Christian Schools Sue State University

paidagogos · Sep 18, 2005

UTEOTW posted:
"You may be a good engineer but your understanding of science and evolution is deficient for serious debate."

Ad hominem.

I am not claiming these ideas as my own. They are what others, professionals, experts, have to say. If you doubt them, then respond to some of the other threads where the data is discussed.

"Yet, you should know enough of thermodynamics as an engineer to question the basic premises of evolution as a workable hypothesis."

This is quie an interesting statement.

I said before that it was because of YE writings themselves that I abandoned YE. Thermodynamics is what got the ball rolling.

When I first came across the whole assertions about entropy and evolution, it was the first YE material that I knew right away was false because of my own knowledge and education. Thermodynamics and YE's claims about it were the catalysts which set in motion my abandonment of YE.

Click to expand...

Then you are missing something. Either your understanding of thermodynamics is not as profound as you would like to think or you don't understand the young earth argument from thermodynamics. It is not as easily dismissed as you say. You may argue about the universe as an open or closed system but you cannot dismiss the young earth arguments out of hand without violating the well-established principles of theormodynamics.

Call this ad homenim if you like but this is simply questioning your expertise and understanding. I don't question your sincerity, motives, patriotism or manhood.

paidagogos · Sep 18, 2005

UTEOTW posted:
"Then evolution should not be taught since it is not verifiable."

Just what is verified in science? Any science? Hypothesis and theories are made and tested and imporved. But are they ever considered to be proven?

Click to expand...

Science is verifable in that it works in real applications and is replicable. Evolution doesn't work and it cannnot be replicated in a controlled experiment. There is no single theory of evolution that works. The only point that evolutionists agree upon is the idea of evolution. The best evidence that evolutionists have is a bunch of circumstance evidence that is such to various interpretations and explanations. Science is observable, replicable and workable. Evolution fits none of these criteria. It is not science.

paidagogos · Sep 18, 2005

UTEOTW posted:
"I do know that creationist graduate students have been discriminated against because they were creationists ... It was a large graduate class and I was at the top of the exam scores."

You make my point. You got good grades. You were not dioscriminated against. You may have been insulted or ridiculed, but she passed you with high marks.

And that is the question I was asking the other poster. If you were to have given the answers for which the instructor was looking and were failed anyway, that would be discrimination. If you gave the wrong answers, then you did it to yourself. That is what I was trying to get fro mthe other poster.

Click to expand...

For brevity and personal reasons, I did not give all the information--this led you to the wrong conclusion. I did not get my A+ in this course--I received a B+ instead. My prof graded down my labs even when one other student (not my lab partner) and myself were the only ones getting acceptable results with the Warburg apparatus and the Petrof-Hauser counting chamber. (This one other student, a girl, was the only competition that I had in the class. The prof favored my lab partner and gave him good grades on my results. His standard comment after each lab lecture was: "What do we do now?" I did the work and he copied my results. He even had difficulty in doing the write-ups and would have copied mine if I had allowed it.)

Since lab grades are somewhat subjective, it is hard to prove blatant discrimination. However, an exam is objective. I scored the second highest in the class and received a B+ for the final exam. The scores with grades were publicly posted. Probably two dozen or so students below my score received A+ or A. This is blatant discrimination! B+ is a relatively low grade for a grad student. When I confronted the prof, she cursed and said I didn't deserve any better grade although I had scored the second highest on the exam. I did not persue my case with the grad school since I was savvy to grad school politics at that time.

I did one thing that riled my prof immensely. When she missed classes with Salmonella poisoning, I began skipping the lectures and doing my work outside of class on my own. I had my own lab with full access to all facilities and did not feel that lectures by another grad student would benefit me. The prof gave me a good cussing when she returned although grad students were not required to attend any classes. She was angry that I could cut class and still be at the top.

paidagogos · Sep 18, 2005

UTEOTW posted:
"If so, there goes his claim to scientific validity. So, what more do you have than the creationists?"

Data.

Click to expand...

There are no brute facts. All data must be interpreted within some framework.

paidagogos · Sep 18, 2005

UTEOTW posted:
"Creationism has just as much evidence supporting it as evolution."

That is a bold assertion. A baseless assertion, but bold.

Click to expand...

It is just as valid as your opinion in rebuttal. This was a conclusion based on my knowledge and study as a scientist.

paidagogos · Sep 18, 2005

UTEOTW posted:
"Creationism has just as much evidence supporting it as evolution."

