Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

So - in this "particular" argument, you don't want to hear any evidence that may point to a young earth. Makes it a little restrictive, but hey - I'll see what I can do...

The "young earth" question is, IMHO, a complete waste of time. Life is too short to waste on a search for evidence to discredit something that stems from Bishop's Usher's sums of the length of lives of mythological characters that appear in books writen by people who were still in the elementary arithmetic ages.

BTW - For your own interest (regardless of whether you believe in evolution or creation) - I'd like to politely suggest that you take a closer look at the speed of light issue. I know it's easy to pass off - because you may see it as trying to disprove evolution, but even that aside - I think it would be of interest if you like that sort of stuff.

Looked at it, read a bit, talked to several Astrophysicist friends, it has no effect, even if true, on anything I'm directly interested in at the moment.

How about the folowing:

Remember, an advanced degree is one criterion only, and I feel stupid even going down this route with you, but here goes:

PhD in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, or Loma Linda University? - Maybe

PhD in biology from Columbia University New York, University of Michigan, or George Manson University? - Maybe

Phd in Biochemistry from the University of Minnesota or University of Newcastle? - Maybe, unlikely

PhD in Physical Chemistry from Victoria University, Wellington? - No

PhD in Botany from University of Wales, Aberystwth? - Maybe

PhD in Zooology from Capetown University? - Likely

Phd in Nuclear Physics from the University of Colorado. - Unlikely

Geological Engineering from the University of Oklahama. - Unlikely

PhD in Genetics from the University of Edinburg, Scottland? - Maybe

PhD in Googleology from the University of Spammakers? - Just to see if I was awake?

PADI Evolution Diver Specialty Card - Naw

 

[Warthaug]

So - in this "particular" argument, you don't want to hear any evidence that may point to a young earth. Makes it a little restrictive, but hey - I'll see what I can do...

Far from it. But you'll have to excuse me if I think that someone who has about a decade of formal training, followed by the remainder of their career in a relevant area of science, to be more credible then someone who has no formal education or practical experience in the area.

Think of it this way, I have over a decade of scientific education under my belt. Over that decade I have concentrated on the medical sciences, but over that time I learned a lot of chemistry, engineering, and physics, to a level where I'm probably ahead of most "laymen" in terms of knowledge of those fields.

Now, who would you rather have design a bridge - me, or someone with the relevant training in materials & design (i.e. an engineer).

I hope you want the engineer, cause the only bridge I ever built fell down a day later.

Now take that a step further – would you rather an engineer, or your churches priest/pasture/preacher/etc, design the bridge?

It’s the same with evolution. Yes, people from other scientific fields (and non-scientific fields) may have a better understanding of the theory then your average Joe on the street, but they cannot hope to even approach the degree of knowledge a biologist would have.

Bryan

 

[Soggy]

So - in this "particular" argument, you don't want to hear any evidence that may point to a young earth. Makes it a little restrictive, but hey - I'll see what I can do...

No, you don't get it. It's not that we don't want to hear the 'evidence', it's that we want *credible* evidence from credible sources. So far, there is none. I know you believe that this book is a huge thorn in the side of evolutionary science, but I can assure you, it isn't. If it were, scientists all over the world would be scratching their heads and trying to come up with new theories.
You have a belief in search of science. That's the wrong way to go about things.

 

[Thalassamania]

No, you don't get it. It's not that we don't want to hear the 'evidence', it's that we want *credible* evidence from credible sources. So far, there is none. I know you believe that this book is a huge thorn in the side of evolutionary science, but I can assure you, it isn't. If it were, scientists all over the world would be scratching their heads and trying to come up with new theories.
You have a belief in search of science. That's the wrong way to go about things.

Absolutely. If I have to waste my time, I'd rather do so on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he/she/it is at least creative and fun. Also, "FSM" has special meaning to those of us from Berkeley. I converted from the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship in Del Rio, Texas.

 

[Cacia]

he he.

 

[Snowbear]

...
Now take that a step further – would you rather an engineer, or your churches priest/pasture/preacher/etc, design the bridge?
...

Believe it or not, priests/pastors/preachers/etc, are fully capable of obtaining education that is not theological. And, believe it or not, often do :11:

 

[Soggy]

I haven't met a lot of pastors with PhDs in evolutionary biology. Have you?

 

[H2Andy]

Believe it or not, priests/pastors/preachers/etc, are fully capable of obtaining education that is not theological. And, believe it or not, often do :11:

if the priest/pastor/preacher has engineering qualifications, then it's not an issue. but at the very least, they need some qualifications on ANY field they are going to pratice. just because you are qualified in one field doesn't make you are qualified in another.

what he means is, normally pastors don't have engineering degrees (i don't know of any, but i'm sure there are some, somewhere).

personally, i'd feel much more comfortable if an engineer designed the bridge i am going to drive to work on every day as opposed to a guy with just a PhD in Divinity

 

[Warthaug]

Believe it or not, priests/pastors/preachers/etc, are fully capable of obtaining education that is not theological. And, believe it or not, often do :11:

You’re splitting hairs.

And if they had dual-educations then they would be an engineer (or whatever) as well. Let me rephrase the question - would you rather the engineer, or a priest with no engineering background designing the bridge?

And there is no reason to be so condescending. I am well aware that most priesthood require their members to achieve a secondary education of some form. But I’ve worked in the biological sciences for a long time, and I’ve yet to meet a priest with training in my field, and those I know of by reputation are all believers in evolution. Some of the members of the pontifical academy of sciences are perfect examples.

Bryan

 

[TCDiver1]

Higher education can be soooooo over-rated. One such example would be PHD's, PE's (Professional Engineers) who can derive the toughest equations and yet can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag.

The more letters i see behind a persons title the more suspicous i become about their ability show some common sense. Doesn't mean they aren't truly brilliant rocket engineers. Just that a bunch of letters behind a name mean nothing without the common sense to back them up. This is born of 25+ years of real world experience working with real folks like this.

Give me real world experience over education anyday. That theory has proven itself out to me, time and time again over the years.

By the way, i don't think i'll be going to many of my fellow engineers for spiritual guidance or for information on evolution so i don't get this whole clergy designing bridges thing. Maybe i missed the post which explained the point of that argument.