BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:43 PM

Steve Shaw,

You suggested, of creationism, that public schools "put it where it truly belongs, in lessons which give equal credence to atheism and the books of Dawkins".

I am glad that at least we agree on that.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:43 PM

Well, if they'd been taught as children...

But you're quite right.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 10:22 PM

My last post was answering Ed, but a question for Kent:

Do YECs take all the Old Testament at face value or selected parts, and if the latter, which parts, which version of the Bible, and who decides/decided?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 02:49 AM

Whether creationism should be taught about in school at all is a difficult one for me. I think LH's 1st argument is fundamentally flawed in that is seems to be saying that because there is uncertainty about the correctness of science and creationism both should be taught. But that doesn't follow: I don't know whether there will be a sunrise tomorrow or whether I will be alive tomorrow but one is much more likely than the other. Equally, in history we know that every account of a battle will be biased and partisan and so to some extent 'a lie': that doesn't mean we should teach any alternative account of the battle we fancy.

I'm much happier with LH's second post. Part of being an adult which a good education system should impart is the recognition that the world is more complex than you might think as a 7 year old. So someone studying history who is older than, say, 12 should be aware that there is bias in the accounts. Similarly, they should be aware many people believe in creationism and should understand what it entails. But they should ONLY be taught about it when they have reached a certain level of maturity (to be agreed) and preferably as part of a much wider review of belief systems.

What I am not in favour, though, is either pretending the belief doesn't exist or an ex cathedra declation creationism is wrong. For me the best place to look at it would be a course on critical thinking looking at creationism, dawkins and advertising campaigns studying not so much the truth or otherwise of the thing itself as the verbal techniques being used to persuade you one way or another

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 03:35 AM

One further point, specifically realted to the opening post. Kent stated The "creationism" part of the name indicates that it requires supernatural intervention. I'd like your definition of that word 'supernatural', please, Kent. Because if it in any sense at all implies a god, doesn't that automatically rule it out from US education? On the other hand, if it simply means a bit of nature that we don't yet know, then that's natural, not supernatural, and YEC does not require supernatural intervention.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 03:36 AM

I don't know what you mean by "ex cathedra," but the fact is that creationism is wrong. It is merely the product of over over-imaginative minds and Bible literalists and there is no evidence to support it. In fact, there is a huge body of evidence against it. I think that children should be told, honestly, when an idea is misguided or just plain wrong, and shown the evidence for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 03:54 AM

By 'ex cathedra' I mean a declaration from some authority - teacher etc - that creationism is wrong as if that was in itself sufficient to settle things. If creationism is addressed at all in schools, then it needs to be argued about, not just asserted. That's why I think the best place to address it is in the context of the study of what constitutes a valid argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 05:28 AM

I can't disagree with that. If this had ever come up in any of my biology lessons (which I used to teach in secondary schools), along with any other assertion, I would have expected to have had to justify it with evidence. In fact, children should be taught to ask for evidence for any assertions made to them by teachers or parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:06 PM

i would not disagree with that either-and it accords well with little hawks first post;for which he was criticized.
despite steve et al asserting that creationists whole argument is "the bible says...."it is not.creationists are quite aware that the subject also needs to be engaged with science and do so.
how that would work out in schooling,
.i dont know. but in theory kids should be able to choose from informed presentations of the positions.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:13 PM

it accords well with little hawks first post;for which he was criticized.

As the author of both the statement and one of the critics of LH's post, I find that interesting! I leave it to you to think through why in my view it does NOT accord well with LHs first post, but the answer is in the posts between there and here ..

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 12:40 PM

Nobody knows how old the Earth is and nobody ever will. And I'll tell ya why. Cos there wasn't no one around to take notes when it all got started, that's why! It don't take a PHD to figure that out, huh? Ya gotta have a livable planet before you can get advanced lifeforms like chimps on it, and it takes a lotta time to make a planet livable. Anyways, what damn difference does it make how old the Earth is? Who cares? What is important is what kinda condition the Earth is in now, not how friggin' old it is. I'll tell ya one thing, the Earth is gonna get a whole lot older, and all this talk here is gonna amount to nothin' in the end. Trust me. Now go have a stiff drink and stop worryin' about things ya don't know and couldn't change even if ya did. That's my advice.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 02:36 PM

Little Hawk says;
stop worryin' about things ya don't know

Please explain to me how I don't know that Creationism is not science. Or that the only "controversy" about it was created by the people who want to teach religion in school. Or how any kid with a brain wouldn't start doubting everything he or she was told if a teacher started spouting such obvious nonsense.

Anyways, what damn difference does it make how old the Earth is?

I don't give a damn how old the earth is. How could that affect me in any way? Again, that's not what this discussion is about. Why are you pretending that it is?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 03:10 PM

Well, Mr sufficient-unto-the-day apeman, we do know how old the Earth is as it happens. Clearly not to a day or two here and there, but to within a smidgeon given the immense time-span we're talking about. We have enough people around here pandering to the wilful ignorance and the blindness to evidence of the hands-joined and eyes-shut brigade without large, hairy, albeit evolutionarily-advanced, primates joining the chorus.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 03:59 PM

""Only that. I was taught very little about the scientific view of evolution in school (I learned much more at home about it than at school), and I was taught absolutely nothing about creationism either at school or at home, but I'd frankly have been quite interested in hearing about both of them, and then allowed to use my own intelligence to sort out the various implications as I saw fit. I eventually did that anyway, on my own initiative.""

Why do you always feel it necessary to over complicate issues LH?

Nobody here has suggested that Creationism should not be taught in schools.

The point you insist upon avoiding is that most sensible people do not want it taught in science classes.

No objection has been raised to teaching it either in "Religious Instruction", or in "Comparative Religion" classes.


