Me and Other Oddities

The more accurate theory of evolution?

2010-11-10T20:32:00.000+08:00

Darwin's theory of evolution isn't fully supported by geological history, and an earlier theory was, in fact, a more accurate one, a U.S. researcher writes.

Thus begins the UPI article 'Author: Darwin wasn't first with evolution'. The brief article describes the opinion of geologist Michael Rampino. He suggests that Patrick Matthew's theory of evolution, which involved geological catastrophies followed by rapid evolution, may be better supported by the geological record than the gradual theory of evolution generally thought of as Darwinism.

The article presents this as news, however almost every substantial work I've read on the subject of evolution/creation has included the possibility of catastrophe and rapid change to explain the lack of evidence in the fossil record. Evidence of catastrophe would fit well with the Biblical world view, explained by the Genesis flood. Presumably the rapid change would leave little or no transitional evidence to be found, which can be explained by completed creation.

Ancient Marsupials

2010-07-15T16:32:00.000+08:00

In case I'm too boring...

ABC science reports on the discovery of ancient marsupial remains in various stages of development in the article 'Ancient trap captures marsupial secrets'. The find provided a useful opportunity to discover how the particular marsupial's skull developed at different life stages. One interesting feature the team discovered was air pockets in the head which may have provided support for chewing muscles while preventing the brain from growing. The article explains this as a trade off between brain-size and eating capabilities.

The question for the evolution/creation debate is, was this designed for an animal without much to think about in the Australian environment but a lot to chew with it's food source being leaves? Or did it evolve?

Running Anthropods

2010-07-05T12:09:00.002+08:00

In case I'm too boring...

In a random Google search, I happened upon this article from Discover Magazine, See How They Run, about the locomotion of different anthropods. It's quite a long read but an interesting one for anyone interested in how (living) things work and also anyone interested in robotics.

The insights of PolyPEDAL--a lab specialising in anthropod motion--provide models for robot designers to make more versatile robots. It is also interesting to learn the different ways in which these anthropods use their legs to move as efficiently as possible. This could provide an interesting topic for evolutionary/intelligent design discussion.

Archaeopteryx

2010-05-13T14:34:00.004+08:00

In case I'm too boring...

I subscribe to the ABC Science Updates newsletter but with the amount of uni, work and other stuff I have going on, I don't often click through to the articles and podcasts it links. But this one caught my interest in archaeology, palaeontology and origins.

Fossil sheds new light on 'dino-bird'

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/12/2897478.htm

The article from the 12 May covers some new discoveries about the Archaeopteryx found using some special x-rays in California. Apparently it revealed some things about the chemical make-up of the Archaeopteryx's feathers which links it more closely to current day birds.

Interesting read if you're into origins and palaeontology.

Another dinosaur related article at the ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/11/2896377.htm

Considering Carbon-14 Dating

2009-06-11T10:14:00.002+08:00

In case I’m too boring…

Otherwise, keep reading:

Today in my e-newsletter from the Biblical Archaeology Review, I received an article discussing the limitations of Carbon-14 dating in deciding between high- and low-chronology when it comes to the Iron Age written by Lily Singer-Avitz. Although applied to a different question, the limitations which the article outlines must still be considered when using C14 dates to support evolutionary theory (or creation theory).

She briefly covers six issues with the gathering and interpretation of C14 dating. In her closing paragraphs, Singer-Avitz writes: ‘Hopefully, as radiocarbon dating continues to develop, it will eventually be more useful in solving the problems of Iron Age chronology.’ This points to the fact that the C14 method is still developing. It is not the ‘be-all and end-all’ of dating questions.

Providing Proof

2009-06-09T15:08:00.001+08:00

In case I'm too boring...

Otherwise, keep reading.

When someone you are in discussion with asks for your proof and your context for a point you are making, the response 'that is unnecessary' is not appropriate--unless you can show why proof is unecessary. You are trying to persuade someone. It is not yours to say what needs substatiating and what doesn't when it comes to their opinion. They require the proof they require. And besides, later when you ask them for proof, they are likely to throw that time when you said it wasn't necessary back at you and leave you looking hypocritical--not awfully useful when being persuasive.

Also remember that what constitutes proof for you and what constitutes proof for them is likely to be different. Therefore, you may feel your points have been adequately substatiated while they feel that they are empty claims. At this point, you can reconsider the strength of your proof and they also can reconsider their requirements. If this is not done, you both risk letting the discussion become an unhelpful, painful arguement.

