A or B

[philadiddle]

Question 1:

You work for a large oil company. You have to do the hiring for the research team who will study core samples to help locate oil. Your only directive here is to help the company save money and find oil as quickly as possible.

Do you:

a) Hire young earth flood geologists to study core samples.

b) Hire geologists who use an old earth and evolution model to study core samples.

Question 2:

You work for a drug company and a new virus has just started spreading in the general population. Time is of the essense, you need to find a cure quickly. This virus is different from other known viruses.

Do you:

a) assume evolution is true and plot the virus in a phylogenetic tree and then start testing cures based on what works on its closest living relatives.

b) assume God created everything independently and so you don't place it in a phylogenetic tree and instead...(I was having a hard time finishing this, I'm not sure what predictions creationism actually makes).

(NOTE: I assume that as a Christain you would be praying during both choices in both cases, so try not to let that be an easy out from answering the question)

 

[juvenissun]

Question 1:

You work for a large oil company. You have to do the hiring for the research team who will study core samples to help locate oil. Your only directive here is to help the company save money and find oil as quickly as possible.

Do you:

a) Hire young earth flood geologists to study core samples.

b) Hire geologists who use an old earth and evolution model to study core samples.

I will see who knows petrology better. That is the only thing needed for the job. Idea of evolution is NOT needed.

Nice try. But not a good one.

 

[Smidlee]

Question 1:

You work for a large oil company. You have to do the hiring for the research team who will study core samples to help locate oil. Your only directive here is to help the company save money and find oil as quickly as possible.

Do you:

a) Hire young earth flood geologists to study core samples.

b) Hire geologists who use an old earth and evolution model to study core samples

Since the science in the lab is done the same it makes no difference. While I prefer a Christan doctor yet I'm sure an atheist doctor can operate just as good as a Christian one.

Question 2:

You work for a drug company and a new virus has just started spreading in the general population. Time is of the essense, you need to find a cure quickly. This virus is different from other known viruses.

Do you:

a) assume evolution is true and plot the virus in a phylogenetic tree and then start testing cures based on what works on its closest living relatives.

b) assume God created everything independently and so you don't place it in a phylogenetic tree and instead...(I was having a hard time finishing this, I'm not sure what predictions creationism actually makes).

(NOTE: I assume that as a Christain you would be praying during both choices in both cases, so try not to let that be an easy out from answering the question)

Since virus can mutate so the anti-viral drug becomes useless I fail to see how it helps to learn about a useless tree. (the tree only exist in the textbooks)
This sound as dumb as getting bit by a copperhead thinking studying a black snake will find you the antidote.

 

[philadiddle]

I will see who knows petrology better. That is the only thing needed for the job. Idea of evolution is NOT needed.

Nice try. But not a good one.

Since the science in the lab is done the same it makes no difference. While I prefer a Christan doctor yet I'm sure an atheist doctor can operate just as good as a Christian one.

So you guys don't think they use index fossils and the model of the 4.5 billion year old geological column when studying core samples? What do you guys think the process is?

Since virus can mutate so the anti-viral drug becomes useless I fail to see how it helps to learn about a useless tree. (the tree only exist in the textbooks)
This sound as dumb as getting bit by a copperhead thinking studying a black snake will find you the antidote.

After many debates you still think that the only tree that exists is in the textbooks? You don't think that phylogenetics gives us an objective tree of life? With all due respect, I suppose this is why you don't work in a lab trying to find cures for new diseases.

 

[Smidlee]

So you guys don't think they use index fossils and the model of the 4.5 billion year old geological column when studying core samples? What do you guys think the process is?

After many debates you still think that the only tree that exists is in the textbooks? You don't think that phylogenetics gives us an objective tree of life? With all due respect, I suppose this is why you don't work in a lab trying to find cures for new diseases.

What happens when the phylogenetics doesn't follow evolutionist's tree?
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

So you guys don't think they use index fossils and the model of the 4.5 billion year old geological column when studying core samples? What do you guys think the process is?

You don't have to believe evolution or 4.5 billion column to recognizes a pattern.

 

[philadiddle]

What happens when the phylogenetics doesn't follow evolutionist's tree?
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment

Then we go where the evidence leads us. Has he produced peer reviewed articles yet?

