Bob Enyart LiveGreetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com
* Bristlecone Pine Tree Rings: do NOT provide evidence as claimed by evolutionists of an age for the Earth greater than the Bible's record. The refereed scientific Journal of Creation presents the overwhelming evidence that these trees growing in the arid White Mountains of California, one of the driest places on earth, grow multiple rings per year. Thus once again scientifically careful research, this time in dendrochronology, is consistent with biblical chronology!
* You Can't Put New Wine: in old wineskins, as the Lord said. And we see an application of that as Christian hospitals eventually begin doing abortions, publishers go secular, universities eventually go atheistic, and denominations eventually turn against God. It's like at death our physical bodies yield to the relentless pull of gravity on our flesh, pulling us down toward the center of the world. The question is, how will that trend effect young-earth creation ministries? They are in no way above the sinful pride, etc., that threatens all ministries. Since creation ministries focus on foundational issues, will that keep them faithfully serving the Lord through more generations than other non-foundational ministries such as Christian hospitals, publishers, and universities? If the Lord tarries, then time will tell.
* The Hobbit: Journal of Creation lists strong evidence that the pygmy-like skeleton from Indonesia is not a monkey but from a human being. For example, Robert Eckhardt, a professor of development genetics at Penn State, reports 140 cranial features that place the Hobbit "within modern human ranges of variation, resembling Australomelanesian [human] populations."
* Bob's Debate with Reasons to Believe: Fred and Bob discuss the moderated Age of the Earth Debate between Bob Enyart and a high school science teacher, against a geophysicist and a university mathematician! You can listen to the debate, and by popping the CD into a PC, you can also view the spectacular science slides to help you better understand the discussion!
Today's Resource: Within one-week from today's show, BEL will give you a gift subscription to Journal of Creation as a thank you if you purchase either the BEL Science Pack, or subscribe to the BEL Televised Classics, Bible Albums, Sermons, or BEL Topical Videos! If you call us at 800-8Enyart, just ask for the Journal of Creation subscription, and if you order online, type your subscription request in the "notes" field during "Check Out."
Slogan/motto:
Most Christians worship the false god of Public Acceptance.
Reputation:
March 5th, 2007, 07:28 AM
BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:
Quote:
The evolutionists hate the fact that a plane crashed and we're able to measure how much ice has been deposited above the plane in the last 50 years. They hate it.
BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:The evolutionists hate the fact that a plane crashed and we're able to measure how much ice has been deposited above the plane in the last 50 years. They hate it.
I agree that this is the best quote of the show. It illustrates beeeeooooootahflee just how reliable are creationist assessments of evolutionary theory, its evidence, and those who study it.
BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:The evolutionists hate the fact that a plane crashed and we're able to measure how much ice has been deposited above the plane in the last 50 years. They hate it.
"In the Creation ex nihilo Magazine (Vol 19 #3:10–14, Jun–Aug 1997, an article titled The Lost Squadron by noted Australian creationist, founder and editor of that publication, Dr Carl Wieland, purports to show that, because a group of WWII airplanes were buried under several hundred feet of ice in 50 years, the technique of ice core dating is based on false premises.
After describing how holes were melted into the ice until the planes were discovered 250 feet deep, Wieland makes this curious comment:
None of the discoverers had thought that the planes could possibly be buried under more than a light cover of snow and ice. And why would they?
Maybe because they didn't bother to look at the available data for snowfall and ice accumulation for that area for the past 50 years. That is – because they were amateur adventurers rather than scientists. If they had investigated more thoroughly, they would have found that the ice in that area builds at a rate averaging 7 feet per year."
"Suddenly the thickness of 268 feet of glacial ice near the east coast that was melted through by non-scientists to recover the "Glacier Girl" P-38 fighter is being used to date "3000 metres of ice core" extracted deep in the interior of the Greenland ice sheet.[2] Has he already forgotten his "rings of a tree" analogy just a few paragraphs earlier? Has he opted for no more flim-flam about annual layers? -- let's just measure the thickness in two widely-separated locations, compare them, and be done with it. Is Wieland funny, or what? Exaggeration for comic effect, I suppose, or perhaps the sleigh-of-hand of the parlour magician is at work. The GISP 2 core samples were dated using 42 scientifically validated parameters, and Wieland wants to overrule the dating with a scientifically ridiculous comparison of thicknesses. What a knee-slapper this guy is, huh?"
And from talkorigins we learn that ice cores are not dated based on depth unless the depth/year ratio has already been determined by other methods ("The GISP 2 core samples were dated using 42 scientifically validated parameters") in the same region.
Brilliant science.
And the million dollar question is what do evolutionary biologists have to do with ice core samples?
“There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett
Last edited by Johnny; March 5th, 2007 at 02:04 PM.
"In the Creation ex nihilo Magazine (Vol 19 #3:10–14, Jun–Aug 1997, an article titled The Lost Squadron by noted Australian creationist, founder and editor of that publication, Dr Carl Wieland, purports to show that, because a group of WWII airplanes were buried under several hundred feet of ice in 50 years, the technique of ice core dating is based on false premises.
After describing how holes were melted into the ice until the planes were discovered 250 feet deep, Wieland makes this curious comment:
None of the discoverers had thought that the planes could possibly be buried under more than a light cover of snow and ice. And why would they?
Maybe because they didn't bother to look at the available data for snowfall and ice accumulation for that area for the past 50 years. That is – because they were amateur adventurers rather than scientists. If they had investigated more thoroughly, they would have found that the ice in that area builds at a rate averaging 7 feet per year."
"Suddenly the thickness of 268 feet of glacial ice near the east coast that was melted through by non-scientists to recover the "Glacier Girl" P-38 fighter is being used to date "3000 metres of ice core" extracted deep in the interior of the Greenland ice sheet.[2] Has he already forgotten his "rings of a tree" analogy just a few paragraphs earlier? Has he opted for no more flim-flam about annual layers? -- let's just measure the thickness in two widely-separated locations, compare them, and be done with it. Is Wieland funny, or what? Exaggeration for comic effect, I suppose, or perhaps the sleigh-of-hand of the parlour magician is at work. The GISP 2 core samples were dated using 42 scientifically validated parameters, and Wieland wants to overrule the dating with a scientifically ridiculous comparison of thicknesses. What a knee-slapper this guy is, huh?"
And from talkorigins we learn that ice cores are not dated based on depth unless the depth/year ratio has already been determined by other methods ("The GISP 2 core samples were dated using 42 scientifically validated parameters") in the same region.
Brilliant science.
And the million dollar question is what do evolutionary biologists have to do with ice core samples?
Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Let me ask you two questions;
1. do all glaciers accumulate at the same rate?
2. do all glaciers disapaite at the same rate?
Good points, which illustrate the poverty of the evolutionary myth of slow accumulation.
Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
He's of course referring to the myth, most recently being spouted by CabinetMaker, that evolutionary processes (being totally random as we all know they are) operate much too slowly to allow significant changes to accumulate.
Slogan/motto:
Hola, amigos, I know it's been a long time since I rapped at ya...
Reputation:
March 7th, 2007, 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aharvey
He's of course referring to the myth, most recently being spouted by CabinetMaker, that evolutionary processes (being totally random as we all know they are) operate much too slowly to allow significant changes to accumulate.
bob b,
You should know better. That "myth" has been refuted long ago.
Linear Mode
