|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/24/2005 3:04:08 PM | trewq36
Ah, if the WHOLE planet was flooded where was the "Run Off" running off to? To have run off there must have been a dry spot to run off to, right?
If the oceans were lower than they are now, then the run off would fill the oceans to the existing level.
Now along this same thread - There are numorous finds of dinosaurs(T-Rex and the duck billed guy), alligators, a primitive ape and various species of mammals as well as the remains of a redwood forest, not fossilized, very curious (Ref: Axiel Heiberg Island, for redwood forest)within the arctic circle, and their existance there would require a temperate climate to sustain life. Furthermore there are large coal deposits within the antarctic continent - and recently a fly fossil (how the hell did archeologists find that?) was found in the antarctic. [British edition-Nature magizine, May issue, also found on line - google it] also [alaska science forum 9/29/86]
Pardon the disjointed response, not feeling very eloquent today-a little under the weather.
Sence these regions were of a temperate climate - where did the water come from to create the polar caps? Wouldn't the atmospher require greater cloud cover to produce such an accumulation of snow/ice? All sorts of questions here. How about those furry mastadons with the flowers in there mouths and undigested plants in there stomachs? Wasn't this latest one submerged in frozen mud? (discovery channel)
Pliestocene extinction. With the discovered remains and the projected population numbers of these species, They seem highly unlikely to have been exterminated by roving tribes of primitive man with clubs, rocks and spears even if they all had a bodacious bout of bulemia.
I'm not subscribing to the vindictive god theory postulated by some, but the hypothesis'sesess given by, who? archeologists? seem rather far fetched. Many of those theories are attached to other theories which in turn are applied to another hypothesis - - -yada yada yada. Logic might help here - common sense? I think that got thrown out with the bath water.
Well now. That felt good. I'm all better now. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/24/2005 3:14:46 PM | Feral
Feral good is, Feral much with the neutrality has been
doesn't all that fence sitting get uncomfortable? :0 OH NO Sluggo! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 4:38:04 AM |
If the oceans were lower than they are now, then the run off would fill the oceans to the existing level.
Then how did the entire planet flood? to cover the entire surface of the earth you are talking about volumes of water that are imposable, for a start there is no way they could evaporate rapidly enougth to alow the 40 day time frame but I won't go into this because its just simply ridiculus.
There are numorous finds of dinosaurs(T-Rex and the duck billed guy), alligators, a primitive ape and various species of mammals as well as the remains of a redwood forest, not fossilized, very curious (Ref: Axiel Heiberg Island, for redwood forest)within the arctic circle, and their existance there would require a temperate climate to sustain life. Furthermore there are large coal deposits within the antarctic continent
Could I see youe evidence for this please. Secondly fosilisation is not the only way organic matter is presserved, in an anerobic enviroment, organic mater can not be broken down by micro organisms and so will survive as long as it is undisturbed.
their existance there would require a temperate climate to sustain life. Furthermore there are large coal deposits within the antarctic continent
Archaeologists do not dispute that the antartic contenent was once further north and much warmer, with a temperate and at one time even a tropical enviroment, but as it slowly moved south its climate grew colder. At the time that the dinosaurs were romaing around, it was still conected to mainland Australia and south America as a super contenenent Gondwana.
and recently a fly fossil (how the hell did archeologists find that?) was found in the antarctic.
By looking very carefully at everything they examine.  
where did the water come from to create the polar caps? Wouldn't the atmospher require greater cloud cover to produce such an accumulation of snow/ice?
On that note where did the water come from for the flood? Its probable that there were ice caps already there and as Antarctica progressed southward it got covered by the southern Ice cap that was flooting on the ocean just like the northen Ice cap dose today. No extra cloud cover would be required as the water is already there, its just the contenent that hasn't reached there yet.
How about those furry mastadons with the flowers in there mouths and undigested plants in there stomachs? Wasn't this latest one submerged in frozen mud? (discovery channel)
I have no idea what your point here is? Are you sugesting that a mastadon was found in Antarctica!!!
If your concern is with Mastadons eating flowers, you do get flowers in the Arctic snow, such as snowdrops. But thats not realy a concern as Mastadons were adapted to a cold dry climate, not a cold wet climate. A snapfreeze such as what we here in Britain suffer at least once a year, can freeze plants and animals to the core in just a few hours. If there was not sufficent temperature after the freeze to thaw it out, then the plant/animal will be preserved until its exposed again.
Pliestocene extinction. With the discovered remains and the projected population numbers of these species, They seem highly unlikely to have been exterminated by roving tribes of primitive man with clubs, rocks and spears even if they all had a bodacious bout of bulemia.
There are MANY archaeologists who agrea with you here, there is a corelation between the arival of man and the extincion of megafauna, but wether that corelation is direct (i'e man kills animals, or brings disease) or indirect (i'e animals die out leaving space for man, climate changes alowing man to move in but forcing animals out,) is a mater of much debate.
