N
Noose001
Guest
Maybe you should put this ‘evidence’ to test.
- Status
G
Gigantals
Guest
Well, ageing methods aside, I can still learn about aspects of geology such as mineralogy and geohazards. I wish to become a volcanologist myself.
I am in the enemy camp, my lecturers are not Christians and clearly have a vendetta against them (regardless how old they believe the Earth is). Here though, I can see all the arguments against my case. I can look at their conclusions and how they reached them, and see if there are any weaknesses I can exploit at some point in the future.
There’s also a minor Creationist museum nearby that I found a couple of months into my course, so I can do research there for my case too.
I am in the enemy camp, my lecturers are not Christians and clearly have a vendetta against them (regardless how old they believe the Earth is). Here though, I can see all the arguments against my case. I can look at their conclusions and how they reached them, and see if there are any weaknesses I can exploit at some point in the future.
There’s also a minor Creationist museum nearby that I found a couple of months into my course, so I can do research there for my case too.
F
Freddy
Guest
Well, I said right at the start that I didn’t expect an answer. But you come back whenever you’ve got one. I’ll still be here…Freddy:
It was nice talking to myself but it was great knowing you. Have a good night.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Oh, really? Then all you have to do is read my posts.
F
Freddy
Guest
So you didn’t need a definition to put your position forward, did you…you think you already have. So now we have definitions out of the way, maybe you could clarify your position.Freddy:
Oh, really? Then all you have to do is read my posts.
What’s your alternative to evolution? I must have missed the post where you gave it so you can give a quick precis or link to the specific post if you like. I think Noose has bailed out so you’re our last hope.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Nope, you have not yet defined what you think “scientific” means as in, “Macroevolution is a ‘scientific’ theory”.
F
Freddy
Guest
You know how your education is going to go don’t you… If you’re not sure, I can tell you now. Very badly.
I’m all for questioning what you are being told. I’m a big believer in that. Because at some point you are going to be told something that doesn’t sound right to you and you should not accept it blindly. Get that hand up in the lecture theatre and question the status quo!
But if you reject something, then you need an alternative. You can’t just be a naysayer. That will get you a fail as sure as God made little green apples. If you say ‘This is wrong’ then you need to be able to say why and offer an alternative. If the answer to the question ‘why’ and the alternative to what is being taught is ‘the bible’, then you will fail your course.
You are doing science. I’m sure you know that the bible is not meant to be and should not be used as a scientific text book. You’re in the wrong department to use biblical arguments. That’s for the theology department.
And a last point. Be true to yourself. If you stick with geology, don’t give answers that you believe to be wrong just to get through. Either stand up and be counted or get out.
B
Batman2.0
Guest
Maybe this is how we came to have different skin tones as well.
F
Freddy
Guest
Did someone say I wanted a scientific explanation that only agreed with my personal definition of ‘scientific’? I don’t think so. In fact I think I said that you can give me any explanation you like. You can define terms to suit yourself and define whatever you live to suit yourself.Freddy:
Nope, you have not yet defined what you think “scientific” means as in, “Macroevolution is a ‘scientific’ theory”.
I just want your personal view on how we came to be where we are now. How you do it is entirely up to you. And gee, this is like pulling teeth. Why is so difficult to explain one’s position…?
F
Freddy
Guest
Nothing to do with the climate then…DictatorCzar:
Maybe this is how we came to have different skin tones as well.
B
Batman2.0
Guest
Oh absolutely the climate.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Nice try, Fred. If you are unable to defend macroevolution as a scientific proposition, that’s OK.
N
Noose001
Guest
I see what you are doing, you want a response within the limits that you set yourself.
I oblige, the planet is 6000 years or so.
What now?
G
Gigantals
Guest
That’s why I’m working hard to make sure I have an answer every time I disagree with something. If I see something I can’t counter yet, then I say nothing at all, I know my limits.
A lot of the evidence presented can be interpreted either as a young or old Earth. Same data, different interpretations. With all the groups out there that are researching the young Earth, I can finally give answers that don’t start with ‘The Bible says’. I need to be able to answer both those who accept the Bible, and those who don’t.
In fact, talking about the word play used by geologists above, I can use that against them too. I don’t openly express my beliefs in my lectures or to the lecturers, I just ask about the theories themselves. They have no reason so suspect me. I just need to be careful of how I word my answers (it’s not like I’m writing ‘heresy’ all over the page).
I’ll be playing the long game in this case. Many YEC have done so for most of their lives, and now they’re fully qualified scientists. I’m not ready to do that yet, and it’s not a sin to write about the Earth being billions of years old, so it’s not like I’m sinning as I keep my head down for a while.
We are told to be ‘as innocent as doves and as wise as snakes’ (Matthew 10:16), I’m not going to antagonise the wolves around me.
A lot of the evidence presented can be interpreted either as a young or old Earth. Same data, different interpretations. With all the groups out there that are researching the young Earth, I can finally give answers that don’t start with ‘The Bible says’. I need to be able to answer both those who accept the Bible, and those who don’t.
In fact, talking about the word play used by geologists above, I can use that against them too. I don’t openly express my beliefs in my lectures or to the lecturers, I just ask about the theories themselves. They have no reason so suspect me. I just need to be careful of how I word my answers (it’s not like I’m writing ‘heresy’ all over the page).
I’ll be playing the long game in this case. Many YEC have done so for most of their lives, and now they’re fully qualified scientists. I’m not ready to do that yet, and it’s not a sin to write about the Earth being billions of years old, so it’s not like I’m sinning as I keep my head down for a while.
We are told to be ‘as innocent as doves and as wise as snakes’ (Matthew 10:16), I’m not going to antagonise the wolves around me.
F
Freddy
Guest
This isn’t an attempt to defend anything. I would just like your personal opinion on what the alternative to the evolutionary process is. Any time you are ready I’ll be here to read it.Freddy:
Nice try, Fred. If you are unable to defend macroevolution as a scientific proposition, that’s OK.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Good. If you have nothing to defend then no point in posting alternatives.
N
Noose001
Guest
You don’t have to belong in a group, just be keen and go where the understanding is clearer.
F
Freddy
Guest
I thought you’d gone…Freddy:
I see what you are doing, you want a response within the limits that you set yourself.
I oblige, the planet is 6000 years or so.
What now?
OK, now we know. You’re a biblical fundamentalist who treats Genesis as fact.
Now why on earth couldn’t you have said that when I asked the first time? Why all the beating around the bush? It’s a position that a lot of people hold. But as we have seen - in your case as an example, some folk seem a little reluctant to admit to it.
As to ‘What now’, what will happen is that I will treat your posts on scientific matters with your admission in mind. It’ll save us both an enormous amount of time. I won’t have to try to argue with you about anything that requires the world to be older than a few thousand years old and you won’t have to read it.
Something of a win/win situation.
Took long enough, but we got there eventually.
F
Freddy
Guest
If you have no alternative then what you could say is ‘I have no alternative’. But the op is giving something of a choice really. Evolution, or some version of it, or…creationism.Freddy:
Good. If you have nothing to defend then no point in posting alternatives.
What’s your personal preference? Assuming it’s not ‘I have no alternative’.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Nope. Read the OP again. It’s “Evolution and Creationism”. I’m perfectly fine with both. Do you have a problem with that?
- Status