Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000

"No TC you have yet to support any of your beliefs with a well reasoned internaly consistent theory complete with evidence..."
--I was not addressing what the conclusions were, I was addressing my scientific mind-set, from which I am consistant. And I have supported many of my assertions and completed some specifically. Obviously this is an extreamly small amount of the scientific world and progress is to be made.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-08-2002]

--Someone build me a time machine, or atleast give me a multi-billion year recorded video-tape of the ToE. That would be 'proof'.So, basically you cannot be persuaded!?--By my knowledge, the ToE is relatively well founded. Its just a scientific theory and explination for compiled evidences on Earth history (biologically, geologically, or astronomically). I also get rather annoyed when people explaim it to be more than that or say that people are 'stupid' if they do not believe it. Statements of that likeness readilly admit ignorance. Its like a creationist asking 'If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today!'. Just thought I would give my 2 cents with that comment.The ToE is more than just a theory, something you creationists have a hard time accepting. ToE is a theory as well as a fact. This dualism is very important. Let me illustrate it with an example:For instance, there is a great similarity between the ToE and the theory of gravitation. Based on observed phenomena we have deduced their existence and characteristics. Even if we do not fully comprehend all mechanisms involved both phenomena (biological evolution and gravity) are facts of life and we have theories to explain and understand them. In fact, I believe that it is time we officially upgraded ToE to a natural law like gravitation.One main argument voiced by creationists is that gravitational effects can be observed in real-time while evolution has never been observed, just inferred. This is wrong. Evolution can be observed by studying the fossil record, changes in populations over time, in the lab and so on.You, TrueCreation, obviously belong to the surprisingly large group of people who has to see to believe. Does this mean that you will never believe something you have not witnessed in first-person? If so, I guess Hitler and Elvis may still be alive to you!?Or if you are willing to believe historical fact you have not witnessed yourself, how far back in time are you willing to go. I do not mean to ridicule you, but your point of view is a major obstacle to many in accepting evolution so it would be interesting to learn more of your position.--I must be a new breed in the evolution of YEC's.If you are not religious, what are your reasons for believing in creation?The Arachnophile

"So, basically you cannot be persuaded!?"
--Unless you can do any of the items I listed Please see post #2 by compmage in this link, do you see what is wrong with your question yet? Message 168:"The ToE is more than just a theory, something you creationists have a hard time accepting. ToE is a theory as well as a fact. This dualism is very important. Let me illustrate it with an example:For instance, there is a great similarity between the ToE and the theory of gravitation. Based on observed phenomena we have deduced their existence and characteristics. Even if we do not fully comprehend all mechanisms involved both phenomena (biological evolution and gravity) are facts of life and we have theories to explain and understand them. In fact, I believe that it is time we officially upgraded ToE to a natural law like gravitation.One main argument voiced by creationists is that gravitational effects can be observed in real-time while evolution has never been observed, just inferred. This is wrong. Evolution can be observed by studying the fossil record, changes in populations over time, in the lab and so on.You, TrueCreation, obviously belong to the surprisingly large group of people who has to see to believe. Does this mean that you will never believe something you have not witnessed in first-person? If so, I guess Hitler and Elvis may still be alive to you!?Or if you are willing to believe historical fact you have not witnessed yourself, how far back in time are you willing to go. I do not mean to ridicule you, but your point of view is a major obstacle to many in accepting evolution so it would be interesting to learn more of your position."
--I see what you mean, however, you did not see my point. I was correct say that the ToE is only theory, though this will depend on your defintion of the Theory of Evolution. In a nutshell define it as the theory in which todays phylogenetic observations and the effects of population genetics is applied in a uniformitarian assumption that everything has a common ancestor. This is only theory that everything has a common ancestor. However, evolution is fact when placed uppon what happens today, you no longer have a uniformitarian assumption but an observed direct evidence whose only obsticle is by discrediting human intelligence in observation and understanding. What is happening today is a different concept and question to what has happend throughout all earth history, no matter the support."If you are not religious, what are your reasons for believing in creation?"
--By my current knowledge and how through my scientific studies there is so much which can be explained by catastrophic events, while others with my current knowledge cannot yet. Though in this I find when I see what I know, that I find that where the problem is that I also see, always tends to be where I do not have much knowledge in the area. Through my time in my research, I have better refined my understanding of science and it is looking quite well, but again, for myself it has cracks which need to be dealt with.------------------Edited by Admin, : Rerender to have correct link to message.

