YE Intimidation

Discussion in 'Science' started by UTEOTW, Mar 19, 2005.

  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought it was the evolutionists who were supposed to be intimidating folks and forcing them to teach the wrong things.

    Well it seems that they do not have that market cornered.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/n...d=all&position=

     
  2. mareese

    mareese
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Do you really believe that's a negative thing?
    Both evolution and (7day) creationism are theories (however contadictory that may sound to you) that deserve to be paid attention to and discussed.
    In the United States, where the population has been predominantly Christian in the past, it's reasonable that the theory of creation would be most often taught. Evolutionists, although in the minority, have somehow managed to change that. It's not that unreasonable or suprising to you that creationism isn't remaining in the back seat comfortably, is it?
    Believers are speaking out. Praise God!
     
  3. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  4. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that there are quite a few YEers who promote the idea that those that support evolution are some intolerent and that all they really want is to "teach the controversy."

    But here you see that in reality that those who support YE are quite willing to demand that ONLY their voice be heard all the while condeming the other side for what is described as the same actions.

    There was a recent thread that highlighted how this is also true in the public schools. For all the talk about indoctrination being done on children in publicschools regarding evolution, the truth is that many schools and teachers refuse to cover the subject or gloss over it in only the vaguest terms due to the pressure from YEers. If I remember correctly, there are only four states that mandate the teaching of human evolution in the whole country.

    Just trying to point out that YEers use tactics that they accuse and then condemn others of using. So, yes, I "really believe that's a negative thing."

    "Both evolution and (7day) creationism are theories (however contadictory that may sound to you) that deserve to be paid attention to and discussed. "

    But there is no theory of YE! In science you have well supported theories that describe what we see in biology and geology and paleontology and astronomy and so on. There is no such consistent, coherent theory to explain these observations in YE terms. Unless you, perhaps, have something that I have not seen. Pehaps you have a theory to explain the twin nested heirarchy, the convergence of independent phylogenies, the know transistional series, ontogeny, anatomical parahomology, molecular parahomology, past biogeography, present biogeography, molecular vestiges, anatomical vestiges, shared pseudogenes, shared retroviral inserts, and the other evidence for evolution.

    Maybe you have an alternative theory of astronomy which you can share with us. Please explain how your theory handles the anisotropy of the CMB revealed be COBE and WMAP.

    Maybe even an alternative geology. Since this started with an IMAX film about vocanoes, perhaps you could share a theory that handles all aspects of the Hawaiian Archipelago including the Emperor seamounts. The linearity of the distance from the current location of the hotspot with the radiometric dating of the extinct volcanoes. The differential erosion of the vocanoes including the ones eroded right back into the sea. The coral atolls formation. And so on.
     
  5. mareese

    mareese
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Most Christians condemn evolutionism being taught because it most commonly ignores or outright contradicts the word of God.


    Yet it is in the textbooks of every public school I know, textbooks which are required use. It was taught to me in school and it was introduced to my children in school in various contexts, both formal and casual. That isn't exactly "vague".

    Name 4 schools that require creationism to be introduced.


    The theory is given in the word of God.
    As a Christian, I assume that you believe in the truth of the Bible. Most followers of Christ believe in the infallibility of the Bible, despite difficulties in coordinating a number of the teachings in it with research. The biggest one that comes to mind is the rising of Christ after His death and burial. You believe in this despite evidences that show the human body to be incapable of physical life after death. Yet you will claim this to be the truth to your last breath despite the mounds of scientific evidence stating the impossibility of such an occurrence.
    That takes a giant leap of faith, yet you seem to stumble on less miraculous words such as the following:
    GEN 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    EX 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

    EX 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    Perhaps you have evidence that shows the Bible is not trustworthy? Perhaps you can share with us reasons why we should believe one part of the Bible and deny another?


    Creation can handle it quite well. How does your theory handle it? A flat world? "Precise" measurements of unproven matter? It's all in perfect harmony if you get the majority to agree that it is, right?


    tachyons
     
  6. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,505
    Likes Received:
    40
    One either trusts God, or man; each must make his own choice!

    All the scientific rambling doesn't change the fact that God said "IN SIX DAYS----", and man says "IN SIX BILLION YEARS, (or whatever)---"!

    So the choice is obvious; God or man!
     
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Most Christians condemn evolutionism being taught because it most commonly ignores or outright contradicts the word of God."

    Two points of contention.

    The first is that truth cannot contradict the Word of God. Biology amd astronomy and geology are as well established and supported sciences as chemistry and physics. If there is a conflict it is because we may not fully understands God's revelation to us. But it is a logical fallacy of the false dilemma to suggest that the only choice is that these two issues are contradictions. And since there is no way to explain our observations of creation in a young earth paradigm, it is most logical to assume that those who insist on YE are promoting a false interpretation.

