Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,590 Year: 2,847/9,624 Month: 692/1,588 Week: 98/229 Day: 9/61 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello!
HalcyonWatersTEMP
Guest


Message 1 of 11 (14719)
08-02-2002 2:57 AM


Hey! Sounds like you have a good group going on here. I am unable to post anywhere else because my password hasn't arrived yet, but I wanted to introduce myself.
Name is David; Currently finishing up my Physics Major at OSU, and will probably remain at OSU for my graduate studies. I am a recent convert to the YEC model and I am quite excited to learn more about it -- which is why I am here.
I probably won't post for a week or so, as I'll be spending my time reading all past messages trying to get a feel for what has already been discussed, and most importantly...
who the enemy is...
I look forward to debate and discussion,
David

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-02-2002 4:18 AM You replied
 Message 3 by blitz77, posted 08-02-2002 7:14 AM You have not replied
 Message 4 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-02-2002 11:50 AM You have not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 11 (14722)
08-02-2002 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by HalcyonWatersTEMP
08-02-2002 2:57 AM


Nice to have you along Halcyon - we'd all be fascinated to hear how you came to be a YEC like some of us (and a physicist too).
Regards - Tranquility

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by HalcyonWatersTEMP, posted 08-02-2002 2:57 AM HalcyonWatersTEMP has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by halcyonwatersTEMP, posted 08-10-2002 7:33 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 11 (14724)
08-02-2002 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by HalcyonWatersTEMP
08-02-2002 2:57 AM


Hello Halcyon! As TB said, it'd be nice to have you around to discuss with (I'm a YEC too). Well, anyway, hope you have an fun &interesting time on this site!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by HalcyonWatersTEMP, posted 08-02-2002 2:57 AM HalcyonWatersTEMP has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 11 (14747)
08-02-2002 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by HalcyonWatersTEMP
08-02-2002 2:57 AM


Hello Halcyon. I am a biologist apprentice. a non-Christian and I consider YEC is wrong. Therefore you can start knowing your enemies now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by HalcyonWatersTEMP, posted 08-02-2002 2:57 AM HalcyonWatersTEMP has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 08-02-2002 12:35 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3813 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 11 (14750)
08-02-2002 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Andya Primanda
08-02-2002 11:50 AM


I see YECism as a religion in the guise of science, a shameless attempt to use "science" as a vehicle to proselytize. So yes, I am also your enemy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-02-2002 11:50 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 11 (14761)
08-02-2002 10:38 PM


Hi, I'm Neil, a Christian evolutionist. I don't want to be anybody's enemy here, but you can think of me as "the loyal opposition." Unfortunately, though I lurk most days, my workload is hindering more active participation.
-Neil

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 08-05-2002 10:37 PM NeilUnreal has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 11 (14879)
08-05-2002 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by NeilUnreal
08-02-2002 10:38 PM


Neil's post sounds right, just strike the Evo opposition. I'm a YEC and enjoy this forum's participants. I am also young, but dispite my scientific vernality, I'm a bright little whipper-snapper in the general sciences, particularelly the geosciences. But of course, I am well on my way and have much to learn, hence, the reason I am here. I also, similar with neil, am involved with other projects, some quite new and major so I have a tendancy to miss replies to my posts, so keep me bumped if your interested.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NeilUnreal, posted 08-02-2002 10:38 PM NeilUnreal has not replied

halcyonwatersTEMP
Guest


Message 8 of 11 (15169)
08-10-2002 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
08-02-2002 4:18 AM


Well, I have glanced over several threads here, and I don't think I'm ready to contribute anything beyond elementary arguments for creationism which I'm sure have already been covered here. It isn't enough to just show the problems with Evolution. TB, TC -- you guys seem like nice people, and if you could e-mail me at halcyonwaters@yahoo.com with any suggested readings/resources, I'd appreciate it.
Any topics are fine, especially something concerning our fossil record. Right now, the only things I have in my head are the wonderfully designed and complete diagrams found in several college text-books. If only I would have realized just how little they are based on... It would be nice if it didn't have a creationist slant either... just the plain facts, if such a resource exists.
I'm also really interested at reading testimonials on evolutionists who have become creationists.
Anyhow, I will 'contribute' one thing. Someone in another thread said "Why are YEC's babbling about..." -- something to do with the age of the earth.
The person who said that is intelligent enough to know what babbling is -- so if a position is so solid, why is it necessary to show this sort of disrespect?
I use to categorically dismiss YEC's as un-scientific and I finally realized how arrogant I had become, so I decided to take a look. A new outlook on life, yadda yadda. The one thing I did realize was that naturalistic origins explained by evolution is just as much of a religion. Anyhow, I'm not saying everyone has to change their position, but it would be nice if there was a kinder atmosphere.
Ah what a dream... Then again, maybe I just took a bad sample that wasn't representative.
Thanks in advance TB/TC/Anyone else,
David

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-02-2002 4:18 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 08-10-2002 10:39 PM You have not replied
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-11-2002 7:36 AM You have not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 11 (15171)
08-10-2002 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by halcyonwatersTEMP
08-10-2002 7:33 PM


