Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 7:47 AM
44 online now:
Meddle, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (4 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,523 Year: 3,560/19,786 Month: 555/1,087 Week: 145/212 Day: 12/49 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Creationists are coming to town
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 1 of 36 (93337)
03-19-2004 9:10 AM


Hello to All:

I have a request and to be honest, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to be asking. Three creationists are coming to my town next month the enlighten us all on the "Scientific Merits of a Creationist World View". Oh boy...I can hardly wait. The presentation is by Dr. James A. Fryling (an organic chemist), Dr. Nigel Crompton (a molecular and cellular biologist), and Prof. Ron Meyers (chemistry and mathematics), all of whom are from Conerstone University. Does anyone out there know of these three gentleman? I have never heard of these guys so I am a bit unsure what, specifically, they will be talking about. If I knew in advance something about what these guys are going to discuss, I could be better prepared for questions at the end. Oh, I have a general idea what they're going to say (probability of proteins evolving by chance is too low to have happened, the eye is irreducibly complex, evolution is a religion, blah, blah, blah.), but if I knew more specifics about what the might bring up, I could be better prepared with some questions at the end of their wonderful talk. I will not get into a debate with them (I had the honor of meeting and talking with Stephen Jay Gould and he told me to never get into a debate with someone at their own presentation. He said: "He who has the microphone controls the debate and will win every time.", so I know better than to try to stump these guys), but I would like to at least ask them a question or two, if at all possible.
Anyway, that's basically my request. Can anyone help me out with information about these three guys? I apologize if this is not the correct place to ask and will gladly "move" to a more proper location if that is required. None-the-less, I would really appreciate any help I can get.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 03-19-2004 9:54 AM FliesOnly has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Buzsaw, posted 03-19-2004 9:59 AM FliesOnly has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 03-19-2004 10:10 AM FliesOnly has not yet responded
 Message 12 by skylark2002, posted 04-06-2004 1:30 PM FliesOnly has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 2 of 36 (93343)
03-19-2004 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by FliesOnly
03-19-2004 9:10 AM


www.cornerstone.edu

All three are from the Science & Mathematics Division of Cornerstone University (catchphrase: The Truth to a Greater Degree) headed by Ron Meyers, Division Chair.

I found this info about Dr. Nigel Crompton at http://www.skepsis.nl/creation.html:

The lecture of cell biologist Dr. Nigel Crompton (1959), who works at the University of Zurich as the head of a laboratory, is about the molecular biological background of aging. He thinks the old age of Methuselah (969 years) can be explained in two ways: astronomical (a change of the solar year) or biological. It is a sound lecture with interesting slides in which the biology of aging is explained and a reference to the Flood could just as well have been absent. The latter he remarks himself. He concludes with a speculation: in a perfect world there exists no fundamental reason why people could not enlarge their present life-span by a factor of eight, like in Genesis 5. He speaks about a special vitamin that could stimulate this process. 'In our imperfect world, consumption of such a vitamin would be similar to consumption of a potent carcinogen.' However, after his lecture Crompton does take the Bible and reads us Isaiah.

There's a longer statement of his position on Baraminology at http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/Dec01.pdf. If you Google Cromptom with Baraminology you'll find more.

I found nothing on Meyers or Fryling's involvement with Creationism. Cromptom only recently joined the Cornerstone faculty last year.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by FliesOnly, posted 03-19-2004 9:10 AM FliesOnly has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 36 (93344)
03-19-2004 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by FliesOnly
03-19-2004 9:10 AM


Yah, they've got the mic, but if you've got adequate refutation, you should be able to make your statement with some effect. If they're rude and cut you off, that makes it's own statement to the audience. I doubt they will be unfair, but am not aware of these men.

It works both ways. In the public schools and secular universities, the teachers and professors have the mike so to speak and all the creos are allowed little to no voice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by FliesOnly, posted 03-19-2004 9:10 AM FliesOnly has not yet responded

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3947 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 36 (93345)
03-19-2004 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by FliesOnly
03-19-2004 9:10 AM


Well, I don't know anything about their lecture, but you might want to know a bit about the protagonists.