Nobody's perfect. Give grace when someone does look hypocritical and allow space for them to intergrate new facts, new proof--let them change their mind. After all, if you are trying to convince them you are right, you hope that they will eventually change their mind.

Here's to peaceful, logical arguement! The goal is not always to make them change but rather to make you both think.

Regarding Sickness in the Church! by Philip Bell

2008-12-16T12:08:00.006+08:00

In case I'm too boring...

Otherwise, keep reading.

Pet Hate: Procrastination
Pet Love: Twitter
Subject of Admiration: The pretty wrapping paper

I just finished reading an online article, Sickness in the Church! by Philip Bell. I can fairly confidently say I agree with it 100%. If you look at the problems with how people--inside and outside the church--think these days, you will easily be able to link it back to a belief that the theory of evolution is fact.

It relates to some issues I've been thinking about recently, especially since watching the movie Someone Like You on the weekend. The main character, Jane, comes up with a theory on relationships called the 'new cow' theory. It is based on some research she read about how a bull will not mate with the same cow twice. She holds to this theory after a break up, even writing up an article under a pseudonym to let others in on her insight. However, she soon realises the theory is less backed by research and more by her desire to believe she's not the one with problems. The movie renewed my realisation that attitudes in the world often result from believing man is comparable to cow.

It is far too easy to rationalise just about anything you like if man is nothing more than an evolved cow. Using this thinking, people can become confused about the Scripture and start wondering if it makes sense at all. God wrote that book, though. It will make sense. I once read an interesting webcomic, E and μ, which declared that "Science, It works! within reason". Understanding that God is that reason will make everything a lot clearer. Science works within God not the other way around.

The Biblical approach to debating

2008-10-17T10:49:00.007+08:00

In case I'm too boring...

Otherwise, keep reading.

Pet Hate: Negativity
Pet Love: Dad's cups of tea
Subject of Admiration: Daddy

2 Timothy 2:24-26 (NKJV) Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. [My emphasis]

Although that verse above is enough for a post I'll add that this was the memory verse for persuasive (actually, just vs 25) in my school curriculum. And also that neither I nor God (I dare say) thinks you're some sort of Satanist if you believe in evolution. Let's be rational here.

By the grace of God, I attempt to be gentle, able, patient and humble in every debate/arguement/discussion/whatever in which I participate.

Another change of direction for me

2008-07-10T15:03:00.003+08:00

In case I'm too boring...

Otherwise, keep reading.

Pet Hate: Colds
Pet Love: Peace and quiet
Subject of Admiration: Carlie

No. MOO is still my creation blog. However, I decided yesterday that I am going to try and talk my uni, UNE, into allowing me to study a Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Business. I would be majoring in Archaeology and Paleoanthropology, hopefully. I will most likely stick with Financial Management for the business degree.

If they don't, I may considering moving to a WA uni to study science and business, provided they offer such a course externally.

I've struggled with the limbo between not studying science and my passion for this issue. I loved history. I do love history. Which is why arts came into the equation at all. But yesterday I thought, studying Archaeology through a BSci would give me scientific background for my research into creation science. It would also allow me to do a great range of different disciplines since almost all of them apply to archaeology. And then, it would also involve history. Ideal really.

So, here's hoping UNE will let me study science and business!

AiG and CR DVD

2008-07-10T14:50:00.006+08:00

In case I'm too boring...

Otherwise, keep reading.

Pet Hate: Noise
Pet Love: Getting things done
Subject of Admiration: My sister

My older sister forwarded this. It's from the Above Rubies Newsletter.

CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION

From Michaela T.

Calling all Beautiful Warriors!

Prepare to do battle for the Lord in 2009!

"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds." 1 Corinthians 10: 3-4 (NIV)

Sisters, I call on you to join me in battle against the powers of darkness on a very significant issue for 2009 - the battle for science: creation vs. evolution. In 2009 the world will be celebrating the Bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Darwin began the modern theory of evolution, which has changed the face of science from godly to almost totally atheist and has impacted every area of modern life - for instance abortions are often defended from an evolutionary standpoint. Unfortunately, even the church has been affected by the lies of evolution, to the point where many Christians have been deceived into believing that the Bible account is compatible with evolution. The reality is that actually, we have a logical, fact based faith - evolution is an illogical lie based faith. For instance - did you know that the Bible tells us that even the stones will cry out God's praises (Luke 19:40) and this is true!! The fossils and rocks support the Bible account of creation and the flood.

