A question for Old Earth Creationists

[AV1611VET]

You know very well what I'm talking about.

Rick, I could take my beliefs about Thalidomide to a much deeper level ... believe me.

And I have here on CF.

I can assure you that what I think about why Thalidomide was really invented would at least ... at least ... make you do a double facepalm.

But for the record, it is just my opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's look at it a different way AV. Do scientists advertise their research on TV, radio, news papers, and magazines for profit? No! But pharmaceutical companies do.

I know ...

Blame it on the pharmaceuticals.

Blame it on big government.

Blame it on administration.

Blame everyone but yourselves.

You scientists didn't fool the Italians though, did you?

I wonder how many seismologists packed up their junk and headed for the border after L'Aquila?

 

[RickG]

I know ...

Blame it on the pharmaceuticals.

Blame it on big government.

Blame it on administration.

Blame everyone but yourselves.

You scientists didn't fool the Italians though, did you?

I wonder how many seismologists packed up their junk and headed for the border after L'Aquila?

Nice rant -- totally irrelevant.

 

[juvenissun]

Promise?



I can agree with that, except I'm not quite sure what you mean by "created in sequence". Could you elaborate on that a bit? Thanks.

Your problem just started after you recognized that. I am afraid you still do not see the problem.

The only problem I have is seeing science being misrepresented, and I'm not talking about another opinion which is quite different. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs.[/QUOTE]

So far, I have not misrepresent any science. I just add Bible implications to it. The science is still the old science, only becomes better.

Sequential creation is an idea I see through science. God creates animals in Day 5 and Day 6. But a Day is a period of time and things happened in that day will have a sequence. For example, God creates trilobite before He creates shark. And the creation work in Day 5 may not stop at the end of Day 5. God may continue the similar creation in Day 6, plus new creation specifically created in Day 6. That is what the idea of sequential creation is.

 

[Loudmouth]

So far, I have not misrepresent any science.

The science says that the order of fossils is exactly what we would expect from the process of evolution.

Sequential creation is an idea I see through science.

Why would sequential creation look exactly like evolution?

 

[RickG]

The only problem I have is seeing science being misrepresented, and I'm not talking about another opinion which is quite different. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs.

So far, I have not misrepresent any science. I just add Bible implications to it. The science is still the old science, only becomes better.

Sequential creation is an idea I see through science. God creates animals in Day 5 and Day 6. But a Day is a period of time and things happened in that day will have a sequence. For example, God creates trilobite before He creates shark. And the creation work in Day 5 may not stop at the end of Day 5. God may continue the similar creation in Day 6, plus new creation specifically created in Day 6. That is what the idea of sequential creation is.

So explain God creating land plants before animals and before the sun.

 

[Dizredux]

OldWiseGuy

Science says that a 'theory' is a 'fact' that just hasn't been proven yet. I'll go with that.

Diz

Where in the world did you read that?

Between the lines of any paper on evolution one cares to peruse. These papers are riddled with suppositions, in fact suppositions are the glue that hold the whole theory together.

Mmmm you do have the training to read and understand the papers involved? I can read them to some extent because I have had training to read papers in another field but many if not most of the ones in biology are above my head so for most bio papers, I cannot read "with the lines" much less "between the the lines". Somehow I do not think you have this training either.

Some information, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

The fact of evolution is anything that has to do with change in allele frequencies (changes in the genetic make up) of populations over time. This can be measured and is a fact any way one wants to look at it.

Theories on the other hand are explanations of the facts. Theories allow help us understand the facts, put them into perspective and make usable predictions.

In the English language a word can have a number of meanings. The word evolution refers both to the fact as well as the theory of evolution. It results in some confusion for those not trained in this area but it is what we have.


Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

The science says that the order of fossils is exactly what we would expect from the process of evolution.

As I understand it, some of you contend that evolution would still exist, even if there wasn't any fossil record.

So aren't we really just beating a dead horse?

 

[RickG]

As I understand it, some of you contend that evolution would still exist, even if there wasn't any fossil record.

That would be the biologists & Geneticists of which I have little understanding. Nevertheless, there is a very robust fossil record.

So aren't we really just beating a dead horse?

No one is beating dead horses other than creationists.

 

[DerelictJunction]

It should.

As long as you guys defend science with your No True Scotsman Principle, [hopefully] there will be others to counterbalance its God-forsaken aftereffects.

What, exactly, is your point in bringing up Thalidomide anyway?

It appears the you want to accuse all scientists because of the short sightedness or even bad behavior of some scientists. If so, why do you think an entire group of people should be responsible for the behavior of a few within that group? Should we accuse all Christians because of the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church members?