quote:

---

"If you are not religious, what are your reasons for believing in creation?"
--By my current knowledge and how through my scientific studies there is so much which can be explained by catastrophic events, while others with my current knowledge cannot yet. Though in this I find when I see what I know, that I find that where the problem is that I also see, always tends to be where I do not have much knowledge in the area. Through my time in my research, I have better refined my understanding of science and it is looking quite well, but again, for myself it has cracks which need to be dealt with.

---

JM: Young earth, global flood ideas would not exist without the bible. So, how about answering the question. What is your religious background? What influence does it have in your 'scientific' thinking?CheersJoe Meert

"JM: Young earth, global flood ideas would not exist without the bible. So, how about answering the question. What is your religious background? What influence does it have in your 'scientific' thinking?"
--Well that may be true, though I would think that that would be the cause since if the bible didn't exist the flood of Noah would not have happened (young earth may have still been in place though, and technically the global flood may have as well, there are many parallels within different cultures). As for my religious background and your question on my influence, it is Christianity, and its influence? That would be the thinking that if the bible is right, then there should be no worries in going gung-ho into science, as science should complement the bible if indeed the bible is right.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-13-2002]

Aye-Ah, TBN Hugh Ross has not gone even as far as S. Gould in reading Genesis (in Boole's Rules of Thought Sense to post-modern use of word perfect) or else he confuses Galeleo's impressed (watched on TBN) force with some ecological concept I probably do not follow, possibly for me A niche being insect heads not worm vs snake as illustrated from the BIBLE for an infinite phenotype by the utterly pictoral aspects of organisms placed during map creation not clip art!
I think that 6 years of agriculture and ONE year of conspiring motions during intrarest of no forceful impression on the reproductive continuum by uisng the same water force Ross refers to (Galelio in On Mechancis spoke of both an infinite lever and the force of water down the hillside) shows HOvind is correct theory or no (of eco-justice of eco"system" (artifical selection biology brought post-Malthus) enginerring) that there was an exact equation (( I made one for protoplasm dimensions using [elasticity,stress/strain,viscoscity,layers,compueter,levels of organized selection,orthoselection, supplemetal space and time information,orthogenesis,Wright path analysis (all these commas must be in the logic carrying capacity!!)}]NOTEBOOK IS MATHEMATICA SOFTWARE NOT HARDWARE --REMemeber?") there-where else how does one explain the difference of Gould and Ross?
So far I have only heard GENESIS (not MICAH) applies to intellectual content of voids not FREE PATH SPACE of milecules (nano second molecules in Ross' science). "hebreW"B scholars could correct me. Certainly to the extent that I would want to spilt the tomato septum with Gould before I think of a milecule become a Darwin star-mole for the coordination of all this... If Hugh Ross can show how the water level or "capillary action" (in all its historically derivable grammer) was adapted by poisonous BUT NOT harmless lizards I will re-formulate the answer not in Genesis but I would rather take time to see if Gould and not Hovind can help me on this becuase the low place of water was being debaged as Galelio's "submergence" in De Motu no matter how the acid drops the eves. At debate eus or not, Hovind not Ross was correct and in consequence AIG was trashed (just as I had been by undergraduate debaters who were using the ghost of Aristotle to subsitute for the witchcraft cut out the hand). Again, a mismatched c/e asymetrical transitive relation. Kant did better and Einstein knew other for which Ross probably was confused between a cat and a snake cage by me for whatever offensive Gwyn I defend for the purpose to get the communication across. Dual use biotech wins again. The O Range panter While we learn war no more.
----There is a tall geologist from CU that later I will try to not tell you of who coffee house roasts the same time I often break on so there is not need to feedback the geo-physicist nor the evolutionary thinker. Ross maybe able to do this with physicists but IT CAN NOT be done in biology as a whole. I have gotten around the whole networking application aspect relative to ecology research but Richard Boyd who edits the top of the evolutionary academic chain will still lie to my face AFTER I DID WHAT HE ASKED ME TO. This was the same problem I had with my parents I just simply went to my room and then opened the door to my lab that I required to be built since I lost the out-buildings in the move. What is happening in religous education had happened but the rest of the world is still sleeping in Humes camping bag. Hugh- you can not reasonably go and get feed-back from best biologists. Sure you can from a few but as an instituted thing this gets the run around which as a physicists it si possible that Elssaser could draw the line but the number of biologists on this payroll is longer than the week work time so that any extension got and I guess continue in distributive justice to be committed for any false but nevertheless used concurrcency. Hugh I tried this. YOu can not do it in biology. They only sent me to Rutgers. I won a speach contest there and should have gone there or to SUNY Binghamton instead. I did not. The elite will lose. Please try to read Maxwell more and understand that Faraday's question is still being asked by students. Darwininsm does not extiguish Neo-mendelism as much as so much of Russian support of biology had been ignored. Bio-tech that has doctors taught with what both Kraig Adler and I agreed was not the biology will not do any better business than keeping a soviet out of the past time. Somethings will change but now is not the time to enumerate the semi-colon OSCOPY. Poofprofv rfunim praydation is not adeppeptatnation +RWWBfraglROCk.