In the first place, Cornerstone U is an ultra-religious YEC fundy Christian School (see their Statement of Faith). It's a small (~2000 students) private school. It IS accredited by the DoE Commission on Higher Education, so it's not a Patriot U type of place. However, a glance at their course catalog for science makes one wonder if any of their graduates ever get a real job. A couple of examples:

quote:
SCI 100 Foundations of Scientific Inquiry 4/1
This course is designed to introduce students to the role and importance of the sciences in studying God’s general revelation in both nature and themselves. A Christian philosophy of science is developed that demonstrates to the student the utility and value as well as the limitations of the natural and social sciences as tools for the empirical investigation of God’s creation. Through both classroom and laboratory experience, the student is introduced to the scientific method as a means of knowing from the perspective of a Christian worldview. Integrated lecture and lab.

BIO 241 Anatomy and Physiology I 4/2
A systems approach to the structure and function of the human body with special emphasis on disease process as it relates to dysfunction along with practical applications for a life-style of healthful living. Includes integumentary, skeletal, muscular, nervous, and endocrine systems. Laboratory experiences will use microscopic and lab animal investigation. Stresses the homeostatic function and intricacy of the body and its analogies to the Body of Christ, the Church. Lecture and lab. This course satisfies the core requirement for Lab Science.

SCI 111 Physical Science 4/1
Introduction to the explanation and understanding of the natural, non-living world. The processes of information gathering and organizing will be stressed as they relate to the fields of physics, chemistry, geology and astronomy. Emphasis will be given to the biblical framework for each of these disciplines. Lecture and lab. This course satisfies the core requirement for Lab Science.


The traveling circus that's coming is composed of one supposed biologist (Crompton), an organic chemist (Fryling), and a theologian (Meyers). These guys do have good educational backgrounds in their fields, although I can't find out specifics about Crompton, which is suspicious in itself as the others aren't shy about what their degrees are in. Here's their education:

Crompton:

B. Sc.(hons), Victoria University of Manchester, England
M. Sc., Victoria University of Manchester, England
Ph. D., Justus Liebig Universitaet, Giessen, Germany
D. Sc., Universitaet Zuerich, Zurich, Switzerland

Meyers:

Th. B. (Bachelor of Theology), Baptist Bible Seminary
B. A. Harpur College, SUNY at Binghamton
M. A. Syracuse University
Th. M. (Master of Theology), Western Theological Seminary
Ph.D. in Philosophy, Syracuse University

Fryling:

B. S. in Chemistry, US Air Force Academy
M. S. in Organic Chemistry, University of Arizona
Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry, University of Arizona

An interesting quote from Crompton:

The overwhelming benefit of teaching at Cornerstone after coming from secular academia is to be able to teach and reason about God's handiwork from a Biblical perspective rather than being expected and even required to teach it from a godless standpoint.

You might be able to get some ideas from the above. Figure on them playing either a Gish Gallop or a Ham humor+rapid-fire-evangelizing approach. I doubt they're going to be open to questions, but I'll bet they're quick with the facile answers. Let us know how it comes out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by FliesOnly, posted 03-19-2004 9:10 AM FliesOnly has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 03-19-2004 10:22 AM Quetzal has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 5 of 36 (93346)
03-19-2004 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Quetzal
03-19-2004 10:10 AM


The degrees for Meyers don't look right. He claims only an MS in his bio at Cornerstone, and in a short interview (Meyers Interview) he says his graduate degree is in biochemistry.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 03-19-2004 10:10 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 03-19-2004 10:32 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3947 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 36 (93347)
03-19-2004 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
03-19-2004 10:22 AM


Ack, you're right. Here's the corrected cv:

B. A. in Chemistry & Mathematics, Cedarville University
M. S. in Biochemistry - The Ohio State University

Who'd have thunk there would be a Ron Mayers and a Ron Meyers teaching at the same school? The cv I posted was Mayers with an "A".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 03-19-2004 10:22 AM Percy has not yet responded

