Christian Schools Sue State University

[paidagogos]

UTEOTW posted:
If you look at my point, you will see that it was this. In modern biology, evolution is considered to be the lynchpin that holds it all together. A class that teaches that this lynchpin is false is therefore not teaching biology. It is impossible. Yet these kids think they should recieve credit for having taken biology. Whatever it is that they may have taken, it most certainly is not biology.

Why do creationist students do as well or better than evolutionists? You have never shown that creationist scientists are poor scientists. This is not true. Creationists do understand biology without believing evolution. There are a number who are pursuing graduate degrees and doing significant research. Furthermore, there are a number of creationist professors at major universities around the country. No one can criticize our science. Even Jay Gould had a creationist student who completed his doctorate under him a few years ago. In my classes, I have always taught evolution and debunked it. Biochemistry is one field where you must be a true believer with your scientific mind in neutral to accept evolution. Consider Mike Behe who could no longer suppress what his knowledge and reason told him. He became an evolutionary heretic and abandoned politically correct evolutionary dogma. For this, he has endured a lot of flak from other zealots.

 

[UTEOTW]

First off, you cannot teach that the lynchpin of biology is wrong and say that you are teaching biology. It does not matter that there are good students who are taught that. It does not matter if they understand other parts of biology well. If you remove the heart from biology, you are no longer teaching biology.

Second, Behe claims early in his famous book that he has no problem with comon descent including that of man and the other apes. It is the mechanisms to which he objects.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]And my point is that such anecdotes are useless. I can, and did, show that this happens in the other direction as well. So there is no clear indication of which side is correct by looking at the tiny fraction of individuals who change sides. They do so in both directions in tiny percentages.

It IS useful, however, to look at the sheer number of scientists who have examined the material in detail, who have done the actual field work, who have examined the raw data, who to a percentage well over majority and approaching unanimity accept that evolution is the theory that best explains our observations

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]No. YOu miss the point of the analogy.

Using simple math makes it easy to see. Everyone would know you were wrong if you taught your kid that 2 + 2 = 5.

Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. To teach that it is wrong has the same effect. You are no longer teaching biology if this is your position.

Maybe someday YEers will cease making empty, baseless assertions about having better explanations for the data and will start producing these. I am not holding my breath.

 

[Petrel]

First of all, any scientist, even a creationist, ought to have an understanding of evolutionary theory. This is especially true for biologists.

I'd have to read the textbooks in order to know if the classes should be certified or not. I'm dubious about A Beka Books--I had one of their grammar books in elementary school that I would classify as "lame."

As long as the textbooks educate students about evolution to the same extent that secular textbooks do, I don't see why the classes shouldn't be certified. Whether it's in the textbook or not a conservative Christian school is likely to teach that evolution is false. Rejecting certification simply on the basis that students leaving the class might think that evolution is false is demanding adherence to an ideology, not ensuring knowledge of current science. If the level of education is similar to that in secular schools, this amounts to religious discrimination.

Besides, it doesn't make much sense to reject otherwise qualified students based on their belief in a six-day creation when they may very well change their minds with further education in science, like I did.

 

[El_Guero]

Paidagogos

First off, you cannot teach that the lynchpin of biology is wrong and say that you are teaching biology.

I think that all Christians can agree - God is the linchpin and holds everything together (reminds me of Col, Isa, and Phil - oops I almost forgot Genesis).

 

[El_Guero]

gb

I worked in the oil field, and I knew many geologists, bug men, sample catchers, mud engineers, petroleum engineers that had NO belief in evolution.

I also knew Engineering professors that did believe in God and His creation.

I don't believe in evolution either. Intelligent design? Yes.

The article referenced begs the question: Can natural gas result from decomposing in

extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers.

Answer is YES

OIL is and ALWAYS has been more elusive.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I worked in the oil field, and I knew many geologists, bug men, sample catchers, mud engineers, petroleum engineers that had NO belief in evolution.

I also knew Engineering professors that did believe in God and His creation."

This leads to an interesting point. But first I must digress. Whatever opinion these people had of evolution, it really is a fallacious appeal to authority to discuss their opinions of evolution itself. They have no expertice in the subject. It is like taking a poll to decide authoritively whether ghosts exist or not.

