Let me add that I have nothing against you Bolshevik. I like you. You have a good head on you, witty, and (if I recall your previous posts correctly) was smart enough to see through TWI even after growing up in it.
My beef is with this joke of a museum.
I would suggest if the source of whatever you believe came from TWI to apply the scientific method to it. By that I mean to question it severely. Try to disprove it, no matter what it is. If you can disprove it, then dump it. Otherwise, you're just a target for the next group to come along. School of hard knocks presented me with that bit of advice. And it seems to work rather well.
This museum claims the earth is only 6,000 years old, taking a literal reading of Genesis. How many fields of science have to be ignored to support this hypothesis? Archeology showing prior human existence, including cities? Geology with its mountains of evidence and many reliable dating methods (carbon-14 is not the only)? Thermo-dynamics? Cosmology? Astronomy, with its known speed of light and that the closest star to us (excluding our sun) is 4,500 light years away. If the earth and, by extension of Genesis, the universe is only 6,000 years old, the only thing you would see in the night sky are the planets in our solar system and maybe a couple other stars.
Let me add that I have nothing against you Bolshevik. I like you. You have a good head on you, witty, and (if I recall your previous posts correctly) was smart enough to see through TWI even after growing up in it.
My beef is with this joke of a museum.
I would suggest if the source of whatever you believe came from TWI to apply the scientific method to it. By that I mean to question it severely. Try to disprove it, no matter what it is. If you can disprove it, then dump it. Otherwise, you're just a target for the next group to come along. School of hard knocks presented me with that bit of advice. And it seems to work rather well.
This museum claims the earth is only 6,000 years old, taking a literal reading of Genesis. How many fields of science have to be ignored to support this hypothesis? Archeology showing prior human existence, including cities? Geology with its mountains of evidence and many reliable dating methods (carbon-14 is not the only)? Thermo-dynamics? Cosmology? Astronomy, with its known speed of light and that the closest star to us (excluding our sun) is 4,500 light years away. If the earth and, by extension of Genesis, the universe is only 6,000 years old, the only thing you would see in the night sky are the planets in our solar system and maybe a couple other stars.
I know the fields I study. I believed in evolution before I doubted it. I argued the "Why can't there be both evolution and the Bible" for a time. I know what I see. The more I see, the less I'm covinced of evolution. There are a number of books by non-evolution atheists, but I don't know of a museum run by them. I find this creation museum of great interest. It seems to me most people are completely ignorant of both sides of the argument(s). They just assume one or the other to be true.
IMO This museum made a lot of good arguments that need to be looked into.
Both this museum and the evolutionists can be wrong. Can they not?
Science is wrong all the time. But unlike religion, when contrary evidence is found, science corrects itself.
I really don't need to examine what this museum has to offer. It is known that they are dishonest with scientific facts. They also watched too many episodes of The Flintstones in claiming man lived with the dinosours.
But even more, it is based on texts I have already studied the origin of and found they are not what they claim to be. Not from a belief system, but from evidence. Hardcore solid evidence. If you're trying to proove something based on something else that has already been disproven, what's the point?
You sound like you had a faith-based biology teacher who was forced into teaching evolution and all he did was give you the holes in it.
You may be right about macro-evolution, if I'm thinking about the same thing. Don't know. Try reading The Selfish Gene some time. Some "good arguments that need to be looked at."
You sound like you had a faith-based biology teacher who was forced into teaching evolution and all he did was give you the holes in it.
. . .
Uh . . . no, I doubt that, since his lab is labeled ". . . Evolution . . ."
He and the other profs spent a lot of time explaining amazing things about molecular biology/genetics of cells. Amazing things. Truly amazing. But then they'd do something strange.
They'd take a known mechanism, (like poly-A tails, http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Poly_a_tail) and then say something like "Now, take this mechanism, and imagine such and such a situation . . . maybe . . . possibly . . .if there were a mechanism maybe. . .and such and such happened by chance. . . could result in new DNA sequences . . . new traits . . . evolution."
Just because part of a process is not understood does not mean the theory surrounding it is wrong.