    Second, I think your statement hinges on which groups that claim to be Christian do you actually accept as Christian. There are many Christians individually who not only accept the old earth sciences but who also directly work in them. There are also many demoninations which do not collectively see a contradiction. Maybe if you define "Christian" to only be those who agree with you...

    "Yet it is in the textbooks of every public school I know, textbooks which are required use. It was taught to me in school and it was introduced to my children in school in various contexts, both formal and casual. That isn't exactly "vague"."

    It is in most textbooks but the attention paid to it is scant. It is not taught in the same vein as chemistry or physics. How much time do you think is devoted to it? A few days in most schools? A week or two at most? It should get several weeks! Maybe even a whole quarter. It is THE theory that is the basis for evrything in biology! A biology course that glosses over the subject is not doing its students a favor. And you see the intimidation factor at work. Most teachers and school boards put as little spotlight as possible on the subject. Most states do not even have mandated teaching of human evolution as part of their curriculum.

    "Name 4 schools that require creationism to be introduced."

    Public schools should not be teaching religious concepts. Period! They should stick to the science.

    Having said that, I think if you look around you will find that there are a number of teachers who have taken it upon themselves to teach YE anyhow. And if you go to a private school, you should be able to pick out whatever curriculum of which you approve.

    "The biggest one that comes to mind is the rising of Christ after His death and burial. You believe in this despite evidences that show the human body to be incapable of physical life after death."

    That is a supernatural event that we all, as Christians, take on faith. We would not expect nor want to find any sort of support for this. It is better to have faith in things unseen.

    God has given us His own Creation to examine. That makes it a different situation. How God created is written into the creation itself. There are certain things that would be expected if the earth were young and other things that would be expected if the earth were old. It tells us that He used long periods to create. We see nothing that would be expected solely in a young earth. A young earth interpretation is completely at odds with creation iteself and cannot be true. Those that disagree should produce a coherent theory to explain the observations we see. They have not. And cannot.

    You are again seeking to compare two incomparible items and set up a dilemma that does not exist.

    "Perhaps you have evidence that shows the Bible is not trustworthy?"

    Another fallacy. Saying that I disagree with you is completely different that asserting that the Bible itself is not trustworthy.

    "Creation can handle it quite well. How does your theory handle it? A flat world? "Precise" measurements of unproven matter? It's all in perfect harmony if you get the majority to agree that it is, right?


    tachyons
    "

    I am really not sure what you are talking about here.

    Inflation theory predicted many of the details that we see in the cosmic microwave background. So it handles it quite well.

    Since you deny inflation, on what basis do you explain the observations of the CMB? What kinds of predictions can you make about what else will be found? Inflation makes some specific predictions about what effect we should see in the CMB due to gravitational waves when our ability to measure the CMB becomes good enough. What does your theory predict we should find with relation to gravitational waves and the CMB?

    What "flat world?"

    And the tachyon thing, what is that? Is this supposed to be an alternate explanation for the CMB? I am not sure what you are driving at?

    A final question. Or set of questions. You avoided accounting for the geological and biological items I alluded to. Do you think that these observations are accurate?

    If they are not, what is wrong with the observations?

    If they are accurate, do you have an alternative theory as to why these observations are as we see them that best fits a young earth?

    If there is no such theory that accounts for these observations, do you then suppose that God made the earth recently, but made it look exactly like evolution had happened, and that the earth was subject to billions of years of geological processes and that inflation ws the dominant force in the appearance of the universe?

    Do you think that all of the scientists that research these issues are so incompetent in their own fields that non-experts are able to easily point out the flaws yet they do not see them themselves?

    Or do you think that all these guys know that what they do is not true but we have a great conspiracy going on, including many Christians that are scientists?

    What is the goal of all these scientists, including the Christians, if you think they are part of some grand conspiracy?

    If they are just wrong, why do you think that non-experts are better at figuring this out than the people who have actually collected the data and looked at the data and that have the background to understand it?
     
  8. mareese

    mareese
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    You said: If there is a conflict it is because we may not fully understands God's revelation to us.

    Allow me to rephrase that in a more truthful manner:If there is a conflict it MAY be because we have misunderstood God's revelation to us.
    What exactly is your reasoning for firmly believing it is a false interpretation of the Bible to believe that God meant he created the heavens and the earth in six literal days, divided by morning and evening, when he said he created the heavens and the earth in six days divided by morning and evening?
    What is the proper interpretation of this in your opinion? Why, in the face of scientific study do you believe it improbable, but do not question the rising of Christ in the face of scientific study that makes it, also, an improbability?
    How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will take and face value and which parts you will not?