Matthew
Inactive Junior Member


Message 7 of 36 (93759)
03-21-2004 9:38 PM


Maybe you should go to the seminar hoping the professors will teach you something instead of expecting not to learn anything new. If you go there not willing to listen, why bother going?
Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by FliesOnly, posted 03-22-2004 7:44 AM Matthew has not yet responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 8 of 36 (93813)
03-22-2004 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Matthew
03-21-2004 9:38 PM


Matthew:

Who said I was going there not willing to listen? If you are implying that perhaps these professors are going to give us all some new discovery in science that will set the world of evolutionary biology on it's head, well I have my doubts. I have attended creationist programs in the past and have always heard the same old stuff, so I guess I am just assuming that this one will be like all those others. But as always, I will go there with an open mind.

So why bother going, you ask? Well for once I would like to ask a question or two at the end. If, for example, the "probablilty of a protein evolving by chance is too low to have happened" argument is brought up, I would like to ask the professor if he really has no idea how to perform statistics or if he is intentially misleading the audience? Or if they mention how "radiometric dating is extremely inaccuarate", I'd like to ask them if they honestly think that literally thousands of scientists don't know this or are lying to protect some gigantic evolution conspiracy? Maybe they'll bring up the irreducibly complex nonsense and I can ask them about some of the many fatal flaws to that argument that I have read about right here at this very web site.

I guess I'm sick and tired of just setting there and letting these people tell such utter nonsense and fabrications that I feel it is worth personal humiliation and ridicule just to ask them a question or two. But who knows, maybe I'll be surprised and they will be honest with their audience and very early on in the presentation will admit that nothing they are about to say can in anyway be considered scientific nor can it be offered up as a viable alternative to the Theory of Evolution. Wouldn't that be a nice change.

Oh, and before I forget...thanks to the people who have supplied me with some info on these guys. As it turns out, a friend of mine has a colleague that specializes in the aging process.

[This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 03-22-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Matthew, posted 03-21-2004 9:38 PM Matthew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Denesha, posted 03-22-2004 7:58 AM FliesOnly has responded

Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 36 (93814)
03-22-2004 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by FliesOnly
03-22-2004 7:44 AM


Dear Fliesonly,

Your strategy is fine. Well prepared seem to be a rich idea.
But haven't you underestimated the fact that they also read
statements on this forum, especially this topic?

It's dangerous to debate of this on a public place.
The surprize effect could be unexpected.

Denesha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by FliesOnly, posted 03-22-2004 7:44 AM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by FliesOnly, posted 03-22-2004 8:31 AM Denesha has responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 10 of 36 (93816)
03-22-2004 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Denesha
03-22-2004 7:58 AM


Denesha:

Yes, I'm well aware of the "dangers" of debating this, and I'm sure I'd get creamed as a result. However, if they do bring up these topics (especially the protein thing) I feel I have to do something. I mean, if they try to show that a protein could not have evolved because the probability is too low, I have to point out that they are either not aware of how calculate a probability or that they are lying. It's one of the two, and it should be mentioned in public.

Ya know, I am open to suggestions on how to handle this issue. I certainly don't want to call them liars, as I'm sure they have dealt with this issue in the past and know how to BS their way out of it. Should I just play stupid and ask them to explain how they calculated the probability and point out errors as they go along? I'm not a mathematitian and would certainly not do well in a debate about math, but I do know that you cannot look at a string of amino acids, calculate that probability of that sequence (which will be an incredibly low value) and then state that the protein had to have been designed.

Or would it be best to just keep my mouth shut and go home at the end?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Denesha, posted 03-22-2004 7:58 AM Denesha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Denesha, posted 03-22-2004 8:53 AM FliesOnly has not yet responded

Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 36 (93817)
03-22-2004 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by FliesOnly
03-22-2004 8:31 AM


Dear Fliesonly,

I prefer your plan B (second section). Silly questions.

I believe them more aware of any high tech question/answer conter-offencives but less documented in "low" level questions or statements.
I'm not sure it's the best solution but at least, playing the "village idiot" will preserve you to be smashed in piece when they
will decide to throw you out door.

Hang on, you have supporters here.

