Creationists, where do you get your facts?

[rjw]

lol another Creationism VS. Evolution thread... just another pony and dog show to polarize the masses...


grow up..

Yet you are here, joining the show - even if for a short time.


Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

...the power of physics (and likewise math) is to be able to derive most all situations, and to debunk things for yourself.

Then you should be able to cast some light on important questions within biology, ecology, genetics, geology and palaeontology - rather than telling folk to "grow up"?



Regards, Roland

 

[AV1611VET]

I went back and checked.

The thread starter was asking where you (creationists) get your ideas/knowledge/information from.


Regards, Roland

 

[Skaloop]

OK then, I won't be a donkey and I will answer your question truthfully and directly, as a Christian.

I get my "evidence" from my own scientific knowledge. I got my physics degree from Columbia University, and I did my thesis in quantum electrodynamics. Besides having an "official" walled laboratory, the power of physics (and likewise math) is to be able to derive most all situations, and to debunk things for yourself.

Now, as a Christian I don't even believe myself 100%, as I am human. So, I have no choice to listen to my Father, who has shown me proof of his existence on many occasions.

How does your study of physics relate to evolution? (that is not meant in a "physics has nothing to do with evolution!" way, but is an honest question about how, if at all, you apply one to the other.)

 

[rjw]

My experience has been that people who rely on the Bible for all their information often end up in conflict. So while everyone may agree that it is the source of inerrant information, they cannot do anything to demonstrate that this is so.



Regards, Roland

 

[Skaloop]

Which is fine for a basic belief in Creationism, but the Bible does not say anything about such things as scientists increasingly rejecting evolution, or certain fossils being fraudulent. So when a Creationist says something like that, I was wondering where (since it clearly isn't the Bible) they get that information.

 

[BokuWaKurohyou]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

My experience has been that people who rely on the Bible for all their information often end up in conflict. So while everyone may agree that it is the source of inerrant information, they cannot do anything to demonstrate that this is so.

If avoiding conflict was my goal, I'd get out of the Lord's Army ---

 

[Skaloop]

Are you going to pay me for my services? By the tone of your response I can already tell that you want nothing to do with charity, so can you pay me?


And yes, I told people to grow up because though this thread was in the Creation & Evolution forum, it is not in the Creation VS Evolution forum. Every time someone asks a question, whether innocently or intentionally abrasive, the mood of the thread shifts to Christianity vs. Atheism.

So yes, you all DO need to grow up if you are so distracted that you cant even answer or debate something without passionately feeling the need to defend or extol yourself. Some people just drop by the posts looking for an answer to the questions posed, not the other claptrap arguments that come with it.

If those people mattered, other posters here would be mindful of that instead of antagonizing situations. And, if you dont care ADMIT IT! Be a man or woman and admit you dont care about other onlookers on this forum, you just want to argue. But don't act like you care about anything if you are just here to argue and hear yourself speak.

All I said was the SENTENCE (singular) about this dog and pony show, and the GROW UP statement. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PITHY. Now, because you want to be entertained, I have given it to you in a more digestible format.

What a great example of a mindful, non-antagonistic, grown-up post!

 

[BokuWaKurohyou]

.

 

[BokuWaKurohyou]

.

 

[Skaloop]

That mindful, non-antagonistic, grown-up post was a reply not to you. And to think, I actually thought you were sincere, as I gave you two sincere replies to the questions you actually asked...

I was sincere regarding my other posts, and thanks for the answers. That one, though, just seemed like a guy yelling at people to be quiet.

 

[Skaloop]

Quantum Physics is basically supercharged chemistry. It is physics on a atomic scale, so its sorta like you inherently know chemistry. Mechanics, E&M, condensed matter physics, math and chemistry are all used for the biology that is involved in evolution. In addition, most physicists MUST be avid in computer programming and modeling, including biophysical modeling.

For example, the carbon dating technique is nuclear physics.

Mapping a genome & DNA is about 25% genetics/biology and 75% cryptography/math... we use the genetics more, but the CODE (i.e. programming/cryptography) has to be deciphered before we know.