Archaeology dose not claim to have all the answers, and never will. There are many things we canot yet answer in archaeology, because the evidence is so scant that it is often very hard to get a good understanding. But we will answer each question in turn, as new evidence presents itself, of course for every question answered there is another question thrown up, so we will never have all the answers.
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 10:58:53 AM | If the oceans were lower than they are now, then the run off would fill the oceans to the existing level.
If the oceans were lower than they are now, then how would the land have Flooded? All the rain would have drained into the ocean rather then flooding the planet. You know, like water is smarter then we are, it always seeks it's own level. To Flood "The Planet" means the water level around the WHOLE globe would have to have been at least equal to Mount Everest. Where did the run off run off to? Where did all the water come from?
Well now. That felt good. I'm better now.
And the mastadons he talking of were found in the Artic. Some people, such as Immanuel Velikovsky in his book "Worlds in Collision", Suggest a cosmic collision caused a wave of freezing air to sweep the planet and Flash frooze the animals. I think Raziel's explanation is easier. I have been in the Artic, stand outside too long and you're a popsicle.
Yea, and thanks also Raziel for pointing out that the land masses have not always been in the same place. Nor at the same level. Which is why we find signs of tropical life in the polar regions and we find signs of marine life on top of mountians.
Again not understanding something does not prove it wrong. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 2:02:28 PM | Sorry I may seem to be fading away or not answering - I just can't keep up with you guys.
Don't stop with the humor, dryad, I guess my own attempt at humor missed the mark too!
It would be good to see a little more of CR and LittleWin - we need a bit of shake up to keep us going.
Dharma, I'm not really for mass extinction, just offering a viewpoint different from our own. You see, I'm not sure we are qualified to judge what Gaia finds good or bad. (your posts had a lot of 'I' in them) Would you have chosen dinosaurs or humans? Maybe the answer would have been different if you'd been a dinosaur! - or maybe dinosaurs would have become human! Seems like both God and Gaia have their ways of repopulating the Earth.
not understanding something does not prove it wrong I very much agree, Trewq, but I wonder if the Creationists would feel equally justified in using the same comment. I guess I don't really accuse Creationists of being wrong, so much as I choose a different way to understand the world around me. I don't condemn them for their view, so much as I condemn THEIR condemnation of MY views. I don't see an attempt at a reasoned exposition of their views and how God accomplished them. The views expressed by creationists here, and the ways that they have expressed their views have done much to turn me away from anything involved with creationism. I really haven't seen any persuasive argument to look with interest at creationism, although posts by devoutly religious people in other forums leave me with the greatest of respect for some aspects of many religions.
Not sure where the idea came from that Copernicus was plastered into a wall. I once believed that he was burned as a heretic, but biographies claim he died in his bed following a cerebral hemmorage. The location of his grave is not known, but there are currently archeological excavations being conducted in Frombork Cathedral, Poland. I've taken to Googling for biographies before putting down my versions of history.
Nevertheless, the history of the Copernican 'solarcentric' universe reresents perhaps one of history's greatest recorded examples of the power of religious opinion to derail the search for truth and to suppress it when it is found. Many discussions of Copernicus' contibution to astronomy acknowledge his great reluctance to publicize his work. He is reputed to have revealed his thoughts to friends around 1514 but his work wasn't formally published until 1543, the year he died. Some biographies suggest that he was very much aware of the potential dangers of revealing his thoughts publicly and chose to delay them until there would be no risk to his career (as a church Canon). Even then, he probably wouldn't have published it but for extreme pressure from his friends, notably mathematician/astronomer Rheticus. As it was, Osiander, afraid of the consequences for Copernicus, altered the title of the manuscript and replaced Copernicus' Preface with a letter. Both suggesting that the contents were not to be taken too seriously. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was burned as a heretic for his support of Copernicus and his views on astronomy (although his reputed confrontational style may have had something to do with it). Galileo is on record as supporting the Copernican view in 1597, although he kept it pretty much to himself for several years. Copernicanism was declared a heresy by Pope Pius V in 1616. A hundred years after Copernicus, in 1633, Galileo was brought before the Inquisition and forced to recant any views at odds with the Ptolemeic system. Some bibliographies suggest that he remained under house arrest for the remaining years of his life. Galileo's 'Dialog' was prohibited by the Catholic church for 200 years, until 1835.
My very own personal guess at the opposition to Galileo was perhaps that he disproved one of the major arguments in support of God at the time. He was the first to suggest that a body in motion remains in motion UNLESS a force is applied to it, anticipating Newton's first law of motion. At the time it believed that bodies required a constant force to keep them in motion, thereby requiring an army of angels and the like to push around all of the heavenly bodies that were observed to move. Take that away and a major argument in favor of God and His angels is removed. I can't help but ponder the parallel between this and the current opposition to evolution.
