really wish to live in a world which knows no more than a semi-pastoral tribe did two and a half thousand years ago? Progress has always been driven by those who didn’t take the lazy option and pushed the boundaries. I would imagine, for example, that leprosy sufferers are glad that some researchers took the trouble to find out what caused the disease and eventually what could effect a cure and so do not have to endure the old testament treatment -Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper and the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and, he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, Unclean.(Leviticus 13) I myself would prefer to stay in the warm and dry and take the antibiotics.
Glad to see the ±«Óătv still does very occasionally fulfil the conditions of its original remit,ie, to inform and entertain as opposed to the usual diet of dancing on ice, x factor etc!

If Amenhotep can explain how layers of folded rock strata were formed without fracturing I will explain creationism (or 'Fall Theory') to him without contortions.
My post also said that 'Rocks break, shatter, fracture, abrade. etc.' Cleanly folded rock strata can be found in many places in the earth. While my knowledge in the field of materials may be practical rather than theoretical(diy.,bending tiles, kerbing, blocks, etc.:))Amenhotep's knowledge of 'the behaviour of materials under sustained stress and pressure' would have him laughed out of a builders yard.

freethinker : the Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since then it has decayed 7%. The main runway at Aldergrove has changed its name from 08/26 to 07/25 because of this. It(the field) is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. Approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life on earth would have been impossible. So how is it millions of years old?

By the way, great graphics and vivid commentary on the show.

freethinker, William and others : the Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since then it has decayed 7%.That's why the main runway at Belfast Int'l has changed its name from 26/08 to 25/07. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing it we see that 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible. How then is the earth millions of years old? Would it not be more honest to say where you get this assumption and why you believe it?

BTW, great graphics and vivid commentary. I enjoyed watching the show last night.

Great programme William I really enjoyed it especially the bit about Ireland being formed in 2 parts and only being joined together later in Earths history. I look forward to the rest of the series.

jason
easy one -
the earth's magnetic field reverses at intervals of on average 250,000 yrs

Blueprint part1 was high on drama, speculation and imagination, but low on facts. Just how did you discover that those rocks were millions of years old with fossils in them, Will?
Blueprint website states:
Geologists believe that life forms evolved from the simple to the more complex and consequently they established a sequence based on this assumption: fish-amphibians-reptiles-mammals.

This allowed these early geologists to distinguish between different strata and types of rock based on the fossilised remains it held.

Is this not a case of circular reasoning? There is more than the earth going round in circles!

Ben D Rocks wrote

"If Amenhotep can explain how layers of folded rock strata were formed without fracturing I will explain creationism (or 'Fall Theory') to him without contortions. "

Fall Theory?!?! Whahaha! Could I presume that the different fields the theory deals with have creative names too? Like 'talking snake theory' to explain mans origins, or 'big floating zoo theory' regarding that flood for which there isn't nearly enough water around?

No shortage of good laughs when christians try their hand at science. Bendy, a scientific theory should be able to make testable predictions. Would you care to enlighten us about the predictive power of Fall Theory?

Hello S Gilkinson,

" Just how did you discover that those rocks were millions of years old with fossils in them, Will?"

Now Peter we wouldn't want the facts to ruin a 'good' story!!

BenDRocks, the problem is that we are not talking about a builder's yard here - we are talking about rocks under enormous pressure (and quite high temperatures) deep underground (as in *miles*). These are not forces that you see in a builder's yard (routinely!). Part of the difficulty for you is that these strata are often so thick that there *cannot* have been a mud layer present - all the water gets squeezed out if the particulates are in partial suspension. Ah, but why do I even bother? It's not as if you're going to go and study the physics of it or anything.

But hey, you suggested that you would explain "Fall Theory" to us - go ahead. I would like you to tell us precisely how a tens of metres thick salt bed has ended up 1200 feet under layers of sedimentary rock and basalt under my house, and itself on top of further sedimentary beds. The time window you have is between 4004BCE and 1000BCE (there are iron age remains near here).

Knock yourself out.

I assume that the S Gilkinson who left the patronising comment above is the Deputy Chairman of Creation Outreach Ministries, a young earth outfit formed in Northern Ireland last year. You guys were really vocal this week Stephen ... not even a picket outside the ±«Óătv! If your whole reason for existing as an organisation is to combat evolution, we might have expected you to actually pop your head about the parapet this week. But, no! Not a peep form Creation Outreach Ministries. Instead, it was left to Cecil Andrews to go on Talk Back and sound like a dinosaur.

Interesting, visually stunning, well presented, well produced...but did I really spend an hour learning about rocks?

S.

Amenhotep wrote:
''BenDRocks, the problem is that we are not talking about a builder's yard here - we are talking about rocks under enormous pressure (and quite high temperatures) deep underground (as in *miles*).''

It is quite obvious that you did not watch the programme, Amenhotep; yet you presume to pontificate. The 'twisted and folded layers of rock' which William approached with reverence and touched were thin; and anyway, polystrate trees have been associated with them (enormous pressure?? high temperatures?? deep underground??) Wise up!- and don't attempt to major on 'thickness'.

''These are not forces that you see in a builder's yard (routinely!)''
Just don't go there :)
''But hey, you suggested that you would explain "Fall Theory" to us - go ahead.'

Sorry, Amenhotep. It was a conditional offer, and I am reluctant to impart to you that on which the elect deliberate while you are so far off understanding how folded layers of rock are shaped. Think FLOOD. Trouble with you evolutionists is that you lack any imagination. You are indoctrinated. Try a willing suspension of disbelief; surely a good openminded scientific approach -the searching mind of the child.
As my Lord, Jesus Christ, said,'Unless you repent/change and become like a little child....

''Knock yourself out.''

Would not help. It is with sorrow that I have to tell you that on this venture there is no out.

For all you folks who are convinced that the world is millions/billions of years old as presented in Blueprint.
The only reason for the assumed millions of years is so that something which is impossible, might just be possible, given enough time, ie evolution (rocks to people). Your ancestor was a rock which slowly developed into you over millions of years. This is a fairytale for adults. Door handles don't happen by to form by chance, yet you believe people just happened by blind random processes!
Just think: what if you were wrong - what if the earth was just thousands of years old - what if there was a God who created the world and you - what if you were responsible to Him for your actions - what if there was a heaven and a hell - what if you died without making preparations for the journey!

Hello S Gilkinson, you wrote,

"Just think: what if you were wrong - what if the earth was just thousands of years old - what if there was a God who created the world and you - what if you were responsible to Him for your actions - what if there was a heaven and a hell - what if you died without making preparations for the journey!"

This sounds a bit like Pascals wager. It's not a convincing argument. Let me give an example of why it's not.

Do you tell your mother to wear a burqa? What if Muslims have it right? Or what if some of the indians of South America had it right, should we sacrifice one person a day by ripping their heart out while they're still alive, to ensure the sun will rise again tomorrow? That's what they did. What if they were right?

