And how do you determine that evolution is indeed a set of 'natural processes acting blindly'? How do you come to the conclusion (scientifically of course ;) ) that evolution isn't acting rather, according to a set(s) of biological/geological laws that are continuously in operation, even if some of them are undetecteable to one human's observation? See, that's one of the creationist's BIG misunderstandings of how evolution works. They presume that it's all by some blind and random chance with no laws to guide what occurs. You show the same unscientific mistake by means of that quote being one of your favorite phrases.
If it's not by *blind and random chance*, perhaps there is a higher power behind it all??
But seriously, I think you know how it works. You just don't accept it as scientifically viable.
I do. And I think I have a lot of solid scientific facts and information to back me up. Evidently you don't agree.
Ahh well, perhaps you could email federal judge John E. Jones (the one that ruled in that Dover PA Intelligent Design ruling), and get a copy of his ruling to find out why he doesn't share your view likening evolution and creationism as equal alternatives to be taught in science classes. Keep in mind that he, too, is a Christian, and a somewhat fundamentalist one at that.
Here is a good portion of his response on Wikipedia.
Enjoy! :B)
Dmiller,
I already gave a clue as to why it wouldn't be blind and random chance, ie.: "... according to a set(s) of biological/geological laws that are continuously in operation, even if some of them are undetecteable to one human's observation?" ... See? Nothing 'blind and random' about it.
I got solid 'c's in Science, and make no claims or arguements, but if this museum is telling me that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and I'm only going by what I've heard, then that's enough for me steer clear. Unless I want a good laugh.
birds are technically considered dinosaurs. Ask an evolutionist.
Man coexisted with monstrous sized mammals, no one has a problem with that. But coexisting with dinosaurs is silly, why? Because they were big? What's the reasoning?
Meanwhile, in other creationist tourism news, la familie Pyle will be landing in Dayton TN Sunday eve.
Nobody knows how gravity works either. Must not exist.
Ice Age
Real evidence for multiple glaciation is overwhelming. Older works on glacial geology (Flint, 1971; Wright and Frey, 1965) describe in great detail arguments for four great ice ages in the last two million or so years. This evidence includes well developed soil horizons and sub-tropical vegetation over-run by succeeding ice advances (Morrison and Wright, 1965). More recent works (Goudie, 1983; Wright, 1989; Dawson, 1992; Anderson and Borns, 1994) support these observations and further separate the four advances into about ten different advances. In addition, they give evidence of several other very much older glacial epochs, including some Precambrian ones which would have been "pre-flood."
Probably the best arguments for the magnitude of ice age time is the record from long cores taken through the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. In the Antarctic ice, summer and winter bands can be counted back, year by year, to at least 30,000 years (Anderson and Borns, 1994) with overall core lengths indicating total time spans of several hundred thousand years. Dates from counting the annual layers in the cores can in turn be correlated with C14 dates from the CO2 contained in entrapped air bubbles, with C14 dates from tree ring correlations which can be counted and correlated back 12,000 years, with annual sediment layers from glacial lakes, with dates from the pollen records of climatic change in Europe and America, and with radiometric dates and rate of sedimentation dates on deep sea cores. Most of these dates can in turn be stitched together and mutually supported by paleomagnetic dates from other areas and dating techniques (summaries by Anderson and Borns, 1994). As new evidence is gained and dating techniques are refined, all these lines of converging evidence show increasing good correlations with the Malenkovich cycles, based on Newtonian celestial mechanics, an additional set of time determinations linked to modern astronomic measurements. To argue in the face of such massive and interlocking evidence that the entire span of the Ice Ages constituted only the last few thousand years must represent a supreme example of faith overcoming reason.
To argue in the face of such massive and interlocking evidence that the entire span of the Ice Ages constituted only the last few thousand years must represent a supreme example of faith overcoming reason.
Yes, heresy doesn't guarantee correctness.
Now, if you'll be so kind as to explain the other side of the argument?
Yes the museum covers those.
For now I'm focusing on the genetic side of things, since that is where I am most knowledgeable. I'm new to the creation stuff and want to give it an honest look. If there are serious problems, I will find them.