The computing involved is comp sci/physics

Mechanics explains how and why dinosaurs "must" have the shape, height, muscle tissue, and other dimensions we often see associated with them

E&M, fluid dynamics and chemistry (or quantum physics) can explain the earth, age, progression, and composition.

Now, my specialty is quantum electrodynamics which is closer relativity and field theory, so it would take some work for me to precisely prove things outside of this bounds, but someone who concentrated more on fluid dynamics, mathematics, or nuclear physics would be able to whip it out pretty quick -- I have friends who can do it

Based on those applications, what does your phsyics background tell you about evolution?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are you going to pay me for my services? By the tone of your response I can already tell that you want nothing to do with charity, so can you pay me?

Wha....????

Personally I'd be very interested to hear about creationism from someone with the bona fides you have posted!

And I'm being honest.

Of course, I know that since we are talking religion vs science, the obvious point to start with is how much we will pay you for your witness and knowledge.

But in case you are willing to suffer us for free, please tell us some stuff!

And yes, I told people to grow up because though this thread was in the Creation & Evolution forum, it is not in the Creation VS Evolution forum. Every time someone asks a question, whether innocently or intentionally abrasive, the mood of the thread shifts to Christianity vs. Atheism.

And telling people to "grow up" isn't abrasive? Or did you think you should just jump in and be as abrasive as possible?

So yes, you all DO need to grow up if you are so distracted that you cant even answer or debate something without passionately feeling the need to defend or extol yourself.

I think you, of all people, know the value of extolling one's background. It is a viable part of the debate to establish what your experience with science is. I see nothing wrong with that.

I'm still quite intrigued. Are you a creationist? (Don't worry, I have a very good friend who is a chemist and for whom I've written letters of recommendation for work who is a creationist. But he is a better chemist than he is a geologist, and I respect him.)

All I said was the SENTENCE (singular) about this dog and pony show, and the GROW UP statement. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PITHY.

Would it not have been more pithy to drop in and just call us all idiots? That would have saved the typing!

Now, because you want to be entertained, I have given it to you in a more digestible format.

Entertained! That's it! You know as a fellow scientist that part of the marketplace of ideas is to see how we all defend our ideas. At a school like Columbia no doubt you saw more than your fair share of back and forth!

I worked briefly at Columbia but was a lab tech, so I didn't get to see the real hardcore stuff, but most other science departments I've worked in can host some fine debates!

Tell us your story! (And maybe you can set up a PayPal account and we can chip in to pay you for it!)

 

[BokuWaKurohyou]

.

 

[Hespera]

The following is based on my biblical AND scientific background...

1. Earth is "probably" billions of years old.


2. Dinosaurs existed, but their progress is not necessarily evolution.


3. Humans are NOT any more than 14,000 years old at the UPPER LIMIT, and 5500 years old at the LOWER LIMIT.


4. Mathematically speaking, the origin of species cannot progress to what we consider the present without immense time.

Number 4 is important. I don't necessarily refute the idea of "evolution" as it were, but the platform of science we deem evolution is not correct enough to be entertained right now.

Take Humans, for example. After 14,000 years of life, we are still 99.996% identical. To average that, in order to get to 99.980% genetically identical, it would take us 224,000 years. To get to 99.0% genetically identical, it would take 13,944,000 years! That is, of course, we allow nature to flow freely. So, it takes a while for genetic differentiation to occur, and we have faced PLENTY of life-threatening things that would induce evolution.

Truthfully, I believe we got the short end of that knowledge stick. I think Darwin had this idea, and it solved so many problems at the same time for scientists, and people believed it. It was more like a cover story for scientists so that they could work on real discoveries of our origins without pressures from the public. Evolution needs a lot of work, and it needs to first be stripped of all spiritual, political, and business connotations. It needs to be taken off of the public science market and fully revamped. Think about it, in early 1900s models of atoms were forged, then a decade or so later at the advent of quantum, Bohr, Pauli, Schrodinger, Einstein, Oppenheimer, etc. destroyed the older model with a "better one". The same evolution theory has been around for four centuries without much change at all. At this point its political, and that is without any spiritual bias.

