BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 02:44 PM

A few months ago, in another thread, I was asked about "Young Earth Creationism". I did not then have time to answer fully, but I will try to do so now. My purpose is to explain, to those who are interested, what Young Earth Creationism is.

There are many views about the origin of life, the universe, and everything.   Young Earth Creationism ( henceforth "YEC") is one of those views. The "creationism" part of the name indicates that it requires supernatural intervention.   The "young" part refers to the belief that earth (and the entire universe) is thousands of years old (rather than billions of years old).   

In contrast to YEC, the theories and hypotheses that make up the current consensus view at most scientific institutions do not require supernatural intervention, but do require the universe to be billions of years old. I am going to refer to these theories and hypotheses as "Ancient Earth Naturalism" (henceforth "AEN"). AEN is sometimes informally referred to as "evolution". However, AEN includes more than Darwinian evolution. It also includes the cosmic inflation hypothesis of the Big Bang theory, the solar nebular disk model of planetary formation, geological uniformitarianism, the "out of Africa" hypothesis of the origin of Homo sapiens, and so on.   

There are hybrid views that, like YEC, require supernatural intervention and, like AEN, require an ancient universe.

In the following posts, I will list some beliefs which are part of Ancient Earth Naturalism (AEN). I will also list the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) response to those beliefs.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 02:55 PM

Oh good, I could uses a laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 03:17 PM

The following beliefs are common to most Ancient Earth Naturalists (AEN):

1. The universe had a starting time; its age is finite.

2. The very early universe was greatly different from the present universe. There was a very early period of extremely rapid change followed by a long period of relative stability which continues to this day.

3. The present stability of the universe is relative. Change is occurring and is expected to continue until, eventually, the universe will no longer support organic life.

Young Earth Creationists agree with Ancient Earth Naturalists on belief #1, the belief that the age of the universe is finite rather than infinite (Genesis 1:1)   In AEN, belief #2 is accepted in the form of the cosmic inflation hypothesis of the Big Bang theory. In YEC, belief #2 is also accepted, NOT in the form of the cosmic inflation hypothesis, but as the six days of creation (Genesis1:1-31). Either way, there is extremely rapid change initially, followed by relative stability (uniformitarianism for the AEN folks; God's "rest" on the seventh day for YEC folks - Genesis 2:1,2). Neither the ANC nor the YEC folks expect the universe to last eternally in its present form. There is ongoing debate among AEN folks about whether the universe will end in fire or ice. The YEC folks say "fire" (see II Peter 3:10 - But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare).

That's all from me today. Tomorrow I hope to post some more comparisons between AEN and YEC. I look forward to your comments.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 03:32 PM

Spare us the waste of time and yourself the embarrassment.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 03:33 PM

A comment: If the age of the Earth is approximately 6,000 years, Kent Davis, that would imply about 60 100-year old people- and far fewer than that if you accept that the ancients each lived close to a thousand years thmselves. Does that sound logical to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 03:56 PM

I see we're in for a wacky new year!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 03:59 PM

Host (John Cleese: Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim. First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?

Voles (Michael Palin): That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.

Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the
early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?

Voles: 43.

Host: Well, how is it possible for you to have written plays
performed over 300 years before you were born?

Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground.

Host: Ah!

Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm
afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular
point, but I can see you're more than a match for me!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 04:11 PM

I believe that YEC should henceforth be called Young Earth Creation Hypothesis. The acronym for that sounds about right to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 04:14 PM

I'm not sure about these 60 100 year olds. I think the relevant fact is the parent's age when they first have children, so something more like 200 generations is probably the figure to work with.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Rev. Goose 'Goof' Gander (retired)
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 04:15 PM

"Oh good, I could uses a laugh."

You could use a grammar lesson while you're at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 04:29 PM

The problem with followers of this YECH belief, is not that they are not Sincere, for they all are, but they are trapped in the circuitous Logical Loops of the 'Law of Fives' - their conclusions will always support their preconceived beliefs.

This is not 'Science', but 'Pseudo-Science' - Real Science always has unexpected twists and turns, often appearing to reverse itself, as new things surface, and fundamental concepts are rewritten and often discarded.

Religion sponsored Pseudo Science, while it needs to get more convoluted and self contradictory, will always never surrender certain basic premises, for that is what defines it as a subset of 'the Law of Fives' style Philosophy. Buddhists still believe as part of their core belief system taught every day, that Anger creates fire and volcanoes, and other such human actions cause water (floods, etc), and all of the other natural disasters - if we only change our behaviors, all will be right, and we can reverse Global Warming!. Science has passed this by.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 04:36 PM

Come back Erich von Däniken. All is forgiven.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 05:56 PM

Not even pseudoscience. Just dogma. Fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: framus
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 05:59 PM

Are young earth creationists not just very junior worms?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 06:15 PM

Is this for real or is it some sort of trollish 'wind-up' (English slang for provocation)?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 06:42 PM

I could also uses improved typing skills. But a laugh will be nice.

Cuckoos early this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 06:58 PM

Shimrod... Not nice to call someone a troll until after a thousand posts. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:14 PM

If the Earth were really young it wouldn't have so many wrinkles.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:20 PM

From Wikipedia:

"Some Young Earth creationists claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.[8][9][10][11] However, the established scientific consensus is that young Earth creationism has no scientific basis. For example, a joint statement of InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.[12]

According to a Gallup poll in December 2010, around 40% of Americans believe in YEC, rising to over 50% among Republicans but reducing strongly with level of education (only 22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees compared with 47% of those with high school only or less).[13]"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:23 PM

Yes, Richard,
Sumer is icumen in
Lhude sing cuccu!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:33 PM

40% of Americans

That's frightening... can't be true, surely?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:49 PM

Doesn't exactly increase faith in democracy, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:50 PM

I read somewhere that the US Constitution guarantees the right of US citizens to believe whatever they want, no matter how irrational. Some believe this to be mandatory!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: ChrisJBrady
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:53 PM

Another cult I guess for inclusion at:

http://www.rickross.com and

http://forum.rickros.com

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: ChrisJBrady
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:55 PM

Sorry that should be:

http://forum.rickross.com

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 07:57 PM

Could the 2007 stats below be true?


•58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school.
•42% of US college graduates never read another book.
•80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year.
•70% of US adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
•57% of new books are not read to completion.
http://www.parapublishing.com/sites/para/resources/statistics.cfm
(data quoted by Para Publishing, who is quoting Jerrold Jenkins)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:02 PM

Do the math

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:13 PM

And yet people believe everybody should be encouraged to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:19 PM

I wonder if the YECHs know about Oahspe?

I think we should introduce them... and then explain to both about The Urantia Book....
and then stand to the side and watch the fun....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:21 PM

An interesting point Q.

A 97 year old neighbour of mine, once told me she never voted after her husband died (when she was 75). She said that many people tried to convince her to do so, that it was her duty, but she never caved in to their persistance. The reason she gave was as follows: She said that she never followed political issues, nor the politicians after her huisband died. So, she told me that she did not wish to vote and cancel out the vote of someone who did follow such things, and would know much more than she did on the issues and the people seeking office.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Janie
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:28 PM

Hello, Kent.

Am curious to hear and learn more.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:35 PM

I have to say.. it's 'interesting' to see theories and ideas like YEC propounded, and to wonder exactly how they persist in the face of mountains of data showing why & how such theories cannot possibly be taken seriously in THIS day and age.

It says something about humans that the are ABLE to look strong evidence in the eye, and go on to 'believe' in something based on stories and wishful thinking.

...and I have been giving serious thought to the concerns about giving everyone the right to vote.... **sigh**

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: maeve
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:37 PM

Hi, Kent. As Janie said...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:40 PM

Thanks for that Janie.
Kents stated purpose was "to explain, to those who are interested, what Young Earth Creationism is".

It seems reasonable and polite to hear more about something that seems to have captured the interest of quite a few folks, regardless of ones views.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 09:12 PM

I don't see any need for anyone to post a lengthy explanation of "Young Earth creationism" here at Mudcat. It's already been explained at Wikipedia.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 09:28 PM

"I don't see any need for anyone to post a lengthy explanation..."

Possibly because someone is seeking to promote such a theory thru wider distribution. I DO wish that intentions were made clear, instead of suggesting that it simply a 'matter of interest'.

Reading the article on Wikipedia should clarify it for anyone really interested.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 09:30 PM

Science Vs Faith

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Slag
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 11:47 PM

Wait! Wait! Where did Mr. Davis go??? Of course the universe is only 6000 years old! That is so obvious! Hear him out!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 11:50 PM

______________________________________________________________

Thank you for all the thoughtful comments. Ebbie, as usual, asks an interesting and insightful question. I was raised as an Ancient Earth Creationist, believing that Genesis is true and also holding that the universe is billions of years old. So, yes, the idea that the universe is thousands of years old does seem strange to me. That says something about my raising, and it says something about my psychology but, of course, it says nothing about which view is correct. Einstein's theory seems strange to me. I believe it is true in spite of how strange it seems.   

Here is another belief common to both AEN and YEC:

4. All living humans share a common paternal ancestor and a common maternal ancestor. These common ancestors lived thousands of years ago (not millions of years ago), and therefore all humanity is one species, one "kind", one "blood".

For several generations, Ancient Earth Naturalists have been slowly moving toward the YEC position on this matter.   Some early Darwinists (though not Darwin himself) held to a polygenetic view of humanity; they thought that the races were actually different species. By the time of my childhood, in the 1960s, polygeneticism had mostly died out, but the mainstream view then was that the most recent common ancestor of humanity had lived well over a million years ago. Currently, many Ancient Earth Naturalists believe, based on mitochondrial DNA studies, that the most recent common maternal ancestor of humanity lived about 200,000 years ago. Many Ancient Earth Naturalists believe, based on studies of the Y chromosome, that the most recent common paternal ancestor of humanity lived about 60,000 years ago. Young Earth Creationists, as you know, generally believe that we are all children of Noah.

Kent
___________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:10 AM

So, yes, the idea that the universe is thousands of years old does seem strange to me. That says something about my raising, and it says something about my psychology but, of course, it says nothing about which view is correct. Einstein's theory seems strange to me. I believe it is true in spite of how strange it seems.

Surely the question was 'does it sound logical to you?' Hardly synonymous with 'strange'. Perhaps you might try to explain why your beliefs appear to defy logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:22 AM

Well, Smokey, of course it sounds logical to me. I wouldn't believe it otherwise.   

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:24 AM

"polygeneticism had mostly died out"

Ah - can't find the link - but very recently a new genetic line was found in a cave in Siberia, and it now appears that there WAS polygeneticism - that several different lines including Neanderthals and 'modern' man as well as this older strain, of which the modern closest relatives are still in New Guinea, all interbred.

Then there of course is this theory of The Other People, which The Biblical Literalists really cannot deny, if they wish to be consistent .... :-)

But then people can believe whatever they want, as long as they stop trying to bully and interfere in Science, for I am a FSM follower...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:25 AM

Here are some more beliefs which are common to most Ancient Earth Naturalists (AEN). Following them is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) response to those beliefs.

5. In our present experience, energy does not arise spontaneously from nothing.

6. In our present experience, matter does not arise spontaneously from nothing.

7. In our present experience, life does not arise spontaneously from non-life.

We do not see matter or energy spontaneously appearing from nothing, nor do we see life spontaneously arising from non-life. Sometimes we see what appear to be exceptions to these rules, but Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur (among others) showed that these apparent exceptions are illusions. Either such events never occur or, if they occur, they occur exceedingly rarely. YEC is compatible with the idea that these events NEVER occur. In contrast, the currently accepted form of ANC requires that, at least once, matter and/or energy emerged from nothing and requires that, at least once, life arose spontaneously from non-life.   Nevertheless, ANC agrees that we do not see such events in our present experience.

Good night!

Kent

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

"In our present experience, life does not arise spontaneously from non-life."

Viruses .... ooops.... they are non-life (cannot reproduce by themselves) - they can invade and become life and reproduce, while destroying the host....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:50 AM

Those of you responding to my YECH acronym...I hope you realize I was being ironic. Maybe some things need to be heard rather than read.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:55 AM

Well, Smokey, of course it sounds logical to me. I wouldn't believe it otherwise.

Obviously, but though you find YEC 'strange' and at the same time 'logical' you haven't really said why. What makes a person take on this belief? Persuasion? Logical process?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:18 AM

Foolstroupe,

Viruses are not an example of life spontaneously arising from non-life. Whether viruses are life at all is a matter of debate. Yes, viruses are replicated in living cells. So are prions, and most would agree that prions are not life.

The cells in which viruses replicate are certainly alive. Viruses, some would argue, are an example of life arising from life. Others would argue that viruses are an example of non-life arising from life. Clearly they are not an example of life arising from non-life since, even if viruses are considered to have life, they derive that life from other life.

But I'm not here to debate that. If you and Louis Pasteur want to tangle, go for it. I've got my hands full trying to explain Young Earth Creationism.

Smokey, I am just trying to explain what YEC is. Saying why I beleive it is not really my purpose. However, I will answer your question, but I can't do it tonight. I've got to get up in less than 5 hours. Good night.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:33 AM

Thank you, Kent, I'll appreciate that. "What" is a simple question easily answered, but "why" is another matter entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 06:39 AM

Oh goody.

Two things about this thread excite me.

1. Richard Bridge and I may after all be on the same wavelength.

2. Pointing and laughing at people who exhibit irrational tendencies has been a popular sport since the days of paying to visit Bedlam. Long may the tradition continue.

Two things about this thread fail to excite me.

1. Having a pop at more mainstream religion is more fun than silly notions such as this, as you can outrage more people.

2. See point 2 of the the 'excite" bit, but without the last sentence.

Noticed how Kent dodges the insults and tries to answer as if he were rational? I have a brother in law who is happy clappy. He acts in a similar manner, (apart from when he told me I will burn in Hell.)

They visited over Xmas and I couldn't help myself. We have a nativity set of figures in porcelain and I hid the crib / manger and put some baby bell edam cheeses in there instead. Told him it was the little baby cheeses.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 08:57 AM

The point is, Kent Davis, why are you telling us all this? If you succeed in convincing us all who will benefit?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 10:58 AM

"Many Ancient Earth Naturalists believe, based on studies of the Y chromosome, that the most recent common paternal ancestor of humanity lived about 60,000 years ago. Young Earth Creationists, as you know, generally believe that we are all children of Noah."

Supposing this is true (I haven't read the scientific literature so any refs, send them through), it's still a heck of a leap from humanity having a common paternal ancestor 60k years ago to it being Noah, plus the fact don't creationists think the earth is only 6,000-odd years old?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 11:19 AM

The oldest fossils known are stomatolites, which are dated to 2.5 billion years.

But you know how it goes--add a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real Time.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 11:30 AM

""Young Earth Creationists, as you know, generally believe that we are all children of Noah.""

We have a basic problem here.

Four males and four females cannot possibly constitute a viable gene pool for perpetuation of any species of mammal.

Whatever else you may believe, this is an irrefutable fact of life.

The result (in the very short term) would be birth defects and disabilities which would bring their existence as a species to an unavoidable dead end.

And since you believe that only those aboard the ark survived.......four of each is all you have to work with.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 11:38 AM

Hey, Y'all,

The 'the earth is 6000 years old' crowd are not some cute or quaint group with a different take on the history of the earth.

They are ignorant, delusional fuckwits - and dangerous into the bargain.

Now, they have every right to be ignorant delusional fuckwits, and I will defend with my life their right to so choose.

However, that doesn't make them any less delusional, ignorant, fuckwitted or dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 11:56 AM

Just one question Kent, what do you want to be when you grow up?


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:06 PM

I do agree with what you say Greg (though I wouldn't use the same language to say it), but the essence of discussion is to take on the issue rather than slag off the opponent.

I'm quite happy to sit at my keyboard and patiently demolish his statements one by one with logic and reason.

Calling him names will only convince him that you have nothing relevant to say.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:30 PM

Don-

Its hardly name calling- more an accurate description. Nor am I singling Kent out; he's one of thousands (millions?) - unfortunately.

There's also a major fallacy in your approach: logic & reason have nowt to do with it- nor will they have any influence on the mentally ill.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:51 PM

Kent's post last night says..."I was raised as an Ancient Earth Creationist, believing that Genesis is true...etc"

That is the crucial part. He says now that he is/has changed to be a YEC rather than an AEC, but he has always 'believed' in the creationist part.

How folks were raised and that early childhood 'setting' of basic beliefs is hard to overcome, as they seldom question the 'whether' Creationism is correct, but only rearrange the 'how' aspects.

There is very little one can do to debate someone who has not asked and seemingly does not intend to ask 'whether'.... That choice is ...oh... about 93.0165% emotional and subjective. (sure..I made up a statistic, but it 'feels' about right.)

Kent has made it almost clear that moving from AEC to YEC is mostly a matter of deciding that **since** he accepts that we are all decended from Noah...or whatever others were on 'the Ark'..., geology and anthropology and DNA data MUST be reinterpreted to fit that model.
   It is one of the consequences of having a brain large enough to have 'free will', that we are also able to hold multiple contradictory thoughts at the same time, and to rationalize that very ability.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I repost for the 3 or 4th time a story I have told before:
.
.
.
..I kinda envy those who just say "Oh, I like THIS answer...I'll just believe it from now on, and avoid all that tedious thinking and juggling."

There was a cartoon strip called "Hagar the Horrible", about a silly Viking type with very modern problems. One Sunday saw him visiting the local wizard, Dr. Zook, who had a huge stone ring leaning against the wall, (like that 'money' on Yap Island).

"What's this?", asks Hagar.
"That's my new scientific measuring device." replys Dr. Zook, "Step in!"
....so Hagar squirms into the center of the stone ring....

"More...hunch down...squeeze tighter..." Zook says, as Hagar tries to cram himself into the tight space. Finally, he is in, awkwardly peering out at the pleased wizard.

"There!", says Dr. Zook with authority, "You are exactly 5 feet tall!"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:05 PM

argument weak-shout like blazes!
you may think we are deluded as christians but your verbal gutrot dont do anything to advance your position.

so glad kent that a much brighter brain than mine is around to explain YEC.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:20 PM

...and those with 'brighter brains' who disagree with you & Kent are wrong because.......????

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:28 PM

Kent, this does not allow a lot of time for so many things to happen. It seems that this position needs a lot more thinking out and explaining (beyond the human aspects) before reasonable thinking people would consider it plausable. I expect that the 'evidence" ball would be in the court of the proponents who put this forward for consideration (and scrutiny). Do you have "credible" sources of detailed information to share?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:30 PM

"...and those with 'brighter brains' who disagree with you & Kent are wrong because.......????"

It says so in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God.....case closed!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:46 PM

"the Bible is the word of God"

So is the Koran! Just ask the Muslims about that. How come the Koran is not getting any respect around here? ;-) And then there are the Upanishads and the Vedas. Ask the Hindus about that. And the Tibetan Book of the Dead. And the Buddhist writings. And a million other such books. Ever hear of those? And that's just the beginning! It's all the Word of God, guys. (or else none of it is) Even the clouds passing overhead in the sky are the Word of God if there is a Word of God, you just don't know how to translate that particular language when it's in the form of clouds, so it goes right by you completely unnoticed. If you could read all the sacred info that is contained in a single leaf that falls off any tree, you'd have the whole Word of God and the Book of Life right there in the palm of your outstretched hand.

A book cannot be read by a blind man, can it? Not unless it's written in braille, and he's been trained how to use it. People only relate to and comprehend the stuff they already expect to relate to and are familiar with, and their expectations are determined almost totally by the culture they were born in and the other people they took their cues from. They are blind to the rest. And that's what you usually have, the blind leading the blind and saying: "Our book (our method) (our discipline) (our party) (our country) (our belief) is the ONLY one containing and embodying the truth."

And it isn't the only one! They are all narrow-minded little chauvinists in their own way. They're all tied down by their culture and their traditions. They are blind to the stuff they're not familiar with yet or they're prejudiced against it for no good reason. And that is the sad story of a struggling and bickering humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 01:51 PM

I gotta post here, because I AGREE with what Little Hawk said...and that don't happen just every day!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 02:24 PM

Kent...Do you have "credible" sources of detailed information to share?

You're kidding, Right? Please tell me you're kidding.........

His position is absolute lunacy with nothing but delusion, invention, and wishful thinking as a "source".

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 02:46 PM

First there was my father- then there was me.

(Oh, yes, a woman got into the act too.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 07:59 PM

Anything more to offer up Kent?

I am all ears:)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 08:32 PM

"the Bible is the word of God"

Not according to the Bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 11:06 PM

I hope to post some more comparisons between AEN and YEC tomorrow but tonight I am going focus on the most basic idea behind YEC, the concept of creation.

Many of you create works of art. Whether your works of art are songs, poems, novels, paintings, sculptures, quilts, or whatever they may be, your works often (perhaps always) have two aspects. One aspect I will call the "idea", the art as it appeared in your mind, the story of the novel, the image of the painting, the pattern of the quilt, etc. The other aspect I will call the "artifact", the physical embodiment of the idea, the ink marks on the paper, the oil and pigment on the canvas, the stone of the sculpture, the cloth of the quilt.

If the work of art has a narrative, then that work has two timelines. The artifact, the physical embodiment, has what I will call the "artifactual" timeline. Thus, the artifactual timeline of "Macbeth" begins around 1603, when the play was written. The artifactual timeline of Michelangelo's "David" begins around 1501, when the stone was carved. The artifactual timeline of The Hobbit began sometime in the 1930s.

A narrative work of art also has what I will call the "ideal" timeline. Thus, according to the work's "ideal" timeline, the opening scene of "Macbeth" begins around 1040. According to the work's "ideal" timeline, Michelangelo's "David" captures a moment just after David has removed Saul's armor and has resolved to fight the Philistine with a sling. According to it's "ideal" timeline, The Hobbit takes place in the Third Age of the Sun. Some versions of "Barbry Allen" begin one morning in the month of May. You get the idea, because your own stories, songs, paintings, and so forth have this same characteristic of two timelines, one for the artifact and one for the idea.

The "ideal" timeline of a narrative characteristically extends not only forward from the beginning of the work, but also BACKWARD in time from the beginning of the work. Macbeth, for example, married Lady Macbeth BEFORE "Macbeth" begins. David has already removed his armor. Smaug stole the Arkenstone before The Hobbit begins. Barbry broke up with young Johnny Green before that fateful morning in May.

What does it mean to say that something occurred "before the beginning" in a work of art? Does it mean that there was an earlier ARTIFACT? Did Shakespeare first write "The Courtship of Macbeth"? Did Michelangelo first sculpt an infant David? Is there a ballad that begins "One evening in the month of April"? Of course not.

How can something occur BEFORE the beginning? It's not difficult really. You do this in your own works all the time and with ease. As creator, you simply begin your creation "in media res", as they say. In other words, you begin in the middle of things. If you want to paint a big old oak tree scarred by lightening, you do not have to first paint a acorn, then paint a seedling, then a sapling. You can create an oak tree that is mature from the beginning. You can paint the lightening scar without first painting the storm.

Is this dishonest? Of course not. You are not trying to fool anyone. You will tell anyone who asks that your oak tree BEGAN as old, scarred tree. You could have painted an acorn first if you had wanted to, but you didn't. You are an artist and it is easy for you to make a mature, complete creation.

You think God could do the same sort of thing?

That is the basic idea of YEC. God is an artist. The universe is his creation. He could have created an "acorn". He could have created an "oak tree". The Koran, the Torah, and the Gospels say he created an "oak tree". I am not trying to persuade you that what they claim is true. I do want you to understand what it is that they claim.

Good night!

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 11:32 PM

As I see it, you might as well be saying the universe started with this thread and anything prior to that is just implied and illusory.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:00 AM

Smokey,

But I'm NOT saying what you say I "might as well be saying".

Smokey, you get to decide when your creations start. If you write a song that begins, "One foggy night in late November", I can't come along and say "Well, Smokey, you might as well start with a clear afternoon in July". I don't get to choose the time your creation starts. That is up to you.

If God exists, and if He chose to create a universe, He got to decide when it started. He could have created eggs. He could have created chickens. He could have chosen not to reveal when He made the universe. He could have chosen to reveal it. I think He chose to reveal it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Neither you nor I nor anyone else thinks He created the universe yesterday. That's a "straw man".

And now to bed.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:01 AM

That was a very interesting post, Kent! I'm glad to hear from someone who is willing to calmly think about something and express those thoughts, rather than to just hurl his favorite "attitude" in other people's faces and rant at them. It's refreshing.

Yes, if there was a Creator God who decided to create a Universe, just like a human author creates a story, then he or she could do it as just as you say.

I don't know if there is such a Creator God. But it's an interesting idea you set forth there.

That's just the sort of thing that programmers do when they design a computer game with an interactive world like "Oblivion", for example. They design a game with a large and detailed world, a world that already has its own historic "past" when the game begins, and that leads off into an unforseeable future for that world, since the future depends on the actions of:

1. the person playing the game
2. the character the person is managing in the game
3. and a lot of other characters who also act independently of the will of the person who is playing the game

We can create a digital version of a small Universe now, using software, people it with all kinds of characters who act independently within their various capabilities and tendencies, and who also react to one another's actions. If you play Oblivion, for example, problems may arise because a minor character you need later in the game just happens to run into trouble somewhere and falls off a bridge or gets killed by a bear or a bandit. It happens...though rarely...and I once had to look up a code from the game designer to spontaneously recreate such a character in the game so I could complete a particular mission. Your own conduct also determines your character, your reputation, your legal status in that world, your fame or infamy, and your success or failure...just as in the real world we live in. You can end up as a an admired hero, a despised thief, a hated murderer...or just an average person who muddled through and remained fairly obscure...or you can die young...it's all up to you. What a great parallel to our real lives!

In this case the game designers would be equivalent to the Creator God of Oblivion...and I (the player) would be sort of like a great oversoul who helps guide the central character of the story.

Very neat stuff! ;-)

If our Universe had been created in a sort of similarly analagous fashion, now wouldn't that be interesting? We would all have bit parts in some gigantic game. A very few might have a fairly major part in that game.

I'm not saying that's the case....but it's one possibility among many.

I am humble enough to admit that I have no idea how the Universe came to be, and I don't expect to ever know for sure, though I hear theories about it. All ancient peoples had creation stories to explain the origins of the world, the stars, and the people and other creatures on this planet. Those creation stories appear in great variety. At least two of them are in the first book of the Bible. I suspect that those two came from much earlier sources.

There's no point in people being snide and flip about stuff like this...stuff that they can't possibly have the final answer to....but that won't stop a lot of people here from being snide and flip about it...because although they know quite well that they don't know the truth about EVERYTHING, they are quite capable of being arrogant and bloody-minded enough to imagine that they know categorically what things AREN'T true and never could be! ;-D And they'll tell you about that immediately if you state something they don't believe in.

I'm not so confident that I can just decide for sure what isn't true when it comes to things like the hypothetical existence of a God. And that's why I say that I don't know if there is a Creator God such as you allude to. I have no way of knowing, and the Bible can't help me out with that, because I don't necessarily consider the Bible to be an authoritative source...nor do I totally discount it as a useful source. Again....I don't know for sure about stuff like that, and I probably never will. And I accept that. I am not afraid of being uncertain about things like that. Seems to me that a lot of other people are afraid. They'd rather be categorically against something they've decided not to "believe" than admit that actually...in truth...they simply don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:10 AM

"Heresy is when someone doesn't believe in your God. There is no word for the circumstance when you don't believe in his."
                                          - Samuel Clemens
First, it seems to me that Kent makes a pretty reasoned approach to his belief. He is taking the time to discuss it in a rational manner, while being pasted with rotten tomatoes by the supposed Scientific Rationalists in the crowd. I agree with what Don Wysiwig said...if you disagree, destroy his points in a rational fashion. The old argument that goes "everybody knows that's wrong, stupid!" just doesn't work. Frankly, with the ridicule and teasing, Kent looks like one of the few adults in the discussion.

Now, here's my problem with YEC. For a theory to hold water scientifically, there must be legitimate evidence that spawns the theory. This is called deductive reasoning, and that is how science works. There is no agenda to good science. It is the Truth, whatever that turns out to be. It does not pre-suppose a motive. If there was indeed a Big Bang that started the universe expanding, as the preponderance of scientific evidence currently indicates, there is no great necessity in determining what made it happen. Nothing currently known in science indicates a primary cause. Should evidence come to light as to the nature and circumstance of the primary cause, then a theory can be pronounced regarding that cause.

Inductive reasoning is how Religion works. I know in my heart there is an all powerful creator. All science is explainable in terms of this belief. That, my friend, is a leap of faith, and all theories stemming from it are therefore unscientific due to the nature of that process.

Kent said "Smokey, I am just trying to explain what YEC is. Saying why I beleive it is not really my purpose". But the purpose for any scientific "belief", or Theory, is ALL about the why, Kent. It is about a conclusion based on scientific evidence. I really feel that Creationists of every stripe reverse that process, and base the evidence on their conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 01:06 AM

Good post, LEJ.

You're absolutely right that "there is no agenda to good science." In a perfect world all science would be good science. Alas! We do not live in a perfect world, and there's quite a bit of bad science happening out there, and what bad science there is is mostly being done in service to big corporations, the military, and the intelligence community...people who do have very powerful agendas behind what they are hiring scientists to do for them.

I think you are right that much religion is based on inductive reasoning (such as: "I know in my heart there is an all-powerful Creator, therefore he must have made the world in 7 days, like it says in the Bible"). Some of religion, however, is based on direct experiences of some sort which various people have had, in which case it was deductive reasoning, based upon the personal observation of those people when they had the experience, that started off the religion.

There are a number of spiritual experiences that a person can have (quite outside of organized religion itself)....and a person's own observation of what occurs in such a case is deductive reasoning, based on his or her own direct observations. I've had such experiences, experiences I was not consciously looking for and definitely did NOT expect to occur, experiences that took me totally by surprise and were undeniable in their reality, and they did not fall within the definition of "organized religion" at all, as far as I was concerned, but they were experiences with highly spiritual qualities.

I cannot reproduce then in a lab, nor would I try to, because they came to me totally by surprise, and I didn't ask for them or arrange them. I would know how to arrange them. They just happened...like a car crash or a rainbow...you didn't plan for it, you weren't expecting it...but when it happened, you KNEW it was real.

I think that a great many religions were started precisely because certain people had such experiences...it made a huge impression on them...it filled them with a belief they'd never had before...and that gave them zeal to tell other people, and so it went from there.

That's not a case of inductive reasoning. It's a case of reacting to a real and powerful event that occurs, and interpreting it by the best deductive reasoning you are capable of at the time, given your own general level of knowledge and awareness.

Yes, religions partly come about because people want to have a Father or Mother God above them so they can feel more secure. That's the inductive part. But religions also partly come about due to real transformative experiences that come upon people unexpectedly regardless of what they had in mind prior to having that experience. And that can inspire a new religion to be founded!

It's therefore a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning that you find in most religions, specially in the very early stages when they are starting out. The "Monkey-see, monkey-do" mass conformity to holy books and religious rules starts to set in later, as the religion becomes firmly established and consolidates all its hierarchical stuff.

Spiritual (and a few other unusual) experiences I've had have not moved me to join any religion...or to start any religion. They've simply made me keenly aware of certain subtler aspects of life that I was quite unaware of before they happened. I used deductive reasoning...based upon my own direct experiences. I cannot reproduce them in a lab, and I wouldn't try to, because I was not the author of those experiences. I was the recipient of them. Was there an author behind those experiences? I don't know. But they did happen. That I know without a doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 01:14 AM

Neither you nor I nor anyone else thinks He created the universe yesterday. That's a "straw man".

No it's not, I just can't see the difference between claiming that everything before 4000 BC is illusory, or everything before last week, including the Bible. It doesn't preclude God's creation of the universe. Feel free to illustrate the difference and why you believe one and not the other. I assure you my interest is perfectly genuine. I may not necessarily share your beliefs but I would like to understand them, and why you have them. Why else would you be here, if not to educate others?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 01:21 AM

Maybe he's just here to express himself. That's why I usually post here. I like expressing myself in various ways. That's also why I play live music.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 01:53 AM

Fair comment, LH, you could be right. I'm just curious. (so they say..)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 02:09 AM

Kent is certainly correct--the Author gets to place the story in time. And Kent, as the Author of his own beliefs, is placing his, and naming the Protagonist in the tale. What's wrong with that? It has nothing whatsoever to do with science, or empirical rationalism, or whatever you call it. It's the creation of a timeline by an author exercising his right to do so.

He is not saying (as far as I can see) that he expects anyone to believe his story is an objective truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 06:41 AM

seems to me that creationists are generally upfront about their presuppositions,scientist or layman.
i,m not so sure about most evolutionists,especially judging by most ,but not all posters here.
they interprete the evidence according to their worldview as creationists also do.
at least darwin acknowledged the possibility of conclusions opposed to his own[origins..p3

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:42 AM

I've never understood a common premiss to these threads.

If the universe was started off by a creator does that necessarily mean that the creator was what we would consider to be intelligent?

I read one interesting SF book based on the idea that our universe was a by-product of God making another universe and that the other one was the one that he intended to create.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 09:27 AM

Kent,

Noticed how Kent dodges the insults and tries to answer as if he were rational?

I HAD noticed that and it's a superb model. Like others I am interested in your continuing level-headed information. I hope you will continue to "pass" on engaging in argument.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 09:52 AM

Every discovery opens a new field for investigation of facts, shows us the imperfection of our theories. It has justly been said, that the greater the circle of light, the greater the boundary of darkness by which it is surrounded.

— Sir Humphry Davy

Pinched from here.

"they interprete the evidence according to their worldview as creationists also do"

How they assemble the evidence to support their world views is vastly different, and not comparable. Creationists like to paint themselves as scientists but their version of science flies in the face of the most fundamental principles of science - evidence and reproducibility. If the evidence means a theory is wrong then a new theory has to be formulated. This happens all the time and although (as pointed out by LH), some scientists will shoehorn facts into theories they are espousing many do not, the assimilate the data, reassess and move on. It's what makes science so exciting and full of wonder.

Creationism, however, starts with the 'fact' as stated in The Bible and then work from there. They can never accept the facts don't fit what it says in The Bible because to do so would undermine their entire faith. Ah - faith. There's the word that brings the Creationist house of cards tumbling down, this is the bedrock of their so-called 'science'. You cannot practice empirical science if you are unable to accept changes in your fundamental beliefs, if you cannot accommodate new data that renders old ideas defunct.

Kent has posted some interesting material here, but is posting it with disclaimers like "I am not trying to persuade you that what they claim is true. I do want you to understand what it is that they claim." Fair enough, but something about that last sentence seems a little . . . odd. You can't just post this stuff and expect no-one to try to refute it. And you can't post statements telling us God is an artist and the universe is his creation and expect no reaction to the total lack of evidence presented so far to back that up, apart from some wishy-washy analogy about paintings, acorns and a rather tenuous view of art creation peppered with the odd neologism.

I love dinosaurs. I mean I'm obsessed with them. When I was growing up all my picture books had naked, scaley green dinosaurs. Now, they all have feathered, colourful dinosaurs and knowing the work being done on dinosaur integument we have some exciting times ahead. Our view of these incredible animals has changed beyond all recognition in the 170-odd years since they were first described; how few back then suspected that the birds we share the planet with are actually living theropod dinosaurs - wonderful. All this has been discovered by the careful gathering of data, rigorous scientific method and careful and considered analysis. And if new facts came to light that proved to successfully challenge the current established viewpoint and meant we would have to re-write the evolution of these incredible creatures then so be it (it's happening right now with the Triceratops-Torosaurus debate).

Until Creationist science is willing to have it's most fundamental views and beliefs challenged (as opposed to the preaching of sermons like Kent's) or to present solid evidence to the contrary, for peer review and debate then for all the blather it's nothing more than pseudo-scientific superstitious bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:14 AM

   it seems to me that Kent makes a pretty reasoned approach to his belief.

So, EJ, a reasoned approach to delusion? Interesting, if oxymoronic.

You are advocating attempting to have a reasoned discussion with s lunatics.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 11:37 AM

"HAD noticed that and it's a superb model. Like others I am interested in your continuing level-headed information. I hope you will continue to "pass" on engaging in argument."

I didn't notice, I had the "Mudcat Insult Blocker" turned on.

I come into this post a sceptic and remain one. But, I am willing to respectfully hear a poster out (if they are respectful, that is). If not, I would just ignore 'em. Or, I would just go on to another thread, like the "herring salad" one, where insults are much fewer:)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:06 PM

OK, Gang: a survey: if idiotic, ignorant, or deluded are inappropriate-

What are appropriate descriptors/characterizations for those who maintain that the earth is only 6000 yeas old? Or for that matter, the earth is flat, that Newton's laws don't apply, etc.

As a corrollary, why should profound ignorance and idiocy be meekly tolerated, excused and applauded?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:09 PM

I think you are right that much religion is based on inductive reasoning (such as: "I know in my heart there is an all-powerful Creator, therefore he must have made the world in 7 days, like it says in the Bible"). Some of religion, however, is based on direct experiences of some sort which various people have had, in which case it was deductive reasoning, based upon the personal observation of those people when they had the experience, that started off the religion. LH

I need to clarify my view, I suppose. I am not saying there is no inductive reasoning in religion. If I am an ancient Greek and I watch the sun travel across the sky every day, I will inductively deduce that it is moving and the Earth is still. I may next reason that it has to be some sort of vehicle. Which follows it must be some extraordinary vehicle, like the Chariot of Apollo. There. I have deduced, based on my own observation, that the sun is in fact the Chariot of Apollo. If I have a powerful telescope, I may even be able to look for the wheels, and at this point I am using science to justify my conclusion. Are those sunspots and solar flares, or spokes?
That's what I'm saying. Science has nothing to do with any presupposition. I'm not saying it isn't used that way by religions, governments, etc. But that is the flaw in the Creationist Belief.

And Greg F, I don't think Kent is delusional. I just think his heart has checkmated his mind in this particular case.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:15 PM

"...why should profound ignorance and idiocy be meekly tolerated, excused and applauded?"

No need to bring politics into this thread.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:22 PM

A brief aside:

It would be well for those who wish to discuss Inductive Reasoning in this matter to be sure that they understand how it is applicable and the various forms of it.
   It is not a simple concept to wrap one's head around. (I studied it in several classes, and STILL have to be careful when I claim its use.)
Beyond that, take a look at Abductive reasoning...(and several of the ideas listed at the bottom of the Inductive page)


One good way to get a grasp of Induction is to play or study the card game New Eleusis, in which the object is to figure out the 'rule' of the game the dealer has made up and is following. After playing the 'game' awhile, it becomes obvious that as a game, each 'round' can be either so easy that it is no challenge, OR the rule can be so complex and convoluted that it is essentially impossible to discern. Think about how this applies to our reasoning processes when trying to cope with serious issues like Life, The Universe & Everything.

sorry for the interruption....(maybe)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:26 PM

"OK, Gang: a survey: if idiotic, ignorant, or deluded are inappropriate-

What are appropriate descriptors/characterizations for those who maintain that the earth is only 6000 yeas old? Or for that matter, the earth is flat, that Newton's laws don't apply, etc.

As a corrollary, why should profound ignorance and idiocy be meekly tolerated, excused and applauded?"

