Evolution and Creationism

[EndTimes]

Just as with the term “evolution”
… There are multiple definitions of the term “creationist”

Which one do you maintain a lifelong focus is it? upon?

 

[Freddy]

There are multiple definitions of the term “creationist”

Which one do you maintain a lifelong focus is it? upon?

God created everything fully formed. As opposed to evolution. I mean, you were comparing the two as if they were in conflict. How else can your post be read?

 

[Gigantals]

That’s because they aren’t in the spotlight. For instance, there’s Steve Austin, who proposed the alternative formation of coal beds through floating logs mats. His Creationist work is rejected by non-Creationists, but all of his other work is accepted by evolutionists. He was one of the first at Mt St Helens, which ended up proving his PhD dissertation correct. There are others, but I’m not going to scroll through all the articles to find all the geologist authors.

It all depends on my reports and how I word them. Steve Austin attacked the original idea of coal formation, but he didn’t mention anything that made him sound like a Creationist. I will come clean, but I truthfully cannot say when or under what circumstances.

The way the World is going, being a Catholic, let alone a Creationist, will be a discriminated against. I’m just experiencing this before a lot of people because I’m heading into a field which is where some of the first discrimination against our beliefs started gaining popularity. As Jesus told us, we will be sent out as sheep among wolves, so be as innocent as doves and as wise and serpents. So that’s what I’ll have to do.

I would talk to my priest about it, but the lockdown isn’t helping.

 

[EndTimes]

As opposed to evolution

“evolution” ? Again. which theory do you ascribe to?

Genesis is an amazing account of Evolution in a true sense of that term…

The Cambrian is incredibly de novo… major body plans - Phylums.

Recalling the fact that theories and therefore definitions of ‘evolution’ are Legion,
we also recall how mutation brings us evolution in the negative manner -
as is devolution - for reason of lost Bio-info aka a degradation of Genomes…

 

[Gigantals]

I mean that I won’t be living the high life in a mansion with five cars through my lying. I don’t plan on lying my whole life, nor do I plan on enjoying my lies. I don’t think a spy in an enemy camp ever truly feels happy about having to hide and lie there, but he needs to do his job.

 

[whatistrue]

I mean that I won’t be living the high life in a mansion with five cars through my lying

That’s not the definition of personal gain.

Spy in an enemy camp is a bit melodramatic, don’t you think? What makes you think that you can debunk an entire field of study? If you don’t think it is valid, then why not just earn a living honestly in another field?

 

[Gigantals]

Maybe it’s a bit melodramatic. I’ll just stick to the sheep among wolves analogy. I can’t deny that those I disagree with have the best resources at their disposal.

I know I can’t debunk an entire field of research. I’m not that smart.

The problem isn’t geology itself, it’s what they’re doing in geology and how they’re using it. If I can help support an alternative ideology that shows people they don’t need to just accept what the masses accept; and instead look between the two and decide for themselves which one is best supported; then I’ve done my job. I can do the work for them so they can just gather the evidence for their conclusion.

Isn’t this a better alternative to personal gain?

 

[o_mlly]

No one was able to kill Freddy Krueger either, were they? He’d just come back in another B movie. Better to simply ignore him.

 

[whatistrue]

The problem isn’t geology itself, it’s what they’re doing in geology and how they’re using it.

In a brief statement (please no more walls of text; it doesn’t really help advance your position as much as you seem to think) explain who “they” are and how are they using geology (and what are they doing to it)?

If I can help support an alternative ideology that shows people they don’t need to just accept what the masses accept;

See, in my mind that right there is enough to destroy whatever else you say - science is not ideology, and reputable scientists cannot be ideologues (no matter the ideology espoused). Science is about facts, and new facts change the science.

 

[Noose001]

A language is not wired in, the ability to use language is wired in. Also kind of hard to learn to speak a country.

Ability to use a language?! You mean ability to learn a language? of course ability to learn or use a language shall remain as such until a person actually learns the real words of a language and their meanings. I’m still waiting for an explanation of how our ancestor learned how to use a language.

Deaf people may or may not speak a language (See Marlee Matlin for example), but a large percentage use a language (one of many extant sign languages. Make no mistake, these are not “coded English” or “coded Whatever”, they are full languages that developed and evolved within the populations that use them.

An elaborate sign language is a universal language that is taught/learned, not spontaneous or accidental. Yes, it is true that some common but very few signs that pertain to normal everyday life undertakings can be developed without learning:

For example; Telling a person they need to run can demonstrated by running a little, but telling them why they need to run requires a story.

Your explanation is still not agreeable, it is more of a myth, no evidence whatsoever.

 

[rossum]

God Made the Universe… and put Life into it.

No. Since God is a living God, there was already life present before He made the universe. Since He is omnipresent then there was always life present: God Himself.

God did not create the first life.

 

[whatistrue]

I’m still waiting for an explanation of how our ancestor learned how to use a language.

It was given. You rejected it out of hand. Not my problem. But to summarize, the origin of language was a slow incremental process that progressed organically. No reputable linguist that I have ever heard of stated that any language sprang forth fully formed in an instant. Which brings us to:

An elaborate sign language is a universal language that is taught/learned, not spontaneous or accidental.

The various sign languages for the deaf (and yes, there are several and they are different) are taught and learned now. They developed the same way any new language develops.

And just saying there is no evidence is not the same as there being no evidence, especially if you simply deny it without refutation.

