The New Atheist Crusaders

bob_2 · 04-26-09 5:45 am

The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith <a href="http://www.powells.com/biblio/084991972x?&PID=29218" target=_top>http://www.powells.com/biblio/084991972x?&PID=2921 8</a> A Review of the Book: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Review: "Garrison has long wielded wit against the buffoonery of the Religious Right in her articles for the Christian humor magazine the Wittenburg Door and at the blog God's Politics. Now she turns her satirical glance against the 'New Atheists,' among whom she sees a similar obscurantist self-seeking at work. The result is an uneven book. It is occasionally witty, as when she compares Sam Harris to Anne Coulter, or Daniel Dennett to the pot-smoking professor in Animal House. At times she scores what could be devastating points against the New Atheists: if imposing religion on the young really is child abuse, why do these young people not show the medical symptoms of abuse victims? Garrison is also adept at pointing to places where radical Christianity is transforming society. But these successes are often lost amid informal writing, sentences like 'Simply put, I need to pay attention here because when my gut starts acting up, something ain't right,' and paragraphs that end with single words like 'Kewl' and phrases such as 'Ã‚Â 'Nuff said.' Finally, Garrison's turn to her own story — a minister father, dead too young of alcoholism — is touching at times, but it sits awkwardly beside the casual witticisms." Publishers Weekly (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.) Synopsis: A challenge has been issued on matters of faith and Becky Garrison meets it head on in this witty yet poignant answer to the Anti-God gurus Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. Becky Garrison, religious satirist and senior contributing editor for "The Wittenberg Door," is taking a stand. Where most Christians assume the character of the Cowardly Lion chanting, "I do believe, I do believe, I do believe," Garrison refuses to simply thrust tracts at these self-proclaimed infidels. Instead, Garrison steels her pen and takes on the ungodly program of the New Atheists, skewering each argument with her sharp satiric wit. Garrison turns aside the atheists' assault without ignoring its real criticisms, namely, the church's inadequate response to war, evolution, medical ethics, social justice, and other important issues in the post-9/11 world. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> The New Atheists like Neal Walls, and similarly whatever John Alfke and Elaine Nelson are touting, why do I go so hard against their positions. Read above and see the vulnerbility to the Gospel as the Emerging Church questions itself. Recently statements, one by Neal, Christ never lived on the earth, Elaine Nelson questioning the need for Christianity's critical beliefs of the Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension. Ron Corson's lack of belief in the substitutionaary death of Christ to be able to save our sins, and John Alfke's Darwinistic beliefs and doubt of a God Creator.

bob_2 · 04-26-09 7:30 pm

The rise of the 'New Atheists' <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/08/atheism.feature/index.html" target=_top>http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/08/atheism .feature/index.html</a> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:In an interview published in this month's Wired magazine, Dawkins estimated the number of non-religious people in the U.S. to be around 30 million and compared atheists' struggle for recognition as equivalent to previous campaigns by other minority groups. "I think we're in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago," said Dawkins. "There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people who had the courage to come out. I think that's the case with atheists. They are more numerous than anybody realizes." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Is this rationalism or a belief that leads to death and dust?? What hope of an afterlife?? None!!! What hope of eternal life?? None?? Can we respect the postion of "There is no God", sure if they are respectful in their discourse. Is that the case. Exhibit 1 this Forum and Neal Walls, then Exhibit 2 Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris and their civility or lack of it. (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 26, 2009)

bob_2 · 04-26-09 8:18 pm

In one of the videos where four atheists are discussing their "victimhood" and how religious individuals are treating them, they compare themselves to how the gays/lesbians have been discriminated against. I have no problem if they wish to feel that way and believe that eternal life is found in producing offspring, as long as they are civil and we are civil to them, what's the problem. Just remember, when death of a loved one comes, and sickness hits the family, there is no God to understand or comfort or say, you will see them on the other side. If you can live with that, and you are not pushy about being irrational because we aren't atheistic, I'm ok with that, just like having to deal in society with every other secularist that believes this life is all there is. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/sad.gif" border=0>