Peter warns us that in the end days people will deliberately forget the creation and the flood (2 Peter 3: 5) but he also exhorts us that we should always be, "ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account of the hope that is in you" 1 Peter 3: 15 (NASB) and I like the way the amplified Bible puts it, "Always be ready to give a logical defense". Sisters - are you and your family ready to give a logical defense for your faith? Are you ready to seize the opportunities next year when evolution and Darwin come up in conversation? Please do prepare yourselves both by finding out the facts and also praying for opportunities - not just for you and your family, but for our Godly scientists who will defend the Bible account on the news and in the papers and periodicals etc. Pray for open hearts amongst unbelievers that they would have God's power within creation revealed to them and above all pray that Christians would renounce theistic evolution and defend the Biblical account of creation.

Two Christian organizations who specialize in the defense of creation - Answers in Genesis and Creation Research, are getting together to make a DVD in time to release next year. This is a unique opportunity and will involve filming in the UK, Australia and around the world. It will go beyond just presenting evidence that evolution is false science. It will proclaim the truth of Christ as Creator, Judge and Savior, whom Darwin and his mentors willingly abandoned in favor of a theory that has led many to worship the creation and justify un-Godly behavior such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and the Holocaust. There is much exciting evidence to present, and they need your prayers and support for this project.

Visit http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=9OM5V&m=1e_aCPk5GNlkiD&b=cZcwD.yM_nGT5qECncmw9g or http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=9OM5V&m=1e_aCPk5GNlkiD&b=4L598eJMMJuoJ.35pgCMUw for information that will help you to prepare your logical defense and more ideas for supporting these organizations.

It may seem impossible to remove the evolutionary stronghold of Satan, but remember Jesus told us, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26. We have an excellent opportunity next year - let us make the most of it and put Jesus back in His rightful place, acknowledged as creator of the world - in just 6 days - praise God! I pray that you will pray and speak and give/ support as God leads you and your family to do and together in God's power, we will prevail! Amen.

Michaela Turpin (35) married to James (31) with 4 blessings - Daniel (10), Esme (8), Grace (3) and Naomi (6 months).

This is all for this mini-mag.
Watch out for your new magazine.

Have a wonderful day with your family.

Love from NANCY CAMPBELL

PO Box 681687, Franklin, TN 37068-1687, U.S.A.

Disclaimer: I cannot be held accountable for the views presented in the above newsletter.

Change of Purpose

2008-06-13T10:38:00.011+08:00

In case I'm too boring...

Otherwise, keep reading.

Pet Hate: Distraction
Pet Love: Post-exam relaxation
Subject of Admiration: Lara

Okay. This blog is no longer my random everyday life blog. For more random everyday life, see my LJ or MySpace blogs. MOO now has a new purpose: creation vs. evolution. This purpose may extend to other issues I have strong opinions about but for the moment it's just that.

Q&As:

1. Why is it called MOO?
That stands for Me and Other Oddities. This blog has that title because that's the title it was born with. But it's still curiously appropriate. All my life I've found that if you think about anything hard enough, it will seem a little odd. I've done this with many things, from life itself to having this pointy thing sticking out of the middle of your face. Also, I've always felt like I was completely different--or even odd--when compared to most of the other people I knew. I suppose then, it would be fair to say that nothing much in this world makes sense to me except for one thing underlying it all--God. If there is no God, life makes little sense. What do I prefer? Noses are noses just because? Or noses are noses because God made them like that?

Both are fairly simplistic answers but I'll always remember the line my siblings and I constantly threw at each other when we were young: 'because' isn't an answer.

2. Are you a creationist or an evloutionist?
Creationist. Sometime in June/July, I will write up a post detailing my exact position on the issue. Until then, read Genesis 1 and 2 and you'll know what I believe.

3. Isn't evolution undisputable fact?
No. Evolution is unfalsifiable (as is creation for that matter). This means we'll never know for sure that it's true no matter how much information we may interpret in favour of it. It is always a theory. There has been no test concieved which can prove or disprove either theory.

4. Isn't creation relgious mumbo-jumbo?
No. Yes, it is based on the Bible. But, the Bible has proved true about many other matters so why not creation? By dismissing creation on the basis that it comes from a book people say was inspired by God, you are not upholding your scientific responsibility. If a theory holds any water at all, it doesn't matter where the opposition stems from, you should be able to answer the arguements with science and logic without resorting to attacking it's source. So if evolution and it's supporters have a leg to stand on, they will be able to 'disprove' (see question above) creation by presenting logical arguements without having to rely on insulting the Bible and creation supporters. I firmly believe this and you'll be hearing a lot about it.