What happens when phylogenetics does help us find cures faster based on the evolution model?

 

[philadiddle]

You don't have to believe evolution or 4.5 billion column to recognizes a pattern.

What pattern are you referring to? Why is that pattern there?

 

[Smidlee]

Then we go where the evidence leads us. Has he produced peer reviewed articles yet?

What happens when phylogenetics does help us find cures faster based on the evolution model?

Even a broken clock is right twice each day. The fact evolutionist believed 98% of man's DNA was junk didn't stop the discovery of it's function.

 

[philadiddle]

Even a broken clock is right twice each day. The fact evolutionist believed 98% of man's DNA was junk didn't stop the discovery of it's function.

So the the success rate of the model is like 1 in 1,000? Is that what you think?

And in reference to your earlier comment about a pattern, what pattern are you referring to? Why is that pattern there?

 

[juvenissun]

So you guys don't think they use index fossils and the model of the 4.5 billion year old geological column when studying core samples? What do you guys think the process is?

OK, you are talking about paleontologist (a core can be examined in many ways)

The work of stratigraphic identification by microfossils from core samples involved only ONE technique: fossil identification. The paleontologist couldn't be careless on the true age and the true origin of the fossil, as long as all concerned fossils have been arranged into a stratigraphic sequence and each species can be identified.

For that kind of job, anyone who has trained eyes can do it well. No knowledge of evolution is needed.

 

[philadiddle]

OK, you are talking about paleontologist (a core can be examined in many ways)

The work of stratigraphic identification by microfossils from core samples involved only ONE technique: fossil identification. The paleontologist couldn't be careless on the true age and the true origin of the fossil, as long as all concerned fossils have been arranged into a stratigraphic sequence and each species can be identified.

For that kind of job, anyone who has trained eyes can do it well. No knowledge of evolution is needed.

Once they identify the fossils what do they do with that data?

 

[mindlight]

The questions are the problem here having had experience of both industries. These are very practical cases and even though most scientists who actually work in these fields must mouth affiliation to evolutionary doctrines these rationalisations have little to do with the really productive practical science involved in these cases. It is much the same as the Captain of a Soviet Strategic missile submarine who had to give speeches to his men dressing everything he did in some kind of Communist propaganda new speak so that he does not get lynched or labelled by the Communist Commissar who accompanies him on the voyages. Practically the Communist newspeak is irrelevant to the job in hand but he must use it or he loses his job and maybe even his life.

Question 1:

You work for a large oil company. You have to do the hiring for the research team who will study core samples to help locate oil. Your only directive here is to help the company save money and find oil as quickly as possible.

Do you:

a) Hire young earth flood geologists to study core samples.

b) Hire geologists who use an old earth and evolution model to study core samples.

Oil geologists generally assume evolution etc as a matter of course but actually the practical models that actually allow the finding of oil do not require this commitment. What is important for finding oil is the associations. When you get these kinds of rocks in combination with these conditions then.... there is a greater probability of the presence of oil etc. A YEC could use the same model accepting that they work on a practical level without accepting the logic of the theoretical rationalisations and causation stories that have been used to explain them.

Question 2:

You work for a drug company and a new virus has just started spreading in the general population. Time is of the essense, you need to find a cure quickly. This virus is different from other known viruses.

Do you:

a) assume evolution is true and plot the virus in a phylogenetic tree and then start testing cures based on what works on its closest living relatives.

b) assume God created everything independently and so you don't place it in a phylogenetic tree and instead...(I was having a hard time finishing this, I'm not sure what predictions creationism actually makes).

(NOTE: I assume that as a Christain you would be praying during both choices in both cases, so try not to let that be an easy out from answering the question)

You use the words phylogenetic tree but the simple fact is that this too is a theoretical structure not a factual one. The factual matter is that the genome of one creature has a considerable similarity with that of most creatures but more of a similarity with this creature than that one. So the taxonomic/genomic classification is more important in the case you describe than the evolutionary phylogenetic theorisations about that. So one could completely reject evolutionary theory and still choose the correct creature by simply looking for where the overlap was greatest in the genomes.