neal · 04-27-09 10:45 am

Well, I'm at stop 1. Saw a great piece from the NYT- thought of our village idiot from MO here at atomorrow:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops By LAURIE GOODSTEIN Published: April 26, 2009 CHARLESTON, S.C. — Two months after the local atheist organization here put up a billboard saying “Don’t Believe in God? You Are Not Alone,” the group’s 13 board members met in Laura and Alex Kasman’s living room to grapple with the fallout. The problem was not that the group, the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, had attracted an outpouring of hostility. It was the opposite. An overflow audience of more than 100 had showed up for their most recent public symposium, and the board members discussed whether it was time to find a larger place. And now parents were coming out of the woodwork asking for family-oriented programs where they could meet like-minded nonbelievers. “Is everyone in favor of sponsoring a picnic for humanists with families?” asked the board president, Jonathan Lamb, a 27-year-old meteorologist, eliciting a chorus of “ayes.” More than ever, America’s atheists are linking up and speaking out — even here in South Carolina, home to Bob Jones University, blue laws and a legislature that last year unanimously approved a Christian license plate embossed with a cross, a stained glass window and the words “I Believe” (a move blocked by a judge and now headed for trial). They are connecting on the Internet, holding meet-ups in bars, advertising on billboards and buses, volunteering at food pantries and picking up roadside trash, earning atheist groups recognition on adopt-a-highway signs. They liken their strategy to that of the gay-rights movement, which lifted off when closeted members of a scorned minority decided to go public. “It’s not about carrying banners or protesting,” said Herb Silverman, a math professor at the College of Charleston who founded the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, which has about 150 members on the coast of the Carolinas. “The most important thing is coming out of the closet.” Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years. Nationally, the “nones” in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. Not all the “nones” are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics, but they make up a pool of potential supporters. Local and national atheist organizations have flourished in recent years, fed by outrage over the Bush administration’s embrace of the religious right. A spate of best-selling books on atheism also popularized the notion that nonbelief is not just an argument but a cause, like environmentalism or muscular dystrophy. Ten national organizations that variously identify themselves as atheists, humanists, freethinkers and others who go without God have recently united to form the Secular Coalition for America, of which Mr. Silverman is president. These groups, once rivals, are now pooling resources to lobby in Washington for separation of church and state. A wave of donations, some in the millions of dollars, has enabled the hiring of more paid professional organizers, said Fred Edwords, a longtime atheist leader who just started his own umbrella group, the United Coalition of Reason, which plans to spawn 20 local groups around the country in the next year. Despite changing attitudes, polls continue to show that atheists are ranked lower than any other minority or religious group when Americans are asked whether they would vote for or approve of their child marrying a member of that group. Over lunch with some new atheist joiners at a downtown Charleston restaurant serving shrimp and grits, one young mother said that her husband was afraid to allow her to go public as an atheist because employers would refuse to hire him. But another member, Beverly Long, a retired school administrator who now teaches education at the Citadel, said that when she first moved to Charleston from Toronto in 2001, “the first question people asked me was, What church do you belong to?” Ms. Long attended Wednesday dinners at a Methodist church, for the social interaction, but never felt at home. Since her youth, she had doubted the existence of God but did not discuss her views with others. Ms. Long found the secular humanists through a newspaper advertisement and attended a meeting. Now, she is ready to go public, she said, especially after doing some genealogical research recently. “I had ancestors who fought in the American Revolution so I could speak my mind,” she said. Until recent years, the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry were local pariahs. Mr. Silverman — whose specialty license plate, one of many offered by the state, says “In Reason We Trust” — was invited to give the invocation at the Charleston City Council once, but half the council members walked out. The local chapter of Habitat for Humanity would not let the Secular Humanists volunteer to build houses wearing T-shirts that said “Non Prophet Organization,” he said. When their billboard went up in January, with their Web site address displayed prominently, they expected hate mail. “But most of the e-mails were grateful,” said Laura Kasman, an assistant professor of microbiology and immunology at the Medical University of South Carolina. The board members meeting in the Kasmans’ living room were an unlikely mix that included a gift store owner, a builder, a grandmother, a retired nursing professor, a retired Navy officer, an administrator at a primate sanctuary and a church musician. They are also diverse in their attitudes toward religion. Loretta Haskell, the church musician, said: “I did struggle at one point as to whether or not I should be making music in churches, given my position on things. But at the same time I like using my music to move people, to give them comfort. And what I’ve found is, I am not one of the humanists who feels that religion is a bad thing.” The group has had mixed reactions to President Obama, who acknowledged nonbelievers in his inauguration speech. “I sent him a thank-you note,” Ms. Kasman said. But Sharon Fratepietro, who is married to Mr. Silverman, said, “It seemed like one long religious ceremony, with a moment of lip service.” Part of what is giving the movement momentum is the proliferation of groups on college campuses. The Secular Student Alliance now has 146 chapters, up from 42 in 2003. At the University of South Carolina, in Columbia, 19 students showed up for a recent evening meeting of the “Pastafarians,” named for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster — a popular spoof on religion dreamed up by an opponent of intelligent design, the idea that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that a higher intelligence designed them. Andrew Cederdahl, the group’s co-founder, asked for volunteers for the local food bank and for a coming debate with a nearby Christian college. Then Mr. Cederdahl opened the floor to members to tell their “coming out stories.” Andrew Morency, who attended a Christian high school, said that when he got to college and studied evolutionary biology he decided that “creationists lie.” Josh Streetman, who once attended the very Christian college that the Pastafarians were about to debate, said he knew the Bible too well to be sure that Scripture is true. Like Mr. Streetman, many of the other students at the meeting were highly literate in the Bible and religious history. In keeping with the new generation of atheist evangelists, the Pastafarian leaders say that their goal is not confrontation, or even winning converts, but changing the public’s stereotype of atheists. A favorite Pastafarian activity is to gather at a busy crossroads on campus with a sign offering “Free Hugs” from “Your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist.”<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html?_r=2&src=twt&twt=nytimes" target=_top>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.htm l?_r=2&src=twt&twt=nytimes</a>