If you are not trying to paint all scientists with that brush, then what is the point of bringing it up at all?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sayre drove herself off.

After mentioning having a stillborn, I countered with my niece having had two miscarriages -- which she has.

She then was appalled at the fact that I didn't reply with a modicum of sorrow for her plight and left ... trying to make it look like I was the bad guy.

I didn't even get to offer to hold the door open for her, like I did the Goon Squad that filed out of here single file some time ago.

You were a lot colder than you suggest right here AV, and you don't counter one tragedy with another.

 

[bhsmte]

Rick, I could take my beliefs about Thalidomide to a much deeper level ... believe me.

And I have here on CF.

I can assure you that what I think about why Thalidomide was really invented would at least ... at least ... make you do a double facepalm.

But for the record, it is just my opinion.

AV, remember the thread; "We need to talk about a few things" in which moderators stated to knock off the Thalidomide talk. Post 77 in that thread is part of the discussion:

Just can't control yourself, huh?



Originally Posted by Sayre

Moderators PLEASE never let <staff edit> make jokes about thalidomide victims clapping again. It is so distasteful I don't know where to start. It isn't funny.
​

I agree; everyone got that?

 

[AV1611VET]

What, exactly, is your point in bringing up Thalidomide anyway?

It appears the you want to accuse all scientists because of the short sightedness or even bad behavior of some scientists. If so, why do you think an entire group of people should be responsible for the behavior of a few within that group? Should we accuse all Christians because of the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church members?

If you are not trying to paint all scientists with that brush, then what is the point of bringing it up at all?

I use Thalidomide as the poster child of scientific mistakes.

Imagine if all I used was some minor mishap; how effective would my point be?

In addition, the Thalidomide tragedy tells the story of one woman who would not bow to the pressures put on her by her peers, even though the whole world was prompting her to.

There are three people who I like to think I pattern myself after.

In descending order, they are:

1. Moses, who refused to be associated with Egypt's lineage.
2. Rosa Parks, who refused to relinquish her seat on a public bus.
3. Frances Kelsey, who did not bow to pressure from her peers.

By way of comparison:

1. I refuse to consider myself a Homo sapiens.
2. I will not subordinate science to Scripture and make the Bible "go to the back of the bus."
3. I will honor my opinions, until someone comes up with something better.

 

[AV1611VET]

You were a lot colder than you suggest right here AV, and you don't counter one tragedy with another.

I'll be more than happy to open the door for you, if you don't like it.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, remember the thread; "We need to talk about a few things" in which moderators stated to knock off the Thalidomide talk.

No, I don't.

I remember the thread, but that's all.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I use Thalidomide as the poster child of scientific mistakes.

Imagine if all I used was some minor mishap; how effective would my point be?

In addition, the Thalidomide tragedy tells the story of one woman who would not bow to the pressures put on her by her peers, even though the whole world was prompting her to.

There are three people who I like to think I pattern myself after.

In descending order, they are:

1. Moses, who refused to be associated with Egypt's lineage.
2. Rosa Parks, who refused to relinquish her seat on a public bus.
3. Frances Kelsey, who did not bow to pressure from her peers.

By way of comparison:

1. I refuse to consider myself a Homo sapiens.
2. I will not subordinate science to Scripture and make the Bible "go to the back of the bus."
3. I will honor my opinions, until someone comes up with something better.

The story of Francis Kelsey is one of a scientist (Kelsey) vs a pharmaceutical company (Richardson-Merrell) in the prevention of the approval of the use of Thalidomide in America. Looks like it actually vindicates scientist even if other scientists developed the drug.
Is pointing out this mistake your way of saying that all the biologists, paleontologists and geologists in the world are mistaken in their interpretation of the evidence they use to conclude that evolution occurred and the earth is actually very very old?

 

[AV1611VET]

The story of Francis Kelsey is one of a scientist (Kelsey) vs a pharmaceutical company (Richardson-Merrell) in the prevention of the approval of the use of Thalidomide in America.

Thank you.

You don't need to remind me though.

I'm the one that brings her up.

Thanks anyway, though.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I don't.

I remember the thread, but that's all.

Read the comment from moderator, I was kind enough to copy and paste for you.

Or, you can read post 77 in that thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Read the comment from moderator, I was kind enough to copy and paste for you.

Or, you can read post 77 in that thread.

Where did the:

"I agree; everyone got that?"

... come from? your keyboard?

 

[bhsmte]

Where did the:

"I agree; everyone got that?"

... come from? your keyboard?

Your not afraid to look up post 77 in that thread, are you AV?