Jump to content


Photo

Global Warming Paved The Way For Dinosaurs


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
29 replies to this topic

#21 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 04 December 2010 - 02:51 AM

(Geode @ Dec 3 2010, 09:32 AM)
You are clearly writing something into my response that is not there.

"scientists do not hide data" ... is there, is it not?

It seems to me you are saying something about the character of scientists in general. My response was more along the lines that the problem is not as conspicuous as someone deliberately hiding anything, although I don't doubt for a second that such things happen, even among scientists. It is the subtleties about the way we view scientists that worries me, especially when interpretation and theory becomes "fact".


Yes, I was saying that scientists in general act with integrity. Some might be inclined to do so but the process of interfacing with peers tends to motivate towards doing the most thorough and solid work possible as others can expose weaknesses. Pride is in fact in play quite often. I don't know how you view scientists, but I have found creationist to often be "anti-science" in they was they approach science and scientists.

(Geode @ Dec 3 2010, 09:32 AM)
"It appears that you are saying that most scientists might not interpret data in favor of a creationist viewpoint because God holds men liable for sin".

No more than anyone else!

Most scientists are nothing more than people who specialize in a particular field of study. Yes, that makes them an authority in that particular field, but hardly in anything beyond the field they specialize in.


Yes, I have seen some scientists really stretch when offering opinions outside of their field.

In a world where practically EVERYONE is spoon-fed continually with the idea that evolution is fact, how is it humanly possible that the interpretations of scientists are not colored by the evolutionary worldview? And their interpretations are in turn peer-reviewed by other scientists who also have their bellies filled with this nonsense since birth.


I think people should shun being "spoon-fed" and think for themselves in terms of both science and religion. One should not just accept what they are told by others. Yes. it is a continuous battle for some scientists to avoid the subjective approach that comes from dogmatic thinking.

If I had accepted all that I was "spoon-fed" since birth I would be a devout Mormon instead of parting with this group when my study of that faith as an adult indicated problems with some of their beliefs. In a similar fashion I put what I had been taught in science classes to the test doing field and laboratory work in completing a thesis in biostratigraphy. I followed where the evidence I found in the rocks and fossils led, and as with countless workers before me what I found was consistent with evolution having occurred and earth history involving long periods of time.

But quite honestly, did you arrive at your opinion that evolution is nonsense from you own study, or was this the thinking of your parents and peers as you grew up. Would you have felt pressure if you had thought otherwise?

#22 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 04 December 2010 - 05:57 AM

But quite honestly, did you arrive at your opinion that evolution is nonsense from you own study, or was this the thinking of your parents and peers as you grew up. Would you have felt pressure if you had thought otherwise?

View Post


If I had followed the teaching of my parents and peers then I would definitely have been a devout believer of evolutionion to this very day. In fact I was taught specifically by my parents to be sceptical of the Bible since it was only an ancient book that has been "translated thousands of times", to quote what I had been told exactly.

The last thing I ever wanted in my life at that time was to become a Christian, and unlike the great majority of those who actually convert to Christianity as opposed to being spoon-fed, I did not become a Christian as a result of any convincing arguments.

I'm not a church-goer, and I have read very little Christian litterature during my life since I have always strived to build my own opinions.

That being said I have no disillusions whatsoever about having my own thoughts coloured and contaminated by other people. That's an unavoidable side-effect of being human. But what disturbs me is when a scientist, being basically nothing more than an occupation, is considered somehow quarantined from being swayed by faith issues and things like that.

#23 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 04 December 2010 - 09:20 AM

If I had followed the teaching of my parents and peers then I would definitely have been a devout believer of evolutionion to this very day. In fact I was taught specifically by my parents to be sceptical of the Bible since it was only an ancient book that has been "translated thousands of times", to quote what I had been told exactly.

The last thing I ever wanted in my life at that time was to become a Christian, and unlike the great majority of those who actually convert to Christianity as opposed to being spoon-fed, I did not become a Christian as a result of any convincing arguments.