""Religion and science are not fundamentally opposed, because they are devoted to seeking out different objectives.""

Same answer! They are not fundamentally opposed, as long as they are taught in separate classes.

The only people I see objecting to that point are Creationists who insist that it is a science (which, clearly, it is not).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 05:23 PM

Smokey,

You asked, "Do YECs take all the Old Testament at face value or selected parts, and if the latter, which parts, which version of the Bible, and who decides/decided?"

Some YECs take all of the Old Testament at face value; some do not.*
   
As for which version of the Old Testament, well, there's really no issue. Every version presents the same account, so there is no need for anyone to "decide" between them. Here are some samples of Genesis 1:1:

In the bigynnyng God made of nouyt heuene and erthe. (Wyclif, 1395)
In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. (Douay-Rheims, 1609)
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (ESV 2001)

Kent

* If you were are asking whether we believe that all of the laws of the Torah still apply, the answer is "no". Some believe that the laws of the Torah are still in effect, but that parts of the Torah (for example, laws relating to the tabernacle, to the Ark of the covenant, or to the inheritance of tribal lands) no longer apply since the situations with which those laws deal no longer exist. Others go further, saying that the laws of the Torah have been superceded by the New Testament. Muslim Creationists, of course, accept the Koran, not the Torah, but there is a great deal of agreement between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 05:43 PM

John, Chongo doesn't think the way I do at all on most stuff. Chongo is a loose cannon with a penchant for guns and violence. He goes to extremes with no remorse whatsoever, but this is counterbalanced somewhat by his virtues, which are: courage, guts, loyalty, and determination. His thoughts are strictly his own, however, I am just the scribe. Although I DO know how Chongo thinks, I don't find it necessary to agree with him on a lot of what he thinks. I suggest you take his comments in the spirit they were intended in. ;-) (as satire)

Don - I'm just talking about stuff that interests me, that's all. I can't see any particular reason why creationism should be taught in a science class, and I'm not suggesting that it should be. On the other hand, I expect there are a number of different ideas out there about creationism, some primitive, some more sophisticated, and some of them are probably tied in with existing science to a considerable extent, so who am I to say?

What I can't figure out is why anyone here is worrying about it all that much, and fighting with other people about it, instead of focusing on something that really impinges on their lives in a much more direct and substantial manner. ;-) I know I'm not worried about it. I don't talk about any of this stuff because it worries me, I just find it interesting to explore different avenues of conventional thought and observe how people get rigidly wedded to either one form of conventionality (traditional science) or another form of conventionality (traditional religion) and then they fight with each other about it. They get quite fierce about it. My goodness, what a lot of energy spent to so little effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 05:44 PM

How about:

When God began to create heaven and earth (JPS 1985)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 05:47 PM

" Every version presents the same account, so there is no need for anyone to "decide" between them."

Kent...you present only versions written AFTER the basic account was agreed on. Emperor Constantine needed a 'standard' version to support his own decision to convert to Christianity about 300AD. He ordered and financed a group of scholars, and The Council of Nicea helped codify the various doctrines. By The Council of Trent, it was largely settled.

But...parts of the basic story have a much longer history, including parts of The Epic of Gilgamesh and continuing thru various cultural groups in the Middle East for over 1500 years. Scribes collected fragments to build on, and **selected** the parts that 'sounded best'...and some no doubt 'filled in' what seemed not to be complete.

Try reading a mostly neutral, independent analysis at http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm before just declaring that 'they're all the same'.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 05:48 PM

What I can't figure out is why anyone here is worrying about it all that much

Little Hawk, that's fine. There is no requirement for you to figure it out. I guess you'll have to just take it on faith that many of have figured out why we're worried about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 06:00 PM

LOL! Good answer, John.

Bill, I would think that much of the Jewish and Christian mythos goes back not only to the Epic of Gilgamesh, but also to various Egyptian stories, and possibly even farther back than that. New religions tend to get built on much of the existing structure of previous religions....just as happens with other things such as architecture, political institutions, weapons of war, etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 06:11 PM

Well, where do Jehovah's Witnesses stand on YEC and creationism?


Many may say, who cares, why do you ask? I dunno, I was just curious as to just how many "non mainstream" religions support it.I know, it is only a minor sampling of one. But, some of the articles from Eatchtower and Awake are quite dismissive of the concept (not that they do not have their own ideas, that one could question, if one had the time, or interest).

Regardless, even the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to be "very down" on creationism and YEC (according to this article , anyway. So, you don't have to "take them on" on this topic when they come to your door:)

Jehovah's Witnesses and creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 06:12 PM

Eatchtower=Watchtower

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 06:15 PM

I just find it interesting to explore different avenues of conventional thought and observe how people get rigidly wedded to either one form of conventionality (traditional science) or another form of conventionality (traditional religion) and then they fight with each other about it. They get quite fierce about it. My goodness, what a lot of energy spent to so little effect.

The problem here is that your statement (unconsciously? How would I know?) accords the same status to traditional science and traditional religion. The people who tend to "get fierce" about this (as they have done now for several millennia) are all on the religion side. 'Tis they whose backs are to the wall as science closes in evermore on those mysteries that religion relies so much on. What you dismiss as something apparently not worth expending energy on is actually the most crucial battle humanity faces, at least (but not by any means exclusively) in the field of intellectual advance. I think that's worth fighting for. And my simple and sole weapon is my argument that everything that we decide to be true should be based on evidence. Let's put blind faith where it belongs. In books of fairytales.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 06:17 PM

"Scribes collected fragments to build on, and **selected** the parts that 'sounded best'...and some no doubt 'filled in' what seemed not to be complete."

The same thing happened with the Authorised Version. The various groups sat and listened to the proposed translations so that what was finally agreed sounded right when read out from the lectern. Most editions will state in the preface or introduction what criteria they adopted for their choice of translations, and often given alternate versions as footnotes, but English and Hebrew are completely different languages.