I wonder what the YECs have to say to this quote by a Holy Man
Science, Vol. 207 (March 14, 1980), pp. 1165-67. The article is based on the address by Pope John Paul II at the Einstein Session of the Pontifical Academy of Science, Vatican City, November 10, 1979
Galileo formulated important norms of an epistemological character that are indispensable for reconciling Holy Scripture and science. In his letter to the Dowager Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Christine of Lorraine, he reaffirms the truth of Scripture: "Holy Scripture can never lie, provided its true meaning is understood, which -- I do not think it can be denied -- is often hidden and very different from what a simple interpretation of the words seems to indicate" (national edition of the works of Galileo, vol. V, p. 315). Galileo introduces a principle of interpretation of the sacred books that goes beyond the literal meaning but is in accord with the intention and type of exposition proper to each of them. It is necessary, as he affirms, that "the wise men who explain it should bring out their true meaning."
Ecclesiastical authorities admit that there is more than one way to interpret the Holy Scriptures. In fact, it was explicitly stated in the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu of Pius XII that there are different literary styles in the sacred books and therefore interpretations must conform to the character of each.
Copernicus' prediction for his detractors may perhaps be just as easily used for Darwin's detractors too..
Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions and, badly distorting some passages of Scripture to their purpose, will dare find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent as despising their criticism as unfounded.
Galileo, perhaps unwisely used Simlico to name the supporter of Ptolemy.
Pope John Paul II convinces me that there are creationists who are better than ignorant babblers and Simplicos. I wish some of them would explain what it is they want to add to the science curriculum of our schools. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 2:18:25 PM | I love ideas, too, Dharma. That's why I love this thread. It really gets your mind going.
RC, I actually enjoy learning some of the scientific insights provided by Christian scientists. I'm just a little concerned when those scientific observations are used in support of non-scientific assertions.
Dryad, don't do it!! We love your humor here, and we can always use a little more, yes? Admittedly, I don't always quite get much beyond the gist of the technical points some folks make. With that in mind, would you explain the "inference pattern?" As far as who "they" are, with regard to folks who might try to use the ivory-billed woodpecker's survival for materialistic gains, I'll admit I don't have any names. Unfortunately, though, I do understand mindsets on occasion, and industrial interests in the US have been lobbying for less stringent powers for the Endangered Species Act. I was only voicing a concern that, for those who might like the EPA and the ESA to have less power (arguably to give industry more opportunities for business) might seize on that as an argument to weaken the Act. Sorry, I recently read a book titled "Republican War on Science," and it makes a few interesting points regarding apparently self-serving interpretations of science in pursuit of policy.
Feral, the only disturbing thing I’ve ever gotten from your posts is the recent, unexplained tendency to mimic Yoda while speaking in third person
Well, I'm a linguist, so playing with language and understanding is what I do. Get me riled, and I just get the sentiments out and let the language reflect my emphasis (that my emphasis is bizarre? maybe). I was surprised, shocked, and a little upset that someone had taken my posts as attacks.
doesn't all that fence sitting get uncomfortable?
Actually, no. I've found it's surprising how liberating it can be to always (and I mean always) look, in depth if necessary, at both sides of an argument. And, it really exercises my critical thinking (something which I'm sure that flabby area can use).
Regarding the Flood and the "run-off issue," I wonder if the water canopy idea could account for some of the discrepancies we're seeing. Like the run-off, if it wasn't a "global flood" in the sense that it literally covered the surface of the planet. But, if the flooding, meaning torrential rainfall, was global, it may certainly have seemed that way. The hypothesis I read talked about rainfall and precipitation systems being a product of this and the polar caps being so, as well. I don't know how it could have worked, but some of it made sense. Of course, like Wonka says, there'd have to be scientific investigation, but it would be interesting to see what would be found. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 2:51:11 PM | Getting a little teste there Raziel.
I put the references for the Redwood forest up there, The Alaskan Science forum is put up as a courtesy by the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, in cooperation with the UAF research community. There are other pages to view there. Do archeologists not communicate with one another when they discover skeletal remains of significance? I'm sure you'll respond to this. How come I can find this information and all I have is a casual interest in these finds.
Mastodons, quick frozen. sunk in mud. Excessive water liquified the soil. It's a hypothesis so don't get yer grundies all in a twist.
I'm not sold on Gondwalla(sp) or Pangia(sp) (Supercontinent). Part of that circular reasoning thing.
I think the Ice cap sliding over the continent is a reach.
Raziel- I don't subscribe to the creationist viewpoint of an angry god raining on humanities parade - But there are significant examples to question that there was indeed global flooding. I feel that there may have been a "firmament" overhead, which created a greenhouse effect over the planet. Some catylclismic event caused it to condense (rain) over many years (hundreds) consequently forming the polar ice caps, causing the rotational axis to shift. Massive earthquakes and volcanic activity. Glaiciers to form. Pliestocene extinction. Why isn't all the information - coal deposits in antarctic, dinosaur remains in arctic and southern tip of antarctica, sunken cities- (found lots of those- just type in sunken cities -google) extinctions. Also, if mankind was basically wiped out, wouldn't social structure and technology also revert to a primative state?