I'm not a church-goer, and I have read very little Christian litterature during my life since I have always strived to build my own opinions.

That being said I have no disillusions whatsoever about having my own thoughts coloured and contaminated by other people. That's an unavoidable side-effect of being human. But what disturbs me is when a scientist, being basically nothing more than an occupation, is considered somehow quarantined from being swayed by faith issues and things like that.

View Post


Being a scientist does not make one unable to have faith. Even in science some ideas start out with faith that a workable answer can be found through further study. Can evidence be found that shows that the original premise has validity? It takes some faith to proceed down a line of reasoning in the first place.

#24 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 04 December 2010 - 11:43 AM

It takes some faith to proceed down a line of reasoning in the first place.

View Post


Exactly! Coincidentally, as I write this there is a program being aired on swedish television called "A superior species" having the following description:

"How is it that our ancestors, the apes, climbed down from trees and eventually became humans? Scientists search for an answer in the east-african mountain ranges. Among the finds is a skull from the dawn of human evolution about 3.3 millions years ago."

I have no doubt that these scientists went in, not looking for signs of truth, but rather for things that might support their "line of reasoning".

As the Bible says "he who seeks finds". It all depends on what you are looking for.

Scientists "search for an answer". That is the name of the game.

There were a number of theories presented as to why these ancestors "decided" to stop climbing trees and walk on two legs. The one that was most accepted had something to do with conservation of energy. However, I heard nothing that explained why apes didn't walk upright before climbing trees.

If evolution produces changes in whales, dinosaurs, birds and primates that takes millions of years to develop, and these changes occur due to enviromental changes, then what fluctuations in the environment persist that long? We have dinosaurs taking flight, whales (ok, their ancestors) jumping up on land and then changing their minds and diving back into the seas, primates climbing trees and then climing down again... all the while we have other species that hardly seem to change at all!

Where does the madness end? :angry:

I don't doubt that answers to these questions can be found. I could, and usually do, figure something out myself. But somewhere along the line there is way too much figuring out, and way too little evidence.. such as in the fossil record.

Again.. he who seeks finds.

#25 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 December 2010 - 08:34 PM

So your best comeback to my last post is to change the subject? I think I have seen just about this exact set of thoughts before on this forum. Did they come from you, and did they apply to a past discussion better than this one, where they seem to simply derail the thread with criticism of "theistic evolution"...? I was not making a case for this.


You were the one who linked to an anti-YEC website. So I dished out what you dished to me. Did you actually think it would slide without a response?

Why should anybody bother to hold a crusade for a scientific principle that is basically universally accepted by those involved in research within the life sciences? That would really be "preaching to the choir." Evolutionary science is not about saving anyone, at least in the spiritual sense, but its application has started having an impact on saving lives in the physical sense, or least extending lifetimes.


jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

God the Father controls the drawing power unto the Son. Which also means that whatever draws a person unto salvation first has to be approved of by Father God. God does not approve, so evolution does not have the power to draw someone unto salvation.

My thoughts about science are based upon evidence. My belief in Christ in based upon faith. The purpose of God in saving mankind has nothing to do with evolution or the nature of life on the planet in my opinion, so your comments here have little meaning for me personally. If I had held to beliefs that required a young earth and special creation to have occurred, I would have lost faith in those beliefs long ago for scientific research has shown them to be false. Fortunately my faith in Christ was not based upon such ideas but upon what we have been given in the gospels and other writings of prophets and apostles and so my faith has survived. I don't think it was ever the intent of God for men to obsess over how they came to be. We did come to be and are called to follow Christ.


At least all that I believe is written in God's word. And can be used to bring people to salvation. And my peer group does not include people that are Christian hating atheists.

Also, for your idea to be remotely true. The laws of physics would had to have remained the same from the moment of the big bang. Can you prove with empirical evidence that the laws of physics were always the same? No? Then my idea that they were not, which is the reason for the natural and the supernatural time lines not matching is just as feasible.

But the reason it's not considered feasible is because it does not conform.