As Jonathan Sacks points out:

"when (Moses) asks God is His name. God replies: 'Ehyeh asher Ehyeh'. These (words) are often translated as 'I am what I am'. What they really mean, though, is 'I will be who and how I choose to be'."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 06:31 PM

So, what does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, have to say about creation and the age of the Earth (in reference to the YEC position)?

""The Creation
The six basic questions often asked about the Creation are when, how, where, what, why, and who. The first three of these—when, how, and where—are left obscure by the Lord in all the accounts we have of the Creation. He gave us only this point of reference concerning when the Creation took place: "in the beginning" (Gen. 1:1). We look with genuine interest at the work of persons who attempt to determine the age of the earth, but the answer may escape us all until the Savior reveals all things concerning this earth after the Second Coming In describing how the Creation was accomplished, he told us that he spoke and it was done As to where the Creation took place, we only have statements by early leaders that it was in the presence of God.""

source: Latter-day Saints

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 06:50 PM

"PAST, n. That part of Eternity with some small fraction of which we have a slight and regrettable acquaintance. A moving line called the Present parts it from an imaginary period known as the Future. These two grand divisions of Eternity, of which the one is continually effacing the other, are entirely unlike. The one is dark with sorrow and disappointment, the other bright with prosperity and joy. The Past is the region of sobs, the Future is the realm of song. In the one crouches Memory, clad in sackcloth and ashes, mumbling penitential prayer; in the sunshine of the other Hope flies with a free wing, beckoning to temples of success and bowers of ease. Yet the Past is the Future of yesterday, the Future is the Past of to-morrow. They are one --the knowledge and the dream."
Ambrose Bierce quotes

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 07:32 PM

Kent:

Thank you for your reply. I wondered just how rigidly defined NEC is, though from what you say that is more up to the individual than any prescribed doctrine other than the Bible itself. I appreciate that the various versions thereof are broadly the same, I meant smaller differences that would only affect those who were more fastidiously literal in their belief, such as the existence of unicorns in the King James version, or such details as pi only being 3. (Kings 7:23) How then, does one decide what to take literally and what to disregard as figurative, fictional or inaccurate if there is no guiding consensus or predefined criteria on which to judge various details?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 07:37 PM

Hi Ed. I've always felt that the future is fixed, but you can change the past!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 09:30 PM

I don't accord traditional science and traditional religion the same status, Steve, nor do I place them on some imagined level of equality. I consider them to be radically different pursuits in almost every way...because, as I said before, they are devoted to quite different ends. Science is a technical discipline that observes and catalogs facts in the physical world...that is, the world of the 5 senses...sorts out those facts into categories and related groups...conducts laboratory experiments to verify theories and collect data, etc...

Religion isn't directed toward that. It's primarily directed toward looking within human consciousness, within oneself, and determining what one's life is about in a subjective sense rather than describing the outward phenomena.

Science is interested in the objective world...the outer, observable phenomena.

Religion is interested in the subjective world....morality, philosophy, meaning, purpose, desire, intention, consciousness, etc...the inner nature of man's existence. Stuff that CANNOT be put in a test tube, nevertheless we all experience it in the form of thought and emotion and consciousness. Those are real factors in our lives. Learning to discipline those areas in such a way as to become more in control of yourself and more positive in every way is the essential job of spiritual work.

Now, the aspects of religion you so strenuously object to, however, are not what I'm talking about above. What you object to, I think, is mostly the hierchical outer power structure of organized religion with its holy books, its rules, its priests, its myths and parables, its eclesiastical orders, etc. Those are the outward observable forms of organized religion, and they have been much abused and used to seek power and control.

I object to those things in religion too, provided they are used harmfully, but I don't consider them to be what religion is truly about. They are the superficial outer forms. They're bloody obvious, and everyone knows about them, and they have been greatly misused in many cases, while in other cases they have been used to do much good for people.

Your problem with religion is that you will look ONLY at its negative aspects, but not at the rest. You're like a person looking at Germany, a brilliant nation, and seeing only the Nazis, the concentration camps, Hitler, the SS, etc....but having no recognition at all of anything good that ever happened in Germany. That makes you a fanatic where religion is concerned.

If a religious fundamentalist looked at science and saw ONLY atom bombs, poison gas, biological warfare, and other horrible creations of science...but nothing good at all in science...then he'd be seeing science the way you see religion. Fanatically, from a totally negative bias.

That's not intelligent. It's a reflex of extreme fear and ignorance, and extreme prejudice.

You don't seem to be at all aware that the real purpose of all genuine spiritual search is NOT to obey religious rules, obey priests, or follow an outer power structure of any kind...it is to understand oneself and one's place in life more deeply and through that to become a better, kinder, more loving person...more patient...more thoughtful...more forgiving...less judgemental. One doesn't need a church to do that. One doesn't need a "God" to do it either. One might find some churches helpful, though, depending on how wisely they are being led and who is in them.

A sane and unprejudiced person is easily capable of seeing the good in both spirituality AND science, and integrating them both into his or her life in very positive ways. The one, in fact, complements the other very effectively, though they are quite different. They work together toward a common end, which is to improve life for all human beings and to be respectful of the Earth and of Mother Nature.

Have you ever read a book on Taoism? Buddhism? Hinduism? Sufiism? American Indian religion? Christian philosophy? Jewish philosophy? Muslim philosophy? If not, how much do you think you actually know about the purposes of spiritual study? Not much, I would think. But you do know that you don't like the churches and the organized religions very much! ;-) Well, one doesn't have to go to any churches to be spiritual, but as far as that goes, neither does one have to avoid them, because they are not simply dens of iniquity, evil, and horror. It depends a lot on who is in them, after all.