Denesha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by FliesOnly, posted 03-22-2004 8:31 AM FliesOnly has not yet responded

skylark2002
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 36 (98115)
04-06-2004 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by FliesOnly
03-19-2004 9:10 AM


Hey!

I am a student of Cornerstone University and am involved in the science program there. I would like to know your response to the lecture after you have attended. Also, I may be able to answer whatever questions you may have about Cornerstone or the science program.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by FliesOnly, posted 03-19-2004 9:10 AM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by FliesOnly, posted 04-07-2004 2:27 PM skylark2002 has not yet responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 13 of 36 (98440)
04-07-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by skylark2002
04-06-2004 1:30 PM


Hello skylark2002:

I'm not sure where to begin or what to say. I guess I’ll start with this, just so I’m up front about it. Early on in the talk Dr. James A Frying posted portions of things some of us (mostly me) wrote earlier on this thread. I’m sorry to anyone that responded to my earlier post and didn’t want their words to be brought up at a creationist presentation as a means of showing how confrontational we evolutionists can be. I should have known better, and for that I am sorry. I would also like to note that there was a strong assertion that evolutionary biologists are atheist baby killers and I for one don’t appreciate the subtle little things Dr Frying implied about abortion and how it relates to The Theory of Evolution. It’s a disgusting assertion to make and has nothing what-so-ever to do with valid scientific research.

Let me also point out that the question and answer period was not what I expected. Questions had to be written down on a note card and then some kid got to read the ones he felt like reading. This method basically prevented any sort or real discussion from getting started, and allowed the panel of experts to say anything they wanted without fear of a follow-up question or being asked to explain their answer. As an example, one question did ask about the vapor canopy and how it might have played a role in the global flood. The answer given was something along the lines that the vapor canopy idea is no longer in-vogue within the creationist community and that the Bible does give lots of other ideas and indications as to where enough water to flood the entire Earth may have come from. That was it! They made no attempt to tell us where it did come from. They made no attempt to explain all the problems associated with the rate at which the water needed to arrive. They made no attempt to explain where this water has since gone. Dr. Frying did mention Mars and the fact that we believe it once had water but no longer does. Was he trying to suggest that the water for the flood came from Mars? Of course, that might explain why Mars no longer has water but doesn't really address the problem of where it has gone to since. Maybe it took off and flew to Uranus.

Dr. Fryling also repeatedly said throughout the presentation that he is "not foolish, stupid, or a liar". Now, neither Dr. Crompton nor Mr. Meyers made this claim, but I think I can safely assume that they would agree with it about themselves as well (if this is not the case then I apologize). I only mention this because as the talk progressed, more and more things were said that made me really question the validity of that statement.

For example, during the question and answer period Dr. Crompton addressed the issue of the Ark. He said that there need only have been about 1,500 hundreds animals on the Ark! Only 1,500!! Are you friggen kidding me? And better yet, he said they were all herbivores. Really? They all ate plants. And your evidence for this, Dr. Crompton, is what? Better yet, if all the animals on the Ark were herbivores, why have we not found any fossils of an herbivorous T-Rex? Earlier, one of the three (Dr, Fryling, Dr. Crompton, or Mr. Meyers, I honestly can’t remember which) stated that the dinosaurs went extinct shortly after the Ark had landed. Now, keeping in mind that this was only 4,000 years ago at best, would someone like to explain the unbelievable fast evolutionary processes that would have been required to change and herbivorous T-rex into a carnivorous animal, then for them all to go extinct, and then for them to fossilize in such an incredibly short period of time. Wait…I can now explain the extinction of the dinosaurs! It had nothing to do with a meteor hitting the Earth. It was cholesterol. Their digestive system couldn’t adapt quickly enough from the vegetarian diet they had when the got on the boat to the new, meat only, diet they had when they got off. They all died of heart attacks! Thanks Dr. Crompton, for allowing me to become rich and famous by being the guy that determined why the dinosaurs really went extinct. Isn’t bogus science great! But seriously, creationists always talk about the lack of transitional fossils. Now it’s my turn. Where are the herbivorous T-Rex fossils?

