Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
564 online now:
candle2, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 560 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,110 Year: 4,222/6,534 Month: 436/900 Week: 142/150 Day: 12/23 Hour: 0/0


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 8 (15115)
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 1:02 AM You replied
 Message 3 by blitz77, posted 08-10-2002 8:00 AM You have taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 8 (15122)
08-10-2002 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006
08-09-2002 9:45 PM


You have made 3 topics with the same plagerized text, talk about exposing yourself. If I were you, I would be so emberrassed as to make a new name for yourself and come back when you can have a more appealing entry.

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

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-10-2002]


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-10-2002 11:10 AM TrueCreation has taken no action

blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 8 (15127)
08-10-2002 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006
08-09-2002 9:45 PM


All of that was from talkorigins, which is incidentally copyrighted by Tom Scharle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-09-2002 9:45 PM acmhttu01_2006 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 08-10-2002 11:12 AM blitz77 has taken no action

acmhttu01_2006
Unregistered


Message 4 of 8 (15139)
08-10-2002 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
08-10-2002 1:02 AM


To the rest of the group,
Yes, This was from another web site. I am sorry that I have plagarized, this is not good. I will say this, I am glad that I have been found out the first time it has happened.
I am not that aware of the seriousness of the consequences of plagarism, other than the fact that you can get up to full and permanent suspension from TTU. To think, that I did something against the codes of TTU and my personal codes, yes I do regret it.
As to starting out in whatever I do start out, I open it with debate and non-traditional methods. I have never tried plagarism, and I now see that it does not work.
To the replies to the original post, Ok, I messed up. That is something I do not say often. Am I embarassed? Yes. Am I so embarrassed that I am going to tuck my tail between my legs and take off running and never come back? No. I do not think that is the answer. I am willing to face up to those, who have pointed this out to me. I am willing to face the consequences and the opnions others hold about me becuase of this. I believe that by this act, that would be a consequence.
Am I going to change my screen name, no, it will cause me to remember this act of plagarism and everytime I log in with it, not just the group, then I will remember. The name is there for a reason with the TTU attached. It is to remind to to act in the manner that represents TTU. For once, I have failed, and of that I apologize to the University for this and to the rest of the group, and most importantly myself.
Was this act deliberate? [Hope that is not mispelled, do not have time to go and look it up in the dictionary.] No, I am new to groups and things such as this, I usually do post things with the links, such as my group that I run about TTU. And yes, the rules were always there, I really have no excuse for this one.
And, I did go to sleep on this, and it was my intention to have things changed and credited to their proper sources this morning. I did think about my actions and read the plagarism section in my catalog and the Student Code. Convicted by these, I resolved to go and change the posts when I woke up. I am sorry, that they were changed by others.
Okay enough of that bent. I am not here to bash anyone for their opnions, unless it is reached in a very unscientific way or it has "fundie" spread all through it.
If I offend others, I apologize. One of my advisors recommended this site and told me to go at it.
Do I enjoy this? Not really. The ways and methods I have been taught debate are brutal and not really considerate to others. I have been to state in debate for three years in HS. I am not proud of the way we got there. I have debated "fundies" and other creationist to the delight of one of my professors. They have changed their faith becuase I have revealed a "thoery". I really do not have a problem with defining evolution as a thoery. To my debate methods and practices, I am sorry. I will try to tone it down a little. If there is one thing in all of this, was coming off sarcastic.
I am very sarcastic, and this is a violatile [mispelled, am not good in spelling] area [evolution vs. creatiionsim].
Guys, I do not have many friends, the reason is probably apparent. My friends are my books, research, classes, and the things. I am taking 20 hours this fall and 25 hours this spring. I am concurrently enrolled in two universities. I am pursuing four majors, three at TTU and one at another institution. I am persuing two minors at TTU. Academia has always been my life. That, I could trust and become intimate with. Academia does not have the vices of humankind, including me. It is perfect in and of itself. Academia has never let me down or hurt me. I used to be a really nice person, until I got fed up with trust issues and other things. The sarcasm and cynicism turns most people away from me, and leaves me time with academia. Is this life good? Yes and No. Yes, in the only fact that I have done this for all my life since I was four. And No, it is a very unhappy existance, and yet sustaining at the same time.
I do not know why I have been this open. I am never open like this in real life or in the real world. Perhaps the fact that I cannot see or hear your thoughts, makes it easier.
What do I want most from life, [this is a hard one to pen] love and acceptance from others. Perhaps, in another post I will address this. Have I fully attained this? No. Does this bother me? Yes.
Guys, I have been honest with you. Understand, I felt that this had to be posted. I am sorry, if I have offended anyone. I will not withdraw from this group. I will try to tone it down.
You may think that this is a waste of time for this post to be posted. On the contrary, I do not feel that it has been a waste of time. This is my way of trying to make things right.
I will see you later.
Have a nice day.

------------------
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 1:02 AM TrueCreation has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by gene90, posted 08-10-2002 2:14 PM You have taken no action
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 08-10-2002 4:00 PM You have taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3054 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 8 (15141)
08-10-2002 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by blitz77
08-10-2002 8:00 AM


Good work Blitz and TC. I do wish people would write their own comments, or at least modify others' comments and include attribution because I would rather debate the source of those ideas, not a proxy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by blitz77, posted 08-10-2002 8:00 AM blitz77 has taken no action

gene90
Member (Idle past 3054 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 6 of 8 (15161)
08-10-2002 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by acmhttu01_2006
08-10-2002 11:10 AM


You admitted the lack of attribution and gave a commentary on why we shouldn't plagerize. That settles it for me. The Administrator has not made a statement but the other day he left the following message on the subject, reflecting a little of his philosophy on how the rules of the Board are enforced, especially involving newcomers: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=72&m=50#50 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=72&m=50#50">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=72&m=50#50

[QUOTE][B]Okay enough of that bent. I am not here to bash anyone for their opnions, unless it is reached in a very unscientific way or it has "fundie" spread all through it.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Ideas and opinions should be bashed, not the people, even if they are unscientific or fundamentalist. Of course that is a standard none of us completely live up to.

[QUOTE][B]On the contrary, I do not feel that it has been a waste of time. [/QUOTE]

[/B]

Good. You have potential but you need experience in this forum and in this type of debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-10-2002 11:10 AM acmhttu01_2006 has taken no action

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 8 (15164)
08-10-2002 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by acmhttu01_2006
08-10-2002 11:10 AM


I agree with gene in the last post, and I think it would be wise to continue from this and come to something of a more scientific merit than for me to quibble on this scenario. As I said earlier I believe, you can be less scientifically general and be more specific in each thread.

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

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-10-2002 11:10 AM acmhttu01_2006 has taken no action

Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 8 of 8 (15187)
08-11-2002 7:57 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 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022