Like science or anything else, religion can be used to improve people's lives...or to worsen them. That is up to the people who use the tools provided, once those tools are in their hands (or in their minds).

As to how old the Earth is, I think it's probably billions of years old. But why do I think that? Well, I think it because I grew up in a time (and a family) in which traditional science was the primary recognized authority, that's why! So I heard from other people that the Earth was many millions of years old, and I believed them. And that's all there is to it. I'm about as good at repeating the stuff I've been told as the rest of you are! ;-D And a parrot can do that too...

But do I know for sure if the scientists are right in their estimates of the age of the Earth? No. I don't know for sure. I just assume that they're probably fairly close to being correct, but I don't know. Neither does anyone else here. You're all making broad assumptions based on the prevailing mood of your society and whoever you were hanging out with in your impressionable years.

Now...I'll tell you what happens when anyone has the temerity to stick his head up above the trenches here and say ANYTHING about his religious or spiritual beliefs, about God...about anything like that.

What happens is that the usual crew of soreheaded anti-religious cranks here rush out to jeer, ridicule, and cast stones at the heathen in their midst! ;-) Yes, the faithful of traditional science gather in a noisy mob to destroy the heretic who dared stick his nose above the parapet, as it were, and speak about something, anything that doesn't get instant approval from the faithful of your particular little in-group, which is people who have a huge chip on their shoulders regarding religion.

That's not laudable behaviour. It's just like a bunch of religious fanatics gathering to cast out the heathen in their midst. Same basic nasty attitude. Same basic assumption of superiority. Same basic damnation of those who don't subscribe to your own sanctioned party line and your own preferences.

How come I can easily see the good in both science AND religion? While some of you here insist on seeing only the bad....

Because I've taken a fair look at both of them, that's why, and I am dominated by neither one of them to the exclusion of the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 09:47 PM

Bill D.,

You are right that I presented only English translations written after the Council of Nicea. There are no translations into English from earlier. There was no England in those days.

There were tranlations into Greek long before those days. Here is Genesis 1:1 from the Septuagint (roughly 500 years before the Council of Nicea): en arche epoiesen o theos ton ouranon kai ten gen.   

Smokey,

It is not that there are "smaller differences that would only affect those who were more fastidiously literal in their belief". It is that the versions are, on this point, in agreement. How the KJV translates "reem" or how the circumference of a water tank is expressed in I Kings 7:23 are not aspects of creationism at all.

Kent

P.S.

Someday you may describe a stock tank or a hot tub or a cistern as "ten feet wide". Later, you may describe that same object as being 30 feet around. If you choose to express the value of the measurement in two digits rather than in three, I will not accuse you of being mistaken about the value of pi. To be blunt, that sort of unfair dig is unworthy of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 12 Jan 11 - 11:06 PM

Here is something I've been pondering:

We are animals, conceived like other animals, born like other animals, suckled like other animals, we eat, we drink, we defecate, we urinate, we sleep, we grow, we die, we rot, like other animals. We are meat, trapped in time, doomed to die.   

But we deny it, insisting that we are more than meat, that we are not just animals, that we do not REALLY die. From ancient Egypt to ancient China, from medieval Japan to medieval Ireland, from Australia to Russia, and from South Africa to Bangladesh, as a species we agree on little, but most of us agree that death is not the end. Jains and Mormons, Sunnis and Methodists, Copts and Buddhists, Hindus and Hutterites, all make the claim that somehow we SURVIVE death. Odd. Imagine a wing-less crawling thing INSISTING that someday it would fly.   Such a creature could have evolved.

Another possibility exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 12:19 AM

Yes, of course another possibility exists.

I don't necessarily think that we are different from animals when it comes to surviving death. I think it's possible that the consciousness of animals survives death too...as a living spirit that goes on and probably incarnates presently in another animal form, one that reflects its degree of consciousness. This may be true of plants as well.

I know of no reason to insist that only people have an afterlife, and that other creatures do not.

I know of no reason to insist that people and animals do NOT have an afterlife either...other than blind prejudice based on nothing at all except a sweeping assumption that one already knows. And no one here does.

So none of us are in a position to confirm it or deny it, except in our own individual case: when we die. Assuming we survive as a consciousness after that, then we will have all the confirmation we need, but only for ourselves, not for any of the sceptical minds around here amongst the living. ;-) That's because there's probably no use in a spirit talking to the "living", as they neither hear nor listen to anything except the usual noises...primarily their own voices. Or the TV. Or the radio.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 02:14 AM

At the risk of mudding the already murky waters, the tensions are not just between science and religion. Even if you are a deist, there is a tension between god as revealed in a book that is a few thousand years old (though edited in various ways a lot more recently), or a god as revealed in the wonders of DNA, nuclear physics and so forth. Which 'has the last word' is just as important to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 03:42 AM

"Another possibility exists."

Infinite possibilities exist, not just one.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 06:21 AM

Or to give a Biblical reference for DMcG,

"The Heavens declare the glory of God
And the firmament showeth his handiwork.
Day unto day uttereth speech
And night unto night showeth knowledge".    Psalm 19

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 10:29 AM

Well, LH, what you persistently play down in your long rant is the awkward fact that science is based on gathering evidence. I can see why that would not sit comfortably in your intricately-constructed argument, but it is the rather obstinate elephant in the room. It's true that I think that organised religion is virtually always a very bad thing, but I have been known to acknowledge that many people use religious faith to find a quiet path through life and I'm not going to deny them that for one second. That doesn't prevent me, though, from saying that you can achieve all the spirituality and intellectual satisfaction in your search for "the meaning of things" by standing up to your full height, rejecting the falsehoods that underlie all religious belief and finding a better path. There may not be organisations to put you on that path as easily as religiopns can do (in putting you on false ones) and you may have to do a lot on your rugged own, but that's life, and life doesn't have pat answers that can be found by first swatheing yourself in unnecessary mystery and falsehood. One of the points I'm always at pains to make is that the world, the universe and all their wonders are actually triumphantly ordinary, so normal. By eschewing mysticism and the supernatural I'm not seeing less - just the opposite, I'm seeing it all, with my eyes wide open. From my full height. Though there's no God, of course, the paradox is if he had really existed he would definitely have wanted me to take that very approach. He's not going to give me a good brain then want me to follow false leads. I'm not going to settle for wrong answers even if it means I get no answers at all. He'd rather approve of thst, I reckon.

