Jump to content


Photo

What Would It Take For A Evolutionist To Consider Creation?


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#101 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 06 August 2011 - 08:25 AM

I've given the example of mathematics several times already.


Just chiming in. Here's a real simple question to ponder. I'll give the answer to the first and let you ponder the second one.


Does a dog know that 2 marbles placed next to 3 marbles makes 5 marbles? No.

Here's my question. Why not?

#102 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 06 August 2011 - 01:29 PM

Just chiming in. Here's a real simple question to ponder. I'll give the answer to the first and let you ponder the second one.


Does a dog know that 2 marbles placed next to 3 marbles makes 5 marbles? No.

Here's my question. Why not?


Border collies do!

All joking aside, various mammals don't have the ability to count or add as easily as primates do due to their prefrontal cortical development. They can see the difference between "2" and "3" (place two varying piles of treats and see which one the squirrel goes for), but they do not have the neurological capacity to temporarily store information and then perform a computation upon it.

#103 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 06 August 2011 - 05:57 PM

Border collies do!

All joking aside, various mammals don't have the ability to count or add as easily as primates do due to their prefrontal cortical development. They can see the difference between "2" and "3" (place two varying piles of treats and see which one the squirrel goes for), but they do not have the neurological capacity to temporarily store information and then perform a computation upon it.


Well you just answered the first question again with some added detail.

"Seeing" and making a "distinction" between the larger verses the smaller is not what Teejay is talking about. Nor does it answer the second question, which I will answer to help you in your ponderings. :).

He's referring to our "Minds". Where does that come from?

Dog's don't know that 2 marbles next to 3 marbles make 5 marbles because they don't have the mind to "process", or as you say, "perform a computation upon it". Animals have "memory", which helps a lot when they need to know where to get their food source from and other things. Which brings up another good question, since I mentioned it, where did "memory" come from? Also, since you mentioned it, animals may, as you gave the example, have the ability to make distinctions. But even there I have to ask. Where did that ability to make such a distinction come from?

What we're basically asking is, how does a materialistic worldview explain the mind or even memory or the ability to make a distinction? More specifically, how do chemicals and molecules via a random process produce such a thing?

So, from a materialistic worldview, where did this ability to reason, compute, express logic, remember, morality, etc. come from?

The Bible says, there is a Spirit in man. It also says that animals have a spirit. (Ecclesiastes 3:21)

#104 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 07 August 2011 - 12:52 AM

He's referring to our "Minds". Where does that come from?

Consciousness? That's the prefrontal area. (When I say "consciousness", I mean the personality/cognitive/higher level functions part of "the mind")

Most of the great apes have this same region, ours is just enlarged. (aka we have a neck just like a giraffe does, it's just that a giraffe's is long enough to perform functions and live a lifestyle that we can't). This explains why chimps (and to a lesser degree, gorillas) have demonstrated immense cognitive capacity compared to other mammals.

Which brings up another good question, since I mentioned it, where did "memory" come from?

Something called the Papez (pronounced "papes") Circuit, which is just the technical name for a ring of anatomic structure in the brain. This circuit doesn't store the memory (think RAM versus hard drive), it just bounces around neurological signals long enough for the signals to initiate new connections in the actual storage areas (think about it as being a way of echoing a sound long enough for you to write down the full sentence being said). Its anatomic location also explains why memories often have such strong emotions connected to them, even if those emotions were later shown to be irrational.

Also, since you mentioned it, animals may, as you gave the example, have the ability to make distinctions. But even there I have to ask. Where did that ability to make such a distinction come from?


Again, many mammals have the same neurological architecture that we do, it's just that different species have enlargements in different areas (for example, apes have huge prefrontal areas, meaning they can make tools, have a culture, etc, things which animals who haven't been blessed with this anatomy cannot do)

What we're basically asking is, how does a materialistic worldview explain the mind or even memory or the ability to make a distinction? More specifically, how do chemicals and molecules via a random process produce such a thing?

Neuroanatomy, to a large degree. It enables the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts.

So, from a materialistic worldview, where did this ability to reason, compute, express logic, remember, morality, etc. come from?

Natural selection acting upon those individuals who did/did not have variation in the size of different regions of the brain. Computation and logic are largely phenomena of the prefrontal cortex, while memory is associated with the association areas of various cortices (visual, auditory, motor, etc) and the limbic system.