Doesn't take an Einstein to see the problems with isotope dating. (are there 12,000 year old trees?) Do you know what the assumptions are?
Anyway, breed an ape with a human, I'll probably start seeing things your way.
The famous Scopes trial was set up by the ACLU to test a Tennessee prohibition that in effect outlawed the teaching of evolution. It pitted attorney superstar Clarence Darrow against political & oratorical superstar William Jennings Bryan. Can you imagine the media frenzy if it were today?
Darrow lost the trial but won the press, which was his strategy to begin with.
The famous Scopes trial was set up by the ACLU to test a Tennessee prohibition that in effect outlawed the teaching of evolution. It pitted attorney superstar Clarence Darrow against political & oratorical superstar William Jennings Bryan. Can you imagine the media frenzy if it were today?
Darrow lost the trial but won the press, which was his strategy to begin with.
It wasn't until a few months ago that I even knew there was a creationist side. (Other than the simple "It not true" argument of a lot of Christians). It seems to me, if anyone is hiding information, its the evolutionists. They didn't mention this at the University. Just like when I leave twi and find there is more to the trinity than they told me. The creationist side needs a look-see.
For now I'm focusing on the genetic side of things, since that is where I am most knowledgeable. I'm new to the creation stuff and want to give it an honest look. If there are serious problems, I will find them.
Now why does that last sentence of yours, "If there are serious problems, I will find them." bear an eerily similar 'look and feel' to when Weirwille made a similar statement in PFAL, along the lines of "Just follow along in the Bible with me, class. If there are any mistakes, I'll tell you"? <_<
And apparently you aren't as knowledgable in the genetics field (particularly in relation to evolution) as you seem to claim, as your snide remark, "Anyway, breed an ape with a human, I'll probably start seeing things your way." illustrates. Again, you show no understanding of how evolution works. It wasn't a case where there were generation after generation of apes, and then *POOF* along comes man in the generation after that. And evolutionary scientists never portray it like that. ... Only the ignorant presume that that is how evolution works. Which would make evolution unworkable, ... IF that's the way it works.
Why would I delibritely want to lie to myself again?
There's nothing stopping anybody from lying to themselves in such a manner, if what they were faced with contradicts a belief system that they hold near and dear to themselves. That is why Creationists fight so hard, and come up with the pseudo-scientific song-and-dance that they do. Because evolution, like very few (if any) other sciences, directly says, "Hey! The Genesis account isn't valid!" That Kentucky museum comes right out and says it! If you don't believe the Genesis 1-14 account, might as well throw away the Bible as a true and believeable account overall. Which a lot of people are scared to do.
Is the Bible really that dependant upon the Genesis account? Is your belief in the Bible really so dependant upon the Genesis account? ..... Sounds kind of fragile to me, ... ya think? :unsure:
Now _there's_ some questions to run by those folks for them to seriously consider.
Now why does that last sentence of yours, "If there are serious problems, I will find them." bear an eerily similar 'look and feel' to when Weirwille made a similar statement in PFAL, along the lines of "Just follow along in the Bible with me, class. If there are any mistakes, I'll tell you"? <_<
Ok, you're right. I went over the top with that response to what I thought was an appeal to authority in your "If there are serious problems, I will find them." remark. A good number of us _already_ are finding serious problems in their portrayal, and frankly, we don't need you to be The One to be the final authority on this. ... True, I'm no final authority here either. None of us here are.
But that said, the way I responded did give the impression that you were like VPW, ... which you aren't. Not by a long shot. So on that, I apologize.
So much for one part of the evolutionary process, known as anagenesis, during which a single species is transformed. But there's also a second part, known as speciation. Genetic changes sometimes accumulate within an isolated segment of a species, but not throughout the whole, as that isolated population adapts to its local conditions. Gradually it goes its own way, seizing a new ecological niche. At a certain point it becomes irreversibly distinct—that is, so different that its members can't interbreed with the rest. Two species now exist where formerly there was one. Darwin called that splitting-and-specializing phenomenon the "principle of divergence." It was an important part of his theory, explaining the overall diversity of life as well as the adaptation of individual species.