There are so many different beliefs. You or your mother don't apply the 'what if religion X or Y is right' thinking to any of them except christianity. While your mother could cover her face without totally changing her life. But she doesn't, and you're quite ok with that, because you both don't think Islam is right. The 'what if it is right' question is not in slightest bit convincing to you for all religions except one. The way that you look at all these others is the same way atheists look at christianity. And hence we are not in the least bit bothered by the questions you asked. Once you've understood that christianity is just another fairy tale, the horrors predicted by the fairy tale don't scare you in the least.

greets,
Peter

S G
Every ±«Óătv nature or science programme has an old earth and evolutionary starting point.
I would respectively ask you to elaborate a little on how you feel about the ±«Óătv and other media outlets transmitting material which you presumably feel is totally wrong and part of a global atheist conspiracy.
I think if I was in that position I would be very frustrated and very unwilling to pay my licence fee.

freethinker is right: the ±«Óătv has sold out to evolution and big bang theory. It is a disgrace. Imagine the uproar if the ±«Óătv decided that Christianity is the only true religion. There would be a battle in the streets. What's the difference? The ±«Óătv has decided, in the face of genuine scientific debate to the contrary, that Darwin was right and religion is wrong! That is not journalism and it is not truth either. William Crawley has joined the ranks of evolutionist TV campaigners, from Attenborough to Dawkins, who are pushing their atheistic-humanist-evolutionary philosophy on TV. This blueprint programme was, I am sure, successful as a TV programme but it was harmful to Northern Ireland. Harmful because evolution is the basis for the breakdown of our society, from marriage breakdown to stem cell research, from homosexuality to the rise of secularisation. The ±«Óătv, yet again, proves itself to be the cathedral of secular values in our world today.

ptl
you say
freethinker is right!

I am totally in agreement with the science of Blueprint and the ±«Óătv in general - not to mention 99% of reputable scientists

I was asking how youse FEEL about this and what you are going to do about it?

In my opinion in the long term reason and rationality will win over faith and superstition! When I was a teenager questioning the bible would have been a 'criminal' offence - contrast that with now! - and that trend will continue!

Every ±«Óătv nature or science programme has an old earth and evolutionary starting point. Correct but why should this be the case? There is a philosophy to keep people from the truth. Evolution is a faith position, so is creationism, but evolution is a blind faith about blind chance processes.
Where was the science in Blueprint? It was largely conjecture based on evolutionary pre-suppositions. Rocks/fossils don't come with age tags attached!

Who has got a “closed mind” to a Creator God? Who has got a “rubbish” approach when somebody questions the hypothesis of evolution? Now who has their heads buried in the sand? Who is glad that their licence fee is being used for biased programs? Now who is an antagonistic evolutionary nut job?

There are many sad evolutionists who are walking about in the darkness of their closed minds! With their eyes closed to God’s creation, for “His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse”. The problem for the evolutionary loony tunes is that to make their evolutionary theory half respectable or convincing they have to create imaginary time; they become time lords, Dr Who’s, they are lost with the star ship Enterprise in time and space, they live in the world of science fiction, the world of make believe, they subscribe to the theory of mathematical impossibilities, now that is what I call one hilarious delusion, one big laugh, they are locked into the equation of nothingness + time + chance equals everything in their closed minds, their gigantic problem being that this fantasy is unsupported by science because it can’t be observed but they the evolutionist won’t admit to this transparent fact therefore making the evolutionary hypothesis a laughing stock in the world of science. The difference with Biblical Creation is that it is an observable fact the evidence is there to observe day and daily, the only thing is that the apostles of Darwin the secular humanist and their ilk are walking around with their eyes closed they are blinded in the foolishness of their sinful hearts for “The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt”.

The serpent has crept into the church under the guise of theistic evolution blaming God for evolution and turning the Genesis account into an allegory and at worse a farce making the Bible redundant by saying that there is no need for redemption but God says in his precious Word “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Human history teems with alternative explanations of origins reflecting man’s efforts under Satan’s direction to eliminate the Creator and to remove Him from His Throne.

The anvil of God's Word,For ages, skeptics blows have beat upon;Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,The anvil is unharmed - the hammers gone.

Who has got a “closed mind” to a Creator God? Who has got a “rubbish” approach when somebody questions the hypothesis of evolution? Now who has their heads buried in the sand? Who is glad that their licence fee is being used for biased programs? Now who is an antagonistic evolutionary nut job?

There are many sad evolutionists who are walking about in the darkness of their closed minds! With their eyes closed to God’s creation, for “His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse”. The problem for the evolutionary loony tunes is that to make their evolutionary theory half respectable or convincing they have to create imaginary time; they become time lords, Dr Who’s, they are lost with the star ship Enterprise in time and space, they live in the world of science fiction, the world of make believe, they subscribe to the theory of mathematical impossibilities, now that is what I call one hilarious delusion, one big laugh, they are locked into the equation of nothingness + time + chance equals everything in their closed minds, their gigantic problem being that this fantasy is unsupported by science because it can’t be observed but they the evolutionist won’t admit to this transparent fact therefore making the evolutionary hypothesis a laughing stock in the world of science. The difference with Biblical Creation is that it is an observable fact the evidence is there to observe day and daily, the only thing is that the apostles of Darwin the secular humanist and their ilk are walking around with their eyes closed they are blinded in the foolishness of their sinful hearts for “The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt”.

The serpent has crept into the church under the guise of theistic evolution blaming God for evolution and turning the Genesis account into an allegory and at worse a farce making the Bible redundant by saying that there is no need for redemption but God says in his precious Word “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Human history teems with alternative explanations of origins reflecting man’s efforts under Satan’s direction to eliminate the Creator and to remove Him from His Throne.

The Universe caused itself to exist

Our Universe is one of billions of others

Life came from non life

Just who are the idiots?

SG and other creationists:
Here's a problem. Scientists *can* open their minds to the concept of a young earth and a selective-literal concept of biblical creation. We're used to it. We call it a "model". What we then do with models is test them with actual evidence.

And guess what? The Young Earth Model falls spectacularly on its backside. It totally flunks any evidential test. Game over - we don't even need to go back there. We *know* the Earth is much older than 6000 years; we *know* that there was not a global flood approx 2500BCE.

As for the origin of the universe and of life, saying "goddidit" is not an explanation, because you have not proven the existence of a god in the first place, nor have you shown any explanation for why such an entity should exist anyway.

So, it is not that scientists have "closed their mind" to anything - quite the contrary - they have opened their minds; they can work with it, and the creationist/intelligent design model FAILS.

[I don't know if this will get through - pesky blog software keeps mangling my posts]

Xyclon wrote:
''If a solid body is enclosed on all sides by another solid body, of the two bodies that one first became hard which, in the mutual contact, expresses on its own surface the properties of the other surface.
In other words: a solid object will cause any solids that form around it later to conform to its own shape.''
If I may quote you on your learned exposition.- 'Ignorance mate, total ignorance'. Have a look at overfolding and recumbent folding. To have the softer layer adhering to the hardened layer would be like plastering a ceiling; which prompts the question -'Were you plastered when you came up with this one?' Now, for more entertainment,. venture an explanation for 'planation surfaces' which are generally found at three levels all over the earth.

Romans 8:29. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
(having posting problems - multiple posts; which evolutionists should not interpret as increased information :) - or no posts.

William,

Watched blueprint 1 last night. Well made and very, very interesting (regardless of timeline).

Are you aware of Ben Stein's (comedian, lawyer, lecturer, etc.) documentary - ?

Hopefully you will review this movie when it eventually (if ever) makes its way over here.

Amenhotep,

You say -

"What we then do with models is test them with actual evidence."

What evidence has been offered by Scientists for saying -

-The Universe caused itself to exist

-Our Universe is one of billions

-Life came from non life

And what evidence is there for saying there is no God?

For something to exist now, something must have always existed. Something cannot come from nothing.

If one of your presuppositions is that God does not exist then it is hardly surprising that interpretation of all evidence results in a naturalistic answer.

Hey Will,

No intention of adding to the debate re creationism etc...no point, it could and no doubt will go on for...well how long is a piece of string...and is just such a perfect example of the NI condition.

However love the idea of the programme...I wander around our countryside and am always on the look out for markers that tell us something about the nature of the landscape, its formation and how humankind has impacted on that over the years.

You answered one question for me. I stayed in Easkey about four years ago and found the fossils on the shore...we guessed at what they might be....WATER LILLIES.... yeah that wasn't on our list and 350 million years old...not the oldest fossils in Ireland I have found but not bad.