What fact finding was not was the Gates' ecosystem is never, is not the Wright/Fisher environs of Finnegans Carl's wake. even if it is the environment or environs of the Scopes Trial. If Gould limits the fact to the outside and in nature no matter the artifical selection I can follow

--Unless you can do any of the items I listed Please see post #2 by compmage in this link, do you see what is wrong with your question yet?Well, I can agree that nothing can be absolutely proven in this sense, but if gravity cannot be proven I hope you would still acknowledge that there is a prosess working there? I take "proven" to mean that the theory holds up to scientific srcutiny, whcih is does.--I see what you mean, however, you did not see my point. I was correct say that the ToE is only theory, though this will depend on your defintion of the Theory of Evolution. In a nutshell define it as the theory in which todays phylogenetic observations and the effects of population genetics is applied in a uniformitarian assumption that everything has a common ancestor. This is only theory that everything has a common ancestor. However, evolution is fact when placed uppon what happens today, you no longer have a uniformitarian assumption but an observed direct evidence whose only obsticle is by discrediting human intelligence in observation and understanding. What is happening today is a different concept and question to what has happend throughout all earth history, no matter the support.I.m not sure if I understand you correctly, but evolution put simply is change in allelic frequensies over time. You cannot deny that, or...?"If you are not religious, what are your reasons for believing in creation?"
--By my current knowledge and how through my scientific studies there is so much which can be explained by catastrophic events, while others with my current knowledge cannot yet. Though in this I find when I see what I know, that I find that where the problem is that I also see, always tends to be where I do not have much knowledge in the area. Through my time in my research, I have better refined my understanding of science and it is looking quite well, but again, for myself it has cracks which need to be dealt with.Do you mean to say that catastrophism is a better explanation for many observed phenomena than geology, evolution and so on?The Arachnophile

"Well, I can agree that nothing can be absolutely proven in this sense, but if gravity cannot be proven I hope you would still acknowledge that there is a prosess working there? I take "proven" to mean that the theory holds up to scientific srcutiny, whcih is does."
--Maybe it would be better to say that it 'holds up to scientific scrutiny' rather than 'proven'? They don't seem to synonymous and it may be misleading to use them interchangebly."I.m not sure if I understand you correctly, but evolution put simply is change in allelic frequensies over time. You cannot deny that, or...?"
--Right, this is fact, we observe it directly. Whether this process has gone throughout uniformitarian earth history with every living organism decending from a common ancestor, is an entirely different question."Do you mean to say that catastrophism is a better explanation for many observed phenomena than geology, evolution and so on?"
--'Better' is opinionated, I merely state that it is another feasible explination.------------------

quote:

---

"I.m not sure if I understand you correctly, but evolution put simply is change in allelic frequensies over time. You cannot deny that, or...?"
--Right, this is fact, we observe it directly. Whether this process has gone throughout uniformitarian earth history with every living organism decending from a common ancestor, is an entirely different question.