I believe all the information is out there, but plugging it into the current storyline just leaves to many questions unanswered. Time for a new paradigm and if its close to the creationist viewpoint - well - deal with that later. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 4:31:41 PM | Creationists, PLEASE stick together! Back up each other , support each other (and stuff like this). Evolutionists here are in a group so should we be as well . A message for Christians: Jesus said "they hated Me, they will hate you also". | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 5:06:19 PM | I wanted to share something from answersingenesis with you .....
we should not be dogmatic.
Time for a new paradigm and if its close to the creationist viewpoint....
OK, I'm game. How do we start? - I have very little training in this.
May I ask a few questions? (If they aren't relevant, I apologise and accept that they should be ignored).
What is the intellectual basis for the 'new' paradigm? - is an epistemology definable?
What data should we consider?
How do we deal with conflicting interpretations of the data?
How do we determine what to question and what to accept?
Is it possible to explain miracles?
How do you identify miracles?
Will I ever be able to perform miracles?
What do I have to do to qualify to perform miracles?
Are these the right sort of questions to ask?
If not, what ARE the right sort of questions to ask?
Given the new paradigm, an explanation of the flood is well explained in http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp
You see, I have to agree with Sili - given an omnipotent something reputed to be able to do everything, (creating valleys, oceanic depths and mountains after the flood is a mere parlor trick relative to creating the universe) we have all of the ingredients we need for the ultimate theory of everything. Now here's another few questions...
Has the theory been fully formulated?
Should we test the theory?
How can we test the theory?
Should we put the theory to use?
How should we put the theory to use?
Does the theory have a say in how we should be conducting our lives?
Hopefully it won't all be left to Sili to get things moving.
Welcome, Guess. I wouldn't say the folks here hate creationists so much as have a problem with those who come in determined to have a confrontation. Jesus also told us to love our enemies, so I'd expect the most devout believers would at least manage a show of respect. I welcome your call for more participation from Creationists and appreciate your first post not being confrontational. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 5:14:40 PM | | A bit about Evolution: civilization more ancient than Egypt was Sumeria. There the Evolution stuff originated: "Spesifically, Enuma Elish assumes that all things have evolved out of water. This description presents the earliest stage of the Universe as one of the watery chaos. Then in the midst of this watery chaos 2 gods came into existance Lahanu and Lahamu". Ancien Egyptian myth of origins entitled "The book of knowing the Evolutions of Ra" says: " I came into being from primeval matter and appeared under the form of multitudes of things from the beginning." See that Evolution is not new theory at all. It is old indeed. So please be open minded and check out www.answersingenesis.org | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 6:13:28 PM | | Note that god Ra was not an eternal god but came into existence from primeval matter, indicating therefore that only matter is eternal, with everything (monkey to people stuff) - including "gods" having evolved from primeval matter. People find it difficult to believe in eternal God yet they believe easily in eternal matter. Who created God? No one. God is ETERNAL (as Christians, Jews and Muslims believe based on Genesis account). God had always existed.Matter has neither power nor intelligence to cause itself - I read it somewhere. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 6:16:14 PM | | This is an old creation myth that bears some vague resemblence to evolution perhaps, but evolution is not a story, it is a theory based on a stringent scientific methodology. That's kind of like saying that the Hindus already came up with quantum theory with their concept of maya- or the material world being illusion. I would just like to point out that I don't hate creationists either, although they seem to hate me, which is fine. I only become heated when people try to hijack science to their agenda. Science has a very specific methodology, and conjectures that don't meet that criteria are not science. That is the issue that I keep coming back to. I don't care what someone believes so long as they don't misrepresent science. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 6:18:56 PM | Guess who:
I'm a bit confused - you seem to support creation, then start to talk about other religions with more than one God, then refer to answersingenesis. No offence intended, just trying to clarify what you are saying. I think it's good to look beyond our own beliefs. Many 'evolutionists' and many religious people find no conflict between religion and evolution. Many scientists suggest their work is just to try and figure out how God did what He (She?) did.
Dharma:
I don't think you ever need to worry about knowing it all. If I was allowed only one belief, it would be that God will always be a good many steps ahead of us.
Dryad:
Thanks for the hint about the buckeyballs, wierd about them getting confused when they get hot. Sounds kinda like me!
If any of you are interested in a challenging book, Reichenbach's Philosophy of Space and Time is giving me a serious headache. A lot of interesting epistemology, particularly on the mind-bending notion of bent space, a little history of Einstein's relativity and a lot of attempting to explain how curved space and time can deceive our senses. Ouch! But he does it in a way that seems to make at least some sense without being condescending.