Here's another problem I run into. I keep marine fish. I know, that the most specialized fish are extremely hard to keep. Also folks get upset about destroying places like the rain forest because species get wiped out, because that's the only place they can live.
I don't see how a population adapted to specific places can become new species entirely (as in the difference between felines and canines). It seems that when species get too different, they get more fragile (unless kept in their specific habitat.) Unless of course huge changes in large areas become more like their microenvironment. I'm not convinced this would result in macroevolution.
What the creationists are postulating is that each animal type was made. That animal type contained the ability to adapt to many environments. So like with bears, you have tropical bears and polar bears. But they are all still bears. (The ark would have had bear representitives, so a refrigerator for polar bears was unneccesary.)
The okapi was once used to show the evolution of the horse. Take a look, it's obvious to me it is related to a giraffe. I bet a okapi-giraffe hybrid is possible.
I've heard of people trying to recreate the evolution of dogs from wolves by taking tamer wolves and breeding them. (Dogs and wolves are sometimes considered the same species.)
Apparently, attempts have been made to re-evolve extinct animals by taking a related species and selectively breeding.
It shows a working model that doesn't contradict the Bible, and can honestly incorporate the variety of species we see.
A question I had was would the Ark need to carry for instance, polar bears, brown bears, black bears, and other bear spieces. The answer is no, just a couple bears.
So, God makes two bears in Eden. Those bears diversify into a variety of species. Two(or seven?) representitive bears stay on the Ark. Then leave the Ark and would diversify into the bears we know. The bears found in the fossil record not like ones we know were varieties that developed after the Fall and in killed in the Flood.
This could also answer someone's question about penguins. There are penguins today that live in warmer climates than Antartica. (New Zealand, Chile). There could very well have been penguins, not from colder climates, on the Ark. Those penguins would not need a refridgerator unit. I believe I've heard of giant, or just big, penguins in the fossil record. So this model accounts for the animals from a variety of climates, since the animals coming off the Ark would eventually adapt to new places.
Recent article that mention Neanderthal and people interbreeding. People, like animals, prior to the flood probably had more ability to diversify, since their gentic blueprints were "closer to the original." Skulls that look slightly different than our own were probably people (neanderthal, homo hablis, etc.). Those skulls that look like apes, were apes.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
13
17
74
Popular Days
Jul 6
33
Jul 3
27
Jul 5
18
Jul 4
17
Top Posters In This Topic
GT 16 posts
oenophile 13 posts
GarthP2000 17 posts
Bolshevik 74 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2007
33 posts
Jul 3 2007
27 posts
Jul 5 2007
18 posts
Jul 4 2007
17 posts
dmiller
If it's not by *blind and random chance*, perhaps there is a higher power behind it all??
Sorry for interrupting --- carry on! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
1) Press the Big Green Button.
But seriously, I think you know how it works. You just don't accept it as scientifically viable.
I do. And I think I have a lot of solid scientific facts and information to back me up. Evidently you don't agree.
Ahh well, perhaps you could email federal judge John E. Jones (the one that ruled in that Dover PA Intelligent Design ruling), and get a copy of his ruling to find out why he doesn't share your view likening evolution and creationism as equal alternatives to be taught in science classes. Keep in mind that he, too, is a Christian, and a somewhat fundamentalist one at that.
Here is a good portion of his response on Wikipedia.
Enjoy! :B)
Dmiller,
I already gave a clue as to why it wouldn't be blind and random chance, ie.: "... according to a set(s) of biological/geological laws that are continuously in operation, even if some of them are undetecteable to one human's observation?" ... See? Nothing 'blind and random' about it.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Meanwhile, in other creationist tourism news, la familie Pyle will be landing in Dayton TN Sunday eve.
Dayton TN?
Home of the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial...
Edited by TheEvanLink to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
I got solid 'c's in Science, and make no claims or arguements, but if this museum is telling me that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and I'm only going by what I've heard, then that's enough for me steer clear. Unless I want a good laugh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
The creation museum's proof that humans lived with dinosaurs (even had them as pets):
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
birds are technically considered dinosaurs. Ask an evolutionist.
Man coexisted with monstrous sized mammals, no one has a problem with that. But coexisting with dinosaurs is silly, why? Because they were big? What's the reasoning?