But there is an interesting point buried here. Geology. There is something I would like to know. The field geologists, the guys that study the geology and tell the companies where to spend their millions drilling, I would like to know about their techniques. I don't even really care to know what they individually thought ofthe age of the earth.

I want to know about their methodology used to find oil. Did any of these guys use theories from flood geology, in contradiction to standard geology, to find oil? Or, when the money is on the line, trust what their old earth geology professors told them?

Oil companies have no dog in the fight. They do not care how the oil got their. They just want to find it. And I'd be willing to bet that most oil is found using traditional, old earth geology. I would imagine that someone who suggested they could find oil by ignoring this tradition and instead promised to find oil based on flood geology would have a difficult row to hoe.

I might be wrong. You might even have an anecdote or two. But I bet on the whole that I am right on.

 

[El_Guero]

UTEOTW

I want to know about their methodology used to find oil.

Then STUDY it ... it was really EASY.

 

[UTEOTW]

Nice avoidance of the point.

The point is that oil companies, who have billions of dollars at stake and do not care at all for the OE / YE debate put their bets on the geology that tells us that the earth is old. THey do not use any sort of YE / flood geology to help them find oil. Because it would not help and would cost them money.

 

[El_Guero]

Ute

Petrology is not based upon OE or YE, it is based upon geology:

The branch of geology that deals with the origin, composition, structure, and alteration of rocks.

petroleum geology: the branch of economic geology that deals with the occurrence and exploitation of oil and gas fields

 

[El_Guero]

Some day you might actually make a point worth reading.

I get so tired of researching topics that you know absolutely nothing about, but you can google & cut and paste like you might know something.

I think you have actually posted one or two comments that were worth reading.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Ute

Petrology is not based upon OE or YE, it is based upon geology: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The branch of geology that deals with the origin, composition, structure, and alteration of rocks.

petroleum geology: the branch of economic geology that deals with the occurrence and exploitation of oil and gas fields

</font>[/QUOTE]And what assumptions go into petrology? Do they look for oil based on what one would expect based on a YE / flood geology history?

Or do they look for oil based on the standard geologic history of hte earth?

Come on. You have been beeting around the bush on this for a few posts now. You know that the oil companies have no interest in the YE / OE debate. They just want to find oil and make money. They would take an zany idea if it found oil and made money. And yet none of them look for oil based on the geology that would be expected from a young earth. They all depend on tradtional geologic assumptions.

Now if that is not voting with your pocketbook I don't know what is.

 

[El_Guero]

Yes, I "know that the oil companies have no interest in the YE / OE debate."

I have NEVER SAID OTHERWISE.

Join the marine corps. Do your country and your fellow man a real service.

Then come back and argue ad nauseam straw man arguments about things you KNOW NOTHING about.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Some day you might actually make a point worth reading.

I get so tired of researching topics that you know absolutely nothing about, but you can google & cut and paste like you might know something.

I think you have actually posted one or two comments that were worth reading.

Insult are always a key tool of the practiced YEer. When you have no answer, go on the offensive hurling insults. If you are good, you might make your oppenent look bad and distract form his points. On the other hand, it is hard not to get a bit of mud on yourself. And sometimes you just plain look like you are avoinind discussion of hte facts because they are against you.

Now, in which subjects are you asserting I have a lack of knowledge? Demonstrate where what I have said about the facts surrounding evolution are wrong. There are plenty of threads here where I take a fact based stand. I have played my cards and left myself open to being wrong. Pick up one of hte threads on show me wrong.

And just where do you think I am copying and pasting here? Where do you think I am copying and pasting from? I do use references and I try to always use quotation marks, references and links when I use such information.

But the great thing about being on the correct side of the scientific debate is that often my sources can be the original research. No need to be spoon fed from somewhere else. YEers have no ability to use the orignal research because it contradicts them. They have no choice but to be puppets of places like AIG and ICR. They can't use the actual data themselves.

But here are some threads where I do just that.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/18.html

Search all you want for where I may have copied and pasted from. You will not find it. Well, other than the original works which I reference and to which I link and from which I quote. I can and will do the research. After you finish your fruitless search for where I copied from, try and answer the issues raised on the threads. And since you dislike copying, try and do so without using AIG or ICR or any of the others to filter the information for you. Go to PUBMED or Google Scholar and research the original science for your answers.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Yes, I "know that the oil companies have no interest in the YE / OE debate."