Also, dietary developments in the course of evolution enable animals to reach different plateaus of neurological complexity. For example, hominids weren't really able to have a huge jump in brain size until they became bipedal, enabling them to eat a protein-rich diet while still surviving predators.

The Bible says, there is a Spirit in man. It also says that animals have a spirit. (Ecclesiastes 3:21)

Well, that is a hypothesis, but I cannot really make predictions based upon it. I can, however, use evolutionary neuroanatomy to make predictions about the capabilities of various genera and individual species, and then head to the jungles of Africa to see whether my predictions are valid or not.

#105 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 07 August 2011 - 02:30 PM

[quote] name='jamo0001' timestamp='1312662599' post='73818']
Border collies do!

All joking aside, various mammals don't have the ability to count or add as easily as primates do due to their prefrontal cortical development. They can see the difference between "2" and "3" (place two varying piles of treats and see which one the squirrel goes for), but they do not have the neurological capacity to temporarily store information and then perform a computation upon it.
[/quote]

Jam,

The "prefrontal cortical" is physical. Reason and logic are not part of the physical universe. I don't care if this organ was as big as an elephant, rational reason and logic can't come from the physical.

TeeJay

#106 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 07 August 2011 - 02:50 PM

Jam,

The "prefrontal cortical" is physical. Reason and logic are not part of the physical universe. I don't care if this organ was as big as an elephant, rational reason and logic can't come from the physical.

TeeJay


So why do humans with medical conditions (trauma or chemical) of the prefrontal cortex also have deficiencies in reason and logic?

#107 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 07 August 2011 - 04:07 PM

Consciousness? That's the prefrontal area. (When I say "consciousness", I mean the personality/cognitive/higher level functions part of "the mind")

Most of the great apes have this same region, ours is just enlarged. (aka we have a neck just like a giraffe does, it's just that a giraffe's is long enough to perform functions and live a lifestyle that we can't). This explains why chimps (and to a lesser degree, gorillas) have demonstrated immense cognitive capacity compared to other mammals.


Something called the Papez (pronounced "papes") Circuit, which is just the technical name for a ring of anatomic structure in the brain. This circuit doesn't store the memory (think RAM versus hard drive), it just bounces around neurological signals long enough for the signals to initiate new connections in the actual storage areas (think about it as being a way of echoing a sound long enough for you to write down the full sentence being said). Its anatomic location also explains why memories often have such strong emotions connected to them, even if those emotions were later shown to be irrational.



Again, many mammals have the same neurological architecture that we do, it's just that different species have enlargements in different areas (for example, apes have huge prefrontal areas, meaning they can make tools, have a culture, etc, things which animals who haven't been blessed with this anatomy cannot do)


Neuroanatomy, to a large degree. It enables the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts.


Natural selection acting upon those individuals who did/did not have variation in the size of different regions of the brain. Computation and logic are largely phenomena of the prefrontal cortex, while memory is associated with the association areas of various cortices (visual, auditory, motor, etc) and the limbic system.

Also, dietary developments in the course of evolution enable animals to reach different plateaus of neurological complexity. For example, hominids weren't really able to have a huge jump in brain size until they became bipedal, enabling them to eat a protein-rich diet while still surviving predators.


Well, that is a hypothesis, but I cannot really make predictions based upon it. I can, however, use evolutionary neuroanatomy to make predictions about the capabilities of various genera and individual species, and then head to the jungles of Africa to see whether my predictions are valid or not.


So basically the fact that our brains or a certain area of our brains is larger is the reason we have a mind and apes, gorrilla's don't? (This idea has been a part of evolution for years now and I'm surprised to see it repeated here.) I'm surprised because if you follow that idea to it's "logical" conclusion, then we'd have to expect to find the brain of a "genius" vs the average person to be either larger or a certain area of their brain larger. However that is NOT the case. Under that same idea you'd have to "logically" conclude the blue whale is much smarter than humans. But again, that is NOT the case. However you BELIEVE this. It's FAITH in YOUR worldview.

It seems to me, you've already made up your "MIND". Your question was, "What would it take for a(n) evolutionist to CONSIDER creation?" (emphasis mine).

Here's my answer. Consider It!
Otherwise, as Teejay pointed out, you'll always just filter anything a Creationist tells you through your worldview. We're asking you questions not in an effort to "win" an argument. But to pose some things that you may or may not have "considered" about YOUR worldview versus ours. None of us can or ever will "Force" anyone to take what is said into consideration, that is entirely up to you.