Still don’t care about “agreeable” or not…

 

[Noose001]

It was given. You rejected it out of hand. Not my problem. But to summarize, the origin of language was a slow incremental process that progressed organically. No reputable linguist that I have ever heard of stated that any language sprang forth fully formed in an instant. Which brings us to:

No single evidence for the above assertions, what we know and see today is that people learn to speak languages.

There’s no model to explain how a language can develop through a ‘slow incremental process’ from a point of no language. The complexity of a language can not allow such a process to happen.

 

[rossum]

We don’t just use one dating method. We use several and then use carbon dating to see the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere at the time.

Yes, as has science. We use different ways to measure dates and cross-check between the different methods to ensure that the dates are as accurate as possible. We use the different methods to smooth out the variations in the individual methods. The end result is something like this:


Source: Radiocarbon Dating.

The straight line is a constant level of carbon-14. The tree ring and Lake Suigetsu data points show the variation over time in levels of carbon-14. Yes there is variation, but nowhere near enough to justify a 6,000 year old earth. That diagram goes back 40,000 years, conclusively disproving a 6,000 year old earth.
.

 

[whatistrue]

There’s no model to explain how a language can develop through a ‘slow incremental process’ from a point of no language. The complexity of a language can not allow such a process to happen.

If you are building a structure of bricks where there are no structures made of bricks yet, no matter how complex that structure is, it is built one brick at a time. If no languages exist, the first one is built one part at a time. Grunt and point. Different grunt and point elsewhere. Rinse and repeat. Start adding things like “big” vs “small”. Takes more than a single human lifetime, but that is how it is done. New languages aren’t really very complex, they become complex the longer they are in use. Look up the differences between and origins of Pidgins, Creoles, and so forth and how they differ from full languages.

 

[Chet1]

It beats me. And I mean I’m honestly perplexed. Someone who thinks the world is 6,000 years old wanting to get a geology degree. It would be like a flat earther trying for an aeronautical qualification.

Thomas that I am, my first thought was of flying pigs, but, then I thought, do you mean like Icarus?

 

[Noose001]

If you are building a structure of bricks where there are no structures made of bricks yet, no matter how complex that structure is, it is built one brick at a time. If no languages exist, the first one is built one part at a time. Grunt and point. Different grunt and point elsewhere. Rinse and repeat. Start adding things like “big” vs “small”. Takes more than a single human lifetime, but that is how it is done. New languages aren’t really very complex, they become complex the longer they are in use. Look up the differences between and origins of Pidgins, Creoles, and so forth and how they differ from full languages.

1. If grunts work perfectly why the need for change?
2. Language is a means of expressing information that we have to others; our needs,feelings,knowledge e.t.c. You can not come up with a word which is not understood by the next person, what purpose will it serve and for you to teach others what this word means you need more words. So there’s no way a language can start with a single word and build on it, it has to be several words at the go.

If you come up with the word sick, how will the next person understand what you are saying?

1. Memory- every new word has to be memorized, now that there was no writing because there was no reading, the only way to memorize is to use it repeatedly, but how do you use a word which others don’t understand, what purpose does it serve?

 

[whatistrue]

If grunts work perfectly why the need for change?

Who said they work perfectly?

So there’s no way a language can start with a single word and build on it, it has to be several words at the go.

Citation needed. In other words, your turn to supply evidence for your claim.

Simple version:

• Point and grunt gives you nouns. Things that you can literally point to.
• Hand positions and some simple gestures give you adjectives like “big”, “small”, “wet”, and so forth.
• Play-acting gives you verbs, like “run”, “fall”, “eat” and so forth.
• A slightly different sort of play-acting can give you adverbs like “fast” or “slow”.

Or even feelings like “sick”. Have you never seen a child bent over holding his stomach and immediately known that they were ill or in pain? Then at some point 500 or a 1000 years later, you have two doctors arguing over symptoms v. signs and diagnosing the illness differently and getting into a “doctor fight” over it.

One step at a time, one day at a time, one word at a time, it doesn’t happen instantly, and we can see the same process (albeit compressed in time) now when a child learns the language of its parents, or an adult learns a new language by immersion. By your plan, no one could ever learn a language, because they can’t even learn the first word since they don’t know the words that define it. But it still happens.

 

[Noose001]

Who said they work perfectly?

Yeaah , this is the funny. Someone has evolved for millions of years, come all the way through natural selection and confirmed fit not to be perfect?!

Citation needed. In other words, your turn to supply evidence for your claim.

Easy, single or 2 words does not constitute a language. A language is the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.

• Point and grunt gives you nouns. Things that you can literally point to.
• Hand positions and some simple gestures give you adjectives like “big”, “small”, “wet”, and so forth.
• Play-acting gives you verbs, like “run”, “fall”, “eat” and so forth.
• A slightly different sort of play-acting can give you adverbs like “fast” or “slow”.

Language has to be more than verbs and nouns for one to express information.

Sign language is limited to simple daily life undertakings like eat, sleep, walk e.t.c. You can not use sign language to ask a person ‘Can we meet in a fortnight?’. This kinds of complex expressions is precisely why we need languages.

And how does a sign turn into a word? whats the need if the sign works perfectly?

 

[rossum]

Yeaah , this is the funny. Someone has evolved for millions of years, come all the way through natural selection and confirmed fit not to be perfect?!

In this context, “fit” means “better than any current alternatives”. That can be a long way from “perfect”.

Is human sight “perfect”? No. We cannot see detail at a distance as well as an eagle. We cannot see into the ultra-violet as far as some birds. We cannot detect light polarisation as bees can.

Our sight is “fit” for our purposes. We do not need to find small prey from a long way up in the air as eagles do.

Evolution does not do “perfect”; it does “better than average”.