Gravity is theory. No one understands how it works. Plenty of holes in it. Yet I don't think you dismiss the theory, no? If you jump off a building, your going to hit the ground going pretty fast without any understanding of how it works.
Same for evolution. It's the best theory that explains all the evidence. As more comes in, it is adjusted or corrected.
The theories presented in Genesis worked pretty good 2,000+ years ago, when the earth was flat, the sun and universe rotated around the earth and fossils were unknown. Someone forgot to update the text as more evidence came in though.
Just because part of a process is not understood does not mean the theory surrounding it is wrong.
Gravity is theory. No one understands how it works. Plenty of holes in it. Yet I don't think you dismiss the theory, no? If you jump off a building, your going to hit the ground going pretty fast without any understanding of how it works.
Same for evolution. It's the best theory that explains all the evidence. As more comes in, it is adjusted or corrected.
The theories presented in Genesis worked pretty good 2,000+ years ago, when the earth was flat, the sun and universe rotated around the earth and fossils were unknown. Someone forgot to update the text as more evidence came in though.
I gave just one example. This is a common trend. Therefore I cannot accept the theory of evolution as absolute.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the amount of "poop" that would have to be carted off. Of course if your in the habit of ignoring physical laws, then it's easy as pie.
Isn't this where the term *poop deck* originated???
Living fossils are organisms which are found in the fossil record, sometimes many millions of years ago, yet are still around today, and seem unchanged. Evolutionists say they were simply isolated in places and didn't need to change, or evolve. This could also suggest though that all organism types were around before the flood, some killed in the flood and following catastrophe's, and survived(in the ark or in the water). (Some being killed in the flood and continent division were fossilized).
And yet you have no problem following the Genesis biblical account, an account that is presented based on nothing more than on the premise of faith (like the rest of the Bible) seeing as the premise of faith is central to the book.
But actually, the reasoning that you are apparently having trouble with is more involved than the oversimplified
They'd take a known mechanism, (like poly-A tails, http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Poly_a_tail) and then say something like "Now, take this mechanism, and imagine such and such a situation . . . maybe . . . possibly . . .if there were a mechanism maybe. . .and such and such happened by chance. . . could result in new DNA sequences . . . new traits . . . evolution."
Updated due to finding said description of known mechanism:
Interesting, ... since nowhere have you shown any evidence that such an extrapolation been actually explained by evolutionary biologists as to why it's evolution. Explain please. :huh:
The whole process of discovery involved in the theory of evolution is, ... evolution. Ie., it evolves in the amount of information that paints the picture, the rendering of the theory of evolution.
Also keep in mind that, while neither rendering (evolution or creationism) is totally complete and lacking of 'holes in the argument', the theory of evolution has far more solidity to it than some 6 day young earth creationist theory. And in far more ways than I can count.
And ya know, I still have yet to get an answer to my question that I posted earlier in this thread:
Ask him what would he do (as a fellow scientist, and all) if he found evidence that clearly cut across and contradicted the Genesis account?
How would he handle that? ... Would he even consider the possiblity of that happening?
Or what would _you_ do in such a case? How would you handle it?
And ya know, I still have yet to get an answer to my question that I posted earlier in this thread:
Or what would _you_ do in such a case? How would you handle it?
I would probably toss my bible out. I don't read it anyway.
poly A tail
(Science: molecular biology) A sequence of adenine nucleotides that get added to the 3' end of some primary transcript messenger RNA molecules in eukaryotes during post-transcriptional processing. The added tail is believed to confer stability to the molecule.
histone mRNA do not have poly A tail. The poly A tail is added post transcriptionally to the primary transcript as part of the nuclear processing of rNA yielding hnRNAs with 60-200 adenylate residues in the tail. In the cytoplasm the poly A tail on mRNAs is gradually reduced in length.
