Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by blackbird

  1. 7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

    As long as their view stretches into the billions of years, I can see cutting them some slack.

    You can do that if you wish.  If you wish to find out about the other side of the subject, you will have to do some reading.  I gave some links for that.

  2. 1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

    There is, however, mountains of evidence...growing daily as opposed to shrinking...that this model is pretty durn close.


    Delightfully illustrated by Walter Myer...to get an idea of each age. rest


    (worth a peek...good art)

    And of course, continental drift over the eons...



    Prof Stott presented an interesting point.  The secular humanist theories about the earth being billions of years old rests on a principle called uniformitarianism if I recall that word correctly.  It means everything happens in a uniform manner and over a predictable time period and always has.  Prof Stott demonstrated this assumption has been proven false.  I wish I could find an article on this.   It would be interesting.  I can't remember his explanation.

  3. 7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

    Do those fine scientists' opinions differ greatly from the time scale popularly put forward, or is it just a few weeks here and there?

    Here is a page that relates to your question about age of earth.

    Quote  There have been many ideas - stories, myths - about age and origins. But since the birth of science most of them have become mere curiosities. Two remain in serious contention. The account developed by secular humanist reasoning, characterized by naturalistic processes working over thousands of millions of years, is today by far the more popular. The other, characterized by supernatural creation a few thousand years ago, after having almost disappeared from serious discussion by the middle of the 20th century, has experienced a remarkable return to favour in the last decades.

    Before looking at these two competing ideas it should be noted that science is powerless to discover anything about origins with any degree of certainty. Science needs observations to work on, and none covering the critical times and events are available.   Unquote


  4. 1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

    There is, however, mountains of evidence...growing daily as opposed to shrinking...that this model is pretty durn close.


    Delightfully illustrated by Walter Myer...to get an idea of each age.


    (worth a peek...good art)

    And of course, continental drift over the eons...



    Don't forget those geological time charts are theoretical using flawed science.

    Check this article out.  "Toppling the Timescale".

      http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/45/45_1/CRSQ Summer 08 Reed.pdf


  5. Creationists or bible believers who take Genesis literally would put a young age on the earth.  Perhaps 6,000 years.

    Professor Philip Stott says:


    Science needs observations to work on, and none covering the critical times and events are available. The best we can hope for is to propose a selection of hypotheses and examine extant data to see how well it fits those hypotheses. We are forced to make many assumptions in our analysis, crucial data is missing and we can never gain anything close to certainty for our conclusions.

    Data is available concerning the world as it is today. Using what appear to be reasonable assumptions much of this data seems to point to an age of the earth and the universe of the order of thousands of years. Other data seems to point to a far greater age, some to millions, some to thousands of millions of years. Not surprisingly secular humanists esteem the data pointing to great ages very highly, and tend to ignore that pointing to a young age. Creationists tend to place far more emphasis on the data the humanist prefers not to dwell on.

    Modern secular humanist scientists tend to give the impression that no real scientist believes in creation and its short time scale. However, some of the greatest scientists have been creationists - Isaac Newton, Leonard Euler, James Clerk Maxwell, J.J. Thomson, and Michael Faraday to mention just a few. Many fine scientists today are creationists and hold to a time scale far shorter than that popularly put forward. Unfortunately such a stance is unpopular with the ruling authorities in science, and some good scientists, Robert V. Genty and Richard Sternberg, for example, have been penalized for their stand. It is likely that this unfortunate situation prevents a number of scientists from openly supporting a short time scale.  Unquote


  6. Just now, DogOnPorch said:


    There's no such thing as sorta pregnant. A "couple of errors in physics/chemistry" = H-Bomb no workee.

    Well you would have to apply the same rigidly in every opinion you present on here then.  If there is the slightest error, everything you say would then have to be dismissed as false, correct?

    I don't think there was really much delving into the details of chemistry in his presentation.  There were some references to carbon 14 dating.  That was probably about 10 or 15 years ago.

  7. 9 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:


    If you can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, Phil Stott is the guy for you. I'm not here to change you. Just pointing-out his obvious lack of chemistry background while he uses pseudo-chemistry as a method to convince you to buy his books.

    OK I don't know how much he knows about chemistry so would not comment on that.  But any errors he has on a peripheral subject as a couple errors in chemistry which he may have made is irrelevant in the whole scheme of things.  It is really irrelevant in the whole series of slide presentations which lasted four hours altogether.  Plus at least one book he wrote.   Gotta run for now.  Not finished cutting the grass.

  8. Just now, DogOnPorch said:



    But, heads-up...now you know his information is incorrect.

    I wouldn't generalize and say "his information is incorrect".  That is a generality. I would be cautious.  He may not have everything correct.  But I wouldn't dismiss everything because someone came up with a few errors in incorrect explanations about something. 


  9. 1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:


    Well, he got them wrong.

    That could be.  As I said, I don't accept everything he said as accurate.  But I do believe he made a lot of valuable information available.  I wouldn't dismiss most of what he said.  He is a sincere man and is not trying to be deceptive.  Nobody is suggesting he is trying to fool anyone.

  10. 2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:


    He claims to be a doctor and such but isn't. He's a Young Earth Creationist....which you subscribe to, apparently.

    He's a minister, really...and associated with Ken Ham and such. 

    As one poster critical of his videos put it: he doesn't understand the Thorium decay chain...let alone the behaviour of Helium. He also claimed that Carbon 14 results from the decay of Nitrogen 14...that's actually backwards. Anyways...