bob_2 · 04-27-09 10:53 am

So it wasn't an original idea, eh, John. Thought so.

neal · 04-27-09 10:54 am

<blockquote>State Constitutions that Discriminate Against Atheists Arkansas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 ("Miscellaneous Provisions") No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court. Maryland's Declaration of Rights: Article 36 "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come." Article 37 "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God;" Massachusetts' State Constitution, Article 3 "Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law." Comment: Apparently non-Christians are not "equally under the protection of the law". Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 ("General Provisions"), Section 265 "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state." North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8 "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." Pennsylvania's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4 "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." South Carolina's State Constitution, Article 4 Section 2 "No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..." Note: If you continue reading you will find that (in Section 8) the Lieutenant Governor must also meet the same qualifications as the Governor. Tennessee's State Constitution, Article 9 Section 2 "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4 "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." </blockquote> <a href="http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm" target=_top>http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutio ns.htm</a>

bob_2 · 04-27-09 12:42 pm

You know, Neal, I had a thought last night: The following caveats if met, I don't have a problem with a live and let live or "live and let die" positon between Christians and Athiests: 1. Positions openly stated, with sources, so we know where the ideas originated. 2. Civil behavior of both sides of the discussion. If civility does not ensue, each side can plan on getting as good as they give, after all, inspite of the Beatitudes Christ picked up a whip and intimidated the money changers out of the House of God. 3. Once equilibrium is arrived at, who is interested in changing and not determined, living in peace should happen as with Gays and Straights. Who cares if a Secular society gives equal rights for an individual to put forth an idea they believe in without threat of death or injury and vice versa, unless our tax dollars are affected, then it is a voting issue that the country has to live with. In brief who cares, eh, if an Athiest does not want eternal life and declares such. I don't. Other than what I or they may feel as an obligation to present their message then shut up or don't intimidate the other side, without provocation.