I have recently near to where I live discovered stone age bits and pieces on the shoreline...flint heads and pottery too which has sparked my interest to find out and learn more.

I look forward to watching more of this programme and hope to be further suprised by what I learn...thankyou.

Cheerio for now...Vincent..x

Predictably Amenhotep avoids explaining how rock folding occurs, and instead goes modelling -with his own models of course. He needs to answer the man in the pew with his feet firmly on presentday ground. He could condescend to an openmindedness which looks at the Young Earth Models of such as Dr John Baumgardner for instance. He could have a go at explaining planation surfaces, or why there are the remains of salt lakes in places way above present sea-levels.

Here's a problem. I explain to a class that all the varieties of dogs are bred from the feral wolf, and, after further elucidation, explain the impossibility of breeding a wolf from purebred poodles, or greyhounds, etc due to loss of genetic information. A perceptive child then asks, 'Sir, does this mean the wolf's parents were even more complex?' Come in Amenhotep and explain to her how you get back from there to German scientist Ernst Haeckel's 'blob', aka the cell. You could also enliven the discussion by introducing the Jurassic beaver, and the variety of descendents it might possibly generate.
Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
Of course, the open minds of scientists *know* that this event, the cornerstone belief of Christianity, cannot have happened.

I see a lot of Creationist/Theists here attacking the science behind the geology Blueprint covered.

Ben D Rocks - here is a couple of questions for you.

Why do you think Science is not aflame with debate about these questions? If the questions you raise were a tenth as contentious as you suggest, then we'd have geologists lining up to shoot holes in these ideas. How many of you boys are Geologists?

PTL? Ben D? S Gilkinson? Billy?
You guys talk so freely about the flawed Science in Blueprint I feel just certain at least one of you has a PhD in Geology. If you don't have a PhD in Geology then can you please detail how the Science is flawed and provide Scientifically accredited and peer reviewed research that contradicts the Blueprint position?

If you can't, your accusations of wasted license money don't add up....

Predictably Amenhotep avoids explaining how rock folding occurs, and instead goes modelling -with his own models of course. He needs to answer the man in the pew with his feet firmly on presentday ground. He could condescend to an openmindedness which looks at the Young Earth Models of such as Dr John Baumgardner for instance. He could have a go at explaining planation surfaces, or why there are the remains of salt lakes in places way above present sea-levels.

Here's a problem. I explain to a class that all the varieties of dogs are bred from the feral wolf, and, after further elucidation, explain the impossibility of breeding a wolf from purebred poodles, or greyhounds, etc due to loss of genetic information. A perceptive child then asks, Sir, does this mean the wolf's parents were even more complex? Come in Amenhotep and explain to her how you get back from there to German scientist Ernst Haeckel's 'blob', aka the cell. You could also enliven the discussion by introducing the Jurassic beaver, and the variety of descendents it might possibly generate.
Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
Of course the open minds of scientists *know* that this event, the cornerstone belief of Christianity, cannot have happened.

Bendrocks,
I was actually working with *your* models - they are deficient, and do not explain the evidence. Simple as that.

As far as wolves and doggies are concerned, of course there is loss of genetic variation - that is what natural selection *does* - it non-randomly selects on the basis of phenotype, thereby shifting the genotype of the population. "Artificial selection" does precisely the same thing.

Here's the rub: variation is *regenerated* all the time, because DNA copying is not perfect. There is far far more genetic variability now in the various breeds of dog than there ever was (or is) in the original wolf population.

As for the folded rocks, think PRESSURE ;-)

Predictably Amenhotep avoids explaining how rock folding occurs, and instead goes modelling -with his own models of course. He needs to answer the man in the pew with his feet firmly on presentday ground. He could condescend to an openmindedness which looks at the Young Earth Models of such as Dr John Baumgardner for instance. He could have a go at explaining planation surfaces, or why there are the remains of salt lakes in places way above present sea-levels.
Here's a problem. I explain to a class that all the varieties of dogs are bred from the feral wolf, and, after further elucidation, explain the impossibility of breeding a wolf from purebred poodles, or greyhounds, etc due to loss of genetic information. A perceptive child then asks, Sir, does this mean the wolf's parents were even more complex? Come in Amenhotep and explain to her how you get back from there to German scientist Ernst Haeckel's 'blob', aka the cell. You could also enliven the discussion by introducing the Jurassic beaver, and the variety of descendents it might possibly generate.
Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
Of course the open minds of scientists *know* that this event, the cornerstone belief of Christianity, cannot have happened.

That program was stunning, almost as good as Aubrey Manning's 'Earth' series, I was going to complain about your giving the loonies an easy ride on Sunday Sequence but I now forgive you that. I don't understand how someone who claims a knowledge of science can utter such ludicrous statements as 'radiometric dating is inaccurate because we don't know the original amount of isotope involved', even a gcse student could tell you that it doesn't matter about the amount of original isotope, it's the rate of decay that is measured.There isn't a shred of evidence that any decay rate has ever changed. Keep up the good work William and best wishe

Anonymous is right, a dog is a dog regardless of breed, it's also a mammal as is a bat and a whale, according to the Bible a bat is a bird and a whale is a fish, back to the gcse students again they will tell you and even argue with you that bats and whales are just as much mammals as dogs (and humans) are, perhaps the Bible is wrong, surely not! I hope creationist don't drive around in blasphemous cars, i.e. cars with round wheels, not based on the biblical value of pi. In the Book of Kings the circular pool outside Solomon's Temple is described as being 10 cubits across and 30 cubits in diameter, this gives a value of '3.0' for pi, 3 and a seventh would have been a good workable value and even more accurate values than this were known to the Greeks at the time, it's physically impossible for a circular object to have these dimensions so how come the great Architect of the universe can't even get something as basic as this right, maybe this physical constant has changed just like the isotopic decay rates of potassium , argon, uranium etc.

No models are perfect. You only have to look at the present obsession - global warming. Many experts with contrary, and thus unwanted, opinions are simply ignored. But contemporary climate models and weather forecasting are just as speculative; a new mini-theory every other day. What climate model accounts for the phenonmena revealed by the Piri Reis Map. Incidentally, Einstein found it so intriguing that he proposed a 'theory of crustal displacement'- but *real* scientists do not go there :) Probably Einstein did not have a PhD at the time:)
A 'Flood model' explains rock folding, planation surfaces, the many hundreds of 'flood' stories (many remarkably similar, in diverse cultures), the catastrophic fossil record, so-called 'young rocks' laid on 'old rocks', etc etc. Baumgardner's work on plate tectonics, and subterranean activity, possibly explains why the age of the Carlsbaad Caverns has been progressively revised downwards. From 1924 to 1988 a visitor’s sign was displayed above the entrance to Carlsbad Caverns. It said that Carlsbad was at least 260 million years old. The sign was changed in 1988 to read 7 to 10 million years old. Then, for a little while, the sign said that it was 2 million years old. Apparently the sign has now gone.
Amenhotep writes:
'' variation is *regenerated* all the time, because DNA copying is not perfect.'' DNA copying errors have at best a neutral effect, or are debilitating (eg. sickle cell anaemia; the evolutionist's 'good' mutation), or fatal. Purebred dogs suffer from many defects; mongrels are generally much healthier.