That is a bold assertion. A baseless assertion, but bold.

After you have refuted all the threads linked above, and more that will be flying out if you were to actually join in such debate, then you will need to actually support this assertion. What are your very best pieces of evidence for a young earth. (Please note that for this question, to merely post critiques of evolution is a fallacy of the false dilemma. YOu need actual evidence that supports a young earth.)

Click to expand...

Whoa! You’re running away with this thing. Firstly, you cannot lay down the ground rules and conditions for me to support my position. Like the Pharisees, it appears that you would lay burdens upon creationists that evolutionists cannot support. The force of my whole argument in this thread has been that evolutionists have no more scientific basis than creationists. The whole creation-evolution debate is beyond the realm of science. One’s acceptance or rejection depends not upon the force of argument from the data but it is determined by one’s presuppositions. One may change his paradigm, as a number of former evolutionists have, if he is persuaded that his model is unworkable. (I know you claim to have rejected young earth creationism by the data but many creationist scientists who were former evolutionists offset this.)

Secondly, I have neither the time nor inclination to engaged in a debate of technical details, although I am capable of doing so. Even if I posted the most cogent and logical arguments, it is doubtful that you would believe or accept them. You are out to prove your point, not reason with me. My line of reasoning is more epistemological and basic. The problem with many scientists and engineers is that they do not understand what science is even while working in the field. Many possess a starry-eyed awe of the wonderful magic that will solve all of our problems, cure all of our ills and answer all of our questions. Such is scientism, not science. It is highly amusing to observe the almost religious fervor with which evolutionists defend their theories. Science is not the magic that laymen and some scientists believe it to be. Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper have disenchanted us of such naivety.

Daisy · Sep 18, 2005

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Then you are missing something. Either your understanding of thermodynamics is not as profound as you would like to think or you don't understand the young earth argument from thermodynamics. It is not as easily dismissed as you say. You may argue about the universe as an open or closed system but you cannot dismiss the young earth arguments out of hand without violating the well-established principles of theormodynamics.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems specifically.

UTEOTW · Sep 18, 2005

Originally posted by paidagogos:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
UTEOTW posted:
" You have a very simplistic view of science."

Ad hominem.

"Your view, as expressed in this post, is highly unscientific."

Ad hominem.

Oh, come off it! Stop your whining! These statements attack your views, not your person. If you cannot handle an attack upon your ideas, then you ought not be posting on this board. When you express your opinions, you are hanging them out there for anyone to take aim and shoot. Obviously, you don't understand ad hominem. [/QUOTE]So we are now breaking this into peices. Fine.

I notice that you have not gone to any of the threads I listed for you and started proving your assertions about how you can better explain all of these things. I guess that was an empty assertion.

I guess you are going to continue to attack me instead of the subject. This pretty typically for YEers. They get so hateful with those who disagree with them.

UTEOTW · Sep 18, 2005

Originally posted by paidagogos:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
UTEOTW posted:
"Suppose we teach Lamarkian Evolution? Is this acceptable for the UC system?"

I thought you would be in favor of this since Jacob used just this in Genesis.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob said to him, "You know how I have worked for you and how your livestock has fared under my care. 30 The little you had before I came has increased greatly, and the LORD has blessed you wherever I have been. But now, when may I do something for my own household?"

31 "What shall I give you?" he asked.
"Don't give me anything," Jacob replied. "But if you will do this one thing for me, I will go on tending your flocks and watching over them: 32 Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages. 33 And my honesty will testify for me in the future, whenever you check on the wages you have paid me. Any goat in my possession that is not speckled or spotted, or any lamb that is not dark-colored, will be considered stolen."

34 "Agreed," said Laban. "Let it be as you have said." 35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. 36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban's flocks.

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys.

Nonsense! Are you assuming that I believe this is Lamarkian Evolution? Or, do you believe this is Lamarkian Evolution? Such drivel! This was either an example of good animal husbandry (i.e. selective breeding) or a Divine miracle by God to grant favor to Jacob for God's own purposes. If you believe this is Lamarkian Evolution, then I can understand why you accept evolution. [/QUOTE]Hmmmm. I see nothing about a divine miracle. I see nothing about God telling Jacob that if he would do these things that He would take care of them. I see a narrative about a guy who thought that if animals conceived while viewing a particular pattern that they could be made to be born with that pattern. That is very similar to Lamarckian evolution.

UTEOTW · Sep 18, 2005

Originally posted by paidagogos:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
UTEOTW posted:
"You may be a good engineer but your understanding of science and evolution is deficient for serious debate."

