Jump to content
Join us for Throwback Thursdays in Worthy Chat! Join us at 8 PM EST every Thursday. ×

teddyv

Royal Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,383

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by teddyv

  1. teddyv
    What kind of stupid outrage reporting is this?
  2. teddyv
    Did you mean "objective truth" here? We seem to be in a period of elevation of subjective or personal truths.
  3. teddyv
    Thank you for this Gnostic nonsense.
  4. teddyv
    Why can you not answer a simple question?
  5. teddyv
    This is reads like bumper-sticker spirituality. I asked a question and would appreciate a response. "As I said, you must understand Genesis 1:1 to understand anything." Why is Genesis 1:1 the key to understanding anything? Is it just the simple acknowledgment that there is a Creator?
  6. teddyv
    I asked because I do not want to mischaracterize or read wrong intent behind it.
  7. teddyv
    I think I missed it - what do you mean by this?
  8. teddyv
    IQ tests are certainly not the end-all, be-all, as many psychologists would recognize something like 7 types "intelligences". Large-scale education of all citizens certainly would have a role to play in improving overall intelligence and access to broad knowledge. Humans in the past were certainly no dummies, but mainly did not have access to the technology and materials science that has been developed over the last 200 years or so.
  9. teddyv
    From the article: "Trump's Interior Department in January 2021 sold leases in ANWR over the objections of environmentalists and indigenous groups. A Republican-passed tax bill in 2017 opened the area to oil and gas leasing and directed Interior to hold two lease sales by December 2024. The oil and gas industry largely failed to embrace the 2021 lease sale, which generated just $14 million in high bids, mostly from AIDEA. Months after the first and only ANWR lease sale, Biden's administration said it would suspend the leases issued pending an environmental review. AIDEA later sued, and last month a federal judge in Alaska dismissed the state agency's claims, saying the government's delay in implementing the ANWR leasing program was reasonable. The two other entities that won leases at the ANWR lease sale withdrew from their holdings in 2022." So it looks like there was not even anyone who put any work into these leases, if any company even had rights to them.
  10. teddyv
    I was specifically referring to those involved in this thread.
  11. teddyv
    Maybe you should put this in the debate section then?. Changing the rules of every other thread in this section sounds a bit unfair. For the few in the scientific community who actually care about creationism are usually framing their opinions based on Answers in Genesis' Ken Ham, or other hardline legalistic creationists. You will find that creationists like Dr.s Todd Wood or Kurt Wise are treated with a fair amount of respect because they offer a much more nuanced view Who specifically are indoctrinated? I can level the same charge against YEC's adherents who uncritically accept everything out of AiG or the other groups. And I have attended talks by CMI and read numerous creationist articles and other literature.
  12. teddyv
    The "secular" narrative is built upon millions of hours of research and work by various people in a wide range of disciplines. It represents the (current) most parsimonious explanation of the data at hand. I have yet to see you present a narrative, although I assume it is a creationists version. What are the two worldviews? These are, of course, philosophical positions. And here we see a common misconception. Apes and humans share a common ancestor. Also, I do not think that evolution demands that organisms must necessarily increase in complexity, but I might be mistaken That sounds like something out the Intelligent Design community.
  13. teddyv
    If you say so. True. I misstated there. According the AiG's work, there are 89 extinct bird kinds and 195 living bird kinds. (See link provided below). This is the stated reason by Answers in Genesis, so no there is no appeal to motive here. I don't know your reasoning or specific beliefs around this, but I generally refer to the big three creationist organizations with respect to what creationists believe because they are the main voices. One of the bigger issues I see is the necessary rate of speciation (and extinction) following the landing of the ark. The extinction side seems somewhat capricious - God saves a whole series of organisms, only to have them wiped out within a very short time after disembarking.
  14. teddyv
    My apologies. I did misunderstand. Yet I have seen that sentiment posted here and many other places. Of course not.
  15. teddyv
    That was not my post you quoted. :)
  16. teddyv
    Some theories are very well-supported. Others are not as robust. You cannot treat every single scientific theory on equal footing. There is no proving of a theory (as in mathematics). We can only continue to test, observe, predict, and so on. As for conflict with the Bible, that's the creationists' problem, not mine. I don't see any particular conflict. It's a matter of interpretation. There are going to be certain unanswerable questions but I can live with that. Well, to use your language here, I find your the OP premise silly since it hinges on outdated creationist tropes.
  17. teddyv
    Research papers are peer-reviewed. Theories are designed to explain why things are the way they, or why thing happen based on the body of evidence available. As new evidence arises, the theory can be confirmed, modified, or even discarded. Creationists who make statements like "If evolution is true, why don't we see a cat give birth to a dog?" seem to be unaware that such an instance would actually negate current evolutionary theory.
  18. teddyv
    The Hyksos represent an interesting parallel to the Israelites. There is little recorded on them, with some accounts having them as conquerors and others as just a group of Semitic peoples that moved into the area. As far as I recall, the timing of them is not consistent with the Biblical one. As to some practicalities, rarely would a king or pharaoh record a defeat, so lack of Egyptian attestation toward that does not bother me.
  19. teddyv
    Your are using theory in the colloquial sense here, not the stricter scientific sense. Just speculating about something and calling it a theory does not equate whatever that is to say Plate Tectonic theory.
  20. teddyv
    I was responding to Tristen as he was making the comment that finches beget finches and applying the term "kind" to that level. Tristen may have his own independent reasoning behind that and don't want to suggest he has to agree with other creationists, but, for example, AiG does not use "kind" at such a level. AiG have created kinds, generally on a family/genus level, like "dog", "cat", "bird" and "dinosaur" etc.. So in the bird kind, we have such creatures as ostriches and finches as part of that group. I think we can safely say that these are not going to interbreed, nor are they capable - due to geographical and physiological issues. They are clearly different species. AiG has a progenitor, essentially a last common ancestor for the birds, from which all current species have derived. All current species must have arisen from this progenitor within the last couple of thousand years. Further, the Bible (Job) even mentions ostriches, so we know that ostriches were in their present form back then. That puts them as evolved from this original version only maybe about a 100o years from the Flood. This hyper-speciation model of AiG seems a bit tenuous. I think speciation based on their model requires something like 40 new species per year. I don't see that happening.
  21. teddyv
    The use of "kind" as used by creationists like AiG is just as, if not more, squishy than the modern use of species. The bird kind will include an ostrich and a finch. Remember, the reason this is done is because the ark will not hold all the current species. So they create arbitrary groups of animals as sort of "master" kinds which then speciate in a couple thousand years to what we see today.
  22. teddyv
    I would use with the current biological definition of species. Must be capable to interbreed and produce viable offspring.
  23. teddyv
    I don't think we can ever have an answer to that. We can't devise a scientific test for a soul, being a metaphysical or supernatural aspect. The use of spirit (nephesh) being breathed into humans in Genesis, is also applied to living animals.
  24. teddyv
    Also, this is the general position of the major creationist organizations like AiG, CMI and ICR. Definitely those in the "New" Creationists (i.e. Dr. T. Wood). AiG has attempted to assign all animals to progenitor "kinds" from which various species subsequently arose (i.e dog king, cat kind, etc.). They needed to do this in order to fit everything on the ark. The problem is that these "kinds" are effectively arbitrary decisions not really based on scientific evidence, but a convenience.
  25. teddyv
    If those finches do not interbreed or do not produce viable young, then they are separate species.
×
×
  • Create New...