Ignorance is nothing to be proud of, nor should it be embraced. Rather, ignorance needs to be eliminated and the means by which it is eliminated is
learning. The problem for creationists is that their entire approach is based on their ignorance and their success depends on their victims' ignorance. Their claims, including the 15 "gems" that this topic is based on, are based on their ignorance and so end up being incredibly ridiculous, utterly ludicrous. It would be hilarious if creationists weren't so intent on destroying science education. Well, of course, they feel that they must, because their greatest enemy is knowledge; the only way their way of ignorance can survive is to preserve their high levels of ignorance, so they must do everything they can to prevent anyone from learning the truth. Most of all, they must protect themselves from ever learning the truth, because they believe that that would cause them to become atheists. Like what happened to agent_509 in the recent
Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC topic and to many of our former-YEC forum members. And ironically, little Jimmy Stephens, the OP, is from Livermore, CA, where in 1981 teacher Ray Baird used ICR materials to teach a "balanced treatment" class, which resulted in some of the 10 year old students doing what the creationist materials repeated implored them to do, they made their choice
to become atheists. The entire story of Ray Baird's misguided class is at
LIVERMORE 1981: Creation Science in the Classroom - A Case Study.
quote:
JP Hunt, student in Ray Baird's 1980 "balanced treatment" class at Emma C. Smith Elementary School, Livermore, CA, in "Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom", KPBS-TV, aired 7 July 1982:
"Someone that I know has become an atheist because of this class, because the creationist theory was so stupid, he thought. Well, if religion requires me to believe this, then I don't want to have any part of it."
And not surprisingly youth ministers are finding that about 80% of their youth who were raised all their lives on creationist and other fundamentalist ignorance end up abandoning their faith, many of them rejecting religion altogether. The problem with making your faith dependent on ignorance is that there is always the danger of learning the truth. Ignorance is a losing proposition:
quote:
The then-Governor of Mississippi explaining why he was campaigning so hard for education reform in his state:
"We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've already tried it!"
(Quoted from memory from a radio newscast circa 1990, give or take half a decade)
When are you ever going to finally realize that simple truth?
DWise1 writes:
So, no, it's not so complicated that "no one can explain it". But it does take a certain amount of thinking about it. So as long as you refuse to do due diligence, you're never going to understand it. Like with any other idea that exists.
So what exactly is your personal problem with the geological column? Care to explore that a bit?
Chuck77 writes:
Well yeah sure. Does the geologic column even exist?
Typical idiotic creationist nonsense based on abject ignorance:
quote:
Claim CD101:
The geological column is a fiction, existing on paper only. The entire geological column does not exist anywhere on the earth.
Source:
Huse, Scott, 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, p. 15.
Response:
1. The existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts.
Breaks in the geological column at any spot are entirely consistent with an old earth history. The column is deposited only in sedimentary environments, where conditions favor the accumulation of sediments. Climatic and geological changes over time would be expected to change areas back and forth between sedimentary and erosional environments.
2. There are several places around the world where strata from all geological eras do exist at a single spot -- for example, the Bonaparte Basin of Australia (Trendall et al. 1990, 382, 396) and the Williston Basin of North Dakota (Morton 2001).
Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column
Morton, Glenn, 2001. The geologic column and its implications to the Flood. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/ or http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm
References:
Morton, Glenn, 2001. (see above)
Trendall, A. F. et al., (ed.), 1990. Geology and Mineral Resources of Western Australia, Memoir 3. Geological Survey of Western Australia. State Printing Division, Perth.
The geological column is a composite based on empirical data. That is what it is taught to be, which reveals your and other creationists' ignorance to be even greater. Nothing in how it is taught or used requires that it physically exist nor would our understanding of the earth's geological history cause us to expect it to physically exist. Nonetheless, we do find 25 sites where the column does physically exist (
The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood ). Not every single layer, but at least representative layers from each geological age which verify that we did get the sequence right in our reconstructed column.
Now, if you weren't so ignorant of geology, you would realize that the long complex history of an old earth would entail each location to have experienced times of depositation and of erosion, such that we would be surprised to find any one location that had experienced only depositation and no erosion. However, since Flood Geology claims that those layers were deposited by The Flood, in which case Flood Geology would have us expect to find many sites that had only experienced depositation and therefore at which we would expect to find every single layer of the Column. So why don't we find that?
BTW, Glenn Morton started out a YEC and went to work as a field geologist having learned everything he knew about geology starting out from the ICR. He lost his faith in YEC after having to face rock-hard geological facts that he had been taught did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. His creationist drove him to the verge of atheism.
Now, please do everybody a favor and learn something about geology.
DWise1 writes:
And what exactly is your problem with finch beaks? More of the same?
No problem at all everything they needed to adapt was in their DNA. What's your problem?
I have no problem with the finches.
You're the one who has a problem with them.
The finch beaks is mainly of historical significance, because
they were part of Darwin's initial realization of the role of adaptation in changing a single ancestral form into several different descendant forms. They are a case in which adaptation had led to the creation of new species.
Please do yourself and us a favor and learn something about genetics and about Darwinian evolution. Do not use creationist sources, since they are lying to you and want to keep you ignorant.
Chuck77 writes:
What we do see is what the Bible says about kinds producing after their own kind. That we actually can observe.
DWise1 writes:
What evolution would predict would indeed be "kinds producing after their own kind". And that is exactly what we do observe. Do please inform us that that is not the case.
Kingdom: Animalia
Are we of the Kingdom Animalia? Are we animals? Yes we are.
Phylum: Chordata
Chordata. Are we vertabrates? Yes we are.
Class: Mammalia
Are we mammals? Yes we are.
Order: Primates
Are we primates? Yes we are.
Family: Hominidae
Are we of that family? Yes we are.
Tribe: Hominini
Are we of that tribe? Yes we are.
Subtribe: Hominina
Are we of that subtribe? Yes we are.
Genus: Homo
Are we of that genus? Yes we are.
Hello? Nested types? Hello? Hello? Hello?
Your "objections" are meaningless and amount to pure bullshit. Hello?
Get used to it.
Oh my. I don't even know what any of that means.
It is extremely simple and basic biology. Please do yourself and us a big favor and learn something about biology. Your constant clinging to ignorance really is tiring.
As, I would think, has already been explained to you many times, the idea is that of
nested hierarchies. That is what we observe and we observe it because of how organisms reproduce and evolve.
Let's start with some typical creationist ignorance nonsense. When a new species of moth evolves, the creationist response is, "But they're still moths!" No shit, Sherlock! They are also still insects and still animals too. None of which counters the fact that they are still a new species.
Another piece of ignorant creationist nonsense is the totally false claim that if evolution were true, then we would expect to see cats giving birth to dogs. That demonstrates the extreme ignorance of those creationists, since that is not at all what evolution would have us expect. Rather, we would expect descendant dog sub-populations under selective pressure to form new species of
dog and that, even if they were to go on to form a new higher taxon, they would still be a form of
dog, not cat or weasel.
IOW, evolution would have us expect to observe "producing after their own kind", which is what we do observe. As I pointed out in the case of Homo sapiens sapiens, we are of the "animal kind", of the "vertebrate kind", of the "mammal kind", of the "primate kind", of the "hominidae kind" (ie, apes), and of the "Homo kind" (ie, the genus of man).
Now do you understand that simple idea?
Now please do yourself and us a big favor and learn something about evolution.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