I note that as you get through your post you slide uncomfortably away from religion more into "spirituality." I should like to challenge anyone of religious persuasion to demonstrate that they are better equipped than I am to explore their own or anyone else's "spirituality." You end up asking me which religious texts I've read and then, if not, challenge me as to how I can know about exploring spirituality. Well let me tell you bluntly that you don't need religious texts of any kind to explore spirituality. That's about as bogus as saying that moral values derive from religion.

And I'll just point out, as you seem to have joined the anti-atheist chorus, the double standard you promote when you defend the poor old believers when they stick their heads above the parapets. Have you actually bothered to look through recent threads to see just how atheists are treated? Thought not! Actually, look more closely. Atheists don't treat all believers the same, not by a long chalk. We don't shoot as soon as we see a Christian scalp. Instead of indulging in this superficial, broad-brush condemnation, go and do a bit of research through the threads and you'll find out why that is.

Finally, this bit o' bollix:

As to how old the Earth is, I think it's probably billions of years old. But why do I think that? Well, I think it because I grew up in a time (and a family) in which traditional science was the primary recognized authority, that's why! So I heard from other people that the Earth was many millions of years old, and I believed them. And that's all there is to it. I'm about as good at repeating the stuff I've been told as the rest of you are! ;-D And a parrot can do that too...

But do I know for sure if the scientists are right in their estimates of the age of the Earth? No. I don't know for sure. I just assume that they're probably fairly close to being correct, but I don't know. Neither does anyone else here. You're all making broad assumptions based on the prevailing mood of your society and whoever you were hanging out with in your impressionable years.

There's no need for anyone to accept without demur the authority of science or assume anything about how close to being correct scientists are. You can "do" a bit of scholarship yourself and look up the evidence. It's all gloriously available and it's not on dog-eared ancient scrolls either. You'll find peer-reviewing aplenty and evidence corroborating evidence in a most elegant way. You betray an awful lot about your thinking with this shrug-my-shoulders-what-are-the-boffins-up-to-now-it's-all-a-bit-beyond-me attitude to science. You can do better.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 11:08 AM

What Steve said!

Saved me the bother Steve.....Thankee kindly.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 11:10 AM

I know of no reason to insist that only people have an afterlife, and that other creatures do not.

I know of no reason to insist that people and animals do NOT have an afterlife either...other than blind prejudice based on nothing at all except a sweeping assumption that one already knows. And no one here does.

It is not "blind prejudice" to insist (wrong word but let's go with it for now) that there is no afterlife. It is very sensible, for a start, to suspect that the concept of afterlife has survived almost solely because it is a convenient instrument of control for religions. Whether jam tomorrow, or don't dare step out of line, it comes in handy. One might even surmise that religion actually relies on the concept for its very existence, so neutrality there then! There's also the argument that the idea of an afterlife panders to the ultimate conceit of humanity, that we're so special that this can't be all there is. Of course, none of this means that there is no afterlife, but I'm afraid what it does mean is that afterlife is on the same footing as God's proposed existence. So I want evidence. I'm not insisting there isn't one. But I want to see the foundation on which the concept is built. Again, not only is there no evidence for an afterlife but the concept of a soul, spirit, whatever, carrying on after the physical body dies runs counter to the laws of physics. Calling afterlife sceptics/deniers blindly prejudiced is actually a pretty crude and unintelligent tactic. It isn't us who need to do the explanatory heavy lifting on this one, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 01:02 PM

Indeed so, Dave. Or if you prefer a New Testament reference we could go with Corinthians 13:11
===
Young's Literal Translation
When I was a babe, as a babe I was speaking, as a babe I was thinking, as a babe I was reasoning, and when I have become a man, I have made useless the things of the babe;

===
I don't see why that should be limited to individuals; it seems just as appropriate for institutions and societies.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 01:03 PM

But, do you believe in life after birth?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 01:14 PM

One of the conceits of the book 'Erewhon' is that their religion not care at all about life after death but is very concerned with life before conception (though it says birth)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 01:30 PM

for what it,s worth little hawk;thanks for being fair minded in the face of entrenched antagonism[or so it looks in print ,from some posters].

i know i,ve expressed this before-though not as often as those who disagree with me.:-
creationists start with the bible but cite science in support of their belief.
atheists embrace evolutionism and likewise claim scientific support.
both positions claim that the other is misusing the data and evading inconvenient data.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 01:52 PM

Nope...big difference.
Scientists *know* that their beliefs are falsifiable.
For instance, my belief in an ancient Earth and evolution would be falsified by the finding of an anthropogenic pottery shard or other artifiact in the same stratigraphic bed as a trilobite.
For the analogy to hold, the Creationist must state what evidence would falsify their belief in divine creation and/or a young Earth.
So what is that piece of hypothetical evidence?

Note: this is not antagonism...simply pointing out a difference that is clear (to scientists at least).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 02:16 PM

creationists start with the bible but cite science in support of their belief.
atheists embrace evolutionism and likewise claim scientific support.

Nope #2. The first part is partially right, but they also disregard any science that does not support their belief. The second is fundamentally wrong. Scientists do their (fallable) best to start with the data, the whole data and nothing but the data and ask where that leads. Evolution as a theory arises out of the data, not the other way round.