P.S. Good to see you back, wonka | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 6:25:49 PM | | Thanks quitejohn. That sounds like a good book. I'll have to read that one. It's been awhile since I've read a good book on relativity and it's philisophical ramifications. Also I would like to second your thanks to Dryad for her post on buckeyballs. I remember reading about them when they were new, but I haven't been keeping up on their recent applications. I did come across an article that mentions they have created a one molecule car with them. It actually has buckeyball wheels that roll. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 6:37:29 PM | Guess who
Maybe energy is the eternal one. Not sure I'd go with the intelligence of matter quote. Does that apply to energy too? Anyway, it helps us all look at issues more carefully if you can be more specific about quotes than 'I read it somewhere'. We all do it once in a while, maybe in the hope of getting help with the source. That reminds me of your reference to answersingenesis. I just have a hard time navigating around it to topics of interest. Do you have any suggestions to help with exploring the site? I usually only find things there with a full URL or from searches.
I also found a new and improved equation relating mass and energy ....... E^2= p^2c^2 + m^2c^4, where p is the momentum. It solves the question of how a photon can have momentum yet still travels at the speed of light. Ummmmm...... it doesnt have mass! ....... but it has momentum ..... Aaaaaaaaarrghhhhh - my head!
YIKES!!!!!!!! Dryad - that means my assumptions about your Mac truck could be wrong! - more momentum than I thought - especially if he's carrying photons. Watch out!!!!!! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 7:04:50 PM | For those of you who like logic, I found an article that seems to shed new light on this subject, and proves a point ,50 times over. Here is a segment of the article , but has over 49 more logical aruments to back up creationism. Very compelling article when read in its entirity.
http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
Here is one of the 50 plus arguments in the article :
Even new sciences, founded by evolutionists, bear witness against their theory. Mendel's Inheritance Law is one, as we have seen Biometry is another. It was proposed and advocated by Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. He expected it to be a great prop to evolution; on the other hand, it is another proof of the unity of our race in Noah's day, and hence fatal to their theory. Biometry is defined to be the "statistical study of variation and heredity." It bears heavily against the great age of man.
One of the leading exponents of Biometry, Dr. C. B. Davenport, Secretary of the Eugenics section of the American Breeders' Association concludes that "No people of English descent are more distantly related than thirtieth cousin, while most people are more nearly related than that." Professor Conklin, of Princeton University, approves this conclusion, and adds, "As a matter of fact most persons of the same race are much more closely related than this, and certainly we need not go back to Adam nor even to Shem, Ham or Japheth to find our common ancestor." Dr. Davenport, therefore, says that the English may find a common ancestor thirty-two generations ago; Professor Conklin admits that we need not go further back than Noah to find a common ancestor of all mankind. Noah, therefore, must have been the head of the race. Evolutionists admit we need go no farther back than Noah to find the head of the race, and the population, as we have seen, proves the same thing, and disproves every guess they have made of the great age of man. We have descended from Noah and not from the brute.
This same Professor Conklin says that our race began 2,000,000 years ago (60,000 generations). How is it possible that we must go back sixty thousand generations for a common ancestor, when thirty-two generations will suffice for the English, and about 200 generations since Noah, for the whole race? If we, by the laws of biometry, can find a common ancestor in Noah, we can not possibly go back 2,000,000 years to find one. Professor Conklin's admission refutes his claim of 2,000,000 years for man. Biometry proves that age absolutely impossible.
If the progeny of this ape-like ancestor inter-bred for many generations--as certainly would have been the case--then we are not only descended from all the monkey family, the baboon, gorilla, ape, chimpanzee, orang-utang femur (H. G. Wells' ancestor), mongoose, etc., but are also related to all their progeny. Glorious ancestors! In our veins runs the blood of them all, as well as the blood of the most disgusting reptiles. And yet Professor H. H. Newman, an eminent evolutionist, in a letter to the writer, says, "The evolution idea is an ennobling one!" But biometry saves us from proving it could not be so.
Biometrists find that there is a Law of Filial Regression, or a tendency to the normal in every species, checking the accumulation of departures from the average, and forbidding the formation of new species by inheritance of peculiarities. The whole tendency of the laws of nature is against the formation of new species, so essential to evolution. The species brings forth still "after its kind." "On the average, extreme peculiarities of parents are less extreme in children." "The stature of adult offspring must, on the whole, be more mediocre than the stature of the parents." Gifted parents rarely have children as highly gifted as themselves.
The tendency is to revert to the normal in body and mind. Nature discourages the formation of new species, evolutionists to the contrary notwithstanding. "Like produces like" is a universal and unchangeable law. God has forbidden species to pass their boundaries; and, if any individual seems to threaten to do so, by possessing abnormal peculiarities, these are soon corrected, often in the next generation. Even Professor H. H. Newman says, "On the whole, the contributions of biometry to our understanding of the causes of evolution are rather disappointing." A science that upsets evolution is certainly disappointing to evolutionists." | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 8:07:57 PM |
Time for a new paradigm and if its close to the creationist viewpoint....
OK, I'm game. How do we start? - I have very little training in this.
May I ask a few questions? (If they aren't relevant, I apologise and accept that they should be ignored).
What is the intellectual basis for the 'new' paradigm? - is an epistemology definable?