Have people rejected Christ because of the theory of evolution? Yes, I think this is sadly the case. I have known several people that have done just that, but it was not the science on its own that led to their rejection in some cases. Some were told that they had a choice, to accept a literal reading of Genesis and YEC ideas or evolution. They made their choice. It is sad because the concepts of science and faith in Christ do not need to be mutually exclusive.

View Post


What is of God cannot turn people against God.

Evolution has turned people against God.
When a YEC chooses the evidence of evolution over YEC they turn against God.
And evolution keeps people from ever believing in the creation as written in Genesis which places doubt in God's word.
And TE often turn into atheists because of evolution.

The common denominator in each case is evolution. So regardless of how you try and justify it, evolution is used to turn away people from God more than YEC could ever imagine. And when a YEC does turn from God, it's evolution that does it. So the reverse of guilt does not work here.

1) Evolution is one of the main reasons people won't listen to the salvation message.
2) Evolution is the main reason TEs turn into atheists.
3) Evolution is the main reason YECs lose their faith.
4) Evolution is the main reason people have doubt in God's word.

#26 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 05 December 2010 - 05:49 AM

Exactly! Coincidentally, as I write this there is a program being aired on swedish television called "A superior species" having the following description:

"How is it that our ancestors, the apes, climbed down from trees and eventually became humans? Scientists search for an answer in the east-african mountain ranges. Among the finds is a skull from the dawn of human evolution about 3.3 millions years ago."

I have no doubt that these scientists went in, not looking for signs of truth, but rather for things that might support their "line of reasoning".

As the Bible says "he who seeks finds". It all depends on what you are looking for.

Scientists "search for an answer". That is the name of the game.

There were a number of theories presented as to why these ancestors "decided" to stop climbing trees and walk on two legs. The one that was most accepted had something to do with conservation of energy. However, I heard nothing that explained why apes didn't walk upright before climbing trees.

If evolution produces changes in whales, dinosaurs, birds and primates that takes millions of years to develop, and these changes occur due to enviromental changes, then what fluctuations in the environment persist that long? We have dinosaurs taking flight, whales (ok, their ancestors) jumping up on land and then changing their minds and diving back into the seas, primates climbing trees and then climing down again... all the while we have other species that hardly seem to change at all!

Where does the madness end? :blink:

I don't doubt that answers to these questions can be found. I could, and usually do, figure something out myself. But somewhere along the line there is way too much figuring out, and way too little evidence.. such as in the fossil record.

Again.. he who seeks finds.

View Post


I have found the methods of anthropologists to be suspect at times. I remember decades ago reading something by L.S.B. Leakey. He had found a skull of an early human that was found with a corn cob. He then said it was obvious that the culture that the individual came from had religion and that life after death was part of his beliefs. He came to this conclusion by assuming that the individual had been purposely buried with food, and that burial with food indicated belief in a life after death. I had to wonder if this was true, or if the poor guy had been walking along eating a piece of corn, fell off the cliff along a river valley and became buried along with his last meal.
I think anthropologists who search for early humans are already primed with attempting to find fossil evidence that will fill in the gaps in their knowledge. In that sense they already have a theory for which they are wishing to find verifying evidence. They certainly are not going into the field "cold" but I don't think this would be expected considering the intermediate state of their knowledge. But it does not mean that they will not jump to the wrong conclusions.

I don't think changes in some life forms have to be due to the environment necessarily being in flux, or that it necessary takes millions of years. I think filling a niche better than competitive species could be enough to produce adaptive change and speciation. Sharks and scorpions do very well in their present forms and most creatures occupying the same environmental niches do not mess with them. They do very well with finding food and reproducing. No need for any change to be very successful at what they do.

I am fascinated by creatures that can fly. I can see a great advantage in being able to take to the air in terms of survival, in finding food and avoiding creatures taking them to be food.. Having watched flying squirrels in action I was amazed at how fast and agile they are. I could see how they could more easily evade a predator and might survive in higher numbers than their ground or tree based brothers.