And I repeat: the contrast is not between creationists and atheists. The majority of Christians accept scientific results and are not creationists in the YEC sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 03:42 PM

for what it,s worth little hawk;thanks for being fair minded in the face of entrenched antagonism[or so it looks in print ,from some posters].

Well, LH, at least you know who your allies are.


i know i,ve expressed this before-though not as often as those who disagree with me.:-
creationists start with the bible but cite science in support of their belief.

Show me, names please, where creationists have ever cited science. You keep saying this and you ignore me every time I ask you to back it up. Are you surprised that creationists get all this flak you keep moaning about when they behave like you do?

atheists embrace evolutionism and likewise claim scientific support.

Are you implying that evolution is some kind of atheist creed? Are you aware that there are lots of believers who also embrace it? (They're confused, of course, but at least they're on the right track). And we don't "claim" scientific support. It's there for you, me and everyone else to read, as critically as you like, all peer-reviewed, all evidence able to be corroborated, or, if not, honestly declared as such. Ditch the pejorative "claim" bit. It's highly inappropriate.

both positions claim that the other is misusing the data and evading inconvenient data.

Science starts out by assuming its hypotheses are wrong and then attempts to find evidence to counter, or confirm, that. There may be people who misuse science by misusing the data (as with Hitler and Darwinism, for example), but the scientific process doesn't allow scientists to do that. Creationists don't have any data. They do, however, choose to ignore inconvenient scientific data. All religion does that to some extent, though creationists are possibly the most egregious offenders.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 05:29 PM

Someday you may describe a stock tank or a hot tub or a cistern as "ten feet wide". Later, you may describe that same object as being 30 feet around. If you choose to express the value of the measurement in two digits rather than in three, I will not accuse you of being mistaken about the value of pi. To be blunt, that sort of unfair dig is unworthy of you.

That wasn't a 'dig', Kent, unfair or otherwise, and I thought the link I posted effectively dealt with the counter-arguments. It was no more than an illustration of one aspect of what I was trying to determine, (being how literally is the Bible taken) as with the unicorns on the ark which only seem to be in the King James version of the Bible. (being how decisions are made as to which version is the more authorititave to those who take it the most literally)

By all means be as blunt as you like, but bear in mind I am trying to treat you with respect and simply attempting to understand the nature of Creationists' belief whilst the opportunity appeared to be there. It is of course your prerogative to deny me that and I take no offence, but it would save us both some effort if you just said so.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 05:32 PM

I'm trying to sort out what Kent actually believes:

It seems he is willing to admit that the **Earth** is billions of years old, but is attempting to fit the idea of Genesis and the biblical chronology of 6000 years or so into that model.

I would ask you, Kent, if that is close....

I have....obviously... problems with accepting scientific theories and data for one area, yet denying most of them in regard to archeology & anthropology. Science seems to have quite good data on tracing man's history back 2-3 million years, but you 'seem' to suggest that, whatever those old bones are, they are not 'men', or not what you believe God created as told in Genesis.

How close am I?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 06:00 PM

""The majority of Christians accept scientific results and are not creationists in the YEC sense.""

Consider the Baha"i Faith. Abdul Baha (interpreter of Baha'u'llah's teachings, of the Baha'i faith), said that when science and religion disagree, religion is wrong. Additionally, from what I have read, Baha'i s believe in evolution. An article from the Baha'i newsletter:
Perspective: Crossing the divide between science and religion: a view on evoluti

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: mayomick
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 06:02 PM

I don't think creationists' ideas have evolved very much since the Dark Ages. So perhaps in that narrow sense it could be said that they have a point - not much to boast about though I would have thought .
Here is an extract from Leonardo Da Vinci's notebooks from 1510 .

OF THE DELUGE AND OF MARINE SHELLS.

If you were to say that the shells which are to be seen within the
confines of Italy now, in our days, far from the sea and at such
heights, had been brought there by the deluge which left them there,
I should answer that if you believe that this deluge rose 7 cubits
above the highest mountains-- as he who measured it has
written--these shells, which always live near the sea-shore, should
have been left on the mountains; and not such a little way from the
foot of the mountains; nor all at one level, nor in layers upon
layers. And if you were to say that these shells are desirous of
remaining near to the margin of the sea, and that, as it rose in
height, the shells quitted their first home, and followed the
increase of the waters up to their highest level; to this I answer,
that the cockle is an animal of not more rapid movement than the
snail is out of water, or even somewhat slower; because it does not
swim, on the contrary it makes a furrow in the sand by means of its
sides, and in this furrow it will travel each day from 3 to 4
braccia; therefore this creature, with so slow a motion, could not
have travelled from the Adriatic sea as far as Monferrato in
Lombardy [Footnote: _Monferrato di Lombardia_. The range of hills of
Monferrato is in Piedmont, and Casale di Monferrato belonged, in
Leonardo's time, to the Marchese di Mantova.], which is 250 miles
distance, in 40 days; which he has said who took account of the
time. And if you say that the waves carried them there, by their
gravity they could not move, excepting at the bottom. And if you
will not grant me this, confess at least that they would have to
stay at the summits of the highest mountains, in the lakes which are
enclosed among the mountains, like the lakes of Lario, or of Como
and il Maggiore .
And if you should say that the shells were carried by the waves,
being empty and dead, I say that where the dead went they were not
far removed from the living; for in these mountains living ones are
found, which are recognisable by the shells being in pairs; and they
are in a layer where there are no dead ones; and a little higher up
they are found, where they were thrown by the waves, all the dead
ones with their shells separated, near to where the rivers fell into
the sea, to a great depth; like the Arno which fell from the
Gonfolina near to Monte Lupo [Footnote: _Monte Lupo_, compare 970,
13; it is between Empoli and Florence.], where it left a deposit of
gravel which may still be seen, and which has agglomerated; and of
stones of various districts, natures, and colours and hardness,
making one single conglomerate. And a little beyond the sandstone
conglomerate a tufa has been formed, where it turned towards Castel
Florentino; farther on, the mud was deposited in which the shells
lived, and which rose in layers according to the levels at which the
turbid Arno flowed into that sea. And from time to time the bottom
of the sea was raised, depositing these shells in layers, as may be
seen in the cutting at Colle Gonzoli, laid open by the Arno which is
wearing away the base of it; in which cutting the said layers of
shells are very plainly to be seen in clay of a bluish colour, and
various marine objects are found there. And if the earth of our
hemisphere is indeed raised by so much higher than it used to be, it
must have become by so much lighter by the waters which it lost
through the rift between Gibraltar and Ceuta; and all the more the
higher it rose, because the weight of the waters which were thus
lost would be added to the earth in the other hemisphere. And if the
shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been
mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in
regular steps and layers-- as we see them now in our time.

