mtcodex

Alyson

Wow...you're a fox! What a hottie! Can I have your digits, yo? Call me!

On 26 February

Matt Turner

You surely may.

On 26 February

Artemis

Hey! HEY!! Back off you taudry ****! He's mine!

And you, Mr. Turner...just you wait until I get my hands on you!

On 26 February

Artemis

I resent being censored!

On 26 February

'Just a balanced view point'

Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer. Please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism).

Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

* Coherence of many different dating methods.
* Chronological distribution of fossils.
* Spatial distribution of living things.
* Relationships between living things.

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

* Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
* Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html

On 28 February

Matt Turner

Thank you for your lengthy response, just a balanced view point.
I shaln't attempt to answer every question, but i'll pick a few which i think are pertinent.

Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory?
The speaker on saturday, although a creationist, was arguing from the theory of 'Intelligent Design', so the question is. "is there any observation which supports any feature of Intelligent Design?".

I'm not a scientist so I will try to recap one of the points made which does not have to do with posing a problem for evolution. One observation is that humans are capable of doing far more than is necessary for just survival. For example we can do so much with our hands: play music, do crafts, type, make gestures. None of these things are essential for survival and from the ID point of view are examples of over design. Another example of over design is that we have muscles in our face that can do nothing more than make us smile.

If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why?

I do not fall into that category. If God is in fact sustaining the 'normal operation of natural phenomena' then there is no reason He shouldn't augment these at His will. So I don't believe a miracle is a suspension of the natural order while God does something special, I believe they are God using the natural order in whatever means He pleases to accomplish a miracle. The important thing is that is that God is responsible for them and used them as a means to point to Himself. That holds true for the miracles of the Old Testament as well as those performed by Jesus.

Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions? / Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?

There is only 'all the evidence' if you come from a Secular or Humanistic view point. Where are the fossils?- How did our ancestors stand up keep their balance if all the fossils we have of them have flat feet.. or a mixture of human and ape bones. Where are the myriad of intermediate fossils from when dinosaurs turned into birds... or what about when mammals jumped back into the water? Where is the scientific research showing that genetic mutation (as opposed to just natural selection) can in fact be beneficial?

"and for the relationships between living things"
There is evidence for relationships between living things because there is a relationship between them, namely a common designer.

"and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?"
We were given intelligence but conclusions that end at Evolution come from minds which as the Bible puts it are at enmity against God. If you believe in Evolution though we have not been 'given' anything.

The fact of the matter is that yes, my view on origins are affected by religious beliefs. However there is no such thing as a completely unbiased people. Those secular scientists who look at things 'objectively' have an outlook which us usually a mixture of Humanism, Relativism and Rationalism.

They reject special creation / ID on the basis that it requires the acceptance of the supernatural, which doesn't fit nicely into scientific study.

Right, one more:
Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?

The fact there is not uniformity in radioactive decay is important. For example when something is dated that is an archeological artifact because we have a better idea about the quantities of carbon we can adjust the measurements to get a better picture. We can't do that for things like lumps of rock.
As i'm sure you are aware there is lots of controversy over all sorts of dating issues. E.g. radioactivity as we mentioned, astronomy with the 'red shift' and is the universe expanding.. why do we find more galaxies as we look further from what we think is the center of the universe. I honestly believe that we see uniformity between them because the dating methods are calculated on the assumption of an old earth. I mean, if we already 'know' that the earth is around so old, then if a dating method were to say it wasn't old we'd reject it because we know it must be wrong. It's entirely possible to come up with a consistency among dating for a young earth when you start with that assumption using the techniques you mentioned above. A lot of work on this is being done by the 'RATE' group who are looking at things like ice cores, rocks and radioactivity.

Okay, that is more than I thought i'd be able to answer! Enjoy.

On 28 February