(Ignore my previous message, 'diameter' should read 'circumference', I'm not infallable)

Anonymous is right, a dog is a dog regardless of breed, it's also a mammal as is a bat and a whale, according to the Bible a bat is a bird and a whale is a fish, back to the gcse students again they will tell you and even argue with you that bats and whales are just as much mammals as dogs (and humans) are, perhaps the Bible is wrong, surely not! I hope creationist don't drive around in blasphemous cars, i.e. cars with round wheels, not based on the biblical value of pi. In the Book of Kings the circular pool outside Solomon's Temple is described as being 10 cubits across and 30 cubits in circumference, this gives a value of '3.0' for pi, 3 and a seventh would have been a good workable value and even more accurate values than this were known to the Greeks at the time, it's physically impossible for a circular object to have these dimensions so how come the great Architect of the universe can get something as basic as this wrong, maybe this physical constant has changed just like the isotopic decay rates.(According to Sunday Sequence)' .Perhaps Billy and the boys would like to give me an explanation for this as they seem to be very erudite in Biblical matters. I notice the use of repetition in Billy's posts, its called the "wedge" strategy, throw enough mud at the wall... Science has never been an easy option, it's difficult, time consuming, sometimes frustrating but always fulfilling and even spiritual in a special human sort of way, as has been well expounded by Dawkins and the late Arthur C. Clarke in their own inimatable style.We are all enjoying the benfits of it as we speak (blog), it keeps us alive and drastically improves the quality of our lives.What's their problem? Are they afraid of going to hell? Are they afraid of upsetting their peers? I think they are afraid of the unknown and scurry away from it when confronted with reality. They don't have a logical argument between them, they keep qouting the Bible, (as I just did), without the slightest proof that any of it is true, come on Billy tell me why God got the value of pi wrong and not only will I stop studying astropyhisics but I will join your faith group/denomination as well, that's a promise. Paul Dorris (alias Monty P. The Talking Serpent.) (P.S. the universe IS a building site but not the sort you obviously work on, I work on the real one).

I have been roused from lethargy again by ben d rocks reference to the Jurassic beaver. I have always had a soft spot for beavers and the Jurassic beaver illustrates perfectly how science works. The fossil remains of said beaver have been found in China which has now opened up to exploration after years of a closed communist regime. These remains are of Jurassic age 164 million years old. When checking this against existing knowledge we find that this fits with what we already know. Earliest so far known mammal fossils come from the Triassic period 250- 205 million years ago so this new discovery is a valuable addition to and refinement of our knowledge. The new testament writers seem to also to have had the idea of cross checking different sources of information but they didn’t seem to quite get the hang of it. eg Matthew(chap 1 v 1-17) gives a list of the genealogy of Jesus as does Luke(chap 3 v 3-38) However I find that they don’t even agree on the name on the name of his grandfather, After David they show no correlation whatever in the ancestral names. (anyhow why are they so interested in Joseph’s ancestry – apparently he was only the step-father) So what conclusions can I draw? Is one or both of these lists wrong? Could there have been 2 different Jesuses(maybe even a doublecross)
Scientific method also makes predictions which can be tested against new knowledge and developments. In Matthew (chap 16 v 28) I find Jesus making a prediction “ I tell you the truth, some are standing here who will not taste death before they see the son of man in his kingdom” Now either this is a porky or there is a 2000 year old jewish pensioner living somewhere( if so I would have thought the Daily star or The National Enquirer would have unearthed him or her by now – can’t you just see the headline)
This reminds me of all the hellfire preachers I had to listen to when being dragged around tin tabernacles in short trousers over 50 years ago . The lord’s return was imminent and those who missed their chance would burn for EVER and EVERand EVER Also the European project was at that state in its infancy and these preachers saw this as the fulfilment of the book of Revelations.The treaty of ROME had set this up and the seven member states were the revelations beast with the 7 heads and the 10 horns etc etc. The EU now has 20+ members and the rapture hasn’t happened yet. Maybe for EVER and EVER and EVER will turn out to be of similar length to NEVER, NEVER, NEVER as expounded by our revered leader in which case 30 years should about cover it!

I have been roused from lethargy again by ben d rocks reference to the Jurassic beaver. I have always had a soft spot for beavers and the Jurassic beaver illustrates perfectly how science works. The fossil remains of said beaver have been found in China which has now opened up to exploration after years of a closed communist regime. These remains are of Jurassic age 164 million years old. When checking this against existing knowledge we find that this fits with what we already know. Earliest so far known mammal fossils come from the Triassic period 250- 205 million years ago so this new discovery is a valuable addition to and refinement of our knowledge. The new testament writers seem to also to have had the idea of cross checking different sources of information but they didn’t seem to quite get the hang of it. eg Matthew(chap 1 v 1-17) gives a list of the genealogy of Jesus as does Luke(chap 3 v 3-38) However I find that they don’t even agree on the name on the name of his grandfather, After King David they show no correlation whatever in the ancestral names. (anyhow ,why are they so interested in Joseph’s ancestry – apparently he was only the step-father) So what conclusions can I draw? Is one or both of these lists wrong? Could there have been 2 different Jesuses(maybe even a doublecross)
Scientific method also makes predictions which can be tested against new knowledge and developments. In Matthew (chap 16 v 28) I find Jesus making a prediction “ I tell you the truth, some are standing here who will not taste death before they see the son of man in his kingdom” Now either this was a porky or there is at least one 2000 year old jewish pensioner living somewhere( if so I would have thought the Daily star or The National Enquirer would have unearthed him or her by now – can’t you just see the headline)
This brings back memories of all the hellfire preachers I had to listen to when being dragged around tin tabernacles in short trousers over 50 years ago . The lord’s return was imminent and those who missed their chance would burn for EVER and EVER and EVER Also the European project was at that stage in its infancy and these preachers saw this as the fulfilment of the book of Revelations.The treaty of ROME had set this up and the seven member states were the Beast of Revelations (Revelations chap 12 v 3, chap 13 v1) with the 7 heads and the 10 horns etc etc. The EU now has 20+ members and the rapture hasn’t happened yet.(beam us up Scotty) Maybe for EVER and EVER and EVER will turn out to be of similar length to NEVER, NEVER, NEVER as expounded by our revered almost ex- first minister, in which case 30 years should about cover it!

Paul Dorris wrote:
.''There isn't a shred of evidence that any decay rate has ever changed''.
The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, which means that there should be no detectable C14 in an Earthsize sample after 250,000 years. Yet C14 is detectable by AMS in many organic samples older than that. Diamonds and coal samples held to be billions of years old have had measurable quantities of C14. Graphite from the Precambrian has also been found to contain C14; and even the standard procedural blanks have been found to contain C14. These are samples which were specifically chosen because they were thought to be C14 free due to their great age.
Another anomaly: Geographical Society of America Bulletin 119(11):1283-1312, Novemver 2007. reports that years ago, using the potassium-argon method, basalts from the Grand Canyon were dated at around 1.2 million years. Yet recent dating using the newer argon-argon technique gives dates ranging from 605,000 to 102,000 years - less than half the previous age! So take your pick.