The marine shells were not produced away from the sea.

As to those who say that shells existed for a long time and were
born at a distance from the sea, from the nature of the place and of
the cycles, which can influence a place to produce such
creatures--to them it may be answered: such an influence could not
place the animals all on one line, except those of the same sort and
age; and not the old with the young, nor some with an operculum and
others without their operculum, nor some broken and others whole,
nor some filled with sea-sand and large and small fragments of other
shells inside the whole shells which remained open; nor the claws of
crabs without the rest of their bodies; nor the shells of other
species stuck on to them like animals which have moved about on
them; since the traces of their track still remain, on the outside,
after the manner of worms in the wood which they ate into. Nor would
there be found among them the bones and teeth of fish which some
call arrows and others serpents' tongues, nor would so many
[Footnote: I. Scilla argued against this hypothesis, which was still
accepted in his days; see: _La vana Speculazione, Napoli_ 1670.]
portions of various animals be found all together if they had not
been thrown on the sea shore. And the deluge cannot have carried
them there, because things that are heavier than water do not float
on the water. But these things could not be at so great a height if
they had not been carried there by the water, such a thing being
impossible from their weight. In places where the valleys have not
been filled with salt sea water shells are never to be seen; as is
plainly visible in the great valley of the Arno above Gonfolina; a
rock formerly united to Monte Albano, in the form of a very high
bank which kept the river pent up, in such a way that before it
could flow into the sea, which was afterwards at its foot, it formed
two great lakes; of which the first was where we now see the city of
Florence together with Prato and Pistoia, and Monte Albano. It
followed the rest of its bank as far as where Serravalle now stands.
>From the Val d'Arno upwards, as far as Arezzo, another lake was
formed, which discharged its waters into the former lake. It was
closed at about the spot where now we see Girone, and occupied the
whole of that valley above for a distance of 40 miles in length.
This valley received on its bottom all the soil brought down by the
turbid waters. And this is still to be seen at the foot of Prato
Magno; it there lies very high where the rivers have not worn it
away. Across this land are to be seen the deep cuts of the rivers
that have passed there, falling from the great mountain of Prato
Magno; in these cuts there are no vestiges of any shells or of
marine soil. This lake was joined with that of Perugia .

A great quantity of shells are to be seen where the rivers flow into
the sea, because on such shores the waters are not so salt owing to
the admixture of the fresh water, which is poured into it. Evidence
of this is to be seen where, of old, the Appenines poured their
rivers into the Adriatic sea; for there in most places great
quantities of shells are to be found, among the mountains, together
with bluish marine clay; and all the rocks which are torn off in
such places are full of shells. The same may be observed to have
been done by the Arno when it fell from the rock of Gonfolina into
the sea, which was not so very far below; for at that time it was
higher than the top of San Miniato al Tedesco, since at the highest
summit of this the shores may be seen full of shells and oysters
within its flanks. The shells did not extend towards Val di Nievole,
because the fresh waters of the Arno did not extend so far.

That the shells were not carried away from the sea by the deluge,
because the waters which came from the earth although they drew the
sea towards the earth, were those which struck its depths; because
the water which goes down from the earth, has a stronger current
than that of the sea, and in consequence is more powerful, and it
enters beneath the sea water and stirs the depths and carries with
it all sorts of movable objects which are to be found in the earth,
such as the above-mentioned shells and other similar things. And in
proportion as the water which comes from the land is muddier than
sea water it is stronger and heavier than this; therefore I see no
way of getting the said shells so far in land, unless they had been
born there. If you were to tell me that the river Loire [Footnote:
Leonardo has written Era instead of Loera or Loira--perhaps under
the mistaken idea that _Lo_ was an article.],which traverses France
covers when the sea rises more than eighty miles of country, because
it is a district of vast plains, and the sea rises about 20 braccia,
and shells are found in this plain at the distance of 80 miles from
the sea; here I answer that the flow and ebb in our Mediterranean
Sea does not vary so much; for at Genoa it does not rise at all, and
at Venice but little, and very little in Africa; and where it varies
little it covers but little of the country.

The course of the water of a river always rises higher in a place
where the current is impeded; it behaves as it does where it is
reduced in width to pass under the arches of a bridge.

Further researches (989-991).

989.

A CONFUTATION OF THOSE WHO SAY THAT SHELLS MAY HAVE BEEN CARRIED TO
A DISTANCE OF MANY DAYS' JOURNEY FROM THE SEA BY THE DELUGE, WHICH
WAS SO HIGH AS TO BE ABOVE THOSE HEIGHTS.