The function of the poly A tail is not clear but it is the basis of a useful technique for the isolation of eukaryotic mRNAs. The technique uses an affinity column with oligo(u) or oligo(dT) immobilised on a solid support. If cytoplasmic rNA is applied to such a column, poly A rich RNA (mRNA) will be retained.
the prof explained that something like poly-As could work on DNA, adding new info. Of course, these are just adenine nucleotides, so mutations would have to occur. And in addition to that, useful ones, resulting in new proteins. New proteins would result to help bring new traits. This quite a stretch, and considering all "on-off" swithes in the sequence, the initiating protein, and the web of communication, to me, this is just wishful thinking.
I gave just one example. This is a common trend. Therefore I cannot accept the theory of evolution as absolute.
Go see the museum.
I'm sure you have many examples. Still doesn't disprove the theory, nor should it. That's how theory works. You keep working at it until all the holes are explained, proven, disproved, corrected, etc. But just b/c there are areas that are not understood does not disprove it, as it appears you are trying to do. By this logic, gravity doesn't exist.
And no one expects anyone to accept it as absolute.
Go see the museum? Probably would if they weren't trying to pawn it off as scientific fact. Would be amusing. But as it is, it's insulting.
I'm sure you have many examples. Still doesn't disprove the theory, nor should it. That's how theory works. You keep working at it until all the holes are explained, proven, disproved, corrected, etc. But just b/c there are areas that are not understood does not disprove it, as it appears you are trying to do. By your same logic, gravity doesn't exist.
And no one expects anyone to accept it as absolute.
Go see the museum? Probably would if they weren't trying to pawn it off as scientific fact. Would be amusing. But as it is, it's insulting.
I've discussed this on an earlier thread. (gravity and such)
You mentioned Dawkins. All I see in him and others is more religion.
Something is wrong with the current persuasion. I just want to find what it is.
This is a common trend. Therefore I cannot accept the theory of evolution as absolute.
Not as common as the gaping flaws in accepting the Genesis account as scientifically/historically factual. And I mean f'ing GAPING. As well as the lame, desperate theories/explanations that get 'doctored' up to look scientific to make young earth creationism look credible.
For one thing, consider 'Dr.' Hovind's explanation that light 'slows down' over the years, thus making stars that look like they're millions of light years away only in fact 6000 light years away. (And that's just one of many of laughable explanations that support Creationism) Or how about some of the not-so-scientific ones, like how fossils are 'the Devil's handiwork'? (Or God's handiwork, if you buy into the "He did it to test our faith" denomination. )
You seem to give the Creationists more leeway in overlooking their 'foo pahh' (fax paux misspelled deliberately to match pronounciation). Can't do that, particularly if they want to be included in the science classrooms.
There is no evidence of a global flood occurring 4,500 years ago. There is no evidence of a global flood ever occurring. If the entire earth was ever covered in water, it would leave a layer of sediment and be visible wherever you dug.
well, give them that it was a brief flood ... I want to know where all that water went ... it supposedly came from space, IIRC, but I don't think the atmosphere could absorb all that. If the earth used to water itself at night somehow ... (genesis?) the atmosphere would have sucked that water up. What are we talkin' about ... 26,000 feet above sea level ... 5 miles of water above sea level ... over the whole earth ... did the water go back out to space?
Life is pretty incredible, and I can't explain it ... but the whole flood thing is a pretty serious flaw in "the story" as I see it. Christian geoligists, trying to prove the story, have lost faith, as far as I know.
On one hand, the complexities of nature and the physical world strongly suggest there must be some superior, intelligent, driving force behind life on planet Earth.
It almost seems ludicrous that we consider it all to have happened randomly.
How does a parrot in the Amazon determine it must eat clay to neutralize the effects of toxic seeds?
On the other hand, there is powerfully persuasive evidence that, not only is evolution real, but it can happen at an excruciatingly slow pace or rapidly, as the circumstance dictates. There are plenty of examples of this in scientific journals.
Take our concept of God and religion out of the fracas for a moment and consider the possibility that perhaps it is humanly impossible to comprehend the complexity of the subject at hand.
And, like the concept of the limits defining eternity, why will it make one bit of difference in our day-to-day lives whether we know the answer or not?
Life was so much less complicated when we marveled at the beauty of a butterfly and gave no thought to its' origin.