I have NEVER SAID OTHERWISE.

Join the marine corps. Do your country and your fellow man a real service.

Then come back and argue ad nauseam straw man arguments about things you KNOW NOTHING about.

And on what basis do they search for oil?

Flood geology? No! Why? Because it has no predictive ability nor any relationship to reality?

If YE is correct, then why can its concepts not be used to find oil?

If OE ideas are wrong, how do the oil companies find so many billions of dollars of oil using them?

And just where am I arguing a straw man? What am I misrepresneting? Do oil companies NOT use modern geology? Can you tell me of oil fields discovered using flood geology that contradicted modern geology?

For that matter, if I know nothing about this, why can you not show me where oil companies successfully find oil based on YE ideas that contradict modern geology?

For that matter, if I know nothing, why do you contiue to insult me with ad hominem attacks instead of answering this issue or any others on the many open threads?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]No. YOu miss the point of the analogy.

Using simple math makes it easy to see. Everyone would know you were wrong if you taught your kid that 2 + 2 = 5.

Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. To teach that it is wrong has the same effect. You are no longer teaching biology if this is your position.

Maybe someday YEers will cease making empty, baseless assertions about having better explanations for the data and will start producing these. I am not holding my breath. </font>[/QUOTE]You’re wrong and the reiteration of your error doesn’t make it true. Of course, if you repeat it long enough and loudly enough someone somewhere will believe it. The addition of natural numbers is an obvious and verifiable procedure but evolutionary biology is not observable or verifiable. Therefore, your analogy is invalid and doesn’t deserve further discussion.

I notice your posts are long on bluster and rhetoric and short on logic and argument. Can you name one biological application that would fall if evolution were abandoned tomorrow? Sure, a lot of textbooks would need to be rewritten and lecture notes must be revised but biological science would sail on unscathed. I know of no applied research that depends on evolutionary presuppositions that could not be support from another viewpoint. If you do, then please state them.

Evolutionary theory has served no practical purpose in pushing biology forward as far as I can determine. The testing and validation of good science is its predictive results that can be verified. Evolutionary biology has no such offerings.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Evolution theory is being applied by scientists who evaluate the health threat posed by Avian Flu. Based on the possibility that it could evolve into a version that more easily infects humans, they are mobilizing health resources and trying to alert the public to the danger.

Shall we tell them to relax, because evolution does not occur?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"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.

You have taken the statement out of context. They understand their specific functions and applications but they have little understanding of the philosophy of science or its limitations. Many are technicians performing functions without a broader understanding of the whole field. IMHO, the majority of scientists and engineers do perfunctory tasks without a larger grasp of what science is. They color in the spaces but they fail to see the whole picture. From your posts, I would confidently include you and all evolutionists in this group. Without a proper theology and view of God, science is meaningless and absurd although the individual parts work. At a Princeton conference on mathematics a number of years ago, some NASA mathematicians expressed amazement that their calculation actually worked in real world space and time since there was no reason behind reality why mathematics should work in the physical world.

BTW, you were whining about ad hominem attacks in an earlier post when I busted your ideas. Now, you are doing a real ad hominem maneuver by innuendo. You have accused the poster (i.e. me) of doing something despicable by intimating that he/she stooped to low depths. This, my friend, is a real ad hominem attack. Since you are doing exactly what you accused me without grounds, then I confidentially say you are a hypocrite. You condemn in me what you allow in yourself. The definition fits, so wear it proudly.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Evolution theory is being applied by scientists who evaluate the health threat posed by Avian Flu. Based on the possibility that it could evolve into a version that more easily infects humans, they are mobilizing health resources and trying to alert the public to the danger.

Shall we tell them to relax, because evolution does not occur?

Bad example. Of course, we should warn folks because there is a real and present danger. This is not based on evolutionary theory necessarily. Virology is not necessarily dependent on evolution. Specifically what about Avian Flu can you definitely base on evolution?

There is no doubt that viruses change but you cannot necessarily establish that this is evolution. Evolution is not the only explanation and our knowledge is limited to the fact that animal viruses can change into virulent forms for humans. That much we know. However, we are not tied into evolution. You are making presuppositions before we have all the data.