What that about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Here's a good summary of the creationism time-line:
A Creation "Science" Geologic Time Scale
(1) 4000 B.C. Creation Week: (laws of science suspended)
1,500 years. Pre-Flood "Geology." Laws of science invalid.
Flood Year: Flood "Geology" - ONE (?) year of normal (?) "science"
Post-Flood Geology - 4,500 years of normal (?) science to
Present
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
small mouse-like creatures evolve into baleen whales, people, and llamas . . .
single-celled organism gives rise to T-rex and oak trees . . .
how?
nobody knows . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Nobody knows how gravity works either. Must not exist.
Ice Age
Real evidence for multiple glaciation is overwhelming. Older works on glacial geology (Flint, 1971; Wright and Frey, 1965) describe in great detail arguments for four great ice ages in the last two million or so years. This evidence includes well developed soil horizons and sub-tropical vegetation over-run by succeeding ice advances (Morrison and Wright, 1965). More recent works (Goudie, 1983; Wright, 1989; Dawson, 1992; Anderson and Borns, 1994) support these observations and further separate the four advances into about ten different advances. In addition, they give evidence of several other very much older glacial epochs, including some Precambrian ones which would have been "pre-flood."
Probably the best arguments for the magnitude of ice age time is the record from long cores taken through the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. In the Antarctic ice, summer and winter bands can be counted back, year by year, to at least 30,000 years (Anderson and Borns, 1994) with overall core lengths indicating total time spans of several hundred thousand years. Dates from counting the annual layers in the cores can in turn be correlated with C14 dates from the CO2 contained in entrapped air bubbles, with C14 dates from tree ring correlations which can be counted and correlated back 12,000 years, with annual sediment layers from glacial lakes, with dates from the pollen records of climatic change in Europe and America, and with radiometric dates and rate of sedimentation dates on deep sea cores. Most of these dates can in turn be stitched together and mutually supported by paleomagnetic dates from other areas and dating techniques (summaries by Anderson and Borns, 1994). As new evidence is gained and dating techniques are refined, all these lines of converging evidence show increasing good correlations with the Malenkovich cycles, based on Newtonian celestial mechanics, an additional set of time determinations linked to modern astronomic measurements. To argue in the face of such massive and interlocking evidence that the entire span of the Ice Ages constituted only the last few thousand years must represent a supreme example of faith overcoming reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes, heresy doesn't guarantee correctness.
Now, if you'll be so kind as to explain the other side of the argument?
Yes the museum covers those.
For now I'm focusing on the genetic side of things, since that is where I am most knowledgeable. I'm new to the creation stuff and want to give it an honest look. If there are serious problems, I will find them.
Doesn't take an Einstein to see the problems with isotope dating. (are there 12,000 year old trees?) Do you know what the assumptions are?
Anyway, breed an ape with a human, I'll probably start seeing things your way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
The Age of Life, Radiometric Dating, and Tree Rings
If you haven't seen any problems with creationism yet, you're not looking (intentionally?).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
The famous Scopes trial was set up by the ACLU to test a Tennessee prohibition that in effect outlawed the teaching of evolution. It pitted attorney superstar Clarence Darrow against political & oratorical superstar William Jennings Bryan. Can you imagine the media frenzy if it were today?
Darrow lost the trial but won the press, which was his strategy to begin with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No, I'm not turning a blind eye. I just came from the gulag. Why would I delibritely want to lie to myself again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It wasn't until a few months ago that I even knew there was a creationist side. (Other than the simple "It not true" argument of a lot of Christians). It seems to me, if anyone is hiding information, its the evolutionists. They didn't mention this at the University. Just like when I leave twi and find there is more to the trinity than they told me. The creationist side needs a look-see.
What is happening now in Dayton, TN?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Now why does that last sentence of yours, "If there are serious problems, I will find them." bear an eerily similar 'look and feel' to when Weirwille made a similar statement in PFAL, along the lines of "Just follow along in the Bible with me, class. If there are any mistakes, I'll tell you"? <_<
And apparently you aren't as knowledgable in the genetics field (particularly in relation to evolution) as you seem to claim, as your snide remark, "Anyway, breed an ape with a human, I'll probably start seeing things your way." illustrates. Again, you show no understanding of how evolution works. It wasn't a case where there were generation after generation of apes, and then *POOF* along comes man in the generation after that. And evolutionary scientists never portray it like that. ... Only the ignorant presume that that is how evolution works. Which would make evolution unworkable, ... IF that's the way it works.