---

Since there is no evidence that the forces of nature have ever been significantly different that they are today (and there would be evidence), there is no reason to think that they were, wouldn't you agree?Of course, you may say that God made things different in the past then covered up the evidence, but then we are far, far away from science and into just-so stories. [QUOTE]"Do you mean to say that catastrophism is a better explanation for many observed phenomena than geology, evolution and so on?"
--'Better' is opinionated, I merely state that it is another feasible explination.
[/B][/QUOTE]But you say you are of a scientific mindset, TC, and if this were really true, you would constantly be searching for the explantion of the facts (theory) which BEST explains the data, not that which explains the data and also allows the Bible to be true.You cannot claim to be doing science if you have to look at the Bible all the time to make sure you are fitting the facts with it.

"Since there is no evidence that the forces of nature have ever been significantly different that they are today (and there would be evidence), there is no reason to think that they were, wouldn't you agree?"
--What? This can only not be evidence if you first assume uniformitarian time scales. Flood theory says that the world was flooded and then water abated off the continents, there then should be evidence of this rapid run-off. Submarine landslides should have then been catastrophic. Explain to me why this is not acceptable? Also, why is this only explainable with long periods of time?"Of course, you may say that God made things different in the past then covered up the evidence, but then we are far, far away from science and into just-so stories."
--Yes it would be, I won't go there."But you say you are of a scientific mindset, TC, and if this were really true, you would constantly be searching for the explantion of the facts (theory) which BEST explains the data, not that which explains the data and also allows the Bible to be true."
--Right, however this 'best explanation of the data', may be opinionated. We should compare and contrast."You cannot claim to be doing science if you have to look at the Bible all the time to make sure you are fitting the facts with it."
--I do not use the bible as my support, nor my evidence.------------------

quote:

---

--I do not use the bible as my support, nor my evidence.

---

JM: If there was no biblical story of Noah, would you spend much time trying to find evidence of a global flood?CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE] "You cannot claim to be doing science if you have to look at the Bible all the time to make sure you are fitting the facts with it."
--I do not use the bible as my support, nor my evidence.
[/B][/QUOTE]I didn't say you used it as support or evidence.You use it as your starting point and as your constraint to what you will accept.This is not scientific.I think that you understand me perfectly but you are being evasive.If you are doing science, you should be looking at where the evidence leads you, and only where the evidence leads you. Checking the Bible to make sure your 'science' "fits" is not scientific thinking, TC, no matter how much you want it to be, or how many times you tell yourself that it is.You can't think scientifically, by definition, if you use the Bible as a constraint for what you will or won't accept or what you consider to be likely or unlikely.You have the potential to think scientifically, that is apparent. However, you have hamstrung yourself by requiring that nature fit your interpretation of the Bible.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

"JM: If there was no biblical story of Noah, would you spend much time trying to find evidence of a global flood?"
--I think your asking the wrong question, I stated that I don't use the story of Noah (or the bible) as my support or my evidence.------------------

[QUOTE] You can't think scientifically, by definition, if you use the Bible as a constraint for what you will or won't accept or what you consider to be likely or unlikely.You have the potential to think scientifically, that is apparent. However, you have hamstrung yourself by requiring that nature fit your interpretation of the Bible.
[/B][/QUOTE]JM: Indeed, the early naturalists, many of whom were also Christian conservatives and literalists still allowed the evidence to speak. They realized that there was no evidence for a global flood. In fact, they realized that the evidence spoke clearly AGAINST a global flood. So far as I know, not a one of them abandonded their belief in God along the way.CheersJoe Meert