    The Bible and nature present us with facts. There is a way to explain our observations of creation and based on what the Bible says it is most logical for a believer to assume that our analysis of our observations are being interpreted falsely. It is logical to start a study with what we know. The Bible is just that.
    What exactly ARE YE's promoting? How can much of anything be promoted when NEPS (non-evolution persuasion studiers, or perhaps FDR's...funding deprived researchers resulting in subsequent FDR's to science...fundie deprived revelations, pronounce that fudder fudder) are all but shunned from access to research centers, the ability to publish information and findings, etc.? (I half expect creation science to be re-named the bootleg theory, with secret meetings and writings passed onto other researchers in code) What is the reasoning for this, especially when it involves fellow Christians? It seems only reasonable that such would deeply desire to find compatability between the Bible and science, yet those calling themselves Christian evolutionists appear to resist that attempt with everything in their power.
    Why?

    A basic definition and expectation of those who call themselves Christian are those that believe in the Word of God as truth and in turn have dedicated their lives to the attempt to tell others of Christ, both through their words and through their everyday lives manifesting the love of Christ that others may see it and desire it.

    I don't find it strange that one would question interpretations and meaning of scriptures, neither do I believe that all evolutionists are unsaved. However, I seriously question their intentions as I have yet to meet an evolutionist who attempts to prove himself wrong despite Biblical evidences contrary to the evolutionist beliefs. Many admit that they believe the scriptures aren't interpreted correctly, none have given a logical and reasonable explanation of the correct interpretation.
    I honestly cannot understand believing in one scientific impossibility and discarding the next when both have equal contraindications!

    On evolution in schools you stated:

    The HORROR!
    Does it need to be taught so outright when it is so embedded in everything else? Where it is not outright announced it is implied. Young children grow up with storybooks, television shows, magazines, and books that confidently teach the evolution of man, of animals, of formations that occurred millions of years ago. They go to school and it is reinforced in their history, science, biology, and even math books. They follow up at universities where any other theory is treated as childhood whimsy or country bumpkin amusements.

    I'm stunned to hear this from a fellow believer. How can you separate our "religion" from fact? It is not only spiritual, the belief system of the Christian assumes...no, requires application also to the physical. It permeates every part of our lives, unable to be separated from any aspect of it. Evolution itself is most often associated with atheism. I could just as justifiably say that it is a "religious" belief that has no place in our public schools.


    There is a grain of truth to that. Much of it depends on what part of the country you are in, and is often not without it's consequences and is rarely taught with anymore specifics and certainly most often with more vagueness than is evolution.

    Already addressed, but as for faith in things unseen, there is just as much observed and studied in the medical field, with much more accurate and provable theories, than is seen for evidences of evolution. If one must start with science, as you have implied, then one must admit that there is even less evidence and possibility of the resurrection than there is (in your opinion) of a six day creation.
    What made you choose to have faith in one and doubt for the other?

    We also have humans and death to examine. How does it make it a different situation?
    How God created is written into the Bible, what God created is seen in nature. We have yet to figure out the details, but research, despite attempts of evolutionists to curtail it, has and is being done. I'm sure you are more than aware of the work that is being done, as you have been involved in discussions with those attempting to defend creation over evolution, even on this board.

    Explain why it isn't a dilemma. If I have a problem reconciling your take on things and am in need of an explanation, it is indeed a dilemma.

    On the trustworthiness of the Bible being questioned you stated:

    How can it be trustworthy if it makes a plain and simple statement about creation that is not true or able to be interpreted? How do we know what else is being interpreted wrong or what we should question? Illogical and unexplainable events happen throughout it, yet we accept them mostly without question.

    I had meant to link the word to a page and then reference it with another which I ended up not being able to find at that moment, must have forgotten to delete the word when I erased the end of the post. Sorry.
    Inflation is an assumption based on assumptions that make the CMB fit into the theory of evolution. CMB and the stretching of the heavens go hand in hand, while inflation will have the universe eventually collapsing. As far as predictions I have none but simply watch with interest as it all unfolds.
    Flat/o=1

    [/quote]A final question. Or set of questions. You avoided accounting for the geological and biological items I alluded to. Do you think that these observations are accurate?

    If they are not, what is wrong with the observations?
    If they are accurate, do you have an alternative theory as to why these observations are as we see them that best fits a young earth? [/quote]

    The problems with radiometric dating and geological explanations in light of Bible age catastrophes have been discussed on here ad nauseum to no avail.

    How do you know what evolution looks like verses an instant creation? Forgive me if you got together with Linde and tested this out in your lab and now know, but I'm assuming you haven't. What do you compare data to for accuracy in dating procedures?