Life is pretty incredible, and I can't explain it ... but the whole flood thing is a pretty serious flaw in "the story" as I see it. Christian geoligists, trying to prove the story, have lost faith, as far as I know.
:o :o ... Well, if that isn't one helluva indictment of Creationism, I don't know what is.
Others have the right to say what they think, regardless of recrimination from the opposing camp..
And when did we (or they) say (or indicate) that the other doesn't?
It's a sad commentary on whomever that decides to criticize those who do choose to advocate the museum of their choice.
Ya know, I don't entirely agree. Sure, sure, its a 'nice and polite' thing to carry on with 'agreeable' conversation; never criticizing and all, all peaches n' cream, our minds renewed to 'edifying' talk and all. ...... YA GADS! Shades of twigs, W.O.W. meetings and Christian Etiquette Classes by Dorethea Wierwille! :blink: :ph34r:
But seriously, (as long as folks don't get too seriously ad hominum here, intelligent and scrutinizing criticism is all a part of an open society (something that TWI was NOT, not by a l-o-n-g shot <_< ). As far as I'm concerned, you have a problem with my POV or opinion, and the content thereof, then bring on the contrary and opposite point of view. (You guys almost always do so in any event, ehh? ;) ) I might not care for the POV, and I might even get emotional in my response (Ok, so I actually do several times). But never will I say "Hey! You cannot voice that here! You cannot criticize me!"
And also, as far as I'm concerned, religious POVs should not be exempt from said criticism either, and if one can't maintain their faith, belief, trust, and certainty on a point of view when its challenged, well then, ... what does it say about their faith to begin with, hmmmm?
Life was so much less complicated when we marveled at the beauty of a butterfly and gave no thought to its' origin.
Yep. No Faith needed.
Now back to things that interesting. Back in Post #18 this animal was brought up as part of the hybrid discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babirusa
There was confusion as to what type of animal it was related to. Since it started breeding with pigs, it obvious that it belongs with other swine.
Linnaean taxonomy is a way of organizing all life into a "Family tree". As more species are found, extinct and extant, the more complicated the "Family Tree" becomes. This tree is also full of hypothetical branches to help connect everything under evolutionary theory. These branches (and limbs and twigs) are constantly being rearranged to "fit".
This swine IMO suggests that the creation theory is a much simpler way of organizing things. Figure out all the animal types, then simply have individual "family trees" for each type. New species should fit under an obvious animal group, and also should be expected to be able to breed with the rest in that tree. i.e. wooly mammoths, mastadons, African and asian elephants would all be expected to interbreed. (if you had them available.) Trying to find how elephants are related to sea cows and manatees is over complicating matters.
Link to a mummified dinosaur. More links follow the article.
IMO - what the creationists present is just simpler than current theories. Fossils come from animals killed in the Flood, or continent divide, thousands of years ago, not millions, and not due to random coincidental incidents.
Creationism is always easier. Any part you don't know you just say God did it. Takes all the effort of thinking out of it. The lazy mind approach.
And calling Richard Dawkins religious while extolling the virtues of creationism based on Genesis is like saying I'm still in TWI and here to witness for them.
I wish you could explain yourself better. You're making no sense.
A big statement in biology is "Form follows function". Yet one of the original arguments for evolution was vestigial organs. However, this is one argument that not only complicates the "Form follows function" idea with vestigial organs, but most vestigial organs turn out not to be vestigial organs at all.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
13
17
74
Popular Days
Jul 6
33
Jul 3
27
Jul 5
18
Jul 4
17
Top Posters In This Topic
GT 16 posts
oenophile 13 posts
GarthP2000 17 posts
Bolshevik 74 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2007
33 posts
Jul 3 2007
27 posts
Jul 5 2007
18 posts
Jul 4 2007
17 posts
GT
Let me add that I have nothing against you Bolshevik. I like you. You have a good head on you, witty, and (if I recall your previous posts correctly) was smart enough to see through TWI even after growing up in it.
My beef is with this joke of a museum.
I would suggest if the source of whatever you believe came from TWI to apply the scientific method to it. By that I mean to question it severely. Try to disprove it, no matter what it is. If you can disprove it, then dump it. Otherwise, you're just a target for the next group to come along. School of hard knocks presented me with that bit of advice. And it seems to work rather well.