bob_2 · 04-27-09 9:08 pm

Neal, the founders were Deists, so at least back off that much. What are you going to start a victimhood group for Atheists? I hate when that happens!!! <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/rofl.gif" border=0>

neal · 05-02-09 1:17 pm

In brief who cares, eh, if an Athiest does not want eternal life and declares such. Its delusional to believe in something that does not exist. The same guys that claimed the flat earth has a dome over it with an ocean on top are the ones claiming there is another life. HELLO? What makes you think that, even though there is no dome and no ocean in the sky which this deity created that SOMEHOW they could POSSIBLY be correct about this SAME Deity giving them another life? Neal, the founders were Deists, so at least back off that much. Should I get some slaves also? If I had been living in the 1700's I would have probably been a Deist also. If Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin were living today they would be evolutionist humanists. So what. Since the time of this country's founding geologists started understanding how old the planet was. Then Darwin published a theory about how life probably evolved instead of being created. Then tens of thousands of scientists from every continent and race on this planet have added mountains of evidence proving the geologists and Darwin to be correct. And you want me to go back to the time over 200 years ago and argue from the point of what was then probably about the only safe position (without risking physical harm) to make public? Why would I want to argue from a position which has no basis for believing that its true?

bob_2 · 05-02-09 6:48 pm

Regarding Eternal Life <center>Its delusional to believe in something that does not exist. </center> <center>-- Neal Walls</center>

bob_2 · 05-02-09 6:53 pm

Speaking of delusional: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Since the time of this country's founding geologists started understanding how old the planet was. Then Darwin published a theory about how life probably evolved instead of being created. Then tens of thousands of scientists from every continent and race on this planet have added mountains of evidence proving the geologists and Darwin to be correct. - Neal Walls<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> What was that you said Elaine that might apply here to Neal? "a mile wide and an inch thick." (Message edited by Bob_2 on May 02, 2009)

neal · 05-07-09 9:06 am

"a mile wide and an inch thick." Bob If you are going to put something in quotes and attribute the statement to somebody please be certain that it is ACTUALLY what the person wrote. I don't think Elain wrote what you attributed to her. I may be wrong in this case as I don't have time to look it up so show me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

elaine · 05-07-09 4:16 pm

I will repeat what I said: "A mile wide and an inch deep." I was speaking of you, Bob, not Neal. Does that clear things up? A perfect description of someone who goes all around "Red Robin's Barn" by cutting and pasting, often without reading, and gives a very superficial opinion that is hardly an inch deep. So, consider yourself as being described. If Neal disagrees, he can answer for himself.

bob_2 · 05-08-09 12:06 am

I was talking about Neal, Elaine, Does that clear MY things up?? I am glad you let Neal speak for himself, Elaine. It usually works better after both of you defend each other regarding the Divinity of Jesus. There ain't no salvation if He isn't God's Son, Neal. A normal man can not forgive sins, even the Pharisees knew what He was claiming when He forgave sins,eh?? Whoever suggested that Mark is suggesting a normal man was adopted by God at His baptism is really out in the Tall Grass, maybe smoking some.

neal · 05-08-09 8:41 am

There ain't no salvation if He isn't God's Son, Neal. That's FALSE. A FALSE choice. The idea of 'salvation' (the ancestor of the christian teaching) originated in the Magi teachings of Zoroastrianism. Since they also taught 'salvation', it is more likely that their original idea is the TRUE one. The idea concocted by Gnostic Paul is a perversion of their teaching and, as any Jew will tell you, NOT Biblical according to the Hebrew Bible. Salvation explicitly contradicts Ecclesiastes. The doing away with the law and the new moon observations are explicitly prophesied to be a heresy in the Hebrew Bible. So, to make a blanket statement that there is no salvation without Jesus? 1. There are earlier teachings about salvation without a godman. 2. Salvation is explicitly denied in the OT.

elaine · 05-08-09 2:41 pm

The one thing the Hebrews looked forward to for enhancing their immortality was in their progeny. The more, the better and indicated that they had been blessed by their god. There was no afterlife in their belief system. Nor is there evidence that their god had promised it.

john8verse32 · 05-08-09 5:03 pm

since most of our beliefs arise out of the OT... and IF it is true that the hebrews did not expect an afterlife,,,,, how did Christians come up with it? claiming that the hebrew texts pointed to both it and Christ?

