Foreveryoung Discussions

While I appreciate percy's efforts to get all of the postings regarding me into one thread instead of clogging up other threads, I don't know if that will prevent that from happening. There is one thing that just about everyone who participated in this thread brought up. They all unanimously agreed that I needed to take a course in whatever101 in all the major subjects. What they fail to recognize is that I have taken all of those 101 courses. Just because I pass a course doesn't mean that I agree with all the conclusions drawn by them. Another thing, is that many of my disagreements with posters on here regarding subjects they deem I am ignorant of are on sub sections of those subjects. They are the po litically controversial ones that many textbooks either avoid or professors avoid or just lightly touch on. The nub of the problem between me and most people on this forum is based on the fact that because I do not agree with their conclusions on 101 subjects taught in college, I must have never taken those courses or even exposed myself to them. This is arrogance and the basis for the intractable hostility between me and them. Their are so myopic in their thinking because they only talk to people who generally agree with them on these issues. They haven't been exposed to cogent, coherent arguments to the contrary. Because of this, they are unaware that there are other valid positions to be taken on many of the issues brought up here and that leads them to conclude that those who disagree with them are just simply ignorant. This is what makes you all stand in agreement with each other and state that I need to take all the basic college courses on every subject available. I am sorry, but college is not supposed to be an indoctrination program, but from the looks of you who have graduated from college and earned higher degrees, it doesn't look like that is the case. You guys don't even realize that you have been indoctrinated. That is how severe it is. I don't buy stuff intellectually hook line and sinker because it comes from a prof. I certainly don't buy it from you "educated" guys. It takes me a long time before I eventually come around to believing some things. It took me a very long time to eventually come around to believing the earth is indeed very, very old. Some of you will say that what keeps me from believing things for a very long time is my belief in God and a mostly literal bible. When those beliefs and the consensus of modern science are in contradiction, I am indeed slow to change my mind. Sorry if that bothers people but God is as real to me as the air I breathe. I have also come to the conclusion that I believe in a vastly different God than that of jar and nwr and others on here. That is also what makes me see things differently than they do.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

One semester of physics and two semesters of chemistry. All sciences are divided into those for science majors and those for non science majors. I have taken all science major physics and chemistry and biology. This semester will also conclude 2 semesters of biology.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

The main evidence that has always been presented to me are the radiometric dates given for meteorites and various rocks. I got around that by the possibility of accelerated radioactive decay. People would bring up the heat problem but I had answers for them as well. It was the mechanism for accelerated decay that was the biggest problem for me. By looking for answers to this problem on the web, I found out that an accelerated speed of light could provide the mechanism for accelerated radioactive decay. I was told that an accelerated speed of light would pose many problems because the speed of light was part of certain physical equations and would manifest itself in obvious ways. I got around that by saying that all the physical constants changed in tandem in such a way that no physical manifestation would show. Unless there was an underlying mechanism that could be responsible for such a change in all the constants in tandem, it was very much a case of hand waving. The only mechanism possible was a change in the very fabric of space that is measure by the zero point energy. Setterfield has not shown how a change in the zero point energy could change all the constants in tandem to where there would be no noticeable change in reality. That is the starting tension that I had.What changed it for me was how radiometric dates matched exactly with isotope ratios for climate related extinction events. I am doing a term paper on the "sixth great extinction" in a class called paleobiology. In going over the various opinions of scientists on the causes of the past 5 great extinctions, measurements of particular radioisotopes that are related to climate and are a proxy for conditions that are thought to be causes of extinction, I came to the conclusion that things fit like a hand in glove with the radiometric dates. You cannot accelerate things like climate proxies in isotope ratios. Two separate phenomena that could not possibly influence one another were in such PRECISE agreement, I could not possibly maintain my position any further without a total denial of reality.What finally pushed me over the edge happened on another theology website that I have frequented over the years. Someone finally took the time to explain to me what it meant for an ancient writing to be in mythological form. I always fought against this notion because the atheists always said genesis was mythological, but they meant it as in a complete fabrication or fairy tale. When it was explained to me that mythological writing can be about completely real historical phenomena, but written in such a way as to be understandable to mythologically thinking cultures, I was finally convinced. Genesis was telling me a true story. It was just written in a way that was not meant for people of my era who have a culture immersed in thought that has been with us since the age of enlightenment. Genesis is not going to give us a history of the earth or the universe that is scientific terms of the twenty first century. I did not have to abandon belief in the bible being completely true and accurate to also believe the earth was 4.56 billion years old. There was nothing else left now to stop me from believing it.

I was not indoctrinated into believing in an old earth. It took me from the time I first heard of the notion of an old earth to just recently to come to that conclusion. I came to that conclusion by long and hard thinking and trying my absolute best to come up with ways that it wasn't true. After all those efforts had failed, I had no choice but to believe it. That is not indoctrination; that is critical thinking. For you guys who believed it right off the bat without thinking of ways for it possibly to be not true, are guilty of being indoctrinated. You accepted what was told to you without thinking critically about it.

In my haste and ernestness, I may not have stated all the principles of evolution absolutely correctly, but I have also realized that many of you are not aware of the latest changes to evolutionary theory that are not quite accepted by all biological scientists. For one thing, not all biological scientists believe in panselectionism. When you allow for other possiblities for evolutionary change besides random mutation and natural selection, you open yourself to many other possibilities that some biological scientists are now pursuing. I found out about this in my paleobiology text written by Donald Prothero.

I am fully aware of what the physics textbooks say on everything that I have discussed with you. All I am doing is challenging what they say. I thought that the nature of science but perhaps that is not longer what science is about anymore.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Have you REALLY tried to find them in sources outside of this forum?

I was actually referring to much more than creationism. There have been many more topics discussed here than that. If I remember correctly, I said that you all are dogmatic and cannot think of any other possibilities to certain issues than what you are familiar with because you only read things by people you generally agree with. I was referring to a wide range of topics on which all of you disagree with me on. I am saying cannot fathom of any other way to think about these things because you have not come across and coherent and cogent argument for them. It is my position that you have not looked hard enough.

I have linked to articles about global warming. I have linked to articles about politics. As I remember, you guys blew them off as quickly as they were posted without due consideration in my opinion.