What data should we consider?
How do we deal with conflicting interpretations of the data?
How do we determine what to question and what to accept?
Is it possible to explain miracles?
How do you identify miracles?
Will I ever be able to perform miracles?
What do I have to do to qualify to perform miracles?
Are these the right sort of questions to ask?
If not, what ARE the right sort of questions to ask?
:-o blink | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 8:43:09 PM |
OK, I'm game. How do we start? - I have very little training in this.
May I ask a few questions? (If they aren't relevant, I apologise and accept that they should be ignored).
What is the intellectual basis for the 'new' paradigm? - is an epistemology definable?
What data should we consider?
How do we deal with conflicting interpretations of the data?
How do we determine what to question and what to accept?
Is it possible to explain miracles?
How do you identify miracles?
Will I ever be able to perform miracles?
What do I have to do to qualify to perform miracles?
Are these the right sort of questions to ask?
If not, what ARE the right sort of questions to ask?
Feral likes questions.
We start by examining all the facts and coming up with the most likely interpretation that includes all of them.
Yes, you may.
Intellectual basis... Hmm, maybe the conflicting accounts from so many folks. I don't know about an epistemology...
We should consider all the data.
Conflicting interpretations ought to be revised according to the data, and with experimental proofs.
We question all and accept what is acceptable.
Yes.
In your case, maybe. Keep trying.
Depends on the path.
Possibly not, but Feral likes questions. 
Good question. I'd say that's a marvelous starting point.
Has the theory been fully formulated?
Should we test the theory?
How can we test the theory?
Should we put the theory to use?
How should we put the theory to use?
Does the theory have a say in how we should be conducting our lives?
Oooh! More questions! Yay! 
Depends on the theory, although I'd recommend the term "hypothesis."
Of course.
Scientific experiment and empirical observation.
Use in what way? To answer questions, sure, why not? To formulate policy? I don't know...
Depends on the other answers.
Not necessarily, but there's always the possibility that it could provide some insight.
That's kind of like saying that the Hindus already came up with quantum theory with their concept of maya- or the material world being illusion.
Perhaps, in a way, they did. I always got that impression.
I don't care what someone believes so long as they don't misrepresent science.
Say it, say it!! You know you want to...
If any of you are interested in a challenging book
And now is the time for me to say, I love/hate all of you for giving me so much more to put on my (way too long already) reading list!
If we, by the laws of biometry, can find a common ancestor in Noah, we can not possibly go back 2,000,000 years to find one. Professor Conklin's admission refutes his claim of 2,000,000 years for man. Biometry proves that age absolutely impossible.
Hey! I found the fallacy! Sorry, Wonka, I don't know which ad it is, but it's there. To paraphrase: "If we can find a more recent ancestor, then any prior to that simply must not have existed, or are irrelevant (I assume this includes genetic material)." Ignoring my interpretation, and just focusing on the statement, does this mean that, since we're all descended from Noah, that means we're not related to Adam?
Glorious ancestors! In our veins runs the blood of them all, as well as the blood of the most disgusting reptiles.
To toss in my own fallacy, this quote certainly seems to provide a basis for the reasoning of the earlier one...
Hmm... Maybe this post is confrontational. Sorry, if so, but that article (or part of one) simply assumes lowest common denominator, and I feel it should be pointed out that the reasoning, while arguably in support of a potentially correct position, due to its lack of solid sense (the argumentative rather than objective position, for instance), just begs to be shown to be at least slightly off and at most misleadingly false. I'll let others decide where on the spectrum it falls. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 10:24:26 PM | Feral
Thank you for your response, I appreciate it and feel it apropo as
I think qj's post leaned a tad toward the sarcastic vein.
In the course of our discourses on POF I occasionally find myself guilty of presuming that a "theory", (name your philosophy) is law. After reflecting upon my assumptions I try to adjust to give it creedence as part of the equation, just not the sum total. I admit that I'm not as well versed as many here in the science field, and probably because of that I usually do not allow myself to be blinded to an idea by an arrogant belief that the tool we call science is completly able to answer all the mysteries of this planet and our existance, at least not yet. Using a hypothesis to contradict a hypothesis doesn't sound like strong science to me. Now before whomever gets their bloodpressure all out of wack know that science as we know it is responsible for a great many things. (please don't waste your time trying to list all the great things science has done) What I've seen from scientific philosophy is that initial observations in regard to non-traditional hypothesis' tend to be rather harsh especially when said hypothesis is contrary to traditional truths, er - hypothesis.
Science should be used to open minds, not close them.
Now with all this flood business. Creationist say the flood happened because of "god". Well, the argument of god lies in faith. Either ya got it or ya ain't but what ya really ain't got is proof, of god that is, save that argument for later. Deal with something you have a chance of proving. There are many verifiable evidences that indeed could be interpruted as proof of a global flood. It is all in the interpretation or rather the hypothesis/Theory (almost like splittin hairs, I know the hierarchy so spare the interpretation)
I've always marvelled at the amount of conjecture that can be stimulated by tiny increments of new information. The important point in science isn't always if they are right or wrong, even to the point of ridicule. It is in the number of important questions that they generate.