I say that the deluge could not carry objects, native to the sea, up
to the mountains, unless the sea had already increased so as to
create inundations as high up as those places; and this increase
could not have occurred because it would cause a vacuum; and if you
were to say that the air would rush in there, we have already
concluded that what is heavy cannot remain above what is light,
whence of necessity we must conclude that this deluge was caused by
rain water, so that all these waters ran to the sea, and the sea did
not run up the mountains; and as they ran to the sea, they thrust
the shells from the shore of the sea and did not draw them to wards
themselves. And if you were then to say that the sea, raised by the
rain water, had carried these shells to such a height, we have
already said that things heavier than water cannot rise upon it, but
remain at the bottom of it, and do not move unless by the impact of
the waves. And if you were to say that the waves had carried them to
such high spots, we have proved that the waves in a great depth move
in a contrary direction at the bottom to the motion at the top, and
this is shown by the turbidity of the sea from the earth washed down
near its shores. Anything which is lighter than the water moves with
the waves, and is left on the highest level of the highest margin of
the waves. Anything which is heavier than the water moves, suspended
in it, between the surface and the bottom; and from these two
conclusions, which will be amply proved in their place, we infer
that the waves of the surface cannot convey shells, since they are
heavier than water.

If the deluge had to carry shells three hundred and four hundred
miles from the sea, it would have carried them mixed with various
other natural objects heaped together; and we see at such distances
oysters all together, and sea-snails, and cuttlefish, and all the
other shells which congregate together, all to be found together and
dead; and the solitary shells are found wide apart from each other,
as we may see them on sea-shores every day. And if we find oysters
of very large shells joined together and among them very many which
still have the covering attached, indicating that they were left
here by the sea, and still living when the strait of Gibraltar was
cut through; there are to be seen, in the mountains of Parma and
Piacenza, a multitude of shells and corals, full of holes, and still
sticking to the rocks there. When I was making the great horse for
Milan, a large sack full was brought to me in my workshop by certain
peasants; these were found in that place and among them were many
preserved in their first freshness.

Under ground, and under the foundations of buildings, timbers are
found of wrought beams and already black. Such were found in my time
in those diggings at Castel Fiorentino. And these had been in that
deep place before the sand carried by the Arno into the sea, then
covering the plain, had heen raised to such a height; and before the
plains of Casentino had been so much lowered, by the earth being
constantly carried down from them.


And if you were to say that these shells were created, and were
continually being created in such places by the nature of the spot,
and of the heavens which might have some influence there, such an
opinion cannot exist in a brain of much reason; because here are the
years of their growth, numbered on their shells, and there are large
and small ones to be seen which could not have grown without food,
and could not have fed without motion--and here they could not move


That in the drifts, among one and another, there are still to be
found the traces of the worms which crawled upon them when they were
not yet dry. And all marine clays still contain shells, and the
shells are petrified together with the clay. From their firmness and
unity some persons will have it that these animals were carried up
to places remote from the sea by the deluge. Another sect of
ignorant persons declare that Nature or Heaven created them in these
places by celestial influences, as if in these places we did not
also find the bones of fishes which have taken a long time to grow;
and as if, we could not count, in the shells of cockles and snails,
the years and months of their life, as we do in the horns of bulls
and oxen, and in the branches of plants that have never been cut in
any part. Besides, having proved by these signs the length of their
lives, it is evident, and it must be admitted, that these animals
could not live without moving to fetch their food; and we find in
them no instrument for penetrating the earth or the rock where we
find them enclosed. But how could we find in a large snail shell the
fragments and portions of many other sorts of shells, of various
sorts, if they had not been thrown there, when dead, by the waves of
the sea like the other light objects which it throws on the earth?
Why do we find so many fragments and whole shells between layer and
layer of stone, if this had not formerly been covered on the shore
by a layer of earth thrown up by the sea, and which was afterwards
petrified? And if the deluge before mentioned had carried them to
these parts of the sea, you might find these shells at the boundary
of one drift but not at the boundary between many drifts. We must
also account for the winters of the years during which the sea
multiplied the drifts of sand and mud brought down by the
neighbouring rivers, by washing down the shores; and if you chose to
say that there were several deluges to produce these rifts and the
shells among them, you would also have to affirm that such a deluge
took place every year. Again, among the fragments of these shells,
it must be presumed that in those places there were sea coasts,
where all the shells were thrown up, broken, and divided, and never
in pairs, since they are found alive in the sea, with two valves,
each serving as a lid to the other; and in the drifts of rivers and
on the shores of the sea they are found in fragments. And within the
limits of the separate strata of rocks they are found, few in number
and in pairs like those which were left by the sea, buried alive in
the mud, which subsequently dried up and, in time, was petrified.


And if you choose to say that it was the deluge which carried these
shells away from the sea for hundreds of miles, this cannot have
happened, since that deluge was caused by rain; because rain
naturally forces the rivers to rush towards the sea with all the
things they carry with them, and not to bear the dead things of the
sea shores to the mountains. And if you choose to say that the
deluge afterwards rose with its waters above the mountains, the
movement of the sea must have been so sluggish in its rise against
the currents of the rivers, that it could not have carried, floating
upon it, things heavier than itself; and even if it had supported
them, in its receding it would have left them strewn about, in
various spots. But how are we to account for the corals which are
found every day towards Monte Ferrato in Lombardy, with the holes of
the worms in them, sticking to rocks left uncovered by the currents
of rivers? These rocks are all covered with stocks and families of
oysters, which as we know, never move, but always remain with one of
their halves stuck to a rock, and the other they open to feed
themselves on the animalcules that swim in the water, which, hoping
to find good feeding ground, become the food of these shells. We do
not find that the sand mixed with seaweed has been petrified,
because the weed which was mingled with it has shrunk away, and this
the Po shows us every day in the debris of its banks.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 06:07 PM

I suppose God could have created the earth in six days, but it would depend on his velocity.