 

[CrashTestPoster]

Before you pose questions like this again, I would suggest doing a great deal of reading - not what evolutionnists and your "long age" friends say about them - but what these Creationists say themselves.

I refuse to be on the defensive, when you are so clearly uninformed. You don't even seem to know the design arguments well (or else you wouldn't be talking about "phylogenetic trees" as you do) nor do you even know what these scientists have to say (by claiming that they don't make predicitons - seriously, no one can be a scientist and not make predictions, it's part of the bloody scientific process).

Thanks.

 

[juvenissun]

Once they identify the fossils what do they do with that data?

Keep it in the file, which they may called it a database.

Fossil identified, then stratigraphic position is determined. That is the end of it.

Unless they found a new fossil. Most likely they would have no idea on how to deal with it and simply leave it in the cold.

(My knowledge about this is decades old. But I think it is still valid. I do like to be surprised.)

 

[philadiddle]

Keep it in the file, which they may called it a database.

Fossil identified, then stratigraphic position is determined. That is the end of it.

So they identify it, determine its position, and just stick it in a file? Why would the oil company pay money for this? Surely they must do something with the data that helps them find oil.

 

[philadiddle]

Oil geologists generally assume evolution etc as a matter of course but actually the practical models that actually allow the finding of oil do not require this commitment. What is important for finding oil is the associations. When you get these kinds of rocks in combination with these conditions then.... there is a greater probability of the presence of oil etc. A YEC could use the same model accepting that they work on a practical level without accepting the logic of the theoretical rationalisations and causation stories that have been used to explain them.

"My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian."
...
I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ," That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.
Glenn Morton's story

You use the words phylogenetic tree but the simple fact is that this too is a theoretical structure not a factual one. The factual matter is that the genome of one creature has a considerable similarity with that of most creatures but more of a similarity with this creature than that one. So the taxonomic/genomic classification is more important in the case you describe than the evolutionary phylogenetic theorisations about that. So one could completely reject evolutionary theory and still choose the correct creature by simply looking for where the overlap was greatest in the genomes.

Theories explain facts, I'm sure you've been told that before. The phylogenetic tree explains what we see in genetics. If you come up with a better, more useful model with more explanatory and predictive power let me know.

Your concept of "looking for where they overlap" wouldn't work if things were created independently. This concept works best if we evolved in a nested hierarchy, which is what genetics continually tell us happened.

 

[philadiddle]

Before you pose questions like this again, I would suggest doing a great deal of reading - not what evolutionnists and your "long age" friends say about them - but what these Creationists say themselves.

I refuse to be on the defensive, when you are so clearly uninformed. You don't even seem to know the design arguments well (or else you wouldn't be talking about "phylogenetic trees" as you do) nor do you even know what these scientists have to say (by claiming that they don't make predicitons - seriously, no one can be a scientist and not make predictions, it's part of the bloody scientific process).

Thanks.

So what you are saying is that you have nothing to say to me?

Um....ok then. Let me know if you want to have a discussion, since this is a discussion forum. If there are points that you would like to make that you feel I need to know please do so.

 

[juvenissun]

So they identify it, determine its position, and just stick it in a file? Why would the oil company pay money for this? Surely they must do something with the data that helps them find oil.

They want to identify which layer of rock did they drill through. The fossil data do not directly help them to find the oil. They have the oil-bearing rock layer in mind before the drill.

After they know it, they simply put all the data into files. I think they are very stingy in sharing these kind of data with anyone outside the company.

 

[juvenissun]

I asked them one question. [/I]

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

As I said, the idea of creation/evolution is NOT NEEDED if one worked for an oil company. If not needed, then it will not be useful. Just like one does not need the idea of creation/evolution in coal industry or ore industry. The level of philosophical thinking needed in these jobs is too low. It is all technical.

The fact that an ICR geology students CAN work in these companies proves that their creation science program is still practical.

The idea of Creationism will become critical in the front-line research design. Creationism provides goals. The design of a research should be oriented toward a goal. For example, in the oil exploration, how long can an oil reservoir keep the oil in it, is a creation/evolution question. But any oil company could not be any more careless about the answer of this question.