#108 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 07 August 2011 - 04:46 PM

So basically the fact that our brains or a certain area of our brains is larger is the reason we have a mind and apes, gorrilla's don't? (This idea has been a part of evolution for years now and I'm surprised to see it repeated here.) I'm surprised because if you follow that idea to it's "logical" conclusion, then we'd have to expect to find the brain of a "genius" vs the average person to be either larger or a certain area of their brain larger. However that is NOT the case.

Yes, because the difference between a genius and an average human being is negligible anatomically and neurologically when compared to the difference between a human and an ape.

Under that same idea you'd have to "logically" conclude the blue whale is much smarter than humans. But again, that is NOT the case.

A blue whale has to have a larger brain (in gross size) because of the size of its body. It doesn't have anything to do with higher brain function. It's not the size of the brain as a whole that matters; it's the size of certain parts compared to the rest of the CNS.

However you BELIEVE this. It's FAITH in YOUR worldview.

It seems to me, you've already made up your "MIND". Your question was, "What would it take for a(n) evolutionist to CONSIDER creation?" (emphasis mine).

Here's my answer. Consider It!
Otherwise, as Teejay pointed out, you'll always just filter anything a Creationist tells you through your worldview. We're asking you questions not in an effort to "win" an argument. But to pose some things that you may or may not have "considered" about YOUR worldview versus ours. None of us can or ever will "Force" anyone to take what is said into consideration, that is entirely up to you.


Of course it's up to me. We're not in North Korea (which is fortunate for both of us). I have yet to see any data in this thread that can be explained only via creation and not via evolution (in fact, most of the examples given don't even require evolution to explain them).

#109 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 08 August 2011 - 10:48 AM

[quote] name='jamo0001' timestamp='1312753851' post='73872']
So why do humans with medical conditions (trauma or chemical) of the prefrontal cortex also have deficiencies in reason and logic?
[/quote]

Jam, I know you see what I'm presenting, but you don't want to accept it. I consider your brain to be an interface between the spiritual and the physiacl. But when you die, you can reason quite well. Samuel did. People in heaven do. Reason and logic are not physical. Language, information are not physical either. They can't be part of the physical universe.

With clarity, Los Alamos scientist John Baumgartner reveals an implication of Einstein's Gulf: "If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect an entity like God capable of originating linguistic information also is ultimately non-material (i.e., spiritual) in its essential nature. An immediate conclusion of these observations concerning linguistic information (the existence of ideas, knowledge, logic, reason, law) is that materialism, which has long been the dominant philosophical perspective in scientific circles, with its foundational presupposition that there is no non-material reality, is simply and plainly false. It is amazing that its falsification is so trivial." Einstein's Gulf has not been bridged. Why? Because there is no bridge between the physical and the non-physical logic and reason.

Your original challenge was for some Christian to present evidence that could not be explained by evolution. And I told you at the outset that no evidence presented to you would make you change your worldview. I posited that you would view any evidence through your worldview and since your worldview was faulty, you would not reach truth.

Now I don't expect you to admit that I have presented evidence that can't be explained by evolution. Your heart will not allow you to do that. But will you at least admit that you view evidence through your worldview and will always come to the conclusion that comports with your worldview?

TeeJay

#110 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 08 August 2011 - 05:37 PM

Yes, because the difference between a genius and an average human being is negligible anatomically and neurologically when compared to the difference between a human and an ape.

A blue whale has to have a larger brain (in gross size) because of the size of its body. It doesn't have anything to do with higher brain function. It's not the size of the brain as a whole that matters; it's the size of certain parts compared to the rest of the CNS.



Of course it's up to me. We're not in North Korea (which is fortunate for both of us). I have yet to see any data in this thread that can be explained only via creation and not via evolution (in fact, most of the examples given don't even require evolution to explain them).


My apologies. I see Ikester was the one who posted the question. Nevertheless my answer is the same. Consider Creation!

#111 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 08 August 2011 - 07:40 PM

Jamo0001 got banned because I edited his foul language and he got mad and started abusing the bad post report system reporting posts and threads that had nothing wrong with them. So no need to respond to him he can no longer post.

#112 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 08 August 2011 - 07:46 PM

My apologies. I see Ikester was the one who posted the question. Nevertheless my answer is the same. Consider Creation!