This museum claims the earth is only 6,000 years old, taking a literal reading of Genesis. How many fields of science have to be ignored to support this hypothesis? Archeology showing prior human existence, including cities? Geology with its mountains of evidence and many reliable dating methods (carbon-14 is not the only)? Thermo-dynamics? Cosmology? Astronomy, with its known speed of light and that the closest star to us (excluding our sun) is 4,500 light years away. If the earth and, by extension of Genesis, the universe is only 6,000 years old, the only thing you would see in the night sky are the planets in our solar system and maybe a couple other stars.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I know the fields I study. I believed in evolution before I doubted it. I argued the "Why can't there be both evolution and the Bible" for a time. I know what I see. The more I see, the less I'm covinced of evolution. There are a number of books by non-evolution atheists, but I don't know of a museum run by them. I find this creation museum of great interest. It seems to me most people are completely ignorant of both sides of the argument(s). They just assume one or the other to be true.
IMO This museum made a lot of good arguments that need to be looked into.
Both this museum and the evolutionists can be wrong. Can they not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Science is wrong all the time. But unlike religion, when contrary evidence is found, science corrects itself.
I really don't need to examine what this museum has to offer. It is known that they are dishonest with scientific facts. They also watched too many episodes of The Flintstones in claiming man lived with the dinosours.
But even more, it is based on texts I have already studied the origin of and found they are not what they claim to be. Not from a belief system, but from evidence. Hardcore solid evidence. If you're trying to proove something based on something else that has already been disproven, what's the point?
You sound like you had a faith-based biology teacher who was forced into teaching evolution and all he did was give you the holes in it.
You may be right about macro-evolution, if I'm thinking about the same thing. Don't know. Try reading The Selfish Gene some time. Some "good arguments that need to be looked at."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Uh . . . no, I doubt that, since his lab is labeled ". . . Evolution . . ."
He and the other profs spent a lot of time explaining amazing things about molecular biology/genetics of cells. Amazing things. Truly amazing. But then they'd do something strange.
They'd take a known mechanism, (like poly-A tails, http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Poly_a_tail) and then say something like "Now, take this mechanism, and imagine such and such a situation . . . maybe . . . possibly . . .if there were a mechanism maybe. . .and such and such happened by chance. . . could result in new DNA sequences . . . new traits . . . evolution."
Hello???
No. I won't follow that reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
I really don't understand your reasoning there.
Just because part of a process is not understood does not mean the theory surrounding it is wrong.
Gravity is theory. No one understands how it works. Plenty of holes in it. Yet I don't think you dismiss the theory, no? If you jump off a building, your going to hit the ground going pretty fast without any understanding of how it works.
Same for evolution. It's the best theory that explains all the evidence. As more comes in, it is adjusted or corrected.
The theories presented in Genesis worked pretty good 2,000+ years ago, when the earth was flat, the sun and universe rotated around the earth and fossils were unknown. Someone forgot to update the text as more evidence came in though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I gave just one example. This is a common trend. Therefore I cannot accept the theory of evolution as absolute.
Go see the museum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Isn't this where the term *poop deck* originated???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
Living fossils are organisms which are found in the fossil record, sometimes many millions of years ago, yet are still around today, and seem unchanged. Evolutionists say they were simply isolated in places and didn't need to change, or evolve. This could also suggest though that all organism types were around before the flood, some killed in the flood and following catastrophe's, and survived(in the ark or in the water). (Some being killed in the flood and continent division were fossilized).
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
But actually, the reasoning that you are apparently having trouble with is more involved than the oversimplified
Updated due to finding said description of known mechanism:
Interesting, ... since nowhere have you shown any evidence that such an extrapolation been actually explained by evolutionary biologists as to why it's evolution. Explain please. :huh:
The whole process of discovery involved in the theory of evolution is, ... evolution. Ie., it evolves in the amount of information that paints the picture, the rendering of the theory of evolution.