    By no means do I find them incompetent, although I do believe they may be persuaded to some degree by such issues as non-belief, the direction of funding, and a reluctance to think outside the box of evolution and be ridiculed, and possibly have their life's work reduced to a joke once they come out of the box.

    I do not believe it is a secret conspiracy. What we are seeing is the result of man's attempt to elevate himself, to gain knowledge that comes from the mind instead of the Word. Even the best of Christians can fall victim to this temptation.
    Also, you need to explain your interpretation of what defines a Christian. I'm beginning to think we may have a bit of disagreement on that issue.

    Define expert.
    IMO anyone who starts and ends their study with the evidences and statements given to us in the Bible will be better at figuring out most anything. I do not see evolutionists doing that. Please do explain how evolution is compatible with the Bible.

    PS: Apologies for my terribly off sense of humor. ;)
     
  9. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mareese: The problem with your approach is, it has been tried before and failed miserably. When Copornicus and Gallileo were starting to point out it is the rotation of the earth that causes the sun to only appear to rise and set in the sky all the clerics, both protestant and catholic, rose up and defended the literal interpretation of God's word against the upstart opinions of scientists, and that uprising is recorded in history. They were merely attempting to uphold exactly the thing you are attempting to uphold, but with the disasterous results to their reputation that we all know of today.

    Why do you wish to repeat their unfortunate history?
     
  10. mareese

    mareese
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I find myself irresistably drawn to unfortune, although not in this case.

    There is a difference between explaining what is seen in science from a creationist view and ignoring science in order to have a creationist view.
     
  11. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    NOt sure what you said in that post. Take the case of radioactive decay. Scientests tell us that on the whole, the earth shows signs of accumulating 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay isotopes.

    I take this as evidence the earth is 4.5 billion years old. How do you take that?
     
  12. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    4.5 billion years atomically is definitely not the same as 4.5 billion years dynamically.
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "4.5 billion years atomically is definitely not the same as 4.5 billion years dynamically."

    We need evidence. The theory predicts certain things. We need to see these observations.

    For example, astronomers measure the rotational rate of galaxies by looking at how much difference there is in the frequency shift of the light from the side rotating towards us and the side rotating away from us. THis is a Doppler shift and is completely unrelated to the red shift that shows the expansion of the universe.

    Now, if you assume that the galaxy is not rotating at relativistic speeds and you only consider the velocity vectors directly towards and away from you, the formula for doppler shift reduces to

    (velocity of object)/(speed light) = (change in wavelength) / (wavelength)

    (Barry has been very clear that it is frequency that changes with c.)

    Now if you solve for the change in wavelength, you will see that it is inversely proportional to the speed of light. So if you take a given situation, plug though the change in wavelength with a higher speed of light to get the change in wavelength, then go back through with today's speed of light, you will see that your speed measured will be off by exactly how much the speed of light has changed. The exact same thing will happen if you use frequency instead of wavelength.

    Take M31. It is about 2 million light years away so light would have been necessary to have been traveling at least a few thousand time faster when it left than now to get here in 6000 years. This means that the measured speeds of rotation are off by at least three orders of magnitude. And M31 is the nearest large galaxy. The problems get much worse at greater distances.
     
  14. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    evidence that the two different time scales run at different rates was given by Van Flandern when he was working for the US Naval Observatory. National Bureau of Standards US, Special Publication 617, 1984.

    The fact that atomic and dynamical time have different run rates has been known for some time now.
     
  15. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "evidence that the two different time scales run at different rates was given by Van Flandern when he was working for the US Naval Observatory. National Bureau of Standards US, Special Publication 617, 1984.

    The fact that atomic and dynamical time have different run rates has been known for some time now.
    "

    Known by whom?

    I believe that Van Flandern does not jump to the conclusion of a changing speed of light. If I understand him correctly, he thinks that special relativity is flawed and that that his observations of alledged anomalies in the moon's orbit and in the orbit of some satellites are caused by a different formulation of relativity with a flat space-time and by possible changes in the gravitational constant.

    THis guy also seems to be out on the fringes of science. Searching through his papers you get some goodies. Do you also accept his findings in "New Evidence of an Artificial Origin for Cydonia on Mars"? Or "Artificial structures on Mars"?

    But all that is really beside the point.

    The changing speed of light idea can be used to formulate predictions of what we should observe if it is true. One example has been given above. If the speed of light really were chagning, then we should not see Doppler shifts from one side of a galaxy to the other caused by the rotation of the galaxy. The higher speed of light would have reduced the difference in wavelength by the sae order that the speed of hte light was greater than now. This is not seen. We have been through this in the past. There was once a list of outstanding questions that I was promised would be eventually answered. Well...
     

Share This Page

Loading...