Great minds think alike! :D I had to read creationist materials before their ideas seemed plausible. So I say take a chance and read them.

#113 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 August 2011 - 06:09 PM

If the bible explains the process of creation


That's interesting. I watched a show on TV this weekend and Steven Hawkings gave his brainy idea about why God couldn't exist. Since the big bang was the beginning of time, it proves there was no time for God to exist before it happened. Although, he is a brilliant physicist, in his bias against the possibility for God he neglected to realize that would also mean that the energy that produced the big bang wouldn't have time or space to exist either. :blink: Not to mention the fact that he's assuming the big bang with a bias against contradictory evidence as well. Since matter must have a creation, then I think creation is simply logical without having to observe God doing it.

#114 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 04 September 2011 - 10:44 AM

So, to answer the clarified question, "What would it take for an evolutionist to consider creation?", then my simple answer would be if that it agreed with the consensus scientific view on things like the age of the earth, and diversity of life forms.

There are excellent reasons why the scientific community doesn't take creationism seriously, and it has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy, satanic influences, etc. It is purely because the facts point elsewhere.


Facts like what? You mean finding that 95% of the fossil record is marine in nature? That limestone, which can only be made by planktonic, and diatonic creatures, covers 10% of the earth's continental crust, and that many of the soft tissue fossils found in limestone laggerstatten prove rapid burial? That many fossils which are measured by other (the rocks around them) dating methods, have 14C in them. That shale, which covers much of the earth's crust also, can contain kerogen, which comes from the decay of organic material, sucn as diatoms, plankton, spores and woody material. And that many marine fossils, including Cambrian fossils, are found in shale and limestone.


Yes, the majority of the fossil record is indeed marine. This should not be a surprise as the majority of the earth’s surface is covered with ocean water, and the study of paleogeography shows that this has been the case for much of the earth’s history. If this is taken as evidence, it points to conditions similar to that which are found today in the general sense of depositional environment. That points to a stratigraphic record with the largest proportion of fossils being marine forms. Fossils are found when deposited and preserved in sedimentary rocks. The vast majority of sediments in our modern day are being deposited in oceans, with far lesser amounts deposited in lakes and rivers. But often these “terrestrial” sediments are rather temporarily parked in such environments and continue a journey after erosion to the world’s oceans. Their included life forms are then exposed to destruction lessening the number of preserved fossils even more. Being above base level, most continental areas are places of erosion and not the accumulation of sediments. So we start with a much greater abundance of life in oceans, and follow this up with far greater opportunity for burial and preservation. Rapid burial is often inferred by better than average preservation, but it is this preservation and not the speed of burial that is is proven by a careful study of the strata. Fantastic preservation can be accomplished with rather slow burial in stagnant and oxygen depleted basins.

Limestone most emphatically is not made only by planktonic and “diatonic” creatures. I would assume that in the later term you are meaning to refer to diatoms and not “musical” creatures as the word is generally used, but there really is no reason to bring them up separately as diatoms are planktonic forms. Coral debris often forms limestones, and coral atolls attest to this. This is not deposition by the lifeless tests of plankton. There are vast deposits of limestone chemically precipitated that have little to virtually no fossil content. There are limestones that are not marine. Wander into a limestone cave such as Carlsbad Caverns and witness some for yourself. Go to Mono Lake in California and check out the Tufa deposits there. But having limestone present in the earth’s continental crust is something geologists would expect to be the case in the prevailing earth model.

Some fossils are young enough to have C14 in them according to the theory used to date with it, assuming constant ratios and no contamination. Creationists are fond of attacking C14 as unreliable yet you seem to cite it here as evidence for a young earth even though dates for coals and fossil forms thought extinct for millions of years using other methods have yielded the presence of some C14 and calculate ages many thousands of years greater than 6 -10 thousand years. This seems to be a case of wanting to eat one’s cake and keeping it as well. So I would guess that your intent is to discredit dating methods since dates obtained show an older earth than you accept? In addition to the need to obtain samples free of contamination, which can be difficult, there are ideas of producing new C14 that was not present during the life of the material being sampled. But to be honest the use of C14 in my field is extremely rare and it is not a topic of discussion.