Based on my knowledge of how things are at the U here, if you were to take one of your bullet points there as the basis for your thesis, you could take it in and try to defend it. But what would happen is that you would just get shredded. Humiliation of a lifetime, and a thesis defense to go down in history.

Well to be charitable, the numbers 1, 2 and 4 are vague and equivocal, so we will just count #3.

Funny how nobody in biology geology or physics has picked up on those obvious and rather simple ways to falsify evolution and dating. Why dont you pursue one yourself, and make yourself a name as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived? Or a legend of the type that slinks out of the defense and into U history of a different sort.

BTW, its the ToE is considered correct enough to work with until someone can modify or falsify it. But that is true of any theory. YOU sure didnt identify a flaw.

"Evolution needs a lot of work, and it needs to first be stripped of all spiritual, political, and business connotations"

If we did this with creationism and religion there would be nothing left at all. Do this with ToE and it would just be stronger.

 

[BokuWaKurohyou]

.

 

[Split Rock]

Truthfully, I believe we got the short end of that knowledge stick. I think Darwin had this idea, and it solved so many problems at the same time for scientists, and people believed it. It was more like a cover story for scientists so that they could work on real discoveries of our origins without pressures from the public. Evolution needs a lot of work, and it needs to first be stripped of all spiritual, political, and business connotations. It needs to be taken off of the public science market and fully revamped. Think about it, in early 1900s models of atoms were forged, then a decade or so later at the advent of quantum, Bohr, Pauli, Schrodinger, Einstein, Oppenheimer, etc. destroyed the older model with a "better one". The same evolution theory has been around for four centuries without much change at all. At this point its political, and that is without any spiritual bias.

Actually, there have been some very significant changes and addition sto evolutioary theory since Darwin. Mendelian and Modern Genetics stands out as the major change, since it explains where variation comes from for evolution to work with. Darwin had no idea where variation came from, and didn't understand the mechanism of heredity. This is usually referred to as neo-darwinism or the modern evolutionary synthesis. In addition, Genetic Drift is now recognized as a major mechanism of evolution. So, there have been significant changes to the theory.

The only one politicizing evolution are creationists and their anti-evolution agenda. You don't see School Board candidates arguing over which atomic model to teach, nor do parents harass science teachers because they showed their kids the Bohr Model in class.

 

[Split Rock]

... are you a student at the "U"? You obviously know nothing about the real world of science yet. It is POLITICAL, as in if a theory goes against the money, you don't endorse it. Professors get their scholarly articles pulled from publication and, in some extreme cases lose their TENURE. Do you understand that it almost takes an act of congress to lose tenure? So, of course I would get shredded for what I believe because it goes against what Senior and Board scientist promote. You will shocked to find out that most scientist in charge don't believe the same stuff they teach you, and you will learn if you go to Grad school that what you learn as an undergrad is pretty much bollocks. Anyway I appreciate your sophomoric response.

EDIT: So that you don't "take a little bit and run with it," saying "everything you learn as an undergraduate is bollocks" is hyperbolic. But, as a physicist you learn everything from intro physics to quantum (on an undergraduate level) is incomplete. But, this goes for most all quantitative subjects.

Oh yea, and SEVERAL people in the scientific community pick up on all four of my points AND more. Every year. Pick up an INTERNATIONAL, INDEPENDENT science journal once in a while. But, if your mind is already made up and it cant be opened don't waste your time, seriously... not trying to be a donkey but you will only waste your time.

Likewise, if we are going to just argue then lets just end it here and not waste each other's time. A discussion is different, however...

There is certainly politics at universities, but usually not over scientific theories. It is about hiring, money, favortism, lab/greenhouse space, etc. When two researches conflict over their theories, yeah, you can get some nasty politics going. By I have never scene anything as monolithic as creationists talk about. At least, that has been my experience.

To be honest with you, I have not seen any hypothesis or theory that adequately explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth, other than Evolution. Politics has nothing to do with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only one politicizing evolution are creationists and their anti-evolution agenda.

Who was here first?

Evolutionists or non-evolutionists?

Whose agenda is muscling in on whose?

We just want our territory back.

"Anti-evolution agenda" indeed [rolls eyes].

Quit making it sound like you guys are the victims.