I am not so much interested in the creationist/evolutionist argument but in the way the programme was presented. I suppose the purpose was to achieve a clear understanding among those unfamiliar with the concepts and in this I feel the producer failed abysmally. She and the ±«Óătv seem obsessed with presenting an 'all-singing all-dancing' show with the presenters who may know little of the subject rushing about in the demented over-entusiastic Tony Robinson style , standing on the highest peaks striding through the waves and in this case pointlessly diverting the audience's attention from what was being said by having Will sitting in the front of a lifeboat. All this tends to make the presenter look foolish and William ,with his fixed grin, seems to find it impossible to look serious: fortunately some of the shots of him standing on the highest peak were long focus. I half expected to see him perched on the top of everest or, dressed in ill-fitting costume on the sand dunes of the Sahara
I note that while it is claimed that geologists were consulted none appeared on the programme - was that because they were too staid and incapable of waving their arms about. reference to a good teacher would have helped to make the producer realise just how much can be absorbed by those who are new to a subject. All too frantic and some afforts like the tectonic plates failed totally. What was the purpose of the blue grid which appeared from time to time and seemed totally irrelevant. perhaps I missed something here and if I di I would blame the producer for not making it clear why this was included
I had great hopes for this programme but was sadly disappointed

I sincerely sympathize with the 'child abuse' (in Dawkins' terms) which don.keyoatey suffered. He was not alone in this. I also suffered in various ways, probably the worst being when the I'mam called us to the Rosary. Many a good summer evening of football bowed out to meaningless repetition. But I survived to question it, reject it and pass on to agnosticism, antropology at 'varsity, belief in evolution, a spiritual experience, and,after some time, the rejection of faith in Darwin. Nor do I blame those who acted in good faith according to their sincerely held beliefs. They were brought up in an age when dissent was barely possible, even unthinkable. We were all processed by the men in black. However, and I am of course prejudiced, I still prefer the Catholic 'child abuse' to that visited on Muslim and Jewish children whose mindless backward and forward rocking motion as they recite their verses reminds me of the deprived children in Roumanian orphanages.
So I came to the Bible by a different route, and while basically a literalist, I can, like those who place their faith in science, park the contradictions and anomalies, in the belief that it will all get sorted out eventually; in favour of Christ rather than Darwin of course:)
Science supports the Flood model rather than the evolution model. Only radiometric dating carries weight, and, since it depends on making unverifiable assumptions about times past, the erosion of the uniformitarian mindset with more research coming to light has introduced doubts. In what is real to us in present time and space the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules, and I see no exceptions to it. The mutations required to climb Mount Improbable are not there, even with the pitons which assisted 'methinks it looks like a camel', and it is not just that there is a dearth of evidence for a demonstrable increase in genetic information: there is none.
A while back my son called me to watch a guy on YouTube make a deadpan case for Down's Syndrome as an example of increase in this respect. As I watched the sick joke I thought, 'Is this guy for real?' - and that I pondered for a space reflects my awareness of how desperate evolutionists are to make a case. It is hardly an appropiate example of an' increase in genetic information' to support the 'good mutation' of sickle cell anaemia as the most persuasive proofs on offer in support of faith in evolution. It is like the kind of reply you get from someone who's been experimenting for decades with fruit flies. Another proof I am often offered is the nylon-eating microbe, but that does not occur in the natural world. Nylon in Genesis? I don't think so. I mean, 'Would it count if it was happening in your GM spuds?'

* Paul Dorris wrote:
I hope creationist don't drive around in blasphemous cars, i.e. cars with round wheels, not based on the biblical value of pi. In the Book of Kings the circular pool outside
Solomon's Temple is described as being 10 cubits across and 30 cubits in diameter, this gives a value of '3.0' for pi, 3 and a seventh would have been a good workable value and even more accurate values than this were known to the Greeks at the time, it's physically impossible for a circular object to have these dimensions so how come the great Architect of the universe can't even get something as basic as this right, maybe this physical constant has changed just like the isotopic decay rates of potassium , argon, uranium etc.
If he read a little further on in 1 Kings 7 v 26, he would see that that this pool was a hand breadth thick, wrought like the brim of a cup. My hand breadth is 4inches. Taking a cubit of 18 inches, subtract 8 inches from 10 cubits (180inches)= 172 inches multiply by pi = 540inches = 30 cubits.
'Let God be true and every man a liar'

Ben D Rocks,

Goodness what a lot of canards!

M61. You give the wonderful eg of how open science is to changing it's mind when new evidence comes to light. Thank you for illustrating that science is not some form of fundamentalist cult! You know where you have to cling on to wacky ideas even with massive evidence to the contrary...bit like Biblical creationism I suppose!

"Science supports the Flood model rather than the evolution model. "

Goodness! does it? I am not a scientist myself but do take an interest and I have never heard of such stunning news, which would of course have earned the author of such stunning news a Nobel prize! Could you point me to the peer-reviewed scientific papers which support this claim? and since the claims of a world-wide flood some 4500 odd years ago(based on Pope Ken Ham's views)are empirical and can be tested in a myriad of different ways you will of course be able to cite me 1000's of pieces of independent confirmation.

Since science is fundamentally about producing results could you give me the results of the 'flood model' eg., all the multi-trillion dollar natural resource companies who obtain fossil fuels that use this 'model'. You will of course be able to name me the companies that you use to fill your car(that is if your car is not bio-diesel), heats your home/church, fuels all the transport that you use etc etc

Regards

DD

Nice try Bendy, it's the ususal creationist / ID-iot tactic of pulling obscure irrelevant facts from anywhere and using them out of context. Here's a real fact for you; C14 dating has nothing to do with geology, it's an important tool of archaeolgy and is only accurate over a period of a few tens of thousands of years, it's completely useless for dating rocks, what are you on about? C14 is a product of dead organic matter and as such is found everywhere in the environment in "measurable quantities" as you rightly state.There is always a small amountof C14 in the atmosphere so what's your point, are you a qualified scientest ?. OK then where can we obtain abstracts of the scientific papers you appear to have read, are they available in arXiv.org? Who are the scientists who made these measurements? Why don't creationist ever name their 'sources'. You're waffling, I have better things to do than give loonies the oxygen of publicity, I would refer you and the other Williaam bloggers to FAQ-Meritt ;

from which I humbly quote : "If radioactive decay rates were to change, the structure of stars would be affected. But even very distant stars (whose light has been travelling towards us for very long times) have the structure that is predicted by theory assuming present decay rates. They do not have the structure that would be predicted for them if the decay rates were many orders of magnitude larger.

There are two major kinds of radioactive decay, alpha decay and beta decay. They are due to different physical processes and are governed by different natural constants. If the decay rates were to change in time, this would produce discrepant dates in rocks that can be dated independently by several different decay series. These discrepancies are not observed.

If the decay rates were large enough to produce 4.5 billion years' of apparent aging in only 6000 years of wall-clock time, the decay rates would have had to have been millions to billions of times as large when Adam and Eve were around as now. The heat generated would have melted the earth, which would still be molten. Furthermore, the earth would have been too radioactive to support life..."

For a full explanation of C14 anomalies in coal deposits see:

Bye bye case closed as far as I'm concerned , I wish you all well, keep debating with us atheists, agnostics, scientists'etc.

Hello foss,

"What evidence has been offered by Scientists for saying -
-The Universe caused itself to exist"

Sounds like a distortion that creationists come up with to make science sound improbable. Could you cite the scientific journal articles where scientists say that please?

"And what evidence is there for saying there is no God?"

Scientists or atheists usually don't say that. They'll say there is no evidence for god. Just as there is no evidence for the ancient Egyptian gods. So there is nothing to disprove. Until you first present your evidence that puts your god ahead of Isis, Ra etc people won't spend any more time disproving your god then they would disproving any other god(s). Your turn first to show something.

"For something to exist now, something must have always existed. Something cannot come from nothing."

Funny that when asked about where god came from, many christians will just say 'God has always been' without requiring any explanation.

"If one of your presuppositions is that God does not exist then it is hardly surprising that interpretation of all evidence results in a naturalistic answer."

Scientists don't suppose anything until the evidence points them in a certain direction. There is no presupposition that god doesn't exist. It's just that no reason to assume he's there was ever found.

Hello foss,

"What evidence has been offered by Scientists for saying -
-The Universe caused itself to exist"

Sounds like a distortion that creationists come up with to make science sound improbable. Could you cite the scientific journal articles where scientists say that please?

"And what evidence is there for saying there is no God?"