elaine · 05-08-09 6:19 pm

The NT writers took great liberties with the Hebrew text, deciding that many of the prophecies that were directed to the Israelites then, were pointing toward a messiah that was to come. Thus, after Jesus died, they began seaching their scriptures and assembling proof that he was much more than a prophet or holy man. Note how the latest writer, John, elevates him so much more than the others. In essence, they "created" Jesus, and man has been doing it ever since. He was not claimed to be divine; or God while he was alive. The apostles and writers developed an illusion that was much larger than his real life. While he was a holy man, as the term was often used then for exceptionally good people, he never said that he was God, and even the writers said that he referred to himself as "the Son of Man."

don · 05-09-09 8:43 am

The apostles and writers developed an illusion that was much larger than his real life. I don't think that such a statement is any more than supposition reflecting the views of certain "well-respected" scholars. The only information we have of Jesus are from those who supposedly "developed an illusion." We have the text. We have their unique use of Hebrew scriptures. The following statements are biased; based on one's world view:<ul><li>after Jesus died, they began seaching their scriptures and assembling proof that he was much more than a prophet or holy man. (Luke reports that Jesus, after the resurrection, used the Hebrew Scriptures to explain who He was. <LI>In essence, they "created" Jesus... (How can anyone tell whether they "created" Jesus or not. It comes down to, do I believe their report or do I consider it a "cunningly devised fable".) <LI>He was not claimed to be divine; or God while he was alive. (This goes against the very reports that quote Jesus claiming to be divine. Those who don't accept the reports of the Gospel writers still want to be somehow involved with Jesus. This is like trying to have it both ways. The Gospel writers record Jesus claim to be divine. <LI>he never said that he was God. (To say this, you have to accept some things reported as said by Jesus and reject other things. All statements where he said he was divine must be rejected. Once you reject those statements, it is easy to say he never said he was God.)</li></ul>"Liberal" scholars join the "Bible-thumpers" in speaking as though they know. Evolutionists and Special Creationists also share a common bond of asserting the known. As I relate to people with a different worldview than myself, I have learned to be more careful in what I assert. This makes me more boring, I suppose, but I like myself better. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> When Richard Bottomley, a professor at our Adventist college here in Canada, helped in the assessment of a metorite's age, he state, "if our readings are correct" and then went on to give the "millions of years" reading. I consider it far more palatable to speak carefully remembering the varied sensibilities of my audience than to assert opinion paraded as fact. _________________________________ Speaking of Dr. Bottomley. I thought I would transfer from the dot come site some information about him to this site. I need to establish a thread focusing on accomplished individuals at this dot net site. Richard Bottomley MBA, Ph.D. Dr. Bottomley worked as an exploration geophysicist for Shell Canada. Realizing he needed the business skills that an MBA degree could give him, he completed the MBA program at the University of Toronto. He then joined the business department at CUC. In addition to his experience in the large company environment, he has also participated in the management of small business in Alberta. He teaches in the areas of strategy, life skills and computer management. Canadian University College School of Business, PhD Professor, Chair <a href="http://www.cauc.ca/MainPages/Departments/SchoolofBusiness/business_index1.htm" target=_top>http://www.cauc.ca/MainPages/Departments/SchoolofB usiness/business_index1.htm</a> Picture <a href="http://www.cauc.ca/Business/school_of_business_faculty.htm" target=_top>http://www.cauc.ca/Business/school_of_business_fac ulty.htm</a> email: <a href="mailto:rbottomley@cauc.ca">rbottomley@cauc.ca</a> _________________________________ Very few Adventist scientists speak so freely of an "ancient life" earth. One should admire such candidness from an employee of a denomination of Young Earth Creationists. Age Dating of Rocks, (1999) <a href="http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive26-30/index27-4.html" target=_top>http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive26 -30/index27-4.html</a> The Clocks in the Rocks Richard Bottomley, Argon-Argon Geochronologist Canadian University College FOR: Faith and Science Conference, Glacier View Ranch, CO — August 2003 <a href="http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Bottomley-ClocksRocks.htm" target=_top>http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Bottomley-Cloc ksRocks.htm</a> _________________________________ 2003 Faith and Science Conference Glacier View Ranch, Colorado A Report on Proceedings, August 14, 2003 <a href="http://cache.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=566190844&page_url=www%2Espectrummagazine%2Eorg%2Fconversationcafe%2Frelig%2Dscience%2F030814bottomley%2Ehtml&page_last_updated=1%2F5%2F2004+11%3A40%3A42+PM&firstName=Richard&lastName=Bottomley" target=_top>http://cache.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0 &page_id=566190844&page_url=www%2Espectrummagazine %2Eorg%2Fconversationcafe%2Frelig%2Dscience%2F0308 14bottomley%2Ehtml&page_last_updated=1%2F5%2F2004+ 11%3A40%3A42+PM&firstName=Richard&lastName=Bottoml ey</a> From Our Own Atomorrow archives More on Dr. Bottomley's thinking at the 2003 Conference <a href="http://cache.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=600192717&page_url=www%2Eatomorrow%2Ecom%2Fmessages%2F8%2F3186%2Ehtml%3F1061686626&page_last_updated=2%2F12%2F2004+4%3A47%3A58+PM&firstName=Richard&lastName=Bottomley" target=_top>http://cache.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0 &page_id=600192717&page_url=www%2Eatomorrow%2Ecom% 2Fmessages%2F8%2F3186%2Ehtml%3F1061686626&page_las t_updated=2%2F12%2F2004+4%3A47%3A58+PM&firstName=R ichard&lastName=Bottomley</a> _________________________________ Science Friday, July 25, 1997 "More than 500 million years ago, the Earth's poles migrated, rearranging the continents. At about the same time, life on Earth diversified at a rate twenty times faster than normal. Now, researchers think they know the connection between the two. "In other geology news, a huge impact crater in Siberia has just been dated to within a blink of an eye (geologically speaking) of another crater in the Chesapeake Bay area. These two catastrophic events, placed so close together, could have had serious consequences for the Earth's environment - possibly enough to cause a massive surge forward in evolutionary history. In this hour of Science Friday, we'll hear how geologic evidence is providing new information about past biologic events." Listen to this program in RealAudio. <a href="http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/970725.totn.01.ram" target=_top>http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/970725.totn.01.ram</a> Dr. Bottomley is one of the guests on this program. <a href="http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/1997/Jul/hour1_072597.html" target=_top>http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/1997/Jul/hour1_ 072597.html</a> _________________________________ Craters and extinctions: time of reckoning - Science News, August 2, 1997 by Richard Monastersky "In the July 24 NATURE, Richard Bottomley of Canadian Union College in College Heights, Alberta, and his colleagues dated a Siberian crater called Popigai at 35.7 million years old. "That time falls within a few hundred thousand years of the age of a crater beneath the Chesapeake Bay. “Right now, there doesn’t appear to be any dying out associated with these impacts,” saysBottomley. The nearest major extinction came some 2 million years later, at the end of the Eocene epoch." _________________________________ Geochemistry and age of Ivory Coast tektites and microtektites <a href="http://ieg.or.kr:8080/abstractII/H0106108015.html" target=_top>http://ieg.or.kr:8080/abstractII/H0106108015.html</a> _________________________________ Published Articles The Age of a Separate Australian Tektite Event The age of the Popigai impact event and its relation to events at the Eocene/Oligocene boundary Geochemistry and age of Ivory Coast tektites and microtektites Age of Popigai impact event using the Ar-40 - Ar-39 method Impact melt rocks from New Quebec Crater, Quebec, Canada Argon-40-argon-39 dating of impact craters The Dating of Impact Melt Rocks Using the Ar40/Ar39 Method Age measurement of the submarine Montagnais impact crater 40Ar-39Ar Dating of Canadian Impact Craters: Lac Couture and Lac La Moinerie 40Ar-39Ar Dating of Scandinavian Impact Craters 40Ar-39Ar age determinations on the Owyhee basalt of the Columbia Plateau <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?return_req=no_params&&author=Bottomley%2C+R&db_key=AST" target=_top>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect? return_req=no_params&&author=Bottomley,+R&db_key=A ST</a> .