Kerogen is commonly present in shale. It is organic material dispersed throughout the rocks in question in variable amounts. We usually measure this as the TOC of the rock in question or “total organic carbon” and it is of great importance in the exploration for oil and gas. Some rocks have far too low a TOC to generate significant amounts of hydrocarbons. It can come from plankton (including diatoms) but that is not the only source as you have indicated. The source rocks for the gas and oil that I help to discover and produce are to a great extent not marine in nature. Geochemical analysis through biomarker typing show that most of the gas is generated from coals and shale deposited in marginal marine settings (but still deposited on continental crust) and by river systems in their floodplains. Most of the oil comes from lacustrine deposits. These are lacustrine shales that formed in lakes, where the organic content differed from the woody material in more fluvial deposited shales and coals which is more gas prone. Kerogen becomes important to the generation of oil and gas when it becomes concentrated. What does being concentrated mean? You could take this to mean that it is not “diluted” by a higher percentage of non-kerogen material, such as mineral grains. What causes more dilution? Well, rapid sedimentation does this while holding the production of organic material relatively constant. In what rocks is total organic carbon higher? Fine-grained rocks. Why are they fine-grained? They are deposited in quieter water that allows the particles to settle out instead of being “dumped” in place and deposition is slower. It is true that marine shales are the best source rocks in general, due to slower deposition and conditions that favor the preservation of organic material by minimizing the destruction through oxidation. I deal with thousands of feet of shale in wells everyday that are terrible source rocks with low TOC. We call them the “redbeds” due to the common brick-red color of the shale. Bricks come from such clay material, where ground waters are able to oxidize them giving the iron minerals in them the distinctive color. Most of the organic content has been destroyed. Black shales on the other hand indicate reducing environments and often are high in TOC.

You really don’t make a point about the relevance of finding marine fossils in shale and limestone. I wonder if this is an implied dismissal of the well-documented tectonic activity and changes in sea level that geologists have determined occur through careful studies? What is your point in correctly stating that such rocks can include Cambrian fossils? You really have not made much of a case here. Your post appears to be some ad hoc ideas grouped together without using them to come to a conclusion.

So no matter how many people who have paid to be educated by others, who have also paid others to be educated in only one view--the state endorsed view of the ToE-- Which politicians, lawyers, judges, and all professionals have been educated in exclusively. And all other scientists who hold agnostic science to be the only possibility, with no rebuttal allowed, unless it upholds the ToE. No matter what they want to pass on you, they also intentionally ignore these facts by framing these facts into ad hoc stories which are unmentioned foundational footers, which only a few care to delve into. However the data that covered the earth is unquestionable, and no geologist would argue--they just "change the story" into many coverings, and smugly ignore the Bible, which tells of a historical flood.

The rest (like yourself) just take the word of the "vogue" science of the day. We're talking about agnostic state science which allow the ToE assumption to ride upon every new fact that arises.

I fear that I might miss some of your meaning here, but your comments in general strike me as stating that a system such as found in novels such as 1984 is present in America and other countries today, and not what is the reality in university study in science and beyond. Most of us do not live in a totalitarian society such as you seem to describe and in fact academic freedom is usually present. Your statement sounds like the bitter and oft stated conspiracy theory creationists are fond of using, saying they are dismissed and their theories are not taught due to control of the system, not due to a lack of merit. Do you talk from the point of view of the experience of studying science in an university? The fact remains that if solid evidence was put forth for God’s role in what we find through scientific research, it would be of great interest and published and taught. It would have been welcomed with great fanfare at the university where I received my Master’s degree in geology for it was a university run by a religious organization. There was quite a difference of opinion between the religion department (solidly creationist) and the departments of science. Both "world views" were taught au this university and some were stressed by the conflict that seemed to be present. The head of the trustees at one point time advocated banishing the teaching of anything to do with evolution. He was a YEC. He was told that the university would lose its accreditation for all departments if this action was taken, as it would violate academic freedom and cause the university to be considered a religious backwater.