Also, creation may be based on the Bible but that's not the only thing going for it. Scientists have been making investigations into proof for young earth and lack of evidence for evolution between species and so forth.

5. Why do you spend so much time disproving evolution? Why don't you try and prove creation?
Because creation is very straight-forward and there isn't much that needs proving. I'll touch on this more in future posts, including that one about my beliefs re: origins.

6. What is the scientific method?
Now, this isn't vertabim quoting of it but it runs something like this:
- Identify the question
- Create a hypothesis
- Formulate a test for that hypothesis
- Test the hypothesis
- Interpret results and modify hypothesis
- Test again until hypothesis fails

Why test till it fails? Because no matter how many experiments confirm a hypothesis or theory, you can never really be 100%, undeniably sure that the hypothesis is fact. Without getting too deep or heretical, most of science technically is theories. Just very well tested theories that haven't yet failed. When a hypothesis fails, it obviously isn't true.

7. Revisit of Q&A 5 in light of Q&A 6.
So, I'm testing the theory of evolution and the theory of creation. When one fails, it becomes less true. However, because both are unfalsifiable (there is no test which can disprove them), it's hard to unequivocally deny either. I base my belief (opinion) on how many times each theory has failed a test.

Of course, it should be noted that all results must be interpreted. That is why there is such a long standing debate between evolution and creation. Evidence interpretation depends on the individual.

8. Long-standing debate? What long-standing debate?
See Q&A 3 and 4. In at least one debate I've been in over this issue, a person on the side of evolution basically said there is no 'competition' between creation and evolution. He said I must either be ignorant, stupid or mentally ill if I believed in creation (see Q&A 4 for my response to this) because evolution was the most well-supported theory of the 20th century or some such nonsense. I believe there is scientific grounds for creation, or at the very least, something other than evolution.

9. What are your qualifications?
I studied physics and chemistry in high school. Beyond that, I have no qualifications in natural science, theology or philosophy. I am studying a Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Business through the Universtiy of New England. "This degree combines excellent communication and analytical skills with solid business knowledge and has been developed in response to increasing student demand and employer preference for recruitment of combined degree graduates." I may be keeping a transcript of units completed and their marks to at least prove to the meaner portion of society that I do have brains, 'excellent communication and analytical skills.'

Beyond formal education, I will be doing the following to increase my knowledge of the area:
- Reading/participating in debates on evolution
- Creating and working through a reading list on physics, chemisty, genetics, evolution theory, creation theory, Chrisitian apologetics and other relevant topics
- Reading the TalkOrigins.org archive, on recommendation of one of the better opponents I have discussed this with
- Discussing the matter with my uncle, Dr. Philip Kerr, Ph.D.
- Subscribing to scientific journals from both sides of the debate
- Reading and responding to questions in the comments
- Taking suggestions of reading material from the comments
- Reading the textbooks for the Bachelor of Science from UNE

I will be maintaining a list of material I intend to read and material I have read so you can have some idea where I'm coming from.

10. What are you going to post on MOO?
I will be posting in a couple of different categories:
- Reading, which will involve reviews, responses and summaries of my readings
- Articles, which will be articles I've written on the debate from the point of view of natural science, philosophy and faith.
- QA, which will be more question and answer posts like this in response to questions I have encountered, asked myself or been asked
- Self defence, which will be short posts similar to Q&A's 3, 4, 5 and 9 in the model of Q&A 4: respond to the question not the questioner. My post about my specific beliefs (opinions) would also fall under this category.
- Definitions, which will be elongated discussions of why I use terms such as 'evolution', 'belief' and 'science' the way I use them. The terms discussed will be added to a list--a personal a dictionary-type affair.
- Debate, which will be records of debates I have participated in, posted with permission of all involved, or merely my part in the debate

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to clarify or modify any of the above statements. MOO is a project to increase my own knowledge-base and to increase the knowledge-base of the readers. It is written through the tint of my own opinions and life experiences, as any written work is, although I strive to maintain objectivity. Over the course of my research, my views and opinions may be subject to change, as any opinion is. This should serve only to increase the value of my research and opinions as it proves I am open to the information rather than discriminating it according to my beliefs. I would appreciate this post and blog is read with a similar open mind and all responses are made polietly with regard to Q&A 4.