In all of our debates, arguments, disagreements, I have seen very little criticism of the need to continue questioning, exploring and understanding.
Can't remember who it was, or where, but I once remember reading a comment by a famous intellectual suggesting that out most valuable interactions are with out greatest critics. They are the ones who make us think the hardest.
Respect your critics - and those you criticize.
well said quietjohn--
ditto | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 10:42:46 PM | Forgive me qj, I couldn't resist.
Is it possible to explain miracles?
How do you identify miracles?
Will I ever be able to perform miracles?
What do I have to do to qualify to perform miracles?
Hope this helps ;->
A Course in Miracles
Now on Audio CD. Transcend all limitations and find inner peace
www.nightingale.com/course-miracles | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 896 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 10:49:25 PM | About the www.answersingenesis.org site QuietJohn try clicking on the “Get Answers” tab for a menu, or the search function. I find the search is a bit tough because of differing terminology…
Hehe, I’m only worried if the truck is hot and emitting photons that its wave function would disappear. Nah, your calculations seem good… for a one tonne truck going 50km/hr… orders-of-magnitude wise ends up at 10^-34 – 10^-35 as you said:
Wavelength = 6.6*10^-34/momentum, momentum= mass*velocity
-------------------
Dear Feral, interference is when waves cross over each other, it’s how their crests and toughs interact with each other. Say you drop to pebble into a pond, when the two crests line up the high of the wave doubles, similarly to toughs are twice as low, but if a crest and a tough merge, they cancel each other out height wise.
There’s are interactive slit experiment sites which you can click on the animation and mess with it: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/interference/doubleslit/
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit2.html
These sites do a good job explaining it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment & http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html
-------------------------
Interesting article from 1925 MICXSTER. However, modern genetics would not support the recent common ancestor hypothesis. Galton's law of filial regression relates to the strength of each individual's genetic contribution to successive generations. He saw it as diminishing exponentially:
H = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16. . . , &c.,
= (0.5) + (0.5)^2 + (0.5)^3 ...
(so each parent contributes 1/4, the four grandparents 1/8, the eight great-grandparents 1/16,….)
Without understanding the mechanisms of genetics he developed the “law of filial regression” to hypothesis that continuous genetic traits (like height) would tend towards the mean, because of the distribution of heritance or blending of heritable traits. We now know that genes are not transmitted by blending. Research into genetics and heredity have shown that “regression towards the mean” as it’s now commonly known is a statistical, not a genetic phenomenon.
R. A. Fisher resolved the argument between Mendalian and Galtonian heredity by showing multiple genes following Mendalian heredity explained continuous traits. (http://www.uic.edu/classes/bms/bms655/lesson11.html & http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hmg.section.2477 )
Galton’s work did contribute significantly to statistics. However, Galton’s theory of regression towards the mean is sometimes misapplied, in genetics as well as other subjects.
(http://www.psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean )
------------------
I think qj's post leaned a tad toward the sarcastic vein.
Personally, I’m not so sure of that, but I won’t presume to answer for QuietJohn’s intention. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2005 11:31:31 PM | Well, Mixter, I'm not sure how your quote reaches its conclusion regarding 30th cousins, but I'd be happy to listen to your clarification. If I understand what you quote, to have a cousin 30 times removed means that my cousin and I would be related only through a 29th great grandparent. I could have lots of other cousins who are more closely related - like through my grandparents. But by the logic used in your quote, doesn't that mean my cousins and I prove my grandparents were Adam and Eve? I think the facts you present should be reversed to suggest that there must have been AT LEAST 30 generations of humans. There could be tons more, but no less. What do you think?
There are some other puzzling statements in the site you suggested. Based on a 1922 census the good reverend suggests that it would have taken the human population doubling about 30.75 times to reach the 1.8 billion population existing at that time. That reverend certainly knows his logarithms! Two raised to the power of 30.75 comes to just the right number. Again I need some explanation here - wouldn't some people have died and needed replacing?
If I'm thinking along the right lines here, this is a good example of why I most definitely don't want my kids exposed to such 'education'. However I'll reserve judgement until those more familiar with such reasoning can point out the flaws in my thinking.
Aw - come on, Sili - it was your idea! My post wasn't meant to be sarcastic in the least. Sorry if it sounded that way. Where did I go wrong? - I assumed my scientific/analytical approach wouldn't work for creationists and was trying to find some common ground. Anybody willing to help?
Feral - you're clearly not qualified to answer my questions: (just kidding)
- You can't just start with facts - doesn't the new paradigm have to introduce faith as well?