It is “creation science” that usually is an ad hoc jumbling or re-interpretation of what has been published from prime research by mainline scientists, and forums in which it is taught such as the ICR restrict any opposing theory from being taught. The pledge faculty members had to sign that anything in conflict with the Bible could not be presented at ICR has been revealed. Much more fiction than science is the norm in what I have seen of “Creation Science.” I was taught in Historical Geology of alternate theories for fossil emplacement and deposition in sedimentary rocks and the evidence in favor. The fact remains that what has been discovered through time has led to some of these (such as what is now termed "flood geology") being discredited or strongly weakened. It is not true that all people that seek higher education are educated exclusively to follow or believe one theory. Those with intellectual curiosity are left to to discover for themselves. “Rebuttals” were not disallowed in my experience and at times were discussed. The discussion was about the relative merits of conflicting concepts. As I said, I did graduate work in geology at a private university owned and operated by a church organization. Religion classes were mandatory for all undergraduates. I never met a single student that claimed to not believe in God save one roomate that claimed he was “doubting God” one week. Thoughts about God came naturally and were freely expressed in classes and geology field trips. The Bible was not ignored, but studied every week by most, myself included. The data that covers the earth was what we in the geology department studied, and it was part of our study to question how it formed. That is the nature of the study of geology. But like others following proper scientific methods of gathering data and then interpreting it according to proper geologic principles, the conclusions never led to a sedimentation in world-wide flooding event occurring in mere months. We all believed in the Bible as the word of God, but also proper science and allowing for the data to lead to conclusions and not stating a conclusion and then fitting what data we could find to fit it. Nobody intentionally ignored data because it did not conform to “flood geology”... such data just did not emerge. You have stated things about limestones and fossils that conform to what can be observed happening on the planet today, involving local floods but not one world-wide event.

I was a bit of anomaly in the department as I had gone through high school science not having a problem accepting an old earth or evolution. The majority of my fellow grad students had in fact been YECs until starting the study of geology at the university level. Seeing the evidence at hand they changed their viewpoint. I read an article by a current member of the faculty in the geology department that started study after I had left. He abandoned his YEC viewpoint as a freshman studying geology for the first time.

#115 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 September 2011 - 12:00 PM

Yes, do tell!


Would not that be off topic?

#116 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 September 2011 - 05:02 PM

So no matter how many people who have paid to be educated by others, who have also paid others to be educated in only one view--the state endorsed view of the ToE-- Which politicians, lawyers, judges, and all professionals have been educated in exclusively. And all other scientists who hold agnostic science to be the only possibility, with no rebuttal allowed, unless it upholds the ToE. No matter what they want to pass on you, they also intentionally ignore these facts by framing these facts into ad hoc stories which are unmentioned foundational footers, which only a few care to delve into. However the data that covered the earth is unquestionable, and no geologist would argue--they just "change the story" into many coverings, and smugly ignore the Bible, which tells of a historical flood.

The rest (like yourself) just take the word of the "vogue" science of the day. We're talking about agnostic state science which allow the ToE assumption to ride upon every new fact that arises.

It would have been welcomed with great fanfare at the university where I received my Master’s degree in geology for it was a university run by a religious organization. There was quite a difference of opinion between the religion department (solidly creationist) and the departments of science. Both "world views" were taught au this university and some were stressed by the conflict that seemed to be present. The head of the trustees at one point time advocated banishing the teaching of anything to do with evolution. He was a YEC. He was told that the university would lose its accreditation for all departments if this action was taken, as it would violate academic freedom and cause the university to be considered a religious backwater.


You just refuted AFJ by acknowledging that there is a bias in universities and a desperate cling to accreditation rather than science fact.

Academic freedom for some is the removal of God from our lives and the education of our children. Pride wins over truth by legal technicalities and not by empirical fact.

#117 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 06 September 2011 - 09:54 AM

You just refuted AFJ by acknowledging that there is a bias in universities and a desperate cling to accreditation rather than science fact.

Academic freedom for some is the removal of God from our lives and the education of our children. Pride wins over truth by legal technicalities and not by empirical fact.


Actually I posted about a potential bias (towards rather exclusive creationism in science studies) not being imposed, but having that eventuality stopped when it was pointed out to the president of the university (who held to that bias) that the university would be found lacking in accepted standards should his will have prevailed. Accreditation is a bit like the FDA monitoring food products to ensure that they meet acceptable standards. Without it a degree from a university has about as much value to potential employers, etc. as a diploma purchased from somebody's ad in the back of a magazine. Should a university be commited to maintaining accreditation? I would say that they owe this to students present, past and future. Empirical evidence in a branch of science was allowed to still be continued to be taught and not censored due to the accreditation standard being maintained. In this case scientifc fact was still allowed to be taught alongside concepts not based in scientific fact but in religious ideology.

If academic freedom means the removal of God from their lives or the education of their children these would be people apparently not be aware of the reality of what such freedom means. The teaching of one religion to the exclusion of other religions does take place in countries with imposed "state religions" but the freedom of people not of that religion is easily impaired. Religious training and education should be protected, but not mandated.