Ad hominem.

I am not claiming these ideas as my own. They are what others, professionals, experts, have to say. If you doubt them, then respond to some of the other threads where the data is discussed.

"Yet, you should know enough of thermodynamics as an engineer to question the basic premises of evolution as a workable hypothesis."

This is quie an interesting statement.

I said before that it was because of YE writings themselves that I abandoned YE. Thermodynamics is what got the ball rolling.

When I first came across the whole assertions about entropy and evolution, it was the first YE material that I knew right away was false because of my own knowledge and education. Thermodynamics and YE's claims about it were the catalysts which set in motion my abandonment of YE.

Then you are missing something. Either your understanding of thermodynamics is not as profound as you would like to think or you don't understand the young earth argument from thermodynamics. It is not as easily dismissed as you say. You may argue about the universe as an open or closed system but you cannot dismiss the young earth arguments out of hand without violating the well-established principles of theormodynamics.

Call this ad homenim if you like but this is simply questioning your expertise and understanding. I don't question your sincerity, motives, patriotism or manhood. [/QUOTE]It appears that you may be the one lacking an understanding of thermodynamics.

THis is how the thermo text I have on my desk defines the second law, the one dealing with entropy. (Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics Smith and Van Ness 4th Edition 1987)

No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work.

No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one.

It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a system completely into work.

Here is how it discusses the disorder part.

From a microscopic point of view we therefore associate an increase in entropy with an increase in randomness or a decrease in order at the molecular level.

For completeness, let's use the description of physicists Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the last century.

So we now have to talk about what we mean by disorder and what we mean by order. ... Suppose we divide the space into little volume elements. If we have black and white molecules, how many ways could we distribute them among the volume elements so that white is on one side and black is on the other? On the other hand, how many ways could we distribute them with no restriction on which goes where? Clearly, there are many more ways to arrange them in the latter case. We measure "disorder" by the number of ways that the insides can be arranged, so that from the outside it looks the same. The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less.

Now, please tell me just how the inability of heat to flow from cool areas to warm areas spontaneously prevents evolution. Please give me your mathematical analysis of entropy and evolution that tells us just what the problem is. Show your work.

Even better, please give me one hypothetical step in the evolution of man from his last common ancestor with the other apes that is prevented by 2LOT. Please be precise. Show your math. And document you ideas back to thermo texts and other similar material.

UTEOTW · Sep 18, 2005

Originally posted by paidagogos:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
UTEOTW posted:
"Then evolution should not be taught since it is not verifiable."

Just what is verified in science? Any science? Hypothesis and theories are made and tested and imporved. But are they ever considered to be proven?

Science is verifable in that it works in real applications and is replicable. Evolution doesn't work and it cannnot be replicated in a controlled experiment. There is no single theory of evolution that works. The only point that evolutionists agree upon is the idea of evolution. The best evidence that evolutionists have is a bunch of circumstance evidence that is such to various interpretations and explanations. Science is observable, replicable and workable. Evolution fits none of these criteria. It is not science. [/QUOTE]Simply not true.

The processes by which evolution works can and have been observed. We have observed mutations that lead to novel proteins and functions. We have observed increased fitness. We have observed new metabolic pathways. We have observed the creation of novel genes. We have observed speciation.

This can be combined with many detailed evolutionary transitional series from the fossil record that show the process to work at all levels.

Let's remind you what Gould had to say on the matter.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, Norton, New York.

UTEOTW · Sep 18, 2005

Originally posted by paidagogos:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
UTEOTW posted:
"If so, there goes his claim to scientific validity. So, what more do you have than the creationists?"

Data.

UTEOTW · Sep 18, 2005

Originally posted by paidagogos:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
UTEOTW posted:
"Creationism has just as much evidence supporting it as evolution."

That is a bold assertion. A baseless assertion, but bold.

It is just as valid as your opinion in rebuttal. This was a conclusion based on my knowledge and study as a scientist. [/QUOTE]Your conclusion is at odds with the vast majority of others of the proper expertice who have examined the data. Therefore if you are going to make such assertions you should be prepared to back them up.

In my experience, I have never seen a YE set of logic or "facts" that did not make me more convinced that YE could not possibly be true.

And remember, this pattern started when I was YE and was looking to verify my opinions. I was very receptive at that point.

UTEOTW · Sep 18, 2005

Originally posted by paidagogos:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />UTEOTW posted:
"Creationism has just as much evidence supporting it as evolution."

