Go for the Heart

[Titan]

This is for both sides to consider:

Have any of you noticed that when a fossil comes out one of the two sides immediately jumps on it?

When the Nebraska man came out it was immediately used in the Scopes Monkey Trials to solidify the growing theory of evolution. It was later found that the fossil consisted of a single tooth belonging to an extinct species of pig.

When a creationist finds the complexity of an organ or organism they immediately publish a document stating how it shows that evolution is utterly false. Often these organs are proven to be less complex than previoulsy thought.

This is entitled "Go for the Heart" because rather than going for the mind and bringing evidence to the other side to be tested and critiqued, evolutionists and creationists immediately print it in order to cripple the other side and build up its own beliefs.

I know evolutionists will completely deny this (as will creationists) but both sides have questionable flaws that can not be left alone. In modern times we no longer want to find out the truth but to be proven correct and rub it in the face of those who oppose us so that we can end the courage that they once had.

Why can't we do this:
When evolutionists find a fossil that "proves evolution" they should bring it to the creationists and collectively examine it. Then both sides write their critiques on the fossils including the arguments for the other side.
When creationists find an amazingly complex organism why can't they show the evolutionary medical teams and collectively observe it once more, and repeat the process.

The conclusions will still be different but we won't have a bunch of brainwashed zombies anymore.

When I was a young-earth creationist we discussed the Scopes Monkey trials in History Class. It was inevitably brought up that I was a creationist and the teacher said "I don't know how you could have such an opinion" we had a debate (informal) and I crushed both the evolutionary classmates and the teacher because I was the only one who had researched both sides. The comment by the teacher made it harder for me to accept evolution and therein lies another problem.
We are prideful creatures, some would rather be ignorant than allow somoeone to gloat. So if we realize we have made a mistake we hide it and cover it up, dodging the issue and further increasing the pain.


I am really fed up with the debate. I will continue to debate but it is some of the people here who mock Creationists and some of my creationist friends who basically laugh at the phrase "evolution occurs" that annoy me. Why can't the debate be civilized and open-minded?

If someone wants to be an atheist than just come to terms with that and quit debating because nothing will convince you. If you want to be a Christian that stop arguing because we will get no where.

[juliod]

My uncle is a YEC with a Ph. D. in animal science, who works for an ag firm in Indiana. However, since taxonomical palaeontology is not his area of expertise, I don't think he has much to argue on from his particular field.

What I am not saying is that there are no people with advanced degrees in relevant subjects who support creationism.

What I am talking about is working scientists. And by working I mean some form of research, as opposed to some form of industrial applications work.

I don't know what you uncle does, but I can feel sure that it doesn't in any way intersect with any field directly relevant to YECism. Otherwise he would be crippled in his professional work.

I mean, could you envisage a person working at the National Hurricane Center who believed that tropical storms were caused by Thor? Just isn't going to happen.

So I am not intending to exaggerate. And I understand that many people may misunderstand my point. I could be more clear. It's not about what Ph.D.'s believe, it's about what they do in their professional work.

DanZ

[MagusYanam]

I mean, could you envisage a person working at the National Hurricane Center who believed that tropical storms were caused by Thor? Just isn't going to happen.

Okay, that makes more sense (and is not exaggeration), though the stipulation of 'working scientists' as meaning 'scientists working in a field requiring an understanding of evolution' could have used some clarification.

My uncle (for example) does studies on different varieties of feed for livestock - doing work with artificial (and natural) selection - but he thinks of these as scientific truth without accepting their broader implications (i.e. Darwinian evolution theory). This I find perplexing at best (inconceivable at worst), and yet it doesn't seem tointerfere with his work. But I can see what you're getting at: if he were to study the history of the development of different types of grasses then he would definitely encounter some issues.

Come to think of it, it might be interesting to see whether these supposed 'creation scientists' have even contributed anything to their respective fields, other than anti-evolutionary polemics or creation-science apologetics.

[Jose]

But on examination these lists never include any actual working scientists. It's always people with qualifications outside the field, unidentfiable people, or even people who do not apparently support creation.

Juliod, you're in the right ballpark, but I know this is not the case. My uncle is a YEC with a Ph. D. in animal science, who works for an ag firm in Indiana.
.....
Conversely, though, I have yet to see any credible, disinterested source advance any cohesive model for a young universe of intelligent design.

I, too, have seen enigmas, in which graduate students in my department have obtained degrees in molecular biology or genetics, and profess to accept microevolution but not macroevolution. They carefully chose subfields that do not intersect with those subfields that depend upon evolutionary theory. They also moved out of research after they earned their degrees.

I have also known students who have decided not to major in biology after all, because the more they learned, the more difficult it was not to accept evolution. They did not want to accept evolution, so they quit.

So, we probably don't get very far providing lists of "others" who have views of one sort or another. Ultimately, it isn't what people believe that wins the day; it's what the evidence supports.

I agree with your final conclusion, and begin to think that this is a serious topic which we should entertain here. Is there any cohesive model for a young universe of intelligent design? So far, design "theory" seems to be no more than saying "I don't understand X, so X must be designed by God." This is no theory. It is merely accepting a personal default position, that if it's too hard for me to figure out, I'll say God did it. Is there an actual model?