Scientists or atheists usually don't say that. They'll say there is no evidence for god. Just as there is no evidence for the ancient Egyptian gods. So there is nothing to disprove. Until you first present your evidence that puts your god ahead of Isis, Ra etc people won't spend any more time disproving your god then they would disproving any other god(s). Your turn first to show something.

"For something to exist now, something must have always existed. Something cannot come from nothing."

Funny that when asked about where god came from, many christians will just say 'God has always been' without requiring any explanation.

"If one of your presuppositions is that God does not exist then it is hardly surprising that interpretation of all evidence results in a naturalistic answer."

Scientists don't suppose anything until the evidence points them in a certain direction. There is no presupposition that god doesn't exist. It's just that no reason to assume he's there was ever found.

A brief , and final, reply to # 68 : OK we now have a new value of pi ; it's 10 cubits, minus 2 hand widths into 30 cubits, your hand' breadth that is, I've just measured mine , it's approximately 3 and 3 quarter inches ( or 95 cm), whose hand width are you supposed to use? a hand's breadth is not a commensurate unit, it can be anything you want it to be. Even if you were right you would have found the correct 'inner' dimensions i.e 9.6 into 30, not what the Book says, this still leaves the outer circumference 1.4 cubits too short. Anyway, in my Bible it clearly states that the 'molten sea' is 10 cubits from "brim to brim" and a line of 30 cubits measured its circumference, I take the word "brim" to mean the outer edge it still works out at 3.0 . Your line of argument always implies that one of the dimensions is wrong, which was my point in the first place.

Best wishes

Hi Guys

I heard on the radio this morning about NI being 600 million years old etc.

I was just wondering how this sqaures up with neocatastrophism which as I understand it is a contrasting but mainstream theory which allows for a much younger earth.

PB

This was a marvellous programme! Creationists are living in a parallel universe! Cant't wait for part 2. It was great to see how many places I had visited and saw how they had been evolving over the year.

This was a marvellous programme! Creationists are living in a parallel universe! Cant't wait for part 2. It was great to see how many places I had visited and saw how they had been evolving over the year.

Paul Dorris wrote:
.''There isn't a shred of evidence that any decay rate has ever changed''.
and then when he gets an answer he does not like he tries to escape back into the rocks.( I could recommend a super Rock of refuge which answers some decay problems.) If we cannot sort out a constant decay rate for C14 we begin to question other 'decay rates'.
Paul Dorris wrote:
''Here's a real fact for you; C14 dating has nothing to do with geology, it's an important tool of archaeolgy and is only accurate over a period of a few tens of thousands of years, it's completely useless for dating rocks, what are you on about?''
I am 'on about' decay rates. It is often the interviewer who has no idea about geology, archaeology, paleontology, or any related 'ology, who is caught asking creationists, 'How can you believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old when carbon dating shows that it is millions?' Or perhaps I misjudge him. Is it just a good introductory question to put the creationist at ease?:) Whatever, it works.
Anyway, the web site, was of no help. The report on C14 (on coal only) was salted with 'probably's, the confused 'not clear', and the optimistic 'growing evidence', with the reassurance that 'Research is ongoing at this very moment.' But the most recent appended paper was dated 2002? Have they given up? Both coal and diamonds have apparently been produced experimentally, under great pressure, in the lab over short periods, so perhaps more understanding of the pre-Deluge atmosphere may resolve the C14 dates in favour of creationism.
We get these evolutionist Just So stories of what it was like in the past. Go to 'Dawkins Stumped' on YouTube, and wait patiently until he comes to the fish story. He is soon out of sight, in his element, or perhaps between elements, describing how we cannot see change today as it was long long ago. He says, '..if you had been there [300 million years ago] then you could have seen the first steps towards a fish coming out onto the land and becoming something like an amphibian, but that was a long time ago....'. But we have already been spun this story with an actual 70-300 million year fossil to back it up - a fish which only required a few tweaks to have it stroll up the beach! Unfortunately, the fossil spoiled the tale when it turned up alive and well - and in deep water. Its existence had been known for years by local Comoran fishermen.
Today something like the coelacanth has become a symbol of faith and hope on some car bumpers - the fish with legs. Its coming is still awaited.
There are no persuasive transitional fossils. For some candid disclosures read Luther Sunderland's, Darwin's Enigma.

Goodness PB!

Do you ever learn? well evidently not!(surprise surprise!)

Are you still repeating that lie that "catastrophism is mainstream". remember you brought this up before(at least twice) and got mauled about it(at least twice)and you wonder why long term posters here treat you with so little respect?

The "mainstream view" which you have helpfully shown in your link is that of the Luis Alvarez impact event hypothesis(which was brought up to you on several occasions but as usual in one wilfully ignorant ear and out the other) and the Moon theory, an event placed at 4.5 billion years ago! yep "much younger"!?

Now PB you said "mainstream theory which allows for a much younger earth."

Well since this is "mainstream" then you will of course be able to cite 10's and 10's of 1000's of peer-reviewed papers and also the practical impact of such views which point to a "much younger earth". tell you what I am not going to ask for 1000's, not even 100, not even 10...just 1 paper and we can build from there.

DD

Ps, there is a list of very simple questions for you PB(some are over a year and a half old), I have a feeling that this simple question I have asked you now will join that long list of simple questions...

I am not interested in prolonging the fatuous nonsensencontributed by the creationists; what I am concerned about is the presentation of too much information in too short a space and in an indigestible form. as a former teacher I wuld gauge the success of a lesson by the ability of the pupil to shw that he understood what he had heard; I very much douobt if viewers new to this material could have any grasp of the main points.
This was the fault of the producers who seem to imagine that the only way to put the material across is in an 'all-singing, all-dancing' method with presenters dashing about in a demented Tony Robinson mode , waving thsir arms, dashing through surf and transported in a flash from Clogher point to the top of the Sperrins - why stop there? why not the top of Everest.
What was the point of dressing Will Crawley up in ill-fitting clothes to be covered in spray in the bow of a lifeboat? If you want him to behave like a monkey why not employ a monkey - probably cheaper and with a more serious mein.
Anyone wanting to learn something about the subject should consult a good book

just testing!!

Will
Update needed on blog software implementation!
I have been trying to post all day without success!
maybe I don't know 2+3 !!

Good show, Will (number 2). The mammoths were excellent, but the elk were a bit crap ;-)

William, as I said, great pictures and vivid commentary. But are viewers aware of the huge assumptions you make in this programme to back up the theory of earth millions of years old?

Seven assumptions needed for claims of the earth being 600 million years old:

(1) Each system has to be a closed system; ie nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, according to the producers of Blueprint, for millions of years...no change in radiation from space over millions of years...

(2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.

(3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed.

How can you say this with certainty for a period "millions of years ago"?

The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.)

I saw on tonight's programme you mentioned an asteroid strike on Yucatan. How does this affect the assumed rates of decay used for "old earth" theories? [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.

(4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

“His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods.”—*A.F. Kovarik, “Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles,” in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.
Assumption 4 - constant decay rate.

(5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.

William gave a vivid documentary of just such changes in the programme.

That's not to mention cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons entering our atmosphere continually...

(6) The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles above us and intensely radioactive. According to Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth.

Any change in the this belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals. But we know next to nothing about this belt(it was only discovered in 1959). Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances.

(7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence.

All of which show the dates of the earth's birth on the show are just as much (I woud say more) an act of faith as those who believe the earth only a few thousand years old. Can I suggest the ±«Óătv do a new series on comparing catastrophism and uniformitarianism in view of the latest evidence? Or at least the science behind the assumptions made on your programme?

Jason,

No harm to you but that's just a load of plagiarised claptrap from here...

Passing someone else's work off as your own isn't very nice!

William, will I see you at the Finn McCool festival in Bushmills late July as I missed you at Hare’s Gap.