And are we really suppose to believe that one “kind” (oh, I should mention that Dr. Crompton said that the “creationist kind” would be roughly equivalent to “Family” in the biological hierarchy system) of Felidae has given rise to all the cats we see now? In only 4,000 years! Did the two original cats…let’s say they were lions…so did the two original lions get off the boat, hump, and produce a tiger, a cheetah, and a serval? Each of these then quickly dispersed, humped, and then themselves produced some of other species of cats. And while this rapid speciation was going on they were all also “shedding” their herbivory and evolving into carnivores? And that’s just for the Family Felidae. What about beetles?…there are over a million species of beetle. How about Canids? Not all Canids can crossbreed, despite Dr. Crompton’s assertion that they can. For that matter neither can many members of Felidae. Crossbreeding is pretty rare, to say the least, at the Family (or as the creationists call it “Kinds”) level. And yet these guys claim that they are not “foolish, stupid or liars”.

Many times, during this story hour, Dr Fryling talked about how, if he asked a question on an exam and a student didn’t know the answer but wrote “God did it”, that he would mark it wrong. Good for him. However, what if he asked “Please explain where the water for the global flood come from, and how it would be possible for the water not to be boiling hot nor carry the top soil completely away when it receded, and also explain where exactly it recede to?” Wouldn’t he then have to accept “God did it” as the only answer (so much for science)?

I guess it can all be summed up quickly if we listen to what Dr Frying said about science. He said that he accepts quite a few things scientists (even evolutionary biologists) say…up to a point. However, he went on to say that once the scientific conclusions contradict the Bible, then the science is wrong. Plain and simple…the Bible is always right, no matter the evidence to the contrary. No “ifs”, “ands”, or “buts”, about it. If science says one thing and the Bible says another, then without even attempting to look at the science, according the Dr Fryling the science is plainly and simply wrong. And yet we scientists are often times called closed or narrow minded….astounding to say the least.

So, skylark2002, my response to how I felt about the presentation was that it was perhaps the most ridiculous pile of nonsense I have ever sat through, and keep in mind that I have been to a few other creationist presentations. I am stunned that in this day and age, in a relatively well educated group of people, that someone can get up in front of me on a college campus and with a straight face tell me that the dinosaurs were all herbivores prior to the flood, that they all got on the boat with Noah, that many of them became carnivores after getting off the boat a year later, and then promptly went extinct. That these same individuals would claim that they themselves are excellent, practicing scientists but that they flat out reject anything that contradicts the Bible absolutely floors me...seeing as how it totally goes against everything we stand for in real science. In a nut shell, skylark2002, I walked out of the auditorium in a state of shock, anger, and disbelief, but mostly I walked out with a feeling of deep sadness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by skylark2002, posted 04-06-2004 1:30 PM skylark2002 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Denesha, posted 04-07-2004 4:59 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 36 (98479)
04-07-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by FliesOnly
04-07-2004 2:27 PM


Dear Filesonnly,

Nice to hear about you and observe that you are still alive after this meeting. Never mind them. They will all fall down one of these days.

Have a nice day.

Denesha


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by FliesOnly, posted 04-07-2004 2:27 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

Kodiak
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 36 (99753)
04-13-2004 8:00 PM


I should start out by saying that I am a student in Cornerstone's science program as well, albeit a very small yet very dedicated group. I want to say that I discovered this site after your post and was interested to read some of the other threads. I was very impressed with your relative fairness on the subject. Usually the topic of origins brings out a lot of emotions and heated debate solves nothing. I am, however, not impressed with your last post.

