Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8869 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2018 11:00 AM
277 online now:
JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Stile, Tanypteryx (6 members, 271 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,429 Year: 15,252/29,783 Month: 1,196/1,502 Week: 194/492 Day: 14/23 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Okay to all Creationist: Here's some things for you to consider
acmhttu01_2006
Unregistered


Message 1 of 7 (15116)
08-09-2002 9:45 PM


To all the Creationist:
You all "seem" to sound "reasonable" and "open-minded". Here's some questions for you. You seem to always come up with convuluted answers to these questions. After much research and debates with some of your good old "creationist" folk, there are just some questions that you avoid and do not answer. If you can post accetable scientifically well-thought out answers then by all means post all you want. And if you cannot post answers that show much thought and education and are full of ignorance, then by all means post, I need some good entertainment.

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?

1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?

1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?

1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?

2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?
3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)

3a. Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)
4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.
5. Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test? This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified? (After Karl Popper's criterion.) Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?

5a. Is there any observation which has changed your theory?
5b. Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

7. Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? How many of each kind of clean animal went on the Ark? Present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted. If you change the text of Genesis, give a reason for the change other than the need to fit your beliefs.

7a. Why does the Flood story need to be consistent?
8. Where did all of the water come from and go to? (This is a very old problem for the Flood story, and it may be the most frequently asked. Quantitative answers are required.)

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

9a. Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.
9b. Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each.

9c. Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood.

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

10a. Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.
10b. Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (7) and to the distribution referred to in questions (6) and (9).

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

11. Why do you feel that there must be a mechanistic, naturalistic or materialist exposition of the wondrous events described in the Bible?

12. Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?

Oh, and while we are at it, let's throw in some more. Look for it in another topic that will be posted. And yes, if these questions look familiar, I got them off a website, that after much thought and digging has proven to myself that these are legitimate questions that have a right to be asked and deserve to be answered in a logical manner. These questions were penned very wonderfully that are very reflective of similar questions that I have asked creationist at one time or another. And to date, no answers that have been satisfactory have been submitted[not just this post but to several websites].
Again, thanks for your time.
And have a nice day.
P.S. Let's try and keep this scientifically based and use empirical data and observations in this post. You are welcome to state your beliefs, but they will hold no credibility in this post.
Again, have a nice day.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Student at Texas Tech University
Mathematics, Cell and Molecular Biology, and Piano Performance major


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 08-10-2002 12:56 AM You have responded
 Message 5 by Philip, posted 08-11-2002 4:01 AM You have not yet responded
 Message 6 by Philip, posted 08-11-2002 4:01 AM You have not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 7 (15121)
08-10-2002 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006
08-09-2002 9:45 PM


Wouldn't you like to give a your reference rather than a seeming project of your own original inquiry?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html

--Also, it is not all too fun to rebute an entire article which branches into such a diversity of topics. Maybe you could pick your favorite 1-3 or so and we can go from there.

--Also, I see you have raided the forum with Talk.Origins material, you seem just as brainwashed as you would say the many YEC's that come in and quickly escape out of this forum. You can also take the time to explain why you think we are all mentally handicaped in that your posts are obviously not your own.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-09-2002 9:45 PM acmhttu01_2006 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-10-2002 11:24 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

acmhttu01_2006
Unregistered


Message 3 of 7 (15143)
08-10-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
08-10-2002 12:56 AM


For sake of time,
I will not post the other post that I have posted to the other topic. If you wish, then you can go and look at my reply to the other posts of that other topic. The words that go for that topic is very much applicable to this topic.
Have a nice day.
Brainwashed in the fact that I do not agree with YEC or any other creation thoery. I do not believe, I am that brainwashed, I am wiling and do often refer or define evolution in a very general way, the theory of the methdologies of change.
The articles are not mine yes, I have addresed this in another post. The feelings and viewpoints and my opinions after surveying many facts and conversations with a very educated man in this who is an expert in this area. The sarcasm is mine as with all the other text of every post. From now on, I will give proper credit. For more information go and check out the other topic.
I have never said that you were mentally challenged or handicapped. I have questioned your ignorance, that is different. A mental handicap cannot be fixed, yet a state of ingnorance can.
I will see you later. No, it would not be fun to refute a whole article, when you can barely if at all answer any question to it to the satisfaction to me and to the scientific world. I would be scared to answer these questions if I did not believe in conventional science.
Ok, have a nice day.
I will pick one of the questions at a time, and we can go from there.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Student at Texas Tech University
Mathematics, Cell and Molecular Biology, and Piano Performance major