Also keep in mind that, while neither rendering (evolution or creationism) is totally complete and lacking of 'holes in the argument', the theory of evolution has far more solidity to it than some 6 day young earth creationist theory. And in far more ways than I can count.
And ya know, I still have yet to get an answer to my question that I posted earlier in this thread:
Or what would _you_ do in such a case? How would you handle it?
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I would probably toss my bible out. I don't read it anyway.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Poly_a_tail
the prof explained that something like poly-As could work on DNA, adding new info. Of course, these are just adenine nucleotides, so mutations would have to occur. And in addition to that, useful ones, resulting in new proteins. New proteins would result to help bring new traits. This quite a stretch, and considering all "on-off" swithes in the sequence, the initiating protein, and the web of communication, to me, this is just wishful thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
I'm sure you have many examples. Still doesn't disprove the theory, nor should it. That's how theory works. You keep working at it until all the holes are explained, proven, disproved, corrected, etc. But just b/c there are areas that are not understood does not disprove it, as it appears you are trying to do. By this logic, gravity doesn't exist.
And no one expects anyone to accept it as absolute.
Go see the museum? Probably would if they weren't trying to pawn it off as scientific fact. Would be amusing. But as it is, it's insulting.
Edited by GreasyTechLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I've discussed this on an earlier thread. (gravity and such)
You mentioned Dawkins. All I see in him and others is more religion.
Something is wrong with the current persuasion. I just want to find what it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Not as common as the gaping flaws in accepting the Genesis account as scientifically/historically factual. And I mean f'ing GAPING. As well as the lame, desperate theories/explanations that get 'doctored' up to look scientific to make young earth creationism look credible.
For one thing, consider 'Dr.' Hovind's explanation that light 'slows down' over the years, thus making stars that look like they're millions of light years away only in fact 6000 light years away. (And that's just one of many of laughable explanations that support Creationism) Or how about some of the not-so-scientific ones, like how fossils are 'the Devil's handiwork'? (Or God's handiwork, if you buy into the "He did it to test our faith" denomination.
)
You seem to give the Creationists more leeway in overlooking their 'foo pahh' (fax paux misspelled deliberately to match pronounciation). Can't do that, particularly if they want to be included in the science classrooms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
well, give them that it was a brief flood ... I want to know where all that water went ... it supposedly came from space, IIRC, but I don't think the atmosphere could absorb all that. If the earth used to water itself at night somehow ... (genesis?) the atmosphere would have sucked that water up. What are we talkin' about ... 26,000 feet above sea level ... 5 miles of water above sea level ... over the whole earth ... did the water go back out to space?
Life is pretty incredible, and I can't explain it ... but the whole flood thing is a pretty serious flaw in "the story" as I see it. Christian geoligists, trying to prove the story, have lost faith, as far as I know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
On one hand, the complexities of nature and the physical world strongly suggest there must be some superior, intelligent, driving force behind life on planet Earth.
It almost seems ludicrous that we consider it all to have happened randomly.
How does a parrot in the Amazon determine it must eat clay to neutralize the effects of toxic seeds?
On the other hand, there is powerfully persuasive evidence that, not only is evolution real, but it can happen at an excruciatingly slow pace or rapidly, as the circumstance dictates. There are plenty of examples of this in scientific journals.
Take our concept of God and religion out of the fracas for a moment and consider the possibility that perhaps it is humanly impossible to comprehend the complexity of the subject at hand.
And, like the concept of the limits defining eternity, why will it make one bit of difference in our day-to-day lives whether we know the answer or not?
Life was so much less complicated when we marveled at the beauty of a butterfly and gave no thought to its' origin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ya know?? From my humble vantage point -- this is a moot discussion.
Unto what shall I liken this? Hmmmmmm.
I shall liken this unto two museums, both dedicated to guitars.
One dedicated to acoustic guitars, and the other dedicated to electric guitars.
The acoustic folks will certainly claim they are more *pure*, and the original species.
Their museum focuses on that, and any critics thereof be damned.
The electric folks will claim they *evolved* from the original, and thus are better.
Their museum focuses on that, and any critics thereof be damned.
Two sides to EVERY opinion (regardless of topic).