cadge · 05-09-09 3:18 pm

Don, my Friend, I would be most interested in reading these articles, however, they do not come up with these URLs. Is there some other way to access them? Age Dating of Rocks, (1999) <a href="http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive26" target=_top>http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive26</a> -30/index27-4.html FOR: Faith and Science Conference, Glacier View Ranch, CO — August 2003 <a href="http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Bottomley-Cloc" target=_top>http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Bottomley-Cloc</a> ksRocks.htm Thanks, Cadge

don · 05-09-09 4:35 pm

Hi Cadge, Try this link:<blockquote>Age Dating of Rocks, (1999) <a href="http://old.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive26-30/27-4bottomley.pdf" target=_top>http://old.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/archive26 -30/27-4bottomley.pdf</a></blockquote>The 2003 Faith and Science Conference essays seem to be no longer available. .

john8verse32 · 05-09-09 9:54 pm

Faith and Science Conference essays seem to be no longer available. surprised? and after reading that Bottomley link, what do you believe now? (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 09, 2009)

don · 05-10-09 1:06 am

and after reading that Bottomley link, what do you believe now? I believe that the church must encourage the presentation of facts and studied opinions. If the essays have been intentionally removed because they shake up faith, then I am disappointed with whoever did so. As a believer, I look at science the same way I look at the Bible. The Bible comes down to us in cultural robes; science comes to us in rational robes. Both influence my systematic view of God, that classical view. I don't believe that science is as dogmatic as some of its proponents. But, a sound scientific argument has its place in my world view. I will not reject the Biblical account of creation and I will not reject the obvious facts of science. I like Bottomley's cautionary phrase, "If our readings are correct..." .

bob_2 · 05-10-09 2:39 am

Science by definition can never answer the question if there is a God. I believe because the actual hardcore, observation needed by the scientist will be shown to them too late. We are saved by grace through faith. Faith is not on Science's radar screen and never will be until it is too late.

bob_2 · 05-10-09 2:54 am

Another point Don, Neal has stated that my acceptance of microevolution, demonstrates that I have accepted macroevolution, and in fact the whole ball of wax, he feels is an either or situation. As a Biology Major, Chem Minor in my Undergrad, I differ with that position, because, if one studies Mendel's Accountant, Evolution is based on mutations, which weakens the genes, not strengthens them, in fact they become less fit, so they cannot produce MacroEvolution as Neal suggests. He has not given one example of MacroEvolution. Species within a family can be produced but two dogs will never produce a cat, two chimps will never produce a man, even though the high similarity of DNA, in the 90% + range, yet no explanation for his hairy body, inability to speak or to perform other human tasks. Evolution is based on extrapolation, and Darwin set the stage and Scientists have run headlong into the, "it looks similar therefore they must be from the same ancestor." Looks can be deceiving. Can not two things have been created by God, with a mystery of why they can be so similar but so different. I think God may have set that similarity there to perplex the scientists who wish to extrapolate their way to naturalist conclusions.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 04-26-09 5:45 am

The New Atheist Crusaders

#2 04-26-09 7:30 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#3 04-26-09 8:18 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#4 04-27-09 10:45 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#5 04-27-09 10:53 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#6 04-27-09 10:54 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#7 04-27-09 12:42 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#8 04-27-09 9:08 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#9 05-02-09 1:17 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#10 05-02-09 6:48 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#11 05-02-09 6:53 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#12 05-07-09 9:06 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#13 05-07-09 4:16 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#14 05-08-09 12:06 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#15 05-08-09 8:41 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#16 05-08-09 2:41 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#17 05-08-09 5:03 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#18 05-08-09 6:19 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#19 05-09-09 8:43 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#20 05-09-09 3:18 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#21 05-09-09 4:35 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#22 05-09-09 9:54 pm

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#23 05-10-09 1:06 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#24 05-10-09 2:39 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

#25 05-10-09 2:54 am

Re: The New Atheist Crusaders

Board footer