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 08-10-2002 12:56 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 08-10-2002 4:58 PM You have not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 7 (15167)
08-10-2002 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by acmhttu01_2006
08-10-2002 11:24 AM


"I will see you later. No, it would not be fun to refute a whole article, when you can barely if at all answer any question to it to the satisfaction to me and to the scientific world. I would be scared to answer these questions if I did not believe in conventional science."
--I look forward to answering them to a much more sufficient degree than it is likely that you have heard. But yes, lets take them one at a time. You may start, it may also be nice to start this on a new created thread with a new more topical name for the question you may propose.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-10-2002 11:24 AM acmhttu01_2006 has not yet responded

Philip
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 5 of 7 (15176)
08-11-2002 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006
08-09-2002 9:45 PM


Now, just how might one empirically or metaphysically respond to your pile of doting inquiries Anne? Please choose one or 2 that really urks you the most, as they all appear easily rebuttable (to varying degrees of your dissatisfaction).

I notice you appreciate Piano Performance. I've been looking for an Evo-pianist a long time try to explain to me how music could have possibly evolved in the frontal lobes of old world monkeys (OWMs). Any suggestions?

Several Evos here gleefully took the challenge with statements approximating: "It's communciation; as communciation it enhanced survival via intonations and such". And, "its appreciation involves pattern recognition which itself must have evolved for survival of the fittest", etc.

Consider, Anne. You have (probably) ten fingers that independently and concertedly seem to know variations and inversions of C chords, the 12 octave notes with its 7 major notes and thousands of other peculiarly excellent and orderly arrangements.

You know when B flat is better than F, C, G, etc. as your subtonic. Your recognition of measures is doubtlessly a non-conscious effort of appropriate (if you will) beats with perfectly syncronized half and quarter-rests that add proportionate symmetry to the beauty of the notes riding in the treble and base clefts (if you will).

Your eyes scan the music scores in graceful appreciation of the song that is about to sound at your ten fingers.

Disregarding the shallow modernist music; most of your real masters, who spent arduous hours of inspired time composing your pieces, addressed their pieces to their Redeemer-Christ and/or God's creation without any thought of evolution whatsoever.

Is it evolutionary science, or love from God (music that is)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-09-2002 9:45 PM acmhttu01_2006 has not yet responded

Philip
Member (Idle past 2645 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 6 of 7 (15177)
08-11-2002 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006
08-09-2002 9:45 PM


Now, just how might one empirically or metaphysically respond to your pile of doting inquiries Anne? Please choose one or 2 that really urks you the most, as they all appear easily rebuttable (to varying degrees of your dissatisfaction).

I notice you appreciate Piano Performance. I've been looking for an Evo-pianist a long time try to explain to me how music could have possibly evolved in the frontal lobes of old world monkeys (OWMs). Any suggestions?

Several Evos here gleefully took the challenge with statements approximating: "It's communciation; as communciation it enhanced survival via intonations and such". And, "its appreciation involves pattern recognition which itself must have evolved for survival of the fittest", etc.

Consider, Anne. You have (probably) ten fingers that independently and concertedly seem to know variations and inversions of C chords, the 12 octave notes with its 7 major notes and thousands of other peculiarly excellent and orderly arrangements.

You know when B flat is better than F, C, G, etc. as your subtonic. Your recognition of measures is doubtlessly a non-conscious effort of appropriate (if you will) beats with perfectly syncronized half and quarter-rests that add proportionate symmetry to the beauty of the notes riding in the treble and base clefts (if you will).

Your eyes scan the music scores in graceful appreciation of the song that is about to sound at your ten fingers.

Disregarding the shallow modernist music; most of your real masters, who spent arduous hours of inspired time composing your pieces, addressed their pieces to their Redeemer-Christ and/or God's creation without any thought of evolution whatsoever.

Is it evolutionary science, or metaphysical love from God (music that is)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-09-2002 9:45 PM acmhttu01_2006 has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12560
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 7 of 7 (15186)
08-11-2002 7:56 AM


Closing duplicate thread. Please resume discussion at duplicate thread of same title: Okay to all Creationist: Here's some things for you to consider.

------------------

--EvC Forum Administrator


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018