monkeygirl Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 My father in law is a Chemist and when he found out we believed in evolution he recommended to us this website ICR.org. My father is like Spock from star trek. Clearly he has NEVER seen real evidence for evolution from what he's told us and if he had he would be reasonable enought to switch. The ICR.org website pisses me off! Its NOT science and it uses ridiculous circular logic. How do we (my husband and I) handle this?!!!! I want to be brutally honest and challenge his logic and the evidence. We don't know what we are gonna say when he ask us what we think about the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 How do you get a degree in Chemistry if you don't understand basic biology? Send him to Talkorigins.org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 My father in law is a Chemist and when he found out we believed in evolution he recommended to us this website ICR.org. My father is like Spock from star trek. Clearly he has NEVER seen real evidence for evolution from what he's told us and if he had he would be reasonable enought to switch. The ICR.org website pisses me off! Its NOT science and it uses ridiculous circular logic. How do we (my husband and I) handle this?!!!! I want to be brutally honest and challenge his logic and the evidence. We don't know what we are gonna say when he ask us what we think about the site. I agree - talkorigins.org. There have been studies of people who deny evolution occurred, and some scientific fields allow for that kind of belief; chemistry (but not biochemistry), astrophysics and mathematics for example. They manage to get the necessary information without confronting any major conflict with their preestablished beliefs. There are a smattering of "scientists" that even deal with geology that deny an old earth, but that requires major cognitive dissonance. They do the calculations, act on the conclusions, and still deny that it's correct. Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 My father in law is a Chemist and when he found out we believed in evolution he recommended to us this website ICR.org. So he's a young Earth creationist? Does he believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 My father in law is a Chemist and when he found out we believed in evolution he recommended to us this website ICR.org. So he's a young Earth creationist? Does he believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? He does believe that. I'm not sure what he was taught in college. I know he went to a biology professor at his church 30 years ago (who help found ICR btw) and the professor gave him all kinds of books on scientific creationism. I don't think he has every looked beyond that. Its quite bizarre. Have you guys went to ICR.org? Its outrageous. When we told him we believed evolution he laughed, said its the biggest crocker ever and he has loads of evidence against it. but its clear he hasn't looked into it because he still believes that the amount of dust on the moon points to young earth. he didn't know that the measurements taken in the 1960's have been proven to be way off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 My father in law is a Chemist and when he found out we believed in evolution he recommended to us this website ICR.org. So he's a young Earth creationist? Does he believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? He does believe that. I'm not sure what he was taught in college. I know he went to a biology professor at his church 30 years ago (who help found ICR btw) and the professor gave him all kinds of books on scientific creationism. I don't think he has every looked beyond that. Does he believe in trigonometry? The reason why I ask is because in 1987 the scientists observed the a supernova. It was well documented, and the amazing part was that the light from the supernova was reflected a couple of days later from a nebula. By using triangulation and simply assuming the speed of light has been constant, they concluded (mathematically) that the event must have happened about 150,000 years ago. Some Christians argue that the speed of light has changed, and that it was "faster" back at the beginning, but that would mean that the distance between the actual supernova and the nebula are far greater, which would mathematically increase the distance between the supernova and us, and maintain roughly the same age. So, 6,000 years does not fit real observations and pure math. Can he argue that? When we told him we believed evolution he laughed, said its the biggest crocker ever and he has loads of evidence against it. but its clear he hasn't looked into it because he still believes that the amount of dust on the moon points to young earth. he didn't know that the measurements taken in the 1960's have been proven to be way off. Does he at least believe in micro-evolution? He must. Because if the Ark story is true, then Noah only took pairs of the "kinds" of animals, not every sample. There are literally millions of species. Just a pair of each specie would fill thousands of Arks, so supposedly (according to apologists) Noah only took a pair (or seven pairs) of each "kind". So where does all the diversitiy come from? Why do we have so many different dog sub-classes? Because they must have evolved AFTER the flood (if the flood is true). Meaning, even if he doesn't believe in "macro" evolution, he must believe in "micro" evolution (non-harmful changes, within a species). How does he explain that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 Yes math is good. Thanks, I've looked that up on google and got some good sites on that topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The many different breeds of dog didn't come around till about the 19th century; they all came about through human manipulation of genetics through selective breeding. The Sphinx (a hairless cat) didn't into the scene until the 1960s when a Canadian family found a hairless cat in a litter; genetic testing showed that it was just a tiny mutation that caused it to be hairless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The many different breeds of dog didn't come around till about the 19th century; they all came about through human manipulation of genetics through selective breeding. True. But if you had only two dogs, one female, and one male, how many times can you selectively breed these two dogs and how many variations can you get? The selective breeding of dogs were based on existing diversity of genetic differences. The alleles must have come from somewhere. You can't "select" them into existence. We didn't have technology to modify genetic code in the early 19th century. For selection to work, you must have a pool to choose from. So most of these genetic mutations existed, but they were enhanced by selective breeding. Besides, there were quite a lot of dog breeds before 19th century, and even longer before that. Here's a link to Ancient Dog Breeds (on wiki): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_dog_breeds . And it's possible there were even other breeds before, but through the selective process some (or many) are gone. The Sphinx (a hairless cat) didn't into the scene until the 1960s when a Canadian family found a hairless cat in a litter; genetic testing showed that it was just a tiny mutation that caused it to be hairless. Exactly. The tiny mutations (micro evolution as some say) does exist. If Noah only took one female cat, and one male cat, then all cats should look like those two cats, or a combination of those two. And this goes for humans too. There are more genetic differences than can be accounted for by tracing back to two individuals only, unless there are mutations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 That site is freaking pathetic! They don't know the first thing about evolutionary theory, they're just grasping at straws. Either that or they are deliberately manipulating an audience they know to be comprised of fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 That site is freaking pathetic! They don't know the first thing about evolutionary theory, they're just grasping at straws. Either that or they are deliberately manipulating an audience they know to be comprised of fools. I'm going with B. At this point there is no way they haven't seen everything they have argued get shot down. They are just liars, even if it is to themselves. In Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, Donald Prothero talks about Gish (is he even around anymore?) admitting something he says is wrong, but then continues to use it in other speeches/"debates." Intellectual dishonesty is their bread and butter. It has to be, because there is no other way to hold the positions they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 That site is freaking pathetic! They don't know the first thing about evolutionary theory, they're just grasping at straws. Either that or they are deliberately manipulating an audience they know to be comprised of fools. I KNOW the site is disturbing! I was taught this shit when I was a kid though and if its all you've been exposed to then of course its easy to believe. The older I got and the more I saw on the science channel and in movies, documentaries, museums etc it got me to question if what I was taught was true, so I looked into it and found that I had been lied to and they didn't present the theory of evolution properly or fully. My father in law is a grown man, he lives in the same world I do, at his age his ignorance is nobody's fault but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 That site is freaking pathetic! They don't know the first thing about evolutionary theory, they're just grasping at straws. Either that or they are deliberately manipulating an audience they know to be comprised of fools. I KNOW the site is disturbing! I was taught this shit when I was a kid though and if its all you've been exposed to then of course its easy to believe. The older I got and the more I saw on the science channel and in movies, documentaries, museums etc it got me to question if what I was taught was true, so I looked into it and found that I had been lied to and they didn't present the theory of evolution properly or fully. My father in law is a grown man, he lives in the same world I do, at his age his ignorance is nobody's fault but his own. I was taught this too, and I imagine most of us were even if we didn't think of it at the time. Who hasn't heard of Noah's ark? I just considered it part of the Santa Mythology and ignored it completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Have you guys went to ICR.org? Its outrageous. Aaaah ICR. One of those "scientific" organizations that require their employees to take an oath that da wholly babble is true no matter what. Talk about "science". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts