BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 05:44 AM

You beat me to it DMcG.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 08:13 AM

"I've never met a creationist who descried science."

The refusal to believe the results of the massive amount of scientific research and the current interpretations of them is itself the descrying of science. In fact, this dimissing of the work of tens of thousands of dedicated people is almost contemptuous. If there was evidence in the rocks for a creator then science would recognise that and work with it. However, there isn't and science has reached a series of conclusions that, until new evidence is discovered, fit together are sit comfortably within the unifying theory of earth sciences, plate tectonics.

Science welcomes doubt. It relies on the questioning and testing of results and theories and as time moves on, so does our understanding and interpretations. But they are never fixed. Ever. Unlike creationists who have reached a conclusion and try to make the facts fit. For example:

"But for the sake of some who might not know, one would have expected that, if the HIGHER levels of rock had been changed into metamorphic rock, then the LOWER strata, being exposed to more heat and more pressure, would no longer be sedimentary, but would also be metamorphic."

No No NO! Rocks are metamorphosed by heat or pressure, or both. The intrusion of igneous rocks in the form of sills and dykes will metamorphose the local surrounding rocks but leave others unaltered. It has a name - contact metamorphism. But that's not really the argument, the trouble is any evidence I present to a creationist will not be taken on face value. For instance:

"Sugarfoot Jack, if I were to find a trilobite fossil in a Pleistocene deposit, wouldn't you tell me about "zombie taxa" and how fossils can be eroded out of older rock and thus be found in younger deposits?"

Zombie taxa, derived fossils, reworked deposits; happens all the time. For instance the river gravels of the Isle of Wight are replete with reworked fossils; I found a perfect microcaster on the cliffs some years ago. But this evidence means nothing, as I suspect creationists would argue they were placed there by the flood. The same flood that deposited the formation containing dinosaurs the river gravels sit unconformably on. But there is no evidence that these rocks were laid down by a single neocatastrophic event; if there was, that would be the current theory about how they came to be there.

"but it seems to me that if an octopus is mostly soft, that there has to be some explanation if it gets fossilized."

Pete, believe me that soft tissue preservation is explicable and not uncommon. I've got a cast of some Edmontosaurus skin on my desk here, taken directly from the fossil. My real point there was the article was woefully inaccurate, and in my opinion deliberately misleading and that is the product of a nasty little mind who intends to deceive to promote their own views. Very poor.

Steve: Much to my lasting regret I had to give up my degree a few years ago, although I will be restarting next month with the OU, and I've credit for my previous studies. I'm lucky in that I've been privileged to meet and spent time in the company of (including in the field) some excellent palaeontologists and they have always been extremely encouraging and generous with their knowledge. As for taphonomy, it's a fascinating subject and an area that rewards delving into. It's a subject I could become very interesting in as it tells us so much about the conditions of death and deposition of the organism that died.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 09:53 AM

Ah, 'tis great to go on field excursions with enthusiastic experts! We had a real aficionado teaching us palaeobotany who thought nothing of dragging us off with our shiny new geological hammers to the Jurassic cliffs on the Yorkshire coast in the teeth of an easterly gale and temperatures of minus 2. You can't imagine that unless you've experienced it. I wore every scrap of clothing I'd taken with me for the weekend, including my pyjamas, and I still nearly died! One of our botany lecturers (still an active botanist I believe, and a world expert on Bryophytes, well into his 90s now) once took us on a day-trip to Box Hill. We spent almost as long studying the weeds around Boxhill and Westhumble Station and along the road down to the river Mole as we did on Box Hill! Good times!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 11:09 AM

I think love being on the field best of all.

We spent a week in North Dakota and Montana last year, digging and prospecting in the Hell Creek formation. It was incredibly hot, dusty, uncomfortable, dangerous, full of vicious bitey things and utterly brilliant - the best week of my life. It makes a change from the conditions you describe and I'm familiar with as we do our collecting here in the UK. Trudging up a beach on the Isle of Wight in November in the teeth of a storm coming in off the channel and finding sod all for hours can test even the hardiest collector. I wouldn't miss a second of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 11:29 AM

Uh, folks, I hate to say it, but debating with Creationists on the merits of the "theory" is kind of dumb. Perhaps it would be better to just say, "There is no debate. Creationism isn't science, end of story." Trying to have a rational debate with people who are willfully ignorant and who have chosen irrationality is, well, irrational. Likewise, for the Creationist, trying to debate with non-idiots on the merits of your argument is not very effective. Anyone who isn't you immediately recognizes the complete lack of logic and factual knowledge demonstrated by your position and so has already won any debate. You should stick to religious debates. As soon as you try to negate science you are lost.

To me, the only pertinent question is whether or not they want to force the rest of us to eat their shit. That's why I keep asking Kent and Pete if they support teaching Creationism in schools (Kent and Pete, you haven't answered yet, by the way).

Ignorance is not the same as stupidity, in that it can be corrected. It has my sympathy. Willful ignorance, however, IS stupid and garners nothing but contempt from me. Pete and Kent, perhaps you should stick to debates at your churches, where you won't be such a laughing stock. You need to get educated and learn to think before you try to engage in normal adult conversation in the real world. Why aren't you embarrassed to present such obvious poppycock as if you expect anyone to take you seriously?

And why do any of the rest of us try to "prove" to them that they are wrong? It should be obvious that knowledge and logic aren't going to work with them. The only argument that MIGHT get a Creationist to reconsider would be a Biblical argument that negates Creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 12:52 PM

Trying to have a rational debate with people who are willfully ignorant and who have chosen irrationality is, well, irrational

As Monty Python explain No it isn't. I could be arguing in my own time (words) !

(youtube)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 01:57 PM

well,jack/steve i guess it must be too complicated to explain it to me!
i did look up a few sites on the subject, but not much help in trying to explain the evolutionist take on soft tissue fossils.
one on burgess shale suggested something about heated minerals encasing-maybe got that wrong;either way i did,nt get it.
the most quoted case were on dino blood cells eg scientific american mag dec 2010.as i understand it-stuff that should have disappeared a long time since is puzzling scientists that cling to their billions of years faith.seems to me they are as blinkered as as you accuse creationists to be.maybe you have an explanation that can help them out!
yeah i suppose it was a little sarcastic,but without any malice whatever.

john-we have done education and creationism before and i dont intend to go there again.
it always appears, esp in your posts ,that evolutionists resort to ridicule and accusations as a major part of their argument.
this thankfully does not include all such posters and i thank those who conduct themselves civilly.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 02:21 PM

Thanks to DMcG for responding to Kent's cute little poem. Whoever wrote that must not have watched the documentaries I have where various 'lower' primates fight, steal, kill, cheat and band together to attack 'other' groups.

If humans, as Kent & pete seem to believe, are to be presumed 'separate' from those other creatures because "God planned it that way", then I have to question either God's attention to detail or his abominable sense of humor.
If God gave us reason, failing to use it to see the flaws in YEC, AEC and all other 'faith based' concepts of creation is unforgivable......ummmm.. but if reason is just an outgrowth of evolution of the brain, it it STILL sad not to see it used better.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 02:28 PM

that evolutionists resort to ridicule and accusations

This statement is part of what's wrong with allowing Creationists to have a seat at the table instead of laughing them out of the room. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist", if by that you mean one who "believes" in evolution. This is a perversion of language and logic. This is trying to make us believe that black is white.

And yes, I really do think that Creationists should be the object of ridicule. If I get enough people to say, over and over again, that the sky is pink, should I be treated as anything but a stupid distraction? What is the difference between saying the world is 6000 years old and saying the sky is pink?

Pete -- by using the word "evolutionist", you are trying to lower the level public discourse to your own ignorant level. I think you are, personally, a really nice guy. But when you put forth such incredibly stupid comments and demand to be both taken seriously and treated with respect, you help to foster an environment where lies have the same weight as truth and the willfully ignorant are accorded the same respect as those who are learned and wise.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 02:35 PM

we have done education and creationism before and i dont intend to go there again

I must have missed it. A one word answer will suffice:

Do you think Creationism is science and should be taught alongside evolution in science classrooms?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 02:57 PM

I was earlier today told that Genesis sets out that it is a story (the sort of analogy that we use to expose children to ideas before their brains are ready for real thinking) and that it also sets out that God is not subject to time so that "7 days" is doubly an analogy.

I have not checked either such assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 04:04 PM

there are all sorts of theological conjectures on the beginning of genesis,richard.
prior to darwin reworking and popularising evolutionism, just about every theologian over church history took it as factual narrative.this was because of NT affirmation of genesis as well as linquistic study of the genesis account.
however as darwinism gained popular acceptance many churchians adjusted their teaching ,perhaps thinking to gain acceptance from evolutionist scientists.
dont think it worked so well as far as i know.
i understand dawkins is himself critical of such compromise as well as creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 04:31 PM

however as darwinism gained popular acceptance many churchians adjusted their teaching ,perhaps thinking to gain acceptance from evolutionist scientists.

It seems more likely that they were willing, like most people, to adapt their thinking to include newly discovered facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 04:33 PM

this was because of NT affirmation of genesis

You've got me intriged there, pete. I'm not sure where in the New Testament Genesis is specifically affirmed, as distinct from the Torah and other writings. The nearest I can think of is the start of Matthew (which as you will know but others may not) traces the geneology of Joseph from Abraham, but Abraham is far later in Genesis than the accounts of the creation and the flood and there is no attempt to trace Joseph back to Adam, for example.

Is that what you mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 04:48 PM

To anyone irritated or offended by the poem and song,

I thought they were funny. I posted them because I thought it was time for a little levity.   

And yes, I do know that no one thinks we are descended from modern monkeys. And I do know that we are the "fifth ape", and I suspect that most of us agree that we are more than the "fifth ape". And I do know that, contrary to the poem and song, monkeys (and other animals) sometimes do the "bad" things mentioned therein. Except that what they do is not really "bad" or "good", but merely what comes naturally. It's different with us, as I know you also believe.

John P.,
Yes, you did miss my answer. Please see the post of 11 Jan 11, 8:16 P.M. In one word, "Yes".   However, you need not worry. There is little chance of me getting my wish. Also, even if children were exposed to both sides, no doubt many would still agree with you. I spent all twenty-two years of my education in public school and yet look at me.

Sugarfoot Jack,

What you said about igneous intrusions is all very interesting but does not apply to the particular rocks we were discussing (Chief Mountain, Assynt, Knockan Crag). Those particular rocks are believed by your fellow AEN folks to have undergone metamorphosis elsewhere, and moved to their present location via an overthrust fault.

To all,

I've enjoyed this discussion and I hope you have too. I've learned some things and I hope you can say the same. I may look up this thread from time to time, but I think I've said all I need to say, so I will probably contribute no more.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 05:20 PM

Well, goodbye, then Kent. I'm glad to hear you've learnt some things; as I admitted some posts ago, the stuff on Chief Mountain was new to me. I don't see that it causes any difficulty, but nevertheless it is new to me and I'm grateful to you for that.

Round about post 50 someone asked what the point of this discussion is, as we doubt if you expected to convince us and I, for one, didn't expect to convince you. My answer to that question is that it is worth demonstrating to the undecided that there is a good answer to all the points you raise, as indeed I assume you felt the same about our points. LH or Chongo suggested what seems an age ago that we should both admit we don't know and we should admit this to the undecided. I disagree; I think we should present the evidence of why we believe what we do, try to show flaws in each others and make the best case we can. Then the 'undecideds' are in the best possible position to make an informed choice. You have given a sort of 'closing speech' above. I will finish mine - except in response to anything Pete may still have to say, to draw the 'juries' attention to the number of direct questions still lying in your and pete's in-tray and invite them to draw their own conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 05:56 PM

I suspect that most of us agree that we are more than the "fifth ape".

Why, the quintessence of belief in God and afterlife in one little sentence! Why would you want to be "more than" the fifth ape? Why do we have to be different, apart? I'm over the moon that I'm a member of the hallowed ape fraternity, wonderful noble creatures that we all are, all five manifestations of us, and I have no desire to be "more than," any more than I wish to return to anything more than mere stardust one day. Did I say "mere?" Nah - it's an honour!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 06:52 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlM52fUrNz4

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 10:39 PM

DMcG,

While I was writing what was to be my final post on this thread, you wrote, "I'm not sure where in the New Testament Genesis is specifically affirmed..." I had already posted before I read your (implied) question to guest, Pete. I see he hasn't answered yet (though no doubt he could), so I will answer.

Here are a few places in the NT which affirm the earliest chapters of Genesis:

Matthew 19:4-6 - He* answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female**, 5and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'***? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
* Jesus
**Genesis 1:27
** *Genesis @:24

Acts 17:24-28 - The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for

"'In him we live and move and have our being';
as even some of your own poets have said,

"'For we are indeed his offspring.'

See also Luke 3:38, John 1:1-3, Acts 14:15-17, Romans 5:12,14; I Corinthians 15:22,45; I Timothy 2:13,14, Jude 14, among others.

I hope you find this helpful. Thank you again (and thank you all) for an interesting and informative discussion. Good night.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 02:04 AM

I'm on my way to work here, so don't have time to look at those references yet, but I will do. Thanks for your input. At first glance, though, I don't see they give more support to a literal reading of the bible than the narrative interpretion Richard referred to, any more more than Christ gave instructions that exclusively related to the welfare of Samaritans.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 02:57 AM

Well, I've reached work so naturally I still haven't had a chance to look those references up, but I though I'd better explain why I raised to question so that pete can tailor his response appropriately. First of all, this has nothing at all to with the main discussion (creationism v science) but is about the internal consistancy of the creationist case. I am sorry that it only got raised in the closing stages, so to speak, but there we are.

The largest single group of Christians is the Roman Catholic Church. I think the Anglican community is next. Both believe in an ancient earth, not one 6000 years old. So the idea that the New Testament 'asserts' Genesis implies that these two groups - amongst others - are misunderstanding or wilfully ignoring something in the same texts the the creationists are using seems pretty significant. I was wondering just which 'chapter and verse' is being treated in this careless fashion.

But to repeat, it has nothing to do with the main argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 04:19 AM

"the most quoted case were on dino blood cells eg scientific american mag dec 2010.as i understand it-stuff that should have disappeared a long time since is puzzling scientists that cling to their billions of years faith.seems to me they are as blinkered as as you accuse creationists to be.maybe you have an explanation that can help them out!"

I'm not at all sure why you would describe them as blinkered. They are breaking important new ground here, and in terms of fossilisation the discovery of surviving organic elements in bone is a really exciting new field. I know people involved in the search for biometric markers within dinosaur bone (indeed we've donated some bone my wife collected to this research) and they are breaking new ground. As for some of the stuff due out on dinosaur feathers - it's going to be exciting.

Like I said, science opens the door to doubt. Nothing is above questioning and the discovery of organic tissue in dinosaur bone (and it's possible it's not only in the bones) doesn't mean it's only been there since Noah's flood - it means we need to incorporate these findings and alter our current view of how fossilisation works. Unlike creationists, scientists are involved in a process of learning rather than attempting to support a fixed and intractable dogmatic opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 06:24 AM

Krautmeyer's Ark

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 07:40 AM

"The largest single group of Christians is the Roman Catholic Church. I think the Anglican community is next. Both believe in an ancient earth, not one 6000 years old."

As far as I know The Lutherans (except for a few esoteric spin offs who use the name 'Lutheran') also accept a 'scientific' age not a 'theologically derived' age.

But then, from Yahoo Answers Questions I have seen, many US 'Protestants'. do not accept their lineage of Christianity as being traced thru The RC Church, posing such revealing questions as "Are Catholics really Christians?"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 08:23 AM

jack-i suppose it just goes to show that what is scientific "fact" one day has to be shelved another day.

kent-thanks for providing references on my behalf.probably done in a fraction of the time it would take me to type it!.you have done much better than i in presenting YEC and i hope you continue to chip in as opportunity arises

dmcg-IMO jesus,jude and paul are referring to literal characters though i suppose some might think otherwise IMO to accomodate evolutionisms mud to man via monkey theory.It will be interesting to see how you read it,as sort of theologically neutral.
ps-john speaks of cain killing his brother. 1 john 3 12 cf gen 4 8.
thanks for question and i appreciate its not the main argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 08:28 AM

But then, from Yahoo Answers Questions I have seen, many US 'Protestants'. do not accept their lineage of Christianity as being traced thru The RC Church, posing such revealing questions as "Are Catholics really Christians?"
Thanks for that, Foolestroupe. I agree that many other Christian sects also accept the earth is much older than 6000 years. Whether a specific group of believers is included or not, though, would be a distraction. Many believers who take the Bible very seriously do not think that the New Testament asserts that Genesis should be taken literally. My suspicion is that it is many more than do take it literally, but the question arises how do you get any figures in support of that? (Looking for evidence, folks! The scientific approach strikes again!). The size of the RC church was something I had in the trivia-loaded part of my brain, and being hierarchical it is possible to make a statement about 'What the RC Church' beliefs are. Ditto Anglicanism.

Consulting Wiki, I see I was right about RC being largest. I was wrong about the position of Anglicanism, but it is still one of the largest groupings. I'd completely forgotten about the Orthodox churches, which are substantial, but a minute or twos search didn't reveal what age they think the Universe is, and I lost interest... Similarly Baptists are one of the largest groups, but as individual churches do not necessarily believe the same as their neighbouring churches it is impossible to make a reliable statement about what Baptists think the age of the earth is.

If anyone knows how go give a breakdown similar to Wiki on who believes what about the age of the earth, I'd be glad to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 08:37 AM

evolutionisms mud to man via monkey theory.

Give it a rest, pete. You're displaying your wilful ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 12:25 PM

As Chongo has patiently explained, Man was the result of an illicit liason between a Gorilla and a Howler Monkey. Shocking but true! Read all about it here:

The Origins of Man

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 06:36 PM

>>>"One cannot experimentally create a universe."

You obviously do not understand what scientists do with their mathematical universe creation models. <<<

I would say that you do not understand the difference between a simulation and the real thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 06:39 PM

>>>I suspect that most of us agree that we are more than the "fifth ape".

Why, the quintessence of belief in God and afterlife in one little sentence! Why would you want to be "more than" the fifth ape? Why do we have to be different, apart? I'm over the moon that I'm a member of the hallowed ape fraternity, wonderful noble creatures that we all are, all five manifestations of us, and I have no desire to be "more than," any more than I wish to return to anything more than mere stardust one day. Did I say "mere?" Nah - it's an honour! <<<

I am quite glad to be "more" than the fifth ape. For one thing apes are incapable of performing and enjoying folk music.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 07:29 PM

"you do not understand the difference between a simulation and the real thing"

But it is claimed that Creation is 'a work of art' so it seems there is little practical difference ... :-)

Then of course we have religions that actually claim that our existence is but merely a dream in the mind of their magic invisible sky fairy ...

And one has to ask, just what is The Real Thing ...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 07:32 PM

"For one thing apes are incapable of performing and enjoying folk music. "

And that is 'A Bad Thing' ...:-)

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 07:47 PM

Sorry Kent.
AEN is totally falsifiable, and I already gave the hypothetical evidence above that would falsify it. I am still waitng for the hypothetical for YEC.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 07:48 PM

I am quite glad to be "more" than the fifth ape. For one thing apes are incapable of performing and enjoying folk music.

Yeah but fifth apes are the only ones capable of worrying about tomorrow and whether their stocks and shares are up or down. What's more, unlike the other four apes, fifth apes have an aversion to wiping their bottoms with their bare hands and spending hours picking off and eating lice from their partners. Oh, what pleasures we forgo.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 08:10 PM

Has anybody watched 'What is Reality?' (BBC2 21:00 GMT) yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 17 Jan 11 - 11:27 PM

So, Kent, you are in favor of teaching Creationism in our schools. Are you suggesting we set aside the Constitution, or do you really believe Creationism is science? Or do you think Creationism isn't religion? What's the rationale?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 01:05 AM

People who are sufficiently steeped in 'Religion', do not care about 'Science', other than as a threat.

I've previously mentioned about my Uni lecturer friend who was distressed to tears when he read a submitted course paper that quoted only from the Bible... he really didn't WANT to fail the student, for he was afraid that he might lose his job ... or at least end up on the front pages of the papers ...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 10:31 AM

what was the subject of this course paper foolestroupe?
i cant imagine why the lecturer was afraid to fail anyone who did,nt address the subject.i would fail it too,if so.
i can however understand scientists afraid to admit believing in creation or ID.some have lost jobs for that.

steve-have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 10:50 AM

"i cant imagine why the lecturer was afraid to fail anyone who did,nt address the subject.i would fail it too,if so."

Read my earlier post Pete - scientists get hate mail from creationists. As I said, in palaeontology circles it's almost considered a rite of passage. Not really very nice at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 12:44 PM

Looks to me like there's a great deal of fear on both sides of this particular issue. Hate mail on both sides too. That's why these threads always draw so much reaction and go on and on almost forever.

But what does surprise me is that no one has objected to Chongo's provocative theory about the origins of humanity. That indicates that you people are more open-minded, progressive, and tolerant than I would ever have surmised. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 01:41 PM

Many years ago when I was a graduate teaching fellow in Philosophy, I was responsible for one lecture/discussion section out of a 400 person 101 class.
The professor wanted each student to write a short paper to balance the pure memorization and guesswork of the usual exams. The first topic he picked, to 'stimulate interest' was "The Existence of God"....big mistake! The point was to get the students to show they understood the arguments for & against and thus to better understand what Philosophical inquiry was all about....and we graduate students explained several times....s-l-o-w-l-y... that the goal was NOT to simply state your belief and defend it, but to show what was usually done in various systems.

   Well, when paper grading time came, I'll bet 75% of the papers..(this was in Kansas!)... did exactly what we told them not to do!...and 95% of those were simply variations of "I believe in the Bible and the word of God as printed, and all those other theories are deluded".
    I had to grade some pretty good students at C or below because they simply could NOT get the point that understanding was the goal, not just asserting and defending.
   There was however, in another section an exception...the other grad student brought me a paper written by a young Black student that was exceptional...he had explained that although he was a serious Christian and held his beliefs strongly, he saw the value of understanding what others thought...and why.... and he went on to go a clear, concise paper doing exactly what was requested.

What we learned was that the process of getting folks who were brought up in a tradition to just learn 'thinking' was really hard when all they were concerned with was resisting anything which even looked like a threat to their positions.
In future papers, we tried to choose less knee-jerk topics.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 11 - 03:08 PM

"they simply could NOT get the point that understanding was the goal, not just asserting and defending."

Right! That is what troubles me about a great many people on this forum, Bill. They just assert and defend whatever they already are set upon. They have no actual desire to understand anything that they don't already believe anyway.


"What we learned was that the process of getting folks who were brought up in a tradition to just learn 'thinking' was really hard when all they were concerned with was resisting anything which even looked like a threat to their positions."

Right again. That is the essential problem in most dialogue nowadays, both in this forum, on the media, and in society in general. All most people are concerned with is resisting anything which looks like a threat to their established position. This is true of people on BOTH sides of most political and religious and other controversies here, regardless of which side they have jumped in on.

I would not say it's true of you. You do think about things, and you do make efforts to understand a different viewpoint. So do a few others here. Most people don't, they just start "throwing poop" like these guys...


Howlers

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jan 11 - 06:19 PM

jack- i certainly have not written hate mail to evolutionists ,though i dont dispute it happens, maybe more on your side of the pond?.i dont condone it and it,s counterproductive to the cause of Christ.
little hawk is moderater as usual and i,m sure he would pass that paper.i could think of some here that would fail very badly!.
of course i am firmly fixed as a creationist but like to think i try to understand the opposing position,but admittedly will counter arguments if i can.
so maybe that plilosophy paper would be a challenge to me in that respect , bill.

tonque in cheek award to LH re chongo!?.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 01:51 AM

It is 'beyond belief' to use Biblical quotes for support of a paper on subjects such as biology and chemistry, but acceptable to use in in Arts subjects, History, Philosophy, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 02:59 AM

True story - when a friend of mine was 11 he answered the question on a Physics paper "What is mass?" by saying it was the main service of the Catholic Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 05:42 AM

This still rattling on?

I have no problem with people using ancient stories to bounce off their sense of morality, but to revise both science and history in order to make it all relevant?

Look, I know a bloke who learned Klingon and goes to Star Trek conventions, even flying out to The States and Japan for them. Good for him, and we all need a hobby. BUT.. if he was in the pub telling me that the borg exists and that Spock existed (will exist?) then I would smile, sup up and say "Is that the time?"

Luckily, he hasn't got that far yet. Give him time....

Perhaps the same time that any fad needs to become a superstition and then received by those for whom it is useful. Control the masses? Superstition, every time mate, every single time. The King doesn't understand me but my imaginary friend does. We all need a crutch eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:18 AM

I'd have thought that someone who only quoted (or cited) the Bible in a Theology paper would have been marked down.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 05:23 AM

Agree with all above who have said this is getting to be a worn out subject, but this is a new year and:

T-H-E-Y-'-R-E--B-A-C-K

New year brings new attacks on evolution in schools

Legislative actions in New Hampshire and Indiana beset widely accepted theory

By Stephanie Pappas
LiveScience
1/1/2012

The new year is bringing new controversy over teaching evolution in public schools, with two bills in New Hampshire seeking to require teachers to teach the theory more as philosophy than science.

Meanwhile, an Indiana state senator has introduced a bill that would allow school boards to require the teaching of creationism.

***

I REFUSE to comment on these bills.

For background for those still awake to the subject, MSNBC provides some useful(?) information at:

7 Theories on the Origin of Life

or:

The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)

You can read about the legislation at the first link if you like.

The other two links are - maybe - actually interesting. (They're both slide shows, but not as boring as some of that ilk.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:27 AM

Valiantly attempting to leave the specific topic aside, it always strikes me as strange that a people who, collectively and individually, set great store on the right of the individual and, compared to Europe and many other cultures, strive really hard to minimise any sort of state interference in their lives, can go along with the idea of requiring such-and-such to be taught in a specific way though an entire state. Allow it, by all means, but require it? Very odd.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 10:20 AM

They're not back, John - they never went away.

Its way past time that the general populace statred to regard them as the dangerous lunatics they are, instead of smiling and looking the other way.