There's nothing stopping anybody from lying to themselves in such a manner, if what they were faced with contradicts a belief system that they hold near and dear to themselves. That is why Creationists fight so hard, and come up with the pseudo-scientific song-and-dance that they do. Because evolution, like very few (if any) other sciences, directly says, "Hey! The Genesis account isn't valid!" That Kentucky museum comes right out and says it! If you don't believe the Genesis 1-14 account, might as well throw away the Bible as a true and believeable account overall. Which a lot of people are scared to do.
Is the Bible really that dependant upon the Genesis account? Is your belief in the Bible really so dependant upon the Genesis account? ..... Sounds kind of fragile to me, ... ya think? :unsure:
Now _there's_ some questions to run by those folks for them to seriously consider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You just accused me of being another VPW.
I can no longer discuss any matter with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Bolshevik,
Ok, you're right. I went over the top with that response to what I thought was an appeal to authority in your "If there are serious problems, I will find them." remark. A good number of us _already_ are finding serious problems in their portrayal, and frankly, we don't need you to be The One to be the final authority on this. ... True, I'm no final authority here either. None of us here are.
But that said, the way I responded did give the impression that you were like VPW, ... which you aren't. Not by a long shot. So on that, I apologize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/04...1/fulltext.html
Here's another problem I run into. I keep marine fish. I know, that the most specialized fish are extremely hard to keep. Also folks get upset about destroying places like the rain forest because species get wiped out, because that's the only place they can live.
I don't see how a population adapted to specific places can become new species entirely (as in the difference between felines and canines). It seems that when species get too different, they get more fragile (unless kept in their specific habitat.) Unless of course huge changes in large areas become more like their microenvironment. I'm not convinced this would result in macroevolution.
What the creationists are postulating is that each animal type was made. That animal type contained the ability to adapt to many environments. So like with bears, you have tropical bears and polar bears. But they are all still bears. (The ark would have had bear representitives, so a refrigerator for polar bears was unneccesary.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
Here's an interesing article. Especially about the ribs of horses.
They make mention of the okapi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi
The okapi was once used to show the evolution of the horse. Take a look, it's obvious to me it is related to a giraffe. I bet a okapi-giraffe hybrid is possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeding_back
I've heard of people trying to recreate the evolution of dogs from wolves by taking tamer wolves and breeding them. (Dogs and wolves are sometimes considered the same species.)
Apparently, attempts have been made to re-evolve extinct animals by taking a related species and selectively breeding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
I vote for Bolshevik.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
So in what way does any of this undermine the evolutionary theory?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It shows a working model that doesn't contradict the Bible, and can honestly incorporate the variety of species we see.
A question I had was would the Ark need to carry for instance, polar bears, brown bears, black bears, and other bear spieces. The answer is no, just a couple bears.
So, God makes two bears in Eden. Those bears diversify into a variety of species. Two(or seven?) representitive bears stay on the Ark. Then leave the Ark and would diversify into the bears we know. The bears found in the fossil record not like ones we know were varieties that developed after the Fall and in killed in the Flood.
This could also answer someone's question about penguins. There are penguins today that live in warmer climates than Antartica. (New Zealand, Chile). There could very well have been penguins, not from colder climates, on the Ark. Those penguins would not need a refridgerator unit. I believe I've heard of giant, or just big, penguins in the fossil record. So this model accounts for the animals from a variety of climates, since the animals coming off the Ark would eventually adapt to new places.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://www.physorg.com/news88139040.html
Recent article that mention Neanderthal and people interbreeding. People, like animals, prior to the flood probably had more ability to diversify, since their gentic blueprints were "closer to the original." Skulls that look slightly different than our own were probably people (neanderthal, homo hablis, etc.). Those skulls that look like apes, were apes.
Human evolution link:
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.