If I may I'd like to say a couple things before answering any of your questions. To say that the study of evolution is an unbiased one would be unfair. I believe there is more to the subject than scientific theory. It is safe to say that Christians have alot at stake in the debate, but at the same time the same thing can be said about any evolutionist. Atheist or not, any evidence that supports the existence of a Creator is significantly dangerous to an evolutionist. It threatens to undermine the very foundations of their worldview. The existence of a creator has many implications such as the existence of a fixed moral standard. Dr. Fryling, by the way, never called anyone an atheist baby killer. What he said was that from our origins we must derive a moral law, one that values human life. The closest thing to a moral law that you can develop from evolution is survival of the fittest. I’d like to reiterate that this does not make or insinuate that anyone is a baby killer

In order to discuss this topic openly and fairly you must concede that evolutionists have more to lose than just their pride. Creationists are not the only ones that can be biased. While my next point may seem arbitrary or just deluded to you I must make it. It is a conclusion I have come to after much contemplation and frustration. Evolution is more than a science. It is a way of life. Examining our culture will give you many clues. Growing up I had always been deeply fascinated and moved by evolution. As a child it was The Land Before Time, then Jurassic Park, and later others like Contact and Mission to Mars. There were always the PBS shows like NOVA and the National Geographic magazines. All of these things romanticized the subject considerably. I was in love to say the least. There came a time in my life when I had to reconcile my faith with this science. I say all of this to say that the belief in evolution requires a worship of it.
I would like to make another point. Evolutionists argue that creationists are very narrow-minded. We limit science by forcing unnecessary restrictions upon it. I would counter by saying that true science requires boundaries or at least presuppositions. When we study science we must make the assumption that there is order in the universe and that we can somehow know it. Creationists make the presupposition that there is a Creator. When we study science we study his laws and designs. Without these limits we would not be able to form any theories.

As well I would like to consider the possibility that Origins falls outside the realm of true empirical science. We cannot observe it, we cannot isolate it in a lab, we cannot replicate it, and as far as I know we cannot test it. This should humble us all when taking up this discussion. In truth I believe we can at best only defend a position, but never prove it. I believe in the area of origins science has become far too presumptuous.

On your first question of the canopy theory you ask a question as to its origin. If it did exist the answer is simple. It was most likely part of the original creation. You mentioned problems about the rate at which water needed to arrive. I don’t know what those specific problems might be. You’ll have to elaborate. Otherwise the Genesis account specifically states that “in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the sky were opened.”

You also mentioned the “kinds,” and the number of animals on the ark. You complained that that was not enough to supply everything we have today. You would have us believe that everything here came from a single celled prokaryotic amoeba. I think the first theory is far more plausible. Firstly we would limit this to land dwelling animals and insects. As far as speciation is concerned I believe that that is a more than substantial number. We do it all the time with breeding; pigs, cows, cats, especially dogs. It is amazing the different varieties we can come up with in only a few generations of selective breeding. They range from the size of a small bear to smaller than a basketball. As far as the herbivorous T-Rex I am not familiar with this theory. I do know, however, that it is entirely realistic. You are assuming that some evolutionary process was required to allow the T-Rex to change its diet. You are also assuming that it became entirely carnivorous which cannot be substantiated. Dogs eat dog food that has no meat in it. Bears can survive on nuts and berries. Omnivorous humans can flourish on an entirely vegetarian diet. As far as handling the beast it is also useful to understand that before the Flood men had complete dominion over animals. It was only after the Flood that God gave Noah the ordinance to eat the animals, at which point he instilled in them a fear of men.

Now I want to respond briefly to a few things you have said. I believe your analysis of the presentation was unfair. I regret to admit that I could not attend the story hour because I was in fact studying for one of Dr. Fryling’s Organic Chemistry tests. I am, nonetheless, rather familiar with the views of all three of my professor’s. I have tremendous respect for them and I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of them. Your response was a bit childish and it revealed that you never approached the subject objectively. Dr Fryling is an exceptional professor who goes above and beyond for his students. You made a point of critiquing his presentation because he did not provide you with answers to all the questions that you provided after the fact.

Because I do not believe that you approached the subject objectively I would like to respond and end with two questions for you. How much time would you have liked the professor to spend covering every point that could possibly come up in this type of debate? And what would be sufficient evidence to prove to you a Creator exists?

{Put in the blank lines - Adminnemooseus}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-13-2004]


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 04-13-2004 8:12 PM Kodiak has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Coragyps, posted 04-13-2004 10:44 PM Kodiak has not yet responded
 Message 27 by FliesOnly, posted 04-14-2004 1:49 PM Kodiak has not yet responded

1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019