Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
47 online now:
jar, PaulK, PurpleYouko, ringo, scoff, Stile (6 members, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,688 Year: 9,436/23,288 Month: 451/1,544 Week: 165/561 Day: 5/63 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3820
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 19 of 141 (10373)
05-25-2002 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by TrueCreation
05-25-2002 10:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I must ask some of the Creationists here to quite persisting in acquainting any intelligent board such a this with Hovind, Brown, and some Wyatt material. It is comparably annoying to me as a Creationist as the question of why there are no transitionals or why monkeys still exist if we evolved from them to the Evo. There is a more logical, as well as a more intelligible way of addressing the History of the Earth as well as every other scientific study.


TC, is this because of that Hovind mp3 file link I relayed?

Might I sense that you are making the transition from YEC to OEC?

Let's hear you say good things about uniformitarianism now!

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by TrueCreation, posted 05-25-2002 10:21 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 05-25-2002 11:10 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3820
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 25 of 141 (10390)
05-27-2002 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Philip
05-26-2002 10:08 PM


quote:
--Who stated one cannot use ‘science’ or the ‘scientific method’ to make theories on both the existence and nature of the ‘supernatural’? The supreme court, the biologist, the physicist, the physician, Huxley, Einstein… who?

To me it seems that the phrase "nature of the supernatural" is an oxymoron. What is the nature of something outside of nature? I guess, however, anyone is welcome to try to pull the "supernatural" into being part of the "natural". Have you a proposal on how one would find scientific evidence of God's existance?

quote:
--Scientific method never limits lofty inquiry because of some bigoted mutationalist point of view (or bigoted YEC point of view).
--Please stop this cantankerous chicanery of limiting science to the ToE. Such a ‘scientist’ (falsely so called) appears to be perpetrating fraud on the unsuspecting public by his/her biased vindication, alone (like the creationists did during the dark ages). The scientific method is free to all, that workable theories be made to deal with reality.

I don't really know what to make of this. I looked up both "biased" and "vindication" in Websters; I still don't know what a "biased vindication" is. Seemingly, you are taking offense at scientific study building on the results of previous solid scientific study.

quote:
--Relativistic science phenomenon (which ‘appear’ supernatural compared to mere Newtonian ‘laws’) invalidates many dating techniques of ‘the history of the earth’, specifically many radiometric ones.
--When might YECs, OECs, ToEs and ToMs ever include cosmic relativistic science in their ‘scientific’ scheme(s), to correct the gross inconsistencies between radiometric and solar clocks, especially, and those temporal inconsistencies found in the GC.

Please define what a "solar clock" is. What are the "temporal inconsistencies" that are found in the geologic column? Are you heading for that Humphries (sp?) concept of the earth having been at or behind the event horizon of some massive object?

quote:
--ID will always be inferred, scientifically, whether for a Honda or for a universe. The nature of the cosmic ID will always be inferred (eg., ‘creating’, ‘cursing’, ‘restoring’) based on the observed data. ID is thus without excuse, scientifically. Only the nature of the ID is open to question.
--Speciation is so arbitrary and insignificant; it infers no gross ToM (theory of mutation), unless mutations are demonstrated to veritably overcome the organism’s ‘set-in’ complexities, right? The ToM has failed to demonstrate ANY significant beneficial mutation (for a reproductively ongoing population), even by gene splicing. And what about the ka-zillions of such incredible mutations necessary to form a viable organism, right? So admit it. The ToM is a deluded self-deceiving fraud like the Haitian Voodoo.

I don't wish to get into ID, other than to note that it is (as I understand it) an OEC mechanism. To me, Behe's variety of ID is 99.99% evolution, with a little tweeking by God. In general, I stay clear of the biology; my mind is strained enough just sticking to geology. As for Haitian Voodoo, I believe there is some scientific reality behind it. Are not the "zombies" persons who have been drugged into a deep coma, which mimics death?

quote:
--I humbly request anyone: Dr. Taz, Gene, Moose, Darwin_T, Shraf, Percy, TC, and/or others to debate any of the above statements. Please pardon any and all ‘wrong’ statements, discrepancies, etc., as I, too, have been self-deceived by numerous multi-tiered and unchecked biases’.

Well, I took my little stab at it.

Best regards,
Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Philip, posted 05-26-2002 10:08 PM Philip has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020