I was on a drillship off the coast of Kenya many years ago. Off on the horizon I noticed what appeared to be a flock of birds hovering a few hundred yards away, just above the surface of the water. That seemed strange and when I looked more carefully I could see that they were actually flying fish. A few days later I was looking out a porthole as a large wave was cresting. All of a sudden several fish popped out of the wave and started gliding. Then the large sword of a marlin emerged and then dove back into the water. I then could see what had caused the flying fish to leave the water and favor the air. They kept hovering in the air safe from being eaten.

I can see where taking to the ground might have opened up new opportunities for a primate that started to walk instead of brachiating. That would allow migration cross-country where trees did not continuously grow

#27 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 05 December 2010 - 07:08 AM

(Geode @ Dec 4 2010, 05:33 AM)
So your best comeback to my last post is to change the subject? I think I have seen just about this exact set of thoughts before on this forum. Did they come from you, and did they apply to a past discussion better than this one, where they seem to simply derail the thread with criticism of "theistic evolution"...? I was not making a case for this.

You were the one who linked to an anti-YEC website. So I dished out what you dished to me. Did you actually think it would slide without a response?


I linked to two creationist sites. Unlike the mainstream version, where differing opinions or viewpoints were given, the creationist explanations were shaded in only one direction. The creationist explanations were better examples of "conforming" to one point of view than the mainstream explanations.

"Why should anybody bother to hold a crusade for a scientific principle that is basically universally accepted by those involved in research within the life sciences? That would really be "preaching to the choir." Evolutionary science is not about saving anyone, at least in the spiritual sense, but its application has started having an impact on saving lives in the physical sense, or least extending lifetimes."

jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

God the Father controls the drawing power unto the Son. Which also means that whatever draws a person unto salvation first has to be approved of by Father God. God does not approve, so evolution does not have the power to draw someone unto salvation.


I agree, evolution is simply a process and not an entity with saving authority.

"My thoughts about science are based upon evidence. My belief in Christ in based upon faith. The purpose of God in saving mankind has nothing to do with evolution or the nature of life on the planet in my opinion, so your comments here have little meaning for me personally. If I had held to beliefs that required a young earth and special creation to have occurred, I would have lost faith in those beliefs long ago for scientific research has shown them to be false. Fortunately my faith in Christ was not based upon such ideas but upon what we have been given in the gospels and other writings of prophets and apostles and so my faith has survived. I don't think it was ever the intent of God for men to obsess over how they came to be. We did come to be and are called to follow Christ."


At least all that I believe is written in God's word. And can be used to bring people to salvation. And my peer group does not include people that are Christian hating atheists.

Also, for your idea to be remotely true. The laws of physics would had to have remained the same from the moment of the big bang. Can you prove with empirical evidence that the laws of physics were always the same? No? Then my idea that they were not, which is the reason for the natural and the supernatural time lines not matching is just as feasible.

But the reason it's not considered feasible is because it does not conform.


Christian-hating atheists are part of some sets of people that include me, as I am sure that there are some in the scientific community to which I belong. But they are not part of my religious peer group.

I don't really see where the laws of physics have much to do with what I posted. I am not a physicist but from what I know of the situation there is evidence that such laws have held throughout time and there is not much empirical evidence to the contrary.

"Have people rejected Christ because of the theory of evolution? Yes, I think this is sadly the case. I have known several people that have done just that, but it was not the science on its own that led to their rejection in some cases. Some were told that they had a choice, to accept a literal reading of Genesis and YEC ideas or evolution. They made their choice. It is sad because the concepts of science and faith in Christ do not need to be mutually exclusive."

What is of God cannot turn people against God.

Evolution has turned people against God.
When a YEC chooses the evidence of evolution over YEC they turn against God.
And evolution keeps people from ever believing in the creation as written in Genesis which places doubt in God's word.
And TE often turn into atheists because of evolution.

The common denominator in each case is evolution. So regardless of how you try and justify it, evolution is used to turn away people from God more than YEC could ever imagine. And when a YEC does turn from God, it's evolution that does it. So the reverse of guilt does not work here.