    Do you believe Carbon 14 dating is used to determine the age of the Earth?

    His website I gave you does not say he is a doctor.  I am not sure where the claim that he refers to himself as a doctor came from. 

    His website says nothing about him being a minister.  The information about him says the following:


    Philip Stott   Philip Stott, Scientist

    Check out Scripture and Science, our extensive online science workshop authored by Mr. Stott.

    Philip Stott was born in England in 1943. After matriculating at Bridlington Grammar School he studied at Manchester University, where he obtained B.Sc. (with honours) and M. Sc. degrees in Civil Engineering. He lectured at universities in Nigeria and South Africa and carried out research in the analysis of geometrically non-linear structures. He shared the Henry Adams award for outstanding research in 1969. While lecturing at the University of the Witwatersrand he studied Biology. After leaving Wits he joined an engineering consulting firm as associate in charge of computing. His ongoing interest in all aspects of science led to studies in Mathematics and Astronomy with the University of South Africa, and later to four years of part time research with the Applied Mathematics department of the University of the Orange Free State.

    After many years as a firm atheist he was converted to Christianity in 1976. Following several years of studying the conflicting claims of secular science and scripture he actively entered the Creation/Evolution debate  in 1989, while teaching Mathematics and Science at a mission station in Natal.  He gave lectures on the science/scripture controversy throughout South Africa and Namibia. In 1992 he was invited to address a conference in Russia and since then he has lectured, addressed conferences and taken part in debates in Eastern and Western Europe, America, Canada and Southern Africa. Venues have included  the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN), a UNESCO International Conference on the Teaching of Physics and the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    Philip Stott is married to Margaret (born Lloyd), has two children, Robert and Angela, and two grandchildren, Sean and Julie. He lives in Bloemfontein, the capital of the Free State, South Africa.  Unquote

    It says nothing about him being a minister.

    I can't get into a debate about Nitrogen 14 or carbon 14 or the Thorium decay.  That is way above me.  I don't have any knowledge on them.

    All I would say is I accept the simple verses in Genesis that God created the world.


  11. 51 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

    I read a good part of the letter in the link you gave.  So you searched and found a critique of Philip Stott.  That's interesting.  I don't expect him to be infallible and don't expect everything he says to be correct.  Nobody is.  It is a good reminder to examine what a person claims, even scientists or those educated men who have lots of theories.

    Dr. Stott was an exceptional speaker and presenter on the subject and creation, the Bible, and evolution in my opinion.  But I am not knowledgeable on the subject and not one to really judge someone like Prof. Philip Stott.  This writer may have some valid  points worth considering.  But Philip Stott in his four evening of slide presentations did make give some very valuable information.  Fortunately I made videos of his four presentations and have them on VHS tapes.  I moved last year and am not completely settled yet.  I also have his book that is mentioned in that critique, but can't find it at the moment.  Probably still packed in some box.  I do not necessarily agree with every thing Philip Stott says.  I am not sure I believe his claim about the geocentricity, i.e. that the earth is the absolute centre of the universe and that the sun revolves around the earth.  That would be difficult to prove I think.  But if you take two steel balls of different sizes, say one is 1 LB and the other is 100 LB and tie them together with a cord and throw them into outer space.  What will happen?   They will of course revolve around each other, even if not uniformly.  So it might depend on one's perspective or point of view.  Which one is revolving around which one?  It's all relative.


  12. 5 hours ago, overthere said:

    Isn't severely damaging themselves economically every generation or so, by electing the hapless NDP,  a ritual flagellation in BC?


    Unfortunately for many people, this time they won't be able to flee to Alberta for a job.

    Unfortunately, yes. Seems to be the way it works.  Now the voters have thrown some Greens into the mix, giving it an even worse influence.

    • Like 1
  13. 5 hours ago, TTM said:

    You make a good argument ... for atheism. "God's plan" is unknowable, capricious, and as likely to take the guilty as the innocent. So, exactly the same situation as if there were no plan and no God. Therefore by Occam's razor...

    God willed the children dead, and it was Good because he is Good. Inarguable, but empty of meaning, and so not very convincing.

    If you are serious about finding the answers, I would suggest joining a Bible study group or investigating whether there is an internet-based Bible study.

    You are incorrect in your assumptions.  God does have a plan for the world.  That is one of the messages of the Bible.  The plan is knowable and God is personally knowable.  But it is up to you to make a move to find out as well. 

  14. Just now, DogOnPorch said:

    Exact same guy...not sure why you're denying it.

    Did you buy his books by chance? 

    NO he is not the same guy you gave your first link to.  There is another Philip Stott who passed away in 2004.  Anyone you found the correct on now.

  15. 1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:


    And your evidence that the entire Universe is only 6,000 years old is from a book that was written in the Bronze Age...by folks who thought the Earth was flat.


    No...they all have to be wrong according to your version of the Universe. You don't get to pick and choose....either atomic bombs work or they do not.

    He's no mathematician. He's certainly not a scientist.


    There is more than one Philip Stott on google.  The one I heard was a professor from South Africa.  Think he was born in England.  He has taught mathematics in university I believe.  He has traveled around the world attending conferences and such on evolution and lectured on the subject.  He has written at least one book on related topics.  He is a very knowledgeable speaker.  Yes, I believe he has a degree or degrees, most likely in mathematics.

  • Create New...