That is a bold assertion. A baseless assertion, but bold.

After you have refuted all the threads linked above, and more that will be flying out if you were to actually join in such debate, then you will need to actually support this assertion. What are your very best pieces of evidence for a young earth. (Please note that for this question, to merely post critiques of evolution is a fallacy of the false dilemma. YOu need actual evidence that supports a young earth.)

Whoa! You’re running away with this thing. Firstly, you cannot lay down the ground rules and conditions for me to support my position. Like the Pharisees, it appears that you would lay burdens upon creationists that evolutionists cannot support. The force of my whole argument in this thread has been that evolutionists have no more scientific basis than creationists. The whole creation-evolution debate is beyond the realm of science. One’s acceptance or rejection depends not upon the force of argument from the data but it is determined by one’s presuppositions. One may change his paradigm, as a number of former evolutionists have, if he is persuaded that his model is unworkable. (I know you claim to have rejected young earth creationism by the data but many creationist scientists who were former evolutionists offset this.) [/QUOTE]You have made the assertions, you should suport them.

You claim that "evolutionists have no more scientific basis than creationists" yet when I present to you a number of threads where I have laid out how evolution does have a very valid basis you begin looking for reasons to avoid the truth and answer the data. These links show that your assertion is not true. And they are only the tip of a very large iceberg. Just what I could quickly find laying around on this website.

I have a link to the story of a gentleman who used to be a very active YEer, even publishing in Creation Research Society Quarterly around 2 dozen times. His experience working in the oil business caused him to give up YE and nearly his faith. An important quote.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

gb93433 · Sep 18, 2005

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Science is verifable in that it works in real applications and is replicable. Evolution doesn't work and it cannnot be replicated in a controlled experiment. There is no single theory of evolution that works. The only point that evolutionists agree upon is the idea of evolution. The best evidence that evolutionists have is a bunch of circumstance evidence that is such to various interpretations and explanations. Science is observable, replicable and workable. Evolution fits none of these criteria. It is not science.

Creationism will not fit into the definition of science either. It is simply a historical fatc but not scientific according to the true definition of scientific.

But if you add into the mix the element of time, then science is not science because time has elapsed. So neither is anything considered scientific, verifiable.

gb93433 · Sep 18, 2005

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

What I find interesting about that article is that one of my friends comes from an oil background. He has worked in the oil industry as a geologist for several years and claims exactly oposite of what the writer of that article claims. His dad was a geologist too and would go against that article.

UTEOTW · Sep 18, 2005

Perhaps that is good enough reason to demonstrate that anecdotes and minority opinions should be viewed with skepticism.

UTEOTW · Sep 19, 2005

"The problem with many scientists and engineers is that they do not understand what science is even while working in the field."

I just had to go back and isolate this single outrageous statement. The idea that the thousands and thousands, millions if you are including the broader group, of people who go into work every day busting their rears in pursuit of science don't really understand what they are doing is a totally baseless and insulting statement. But I guess when there is no, zero, zilch, nada science to support YE then you are forced to start trying to tear down those who do the actual science. Unbelievable the depths to which people will stoop to support YE.

paidagogos · Sep 19, 2005

UTEOTW posted:
""There’s another side to this coin too. Are you afraid that someone might be persuaded to abandon evolution for creationism? A number of competent scientists have."

I am not afraid of any such thing. I only insist that those who claim to have taken a particular class to have actually taken that class.

This is strange. You criticize me above for appealling to the great majority of scientists who accept biology, especially those in related fields. Yet here you appeal to a tiny minority, most from fields unrelated to biology. This tactic defies logic.

Click to expand...

Absolute foolishness. My point was simply that even evolutionary scientists could be persuaded to abandon evolution for creationism. There is no unanimity among scientists in accepting evolution. That was precisely my point about the majority vote. Don’t try to refute my points by taking them farther than I intended or morphing them into something different.

paidagogos · Sep 19, 2005

UTEOTW posted:
"Straw man! Your analogy is incorrect and proves nothing. You are begging the question by assuming a priori that creationism is a blatant falsehood and evolution is truth."

Nope, my analogy stands.

If you were to be taught math that was not what others to be considered correct, you would not be accpeted. By the same token, what these students learned was s omething that it not accepted as biology.

Click to expand...

Again, you committed the same error in your second analogy. You are assuming a priori that evolution is true and creation is false. Math is verifiable through proofs and arguments. Evolution is not.

Christian Schools Sue State University

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member