Part two was another nice hour for a Monday evening.

One thing made me wonder a bit. Just under 24 minutes into the program, William said that ~18000 years ago melting ice raised the sea level and that at some point it was more than 100 feet higher than it is today. It was my understanding that even if the polar caps, Greenland ice sheet etc were all to melt completely, the sea level would rise less than 10 m. How could the sea level have been 100 feet higher than today?

Dear Blueprint Watcher

I noticed on tonight's programme that the prevailing view used to be that there had once been a land bridge between Ireland and Scotland which enabled the movement of animal life into a recently de-iced Ireland. With further research, it was stated, it had now been discovered that this was not now the case but that there had been the presence of a deep water channel between the two lands throughout the time period in question.

I am sure that the proponents of the previously held viewpoint stated their assumptions as 'fact' in exactly the same way that the Blueprint programme now presents its assumptions as a series of irrefutible facts.

It is unfair to the general populace to present one suggested history of our land in this way. It suggests that there is no alternative truth apart from the 'truth' being presented, even though this truth is liable to change if better evidence (or alternative interpretation) renders the older view untenable.

In this ongoing search for truth I am sure that all those involved in the making of the programme are keeping their minds open to every possible explanation of our origins with the exception of none.

Yours, still searching
Hezek

Hello Ben D Rocks,

I didn't read the talkorigins page on C14 dating. But if anyone ever brings up radiometric dating, I usually refer them to an article written by someone whose Christian credentials you might find acceptable:

greets,
Peter

Hugh
Ever tried to explain 600MYA of Irish natural history in 3 * 50 mins periods?
Doubt very much if you could have done any better - certainly not any better than Geordie puling the hair out of 12 yr olds in the maths class at Foyle!!

Hello Jason,

Your post contained many of the usual creationist canards. Reading the Wiens article linked earlier in this thread would no doubt be educational to you. But there is one folly in your post I'd like to point out specifically. You wrote

"(5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.
William gave a vivid documentary of just such changes in the programme.
That's not to mention cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons entering our atmosphere continually..."

Oh really?! Charged particles like electrons and protons penetrating the entire atmosphere as well as the earths magnetic field to influence the radiometric dating of rocks? Even by creationist standards that is nonsense. Just in case you didn't know: radiometric dating depends on decay of atomic nuclei. Even with the most powerful big equipment, you'll find it very hard to ever strike a nucleus with an electron or proton. And the idea of photons from outside our atmosphere influencing nuclear decay of isotopes used in rock dating is also laughable. And mesons are entering our atmosphere? That's fascinating too, since mesons have life times of a miniscule part of a second.

Of all the particles you've listed, all but one (neutrons) are totally irrelevant. And neutrons are relevant primarily for C14 dating, which is not used for dating rock. In all, your comment was high on bluff jargon, devoid of any knowledge.

Peter

DD
I also thought it looked a bit familiar!!

Hugh, you think the shows are trying to cover too much material in an all singing all dancing style. Bear in mind that these programmes are going out at peak time on TV. They are aimed at a massive audience and have to hold onto the audience. I think they are doing a great job. My kids watched and stayed in front of the TV the whole way through, which is great I think for such an educational show.

Well I just watched the second episode and thought it was great TV. Visually arresting and holds the attention well.

Bit of a shame that all people want to argue about is whether the world is 6,000 years old or not.

God told me it was older, and who are you to argue?

Hugh:

I think you are being unfair to both the ±«Óătv and William. The series tries to strike a balance between popularising knowledge for a mass audience and appealing to the scientific cognoscenti and, after the second one, I think it is achieving its aim.

You have to bear in mind that it is compressing 600 millions years into 3 three programmes, a difficult task indeed, especially when dealing with complex and recurring processes. I too was a teacher and I know that there is more than one way to skin a cat. You are constantly thinking of new ways to communicate the knowledge effectively without distorting or misrepresenting it.

One way to protect the integrity of the material is to focus some of the pupils’ attention on yourself. Here we come to William. You find his grin distracting; others might warm to his enthusiasm for the subject-matter. This is a matter of taste. I can’t stand Jeremy Clarkson; others think he is the best thing since sliced bread. I don’t think William was too obstrusive  – the lifeboat ‘stunt’, for example, was visually memorable in communicating the point.

PS:

If William is also the evolutionary monkey of ±«Óătv Northern Ireland’s religious programmes, then who is the organ grinder? (Martin O’Brien? Bert Tosh? Peter Johnston?) Or are there four organ grinders (the leaders of the 4 main churches)?

Thought this was funny and relevant:

B&Q have recalled mole-repellers from sale in NI.

Because we don't have any moles.

Of course.

They couldn't swim back here after Noah let the wee buggers back out of the ark.

When asked to comment on the effectiveness of B&Q's mole-repellent devices in NI, a spokesman said: "Do you see any moles around here? No? Just shows how brilliant our repellers are!"

Hi Freethinker,

I have a little bit of experience with creationists-if you read a well written post chances are it's a blatant cut and paste-Google is a great tool!

Regards

DD

Hi peter
With reference to Message 83 the weight of an ice sheet causes the lithosphere to be pushed down into the viscous upper mantle. When the ice sheet melts sea levels rise quickly but the isostatic readjustment of the lithosphere is much slower. the fennoscandanavian region is at present still recovering at a rate of 2.1 plus or minus 0.3mm per year. see Northern Britain is similarly still recovering.
Also in the warmer temperatures the water in the oceans expands.

Good evening Peter (or should I say Dobry wieczĂłr?!).

In reply to your comment, I see you wrote "Charged particles like electrons and protons penetrating the entire atmosphere as well as the earths magnetic field to influence the radiometric dating of rocks? Even by creationist standards that is nonsense."

Yes, that would be nonsense, but that's not what I wrote. You're changing what I wrote, adding the precondition to penetrate "the entire atmosphere" when of course charged particles don't have to penetrate to ground level everywhere to affect the assumptions needed for radioactive dating. The assumptions about the radioactivity of the earth's atmosphere are the issue in question.

In case you still doubt electrons penetrate the atmosphere, check this out:"For example, the source and fate of electrons with energies greater than one million electron volts (MeV) confined in the outer regions of the Earth's magnetosphere has long been a puzzle.

These electrons may be lost from the magnetosphere by moving along magnetic field lines and then penetrating into the Earth's atmosphere at mid- to high-latitudes.(Source : NASA) "https://www.agu.org/sci_soc/baker.html

As for mesons I suggest you read this :
(Source : American Physical Society)

By the way, freethinker, answers to my questions? Whenever you're ready.

Here's a timely and interesting piece on the subject of transitional fossils. A snake with legs.

Fill your boots boys.

Jason,

Stop being dishonest! it's not what *you * "wrote", it's what you plagiarised from here...

DD

Hello don.keyoatey,

Thanks for the explanation of the rising of regions after the ice melts away.

Hello Jason,

The answers to your follow-up post were already in my initial reply to you. Elements involved in dating rocks (e.g. various isotopes of Thorium, Uranium etc) don't float around the upper atmosphere. In order to influence the decay of those elements, the particles you mention would have to penetrate through the entire atmosphere first.

The exception to that would be C14 dating, but as already noted that is not used for dating old rock.

And I read your link on mesons. Nothing in there at all to support your suggested link between mesons and influencing radio-active decay of isotopes used in rock dating, is there?

Hello Gee Dubya,

Interesting article on the transitional snake fossil. And a double blow to creationists. They were of course hoping for a fossil of a snake with vocal cords, rather than legs. :)

greets,
Peter

Jason wrote,
''4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

“His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods.”—*A.F. Kovarik, “Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles,” in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.''
It occurred to me that I read something a few years ago relating to pleochroic halos, and indeed I have found a reference to Joly in 'Creation's Tiny Mystery' by Robert V Gentry. Have you read it? It took me ages because of my limited understanding of much of the topic. I must read it ago as I remember little of the details of his research, etc.