- Well, you got the conflicting stuff right - even the Pope admits the Bible shouldn't be taken entirely as fact (see my previous post for reference). Can the creationists reach a consensus on what they agree on? I'f we're going to take their position seriously that has to be on something more positive than all agreeing that evolution is wrong. We need to have some idea of an alternative. Maybe we need to start with which bit of the Bible are fact and which need 'interpretation'. Then we need agreement on what the interpretation is. Of course, I could be wrong on this because I'm probably thinking too scientifically/analytically.
- Didn't I hear that some of the data were created just to mislead us? We'd have to agree on what was real data. Then don't we have to consider faith too?
- Revised according to data and proof? What is data? What constitutes proof. This looks suspiciously scientific. Is this what the creationists would accept?
- Doesn't faith influence what is acceptable?
- I really wanna figure out how miracles work!
- Really? - I may get to do a miracle? - whooopeee
- I'll do anything, I'll do anything - I just wanna fry that SOB!
- Oh, bummer 
And more answers
- hypothesis - picky, picky - I always spell it hype-or-thesis
- faith doesn't need tests... ummmm ..... does it?
- Will science and empirical observation be OK to creationists - remember, it's THEIR paradigm too!
- I can only answer the last comments with another question (damn!!!) - What's the point of the exercise if we don't get something out of it?
Even if the creationists don't agree, maybe they can start to understand where our thoughts are coming from and respond with a counterproposal.
Thanks for the site, Sili - the link didn't quite work, but I found lots of books on spiritual growth ... Yummy. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:30:56 AM | Oh, like, all the evolutionists all agree too...Pluuuuueeeeease.....
and, don't forget qj, regarding 'ages' of humans back then in old Biblical times, they lived to be hundreds of years old, popping out kids quite often. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:44:16 AM | CR - you're quite right about evolutionists not all agreeing, but they seem to share a common basis for their discussions and further explorations - a pretty well defined consensus. I'm not sure if creationists can say the same - Compare the view expressed by the Pope regarding the interpretation of the Bible with the views expressed by the CRS. I don't see the common ground there, but I accept that doesn't mean there isn't any. As I've said before, lack of understanding doesn't imply something can't be understood or even that it doesn't exist. So how about some help to understand? Present your own list of questions/comments, or comment on the ones that Feral and I have discussed. Do something positive to bring people of different philosophies together - or isn't that the Christian thing to do? - I'm just looking for explanation. How can anyone object to that? I'm even willing to accept the notion that there isn't need for an explanation, but that would mean a major shift in my world view that I'd need a lot of help to change.
As for your second comment on the ages of humans, I have no idea what point you are making or what comment you are referring to. As a scientist, I look for a statement of the problem / hypothesis, some data relevant to that hypothesis and a discussion of how those data influence the interpretations related to the problem. Again, if that isn't the correct way to look at things from a creationist viewpoint, I'll be happy to be directed towards an more acceptable way of viewing them.
Jumping back to a scientific viewpoint, because that is the only one I know something about. Wonka, the book I mentioned isn't about Einstein's theory of relativity and its philosophical consequences. It is about the philosophical evolution which allowed Einstein to come up with his theory. Helmholtz apparently crystallized a general theory of geometry and space of which Euclidean geometry was a special case. Einstein took the step of hypothesizing that the real world inhabited a non-Euclidean space and suggested methods by which his hypothesis could be tested. The reason I mention this is to underline the caution we need to use when interpreting our observations of the real world. Theoretical geometry tells us that space (can wrap around upon itself?)(could be recursive?) - I'm not sure how to describe this, so that the smallest things in the world can also be the biggest. As far as I can tell, there's no distinction between the universe expanding or everything in it shrinking. Misinterpretation goes for simple physical observations too - we can't trust our senses, or at least our brain's interpretation of what they tell us. The momentum dryad and I discussed (should have noted that p=momentum in that earlier post on photons) is only related to mass in the classical world. It can also exist without mass. When I see developments like this in less than a century, it makes me realize we may not even know a fraction of what it will take to understand how we came about.
Whatever you may think of some of the old religions, they seemed to come up with some very deep insights into the ways that the world may work. Maybe they had some methodology that science could learn from. I'm not sure it will come from creationists, but I most strongly agree that our minds should remain open. The biggest difficulty I have with that right now is the signal-to-noise ratio. How much useful information are we getting? Can we even distinguish between signal and noise?
P.S., Feral. Johnny likes answers! ;-) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:11:41 AM | | I read in today's Metro newspaper (october 26, 2005) the article called Degree is worth less every year, expert says. I quote: " As people learn they will have to immediately dump outdated information they had learned. The concept of going to school for knowledge is kind of quaint - says Caroll,.... half of what people learn in their first year will be obsolete by the time they graduate". I find it interesting. Many scientists (Evolutionists) abandon and/or change their theory all the time. So what you learned in school concerning Evolution is (some of it at least) obsolete because new scientific researches showed different results. On page 12 of Metro newspaper is the article called Worship linked to prosperity. It shows people who worship God live healthier lives - I recommend to read this article. | |
|
|
| Page 36 of 156
|
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 |
|
Home
login 