"Well, I have glanced over several threads here, and I don't think I'm ready to contribute anything beyond elementary arguments for creationism which I'm sure have already been covered here."
--I admire your attitude. I also would urge that you do contribute to discussions here. All that is needed is the motivation. So if not to teach, why not to learn?
"It isn't enough to just show the problems with Evolution. TB, TC -- you guys seem like nice people, and if you could e-mail me at halcyonwaters@yahoo.com with any suggested readings/resources, I'd appreciate it."
--Hey no problem, check your e-mail later on. I also would recommend that your inquiry (of course not as a condemnation, but to tranquilly suggest) not be a one sided issue, many on both sides make this mistake. So I would also recommend you inquire on Evo's as well
"Any topics are fine, especially something concerning our fossil record. Right now, the only things I have in my head are the wonderfully designed and complete diagrams found in several college text-books. If only I would have realized just how little they are based on... It would be nice if it didn't have a creationist slant either... just the plain facts, if such a resource exists."
--Just about all scientific text sources will have the mainstream bias, and I have yet to see a YEC paper that hasn't been written by myself that didn't include a creationist bias. Though I have found that I enjoy reading the mainstream material with an open mind. With this open mind it is also important to realize how to differentiate what is hard data, and what is interpretative explanation based on the data. It is easy to avoid 'discouragement' when something says '..Ga years old..' and such as a YEC.
"Anyhow, I will 'contribute' one thing. Someone in another thread said "Why are YEC's babbling about..." -- something to do with the age of the earth.
The person who said that is intelligent enough to know what babbling is -- so if a position is so solid, why is it necessary to show this sort of disrespect?"
--I'm not sure if it were called for as I am unaware of its correct context. Though without being direct some may be ignorant in that they have peers backing them up, no matter the insanity of their assertions. Their own arrogance is readily provoked by their pride, bias, and sometimes prejudice.
"The one thing I did realize was that naturalistic origins explained by evolution is just as much of a religion."
--Be weary of your usage of 'religion', 'religious', etc. I had a discussion with a YEC earlier who claimed this and it was found to be a useless semantic study.
"Anyhow, I'm not saying everyone has to change their position, but it would be nice if there was a kinder atmosphere."
--Yes the calm atmosphere in the discussion and exchange of ideas is something that is found here in my experience. Even handed moderation along with participants who encourage these studies here maintain this forums high credibility, and my favor. While flame-wars break out at times, this will usually always be found, everyone gets frustrated and starts to flame on at times. I have gotten rather edgy at a few that have come here, though I would place myself in a category of humility and a pervasive unbiased inquiry of intelligence here rather than that.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by halcyonwatersTEMP, posted 08-10-2002 7:33 PM halcyonwatersTEMP has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 11 (15185)
08-11-2002 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by halcyonwatersTEMP
08-10-2002 7:33 PM


Halcyonwaters
I agree with TC that once you have the basic picture of the modern creationist ideas it is possible to reread mainstream writings and get an appreciation for where fact becomes interpretaiton and theory. If you want to gain a true impression of what is really going on you do however have to look at the raw data and ignore interpretaitions by both creationists and evolutionists!
You asked about the issue of fossils. The best mainstream book I have ever read on this is by (one of) the world's foremost paleontologists MJ Benton ('Vertebrate Paleontology' - check it out at a uni library). Here you actually get to see a lot of the raw data. How? You get to see fossil distribution diagrams rather than idealised trees. These diagrams have links drawn in but these are carefully distinguished from the actual data.
You'll notice that the lines drawn in connecting each fossil distribution to antoher are of semi-random length. You simply join the tree up in the order that homology told you was best. This means that on average the fossil distribution will disagree with about half of the 'nodes'. What this means is that yuo can't use the fossil distribution to reliably tell you which animal is more primitive than another. Evoltuionists simply claim that the record is not complete but the answer caould also be that the fossil reocrd is a huge flood deposit.
But of course there is a validity to the fossil order that evoltuionists claim and they do follow approximately the order of evolution suggested by cladistics (the order gained via study of the anatomic similarities). Young earth creationists interperate much of the fossil reocrd as flood depostions so we do expect 'similar' creatures to be buried in similar parts of the record. But we certianly do not have a model which can yet explain the exact order. We simply expect it to ultimately do the job via biogeography, hydrodynamic sorting and relative mobility.
We can't prove this by any stretch of the imagination. However, given the distinct nature of basic fossil gourps in the record creation is a very good explantion of the origin. The rocks themselves look like flood deposits - the idea that the worldwide layers look like they were formed gradually like today's layers really is quite ludicrous. IMO mainstream geologists have somehow 'calibrated' themselves to see gradualism. The geological column is made up of vast layers - even vast fresh water layers. Specific continuous formations traverse continents. The classic types of formations found in the geocolumn do not have analogues forming today of the size typically found. There is no series of coal seans being formed anywhere on the planet like those covering the eastern half of USA. The marine layers on the western half of the US similarly is an 'epeiric sea' deposit. There are no flat shelves like this anywhere in the world today. This lines of evidence suggests the flood and so we suspect that the fossil order somehow was generated as descibed above.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by halcyonwatersTEMP, posted 08-10-2002 7:33 PM halcyonwatersTEMP has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 11 of 11 (415832)
08-12-2007 1:47 PM


Back to the present...
Thread restored to today.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024