Thanks Gee Dubyah.

That is incredible. At last an almost plausible transitional fossil; but it is not becoming something else, but rather less of something. The report says that 'Scientists have only a handful of specimens'. Do you have any information on these; any references or website?. It obviously died in a catastrophic flood scenario. Is this another 'best kept secret',only available to those in the trade?
If you approach this with a childlike 'willing suspension of disbelief', and run it through the stories of your childhood you will probably find one where it fits best. Of course some will not have heard the story. You are warned that, if not already in the know but still openminded, you may soil a little; but better a little now than a lot later.

Jason wrote,
''4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

“His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods.”—*A.F. Kovarik, “Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles,” in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107''.
It occurred to me that I read something a few years ago relating to pleochroic halos, and indeed I have found a reference to Joly in 'Creation's Tiny Mystery' by Robert V Gentry. Have you read it? It took me ages because of my limited understanding of much of the topic. I must read it ago as I remember little of the details of his research, etc.

Hello Ben D Rocks,

In your discussion with Gee Dubyah about animal limbs you asked about transitional fossil articles. If you don't mind me answering the question you asked Gee Dubyah, I can point out some articles on the subject.

Part of the gutting of Intelligent Design during the Dover trial was through a demonstration of transitional fossils where creationists claim there are none. Kevin Padian mentioned a number of creationist claims of gaps and then showed that in those supposed gaps there are plenty of transitional fossils. His slides are available online. Slides concerning transitional fossils of growing/disappearing limbs can be found a bit down on that webpage, around

The slides carry references to both the creationist claims of gaps (many from the creationist text book Of pandas and people) and articles describing intermediate fossils that show these claims to be false. The caption of slide 40 for instance reads

'The fossils show transitional features specifically in the limbs, where Pandas' figure 4-9 claims there is a gap.'
At the top of that page you'll see links to info on a real bonanza of intermediate fossils.

Happy reading.

greets,
Peter

Ben D.

Is it not extrapolating a little too far to say that this creature OBVIOUSLY died in a catastrophic flood? Please detail the evidence you say makes this assumption a sound basis to proceed?

Please note, I will interprate any wooliness as a sign of duplicitous Creationist nonsense, as you demand such rigour in evidence you find inconvenient, please show us just how rigorous you can be.

Thanks

Further to GW’s answer to Ben D
Put simply- If there had been a world wide flood Circa 6000 years ago we should expect to find a world wide layer of gunge laid over all the earth’s surface and containing fossilised remains of all the creatures and plants which perished.(Ask people from the Severn flood plain last summer about gunge) There is no evidence of this though there is evidence of localised flooding in the Tigris Euphrates valley. (The Sumerians got gunged) What we do find are different fossils in different layers of rock. Some like the leggy snake were found in limestone. Other fossils are found in shales or sandstones which are laid down under totally different conditions. Also if you go fossil collecting you will find layers of rock disappearing deep into the cliff or hillside. There is not one superficial layer laid down on top of everything else by a shortlived flood. And how many floods have there been? We find layers of shale containing only fossils of trilobites, graptolites, euptyerids and rugose corals etc.Go to the caves at Cushendun and find a conglomerate with no fossils in it. We also find other layers contain reptile fossils, bivalves and scleractinian corals. It is easy to sit in your living room and shout FLOOD every time you see an image of a water related deposit. Get out there and have a look at how rock strata relate to each other and find out about the big picture. Even in Co Antrim you can find out quite a lot. . Eg On the Antrim plateau you will find peat bog with the remains of large trees in it. When peat cutters remove the peat they find it sits on a layer of glacial tillite. This sits on Basalt rock which was extruded as molten lava.
Walk across the plateau to the seaward edge almost anywhere along the Antrim coast and you will find the basalt rock sitting on top of White Cretaceous chalk laid down on a seabed. Where the basalt is seen in contact with the surface of the chalk the flints are reddened and altered by heat from the lava. Follow the chalk down to the shore as Larne or Islandmagee and you find the chalk sitting on Lias clay and Jurassic formations with different modes of formation and fossil assemblages. One flood – I don’t think so

Here's a great quote from the editorial in the latest Geoscientist - the magazine of The Geological Society

Manifest untruth

The young-Earth creationists’ view of Earth history, based upon their literal interpretation of the Bible, is quite simply wrong. It is a manifest untruth. It is as wrong as saying that the Sun orbits around the Earth, or that the Moon is made of green cheese, or that the Giant’s Causeway was constructed by Finn MacCool, the giant of Irish legend. Nor are we dealing with "alternative views" of the universe. We are dealing with the difference between reason and unreason. For it is unreasonable, indeed fantastical, in any impartial examination of the evidence (evidence that was sufficient even in Victorian times, and now that has been corroborated a thousandfold), to state that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

see

don.keyoatey wrote;
''one flood - I don't think so''
The account of a great universal Flood, or Deluge, which surged backwards and forwards across the face of the Earth, scouring the land, repeatedly eroding and depositing layers of sediment, and the jumbled remains of forests, plants and animals, is recorded in the hundreds upon hundreds of remarkably similar stories in diverse tribes; handed down from the survivors. This tumultous flooding went on for days, weeks, months - an unimaginable scenario.Compared to this catastrophe the floods in the Tigris Euphrates valley and elsewhere, leaving a bit of gunge, are mere splashes. The original, probably low-lying, equatorial land was completely submerged. The fountains of the deep - great reservoirs of underground water, surged up, with cataclysmic earthquakes belching forth lava to produce the huge sheets of basalt which cover great expanses without break all over the Earth. At some stage the earth began to be pushed up in places out of the water. Such a push would be followed by great surges of rock-laden torrents which would evenly abrade the tops of some rocks at sea-level, cutting, with equal ease, across both very hard(now), and soft layers; resulting in a planation surface. Planation surfaces (or planed surfaces) are found throughout the world at roughly three levels. Obviously(if I may use that word) this would indicate at least two further massive upthrusts of the land, with concommitant abrasion, scouring and deposition, caused by the violently disturbed and surging waters. Look at some of the scouring rocks left scattered over these great planation surfaces.
All this fervent activity can account for the folding of newly deposited and pliable layers of rock, of 'old' rocks deposited on 'young' rocks, planation surfaces, polystrate trees, and many other 'little understood' geological phenomena. Obviously:) there are many 'young earth' scientists, experts in their fields, who might not agree with a model such as this. However, anyone with Genesis 6, 7 and 8, and a 'willing suspension of disbelief' can have a go.

freethinker wrote:
''Here's a great quote from the editorial in the latest Geoscientist - the magazine of The Geological Society ''

Here is another great quote from Geotimes:
John Chaikowsky wrote:
''Evolutionists have 'Physics Envy'. They tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon and cures diseases. Its not. ''The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact - no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like Physics . . .I think this is what the public discerns - that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science. 'Geology v Physics' Geotimes, vol. 50, April 2005, p.165.

John C -
quote
He is a member of the Creation Research Society and the Missouri Association for Creation. He has had several letters published in Geotimes magazine.

Here's a comment piece from the same mainstream magazine by a real scientist!

Ben D.

Post 108 - marvellous dramatic writing. A bit short on Evidence aren't you?

Are you unclear as to the definition of evidence?

The biblical events you so lovingly adhere to are, and I'll use your word, OBVIOUSLY merely a (and I'll use another phrase you like) cosy collection of just-so stories.

Unless of course you have evidence...