1) Evolution is one of the main reasons people won't listen to the salvation message.
2) Evolution is the main reason TEs turn into atheists.
3) Evolution is the main reason YECs lose their faith.
4) Evolution is the main reason people have doubt in God's word.


My focus is on God when I am seeking spiritual guidance. Evolution has nothing to do with my relationship with God. You have your interpretation of Genesis, and I and others have a different one. My acceptance that evolutional has occurred and that the earth is of great antiquity is not in conflict with God's word as I accept it.

But having said that, do you have any statistics to back up your numbered claims? I doubt that you are close to being correct. Evolution simply is not that central an issue in most people's lives. It is however interesting to see how obsessed YECs are on the topic, including their holding to conspiracy theories about it.

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 December 2010 - 11:05 AM

I have found the methods of anthropologists to be suspect at times. I remember decades ago reading something by L.S.B. Leakey. He had found a skull of an early human that was found with a corn cob. He then said it was obvious that the culture that the individual came from had religion and that life after death was part of his beliefs. He came to this conclusion by assuming that the individual had been purposely buried with food, and that burial with food indicated belief in a life after death. I had to wonder if this was true, or if the poor guy had been walking along eating a piece of corn, fell off the cliff along a river valley and became buried along with his last meal.
I think anthropologists who search for early humans are already primed with attempting to find fossil evidence that will fill in the gaps in their knowledge. In that sense they already have a theory for which they are wishing to find verifying evidence. They certainly are not going into the field "cold" but I don't think this would be expected considering the intermediate state of their knowledge. But it does not mean that they will not jump to the wrong conclusions.

I don't think changes in some life forms have to be due to the environment necessarily being in flux, or that it necessary takes millions of years. I think filling a niche better than competitive species could be enough to produce adaptive change and speciation. Sharks and scorpions do very well in their present forms and most creatures occupying the same environmental niches do not mess with them. They do very well with finding food and reproducing. No need for any change to be very successful at what they do.

I am fascinated by creatures that can fly. I can see a great advantage in being able to take to the air in terms of survival, in finding food and avoiding creatures taking them to be food.. Having watched flying squirrels in action I was amazed at how fast and agile they are. I could see how they could more easily evade a predator and might survive in higher numbers than their ground or tree based brothers.

I was on a drillship off the coast of Kenya many years ago. Off on the horizon I noticed what appeared to be a flock of birds hovering a few hundred yards away, just above the surface of the water. That seemed strange and when I looked more carefully I could see that they were actually flying fish. A few days later I was looking out a porthole as a large wave was cresting. All of a sudden several fish popped out of the wave and started gliding. Then the large sword of a marlin emerged and then dove back into the water. I then could see what had caused the flying fish to leave the water and favor the air. They kept hovering in the air safe from being eaten.

I can see where taking to the ground might have opened up new opportunities for a primate that started to walk instead of brachiating. That would allow migration cross-country where trees did not continuously grow

View Post


Flying fish hover??? That's news to me! I didn't know they had this ability...

#29 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 05 December 2010 - 07:12 PM

I think people should shun being "spoon-fed" and think for themselves in terms of both science and religion. One should not just accept what they are told by others.

View Post

That is exactly what Emily Silvestru says in an interview on Youtube. That is exactly the goal of classical education. (My children's education. :blink: )

#30 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 05 December 2010 - 07:17 PM

I am not an expert on amber, but think it can be traced by proper geochemisty to the resins in trees it is thought to form from....can I make it? I doubt it as it takes time to produce the alterations in its properties. But I don't thin creationists and non-creationists really dispute amber and its creation.

View Post

I was referring to this article. What do you think?

But one problem with that scenario is that it doesn’t account for the abundant aquatic organisms found in amber, such as crustaceans, water beetles, barnacles, oysters, clams, water striders, algae and bacteria. How could aquatic creatures—both freshwater and marine—have become trapped in sticky tree sap?


http://creation.com/amber-needed-water




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users