#118 Falconjudge

Falconjudge

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Montana

Posted 06 September 2011 - 03:26 PM

Time constraints say I cannot read every post. Here is the answer to the topic.

The following is a list of species characteristics which should
not occur, according to evolution theory. The fact that we
can generate this list at all is an illustration of how
evolution theory is a scientific theory, and creationism is not.
Ask a creationist for specific predictions and a list of
characteristics which should not occur and you'll get
nothing but a blank expression, because their ideology has been
constructed in such a manner that no conceivable evidence could
possibly disprove it. But evolution can readily provide such a
list:



1. A complex organ for which no
simpler versions ever existed. In the 19th century,
creationists tried and failed to use the human eye as an example of
such an organ. Since then, they have used progressively smaller and
simpler examples of what they believe to be "irreducibly
complex" organs, until they are now literally talking about
microscopic sub-cellular structures smaller than a single cell
(such as the bacterial flagellum cited by Dr. Michael Behe, for
which we have, predictably enough, found even simpler versions).
Ironically, this long creationist progression from complex to
simple illustrates Darwin's point beautifully.


2. A feature which exists solely for
the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the
host species. Every attempt to find an example of such a
feature has invariably resulted in the discovery of some form of
either symbiosis, where both species benefit in some way, or
parasitism, where an organism feeds from its host but the host has
not developed any features specifically to assist with this
process.


3. Different biochemistry (eg-
different base nucleotides) than the rest of the biosystem.
Note: a lifeform which evolved in a highly isolated environment
(such as an extra-terrestrial lifeform) might meet this criterion
without violating evolution. But in our biosystem, every organism
evolved from the same nucleic acids that were found in the first
life form, so we all share those acids in our biochemical
makeup.


4. A feature which leaps from one
branch of the evolutionary tree to another. For example,
mammals evolved from the mammal-like reptile therapsids over
200 million years ago. If a feature which developed in mammals only
10 million years ago suddenly appeared fully-formed in a reptile
from the same period with no reptilian antecedent, this would be an
example of a feature jumping from one branch of the evolutionary
tree to another. This is quite normal in man-made systems. For
example, fuel injection started in race cars and slowly developed
from primitive mechanically metered injectors to sophisticated
computer-controlled fuel-injection systems. But when the Ford Crown
Victoria switched from carburetors to fuel injection, it did not
follow this slow progression; computer-controlled fuel injection
systems simply appeared in the product line one year, having jumped
there from other product lines where all of this development had
occurred.

We have never found even a single example of
such a "branch-jumping" event anywhere in the millions of
species of the animal kingdom. Features slowly develop within their
branch of origin, and advanced versions do not suddenly appear in
other branches. Sub-cellular parasites can transfer genetic material
between organisms on occasion (in fact, we have "parasitic"
mitichondrial DNA in our own bodies, which only further establishes
the pathways of evolutionary transmission), but the kind of advanced
feature migration which is common in man-made systems is
completely absent from the animal kingdom.



Despite having catalogued animal species for centuries, we have
never found even one that meets any of these criteria. This is what
evolution science means when its proponents say that it has been
proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Surely, if we were
created or "intelligently designed" rather than evolved,
we would have found at least one example, somewhere in our vast
animal kingdom. In fact, we should have found thousands. Especially
#4, which virtually screams for explanation if we did not
evolve, and which creationists conspicuously avoid ever
mentioning.

Copy and pasted, but still valid.

#119 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:05 PM

"A complex organ for which no
simpler versions ever existed. In the 19th century,
creationists tried and failed to use the human eye as an example of
such an organ. Since then, they have used progressively smaller and
simpler examples of what they believe to be "irreducibly
complex" organs..."


Hmm. An 'old earth creationist, huh'? I smell a rat. B)

#120 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 06 September 2011 - 05:44 PM

That is interesting. I had a whole lot of things that weren't explained satisfactorily until I read YEC materials.


Just thought I'd chime in add to the verse MamaElephant referenced on page 3 of this topic below

"You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to Jesus! Yet you refuse to come to Him to receive this life.
Your approval means nothing to me, because I know you don’t have God’s love within you." John 5:39 NLT

A saying that was asked during a sermon. It asked a question: Who is Jesus?, it was on Mathew 16:13-20 and said to know Jesus requires divine intervention.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users