[YEC]

juliod:
I mean, could you envisage a person working at the National Hurricane Center who believed that tropical storms were caused by Thor? Just isn't going to happen.

The diffferance is that you can model..predict..track..etc hurricanes.

You can't even come close to that with any portion of the theory of evolutionISM.

[Titan]

But as for proof, there is the Argument from Silence. Creationists are very vocal. If there were any real science behind creationism they would be sure to tell us.

One scientist off of the top of my head is Jonathan Wells who is a PHD in vertabrate embryology. Some of his work includes "Charles Hodge's Critigue of Darwinism", Origins & Design, The Scientist, Touchstone, The American Biology Teacher, Microtubule-mediated transport of organelles and localization of beta-catenin to the future dorsal side of Xenopus eggs, and Rhetoric and Public Affairs. He also wrote Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong.

No, and that is not how science (not to say ordinary life) works. We have no obligation to give serious consideration to obviously nonsensical arguments. Life would be quite unlivable if you did.

So you only have to give consideration to the theories which make sense to you? Sounds like flat earth theology there.

It isn't scientific. You can't just say "is not is not". And ad hoc rationalisation is not acceptable. In science you need to provide evidence of your own. Creationism would be easy to prove if it were true. Creationists don't provide evidence for the simple reason that it is a false notion and there isn't any evidence to support it.

Since it appears that you don't read very many creationist books I suggest that you read The Case for a Creator. There you can read Jonathan Well's critique of modern "proof" for evolution.

[Samurai Tailor]

But what does four corners actually mean???

I looked looked up "corner" in the dictionary. There were 27 discriptions describing the useage of the term.

Number 17 was "the four corners of the
earth" The most distant or remote regions: They traveled to the
four corners of the earth.

It has nothing to do with a flat earth...why do you seem to indicate that it does???

Well, what you wrote was, "All one had to do was read the Bible..." I read the Bible and I see the word "corners." Primarily, a corner is something formed by the junction of planes in two or three dimensions; thus the Earth is either a quadrilateral or a tetrahedron. Presumably, this is the definition that comes most readily to mind. Indeed, there are fifteen other usages to wade through before I get to the one you tell me is correct.

At the very least, it seems like one needs a dictionary - even a native English speaker might - in addition to the Bible.

[YEC]

But what does four corners actually mean???

I looked looked up "corner" in the dictionary. There were 27 discriptions describing the useage of the term.

Number 17 was "the four corners of the
earth" The most distant or remote regions: They traveled to the
four corners of the earth.

It has nothing to do with a flat earth...why do you seem to indicate that it does???

Well, what you wrote was, "All one had to do was read the Bible..." I read the Bible and I see the word "corners." Primarily, a corner is something formed by the junction of planes in two or three dimensions; thus the Earth is either a quadrilateral or a tetrahedron. Presumably, this is the definition that comes most readily to mind. Indeed, there are fifteen other usages to wade through before I get to the one you tell me is correct.

At the very least, it seems like one needs a dictionary - even a native English speaker might - in addition to the Bible.

Maybe so, but when you look up the meaning of the words corner ..strongs 3671...you get the real meaning of the term corner and its proper usage rather than the anti-bible crowd usage of the word corner.

[Dilettante]

Magus Yanam wrote:

I think it was earlier even than that. Aristotle believed that the Earth was round during his lifetime because of the shadow the Earth made on the moon (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Saristot.htm), and because in Egypt one is able to see some stars that one cannot from Greece. Eratosthenes was even able to estimate the Earth's circumference based on the angle of the Sun in the sky at the same time from two different locations. All of this was done likely before 200 BCE. This would compute to 22 or 23 centuries (Aristotle died in 322 BCE).

This knowledge was lost during the Dark Ages, but resurfaced amongst some clerics who were likely able to study Arabic translations of Aristotle's works. Since there was no real scientific community at the time in Western civilisation, I would hesitate to use the phrasing 'the scientific community believed x'.

That's absolutely correct, Magus. And not only that, but in 1522 eighteen survivors of Magellan's crew led by Juan Sebastián Elcano circumnavigated the Earth proving beyond doubt it was round.

[Samurai Tailor]

Maybe so, but when you look up the meaning of the words corner ..strongs 3671...you get the real meaning of the term corner and its proper usage rather than the anti-bible crowd usage of the word corner.

Okay. If your intention is to portray the Bible as a stand-alone, easy-to-digest vehicle for truth, appealing to external sources for "real meaning" is perhaps not the best idea.

At this point, you have installed Strong's as the infallible text, displacing the Bible itself. Is that really what you want to do?

[juliod]

My uncle (for example) does studies on different varieties of feed for livestock - doing work with artificial (and natural) selection - but he thinks of these as scientific truth without accepting their broader implications (i.e. Darwinian evolution theory).

I call this Sunday Morning Creationism.

I would wonder, tho, why when doing his professional work, he does not simply pray for the creation of new breeds ex nihilo[/b]. That is the sort of behavior I would expect from a genuine creationist.

Come to think of it, it might be interesting to see whether these supposed 'creation scientists' have even contributed anything to their respective fields, other than anti-evolutionary polemics or creation-science apologetics.

Some do, but never anything that touches on evolution.

DanZ