Neither side will convince the other.
So give it up (already).
Both have museums --- trot out your best *proof*.
Both sides have the *right* to their own museums.
Personally --- I lean towards acoustic guitars, and not electric.
But I don't *diss* electric guitars (or a museum for them).
Nor would I *diss* them for doing so,
even though I consider them an abomination.
Sorry --- Socks, and all others on the guitar thread!!
(This is an analogy, a Parable if you will!!)
Others have the right to say what they think,
regardless of recrimination from the opposing camp..
So ---- if you don't like the new *museum*, fine.
Say so, and be done with it.
It's a sad commentary on whomever that decides to criticize
those who do choose to advocate the museum of their choice.
But then again --- this is GSC. Perhaps the rules are different, eh??
:unsure:
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
:o :o ... Well, if that isn't one helluva indictment of Creationism, I don't know what is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ya know, I don't entirely agree. Sure, sure, its a 'nice and polite' thing to carry on with 'agreeable' conversation; never criticizing and all, all peaches n' cream, our minds renewed to 'edifying' talk and all. ...... YA GADS! Shades of twigs, W.O.W. meetings and Christian Etiquette Classes by Dorethea Wierwille! :blink: :ph34r:
But seriously, (as long as folks don't get too seriously ad hominum here, intelligent and scrutinizing criticism is all a part of an open society (something that TWI was NOT, not by a l-o-n-g shot <_< ). As far as I'm concerned, you have a problem with my POV or opinion, and the content thereof, then bring on the contrary and opposite point of view. (You guys almost always do so in any event, ehh? ;) ) I might not care for the POV, and I might even get emotional in my response (Ok, so I actually do several times). But never will I say "Hey! You cannot voice that here! You cannot criticize me!"
And also, as far as I'm concerned, religious POVs should not be exempt from said criticism either, and if one can't maintain their faith, belief, trust, and certainty on a point of view when its challenged, well then, ... what does it say about their faith to begin with, hmmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
You must not pick guitar, eh??? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yep. No Faith needed.
Now back to things that interesting. Back in Post #18 this animal was brought up as part of the hybrid discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babirusa
There was confusion as to what type of animal it was related to. Since it started breeding with pigs, it obvious that it belongs with other swine.
Linnaean taxonomy is a way of organizing all life into a "Family tree". As more species are found, extinct and extant, the more complicated the "Family Tree" becomes. This tree is also full of hypothetical branches to help connect everything under evolutionary theory. These branches (and limbs and twigs) are constantly being rearranged to "fit".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
This swine IMO suggests that the creation theory is a much simpler way of organizing things. Figure out all the animal types, then simply have individual "family trees" for each type. New species should fit under an obvious animal group, and also should be expected to be able to breed with the rest in that tree. i.e. wooly mammoths, mastadons, African and asian elephants would all be expected to interbreed. (if you had them available.) Trying to find how elephants are related to sea cows and manatees is over complicating matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ino_tissue.html
Does this get nobody's attention?
These are facts. There are plenty of facts to challenge today's thinking.
(unless of course National Geographic is considered a creationist magazine)
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20..._dinomummy.html
Link to a mummified dinosaur. More links follow the article.
IMO - what the creationists present is just simpler than current theories. Fossils come from animals killed in the Flood, or continent divide, thousands of years ago, not millions, and not due to random coincidental incidents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Creationism is always easier. Any part you don't know you just say God did it. Takes all the effort of thinking out of it. The lazy mind approach.
And calling Richard Dawkins religious while extolling the virtues of creationism based on Genesis is like saying I'm still in TWI and here to witness for them.
I wish you could explain yourself better. You're making no sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Law of Believing = complicated
Faith = Simple
Evolution Theory = complicated
creation theory = simple
simple does not = dumb, or = lazy
F = m*a is simple , does that make it lazy?
If you don't like biology, don't read the thread.
A big statement in biology is "Form follows function". Yet one of the original arguments for evolution was vestigial organs. However, this is one argument that not only complicates the "Form follows function" idea with vestigial organs, but most vestigial organs turn out not to be vestigial organs at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.