No, Greg, 'idiotic, ignorant AND deluded' will do nicely and 'profound ignorance and idiocy should NEVER be meekly tolerated, excused and applauded'! Nevertheless, they should be perfectly free to wallow in their own ignorance - if that's what they want to do - but if they want to impose their stupid views on the rest of us, to gain political influence, indulge in terrorism or deny the human rights of women and children then they need to be resisted vigorously!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 12:44 PM

Good, then, Shimrod. Maybe we can impose a Scientific Inquisition on Kent and give him the option to repent or die.
LH...I used an example of Greek Polytheism because it was an easy way to illustrate the point, not to imply that you are a Greek Polytheist, or that your beliefs are flawed. I believe a religious or spiritual belief can be in complete accord with scientific fact, and still concern itself with ultimate truth. There are more things on earth than are dreamt of in science. A rainbow is more than moisture, light, and angle of view.
Bill D. I bow to your credentials re induction, deduction, etc. Our discussion is taking place on the layman level, and I think there is some agreement on the terms' meaning in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 01:24 PM

umm..ok,Leej... my point was kinda that the terms lose something when used loosely on "the layman level" and that "some agreement" is often illusory. ...but...let's see how it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 02:57 PM

No, I'm sorry, it just doesn't work for me.

1. A minority of the world's population believe that the Creator passed down the details of Creation to the adherents of a totally different belief system and that those adherents recorded faithfully the train of events that followed for no less than 4000 years.

Then that Creator sent his son as an emissary, and a sacrificial lamb, to relieve them of the burden of their sins and set them on a new path, discarding those of the original faith who chose not to follow, but believing implicitly in the testament they had produced.

The other major religions treat their Creators' emissaries as holy men and prophets.

Only Christians believe that their prophet was divine. Only Christians believe that their holy book is literally true in all particulars, and only a small percentage of Christians at that.

Why do you suppose this is so?

2. In the last Century the natives of a particularly lightning prone part of Africa used their deductive powers to decide that the lightning strikes were in fact the devil M'Shimba M'Shamba stalking the forest on legs of fire.

What makes YEC beliefs intrinsically better than the beliefs of those natives?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 03:30 PM

Going back to Kent's explanation of god creating the world with the appearance of age, with a backstory, as a modern author would do, there is a very large problem with it. Or several.

Firstly, writers, or games developers, are making their worlds in imitation of the real one (no matter here how the real one arose). God would not need to do that. He could start anywhere he wanted. No need to bury fossils or greywackes (see other thread). No need to arrange for stars to have the appearance of great distance, so far that their light could not reach the Earth in 6000 years. The world could look its real age, no problem.

Secondly, the creation of that backstory raises serious questions about the nature of god. (BTW, I take care to use capitals when I write of the God I worship. I do not, as you will see, have any respect for the short history creator.) I'm not sure that Kent is right to claim that authors do not lie in creating their worlds - I've known that Exclusive Brethren abjure fiction because it is not true. It is a specialised form of lie, accepted by writer and reader in the suspension of disbelief. In the case of the creation of the world in the manner of Genesis, it is not suspension of disbelief that is demanded, but belief, and the price of disbelief is damnation. Not the same game, is it? This creator has planted in the world the appearance of age, in incredible detail, knowing, being omniscient, that many people will be convinced by this that it is of great age. Perhaps, as Gosse suggested, to test people's faith. But it is not exactly fair.

This artist god, careless of people's souls, is not exactly the one revealed in Christ. If the world is young, then it is a lie, and the liar unworthy of respect, let alone worship, honour, or being considered holy.

And his world, with its intimately interconnected webs of life, the beautiful, but also the nasty, the parasites such as malaria, schistosomaiasis, the devouring such as the mantis, is not that wonderful. And should some YEC claim that the nasties are all our fault because of the Fall, bear in mind that the potential for those nasties had to be present in the pre-Fall lives of those creatures. Or else, they had to be changed afterwards. If that is slipped away from the creator to a demonic opponent, then that had to be allowed. By the creator. It's another story that did not have to be built in to the narrative, if such it is.

The literal creator is not nice. I realise that I am dabbling with Marcionism, here, but I'm not going down the path to believing in an actual, different, Old Testament deity who is other than the New Testament God who is the father of Christ, and who loved his people enough to save them. The writers of Genesis did not see clearly. Not face to face.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 03:33 PM

Christian fundamentalism doesn't work for me either, Don T, for reasons similar to what you have posted. It never did work for me, but I grew up as a child in an atheistic family, so it's hardly surprsing that I rejected the entire Christian mythos the moment I encountered it.

Later I began to see much value in many of the philosophical concepts expressed in the Gospels, and those are the main thing about Christianity that I like and find value in. Concepts such as: being forgiving, being loving, being kind, being truthful, being honest, being loyal, being just, etc...

Those are the things I find in Christianity that I like very much. I have no particular interest in the rather odd idea of Jesus dying on behalf of anyone's sins...or being the one and only "Son of God"...but I like what Jesus apparently had to say about human conduct toward other humans and toward life in general.

Most of the Christians I've ever known were not fundamentalists, and most of them believed in modern concepts like evolution, for example. Therefore I don't necessarily see Christianity confined within the shoebox of Christian fundamentalism.

But I am not a Christian. I'm just interested in the more positive aspects of Christianity. Same as I am interested in the positive aspects of Native American religion, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufiism, Islam, Shintoism, Hinduism, etc. They all have some very positive aspects, and some excellent concepts to consider, and that's what interests me about them.

Similarly, all nations and all cultures have some positive aspects, and that's why I am willing to find some good in all nations and all cultures.

To utterly oppose in its entirety any religion, any discipline or any culture and see NO good in it at all... just because you don't subscribe to it is to be a purblind fanatic of a certain sort, and it's a very ugly phenomenon. It is that phenomenon that causes some people to post here just so they can throw verbal rotten eggs at the despised "Christian" who dares to post on their forum. No respect. Well, they live in the ugliness of their own thought processes, just like any fanatic does, and they are no better than a religious fundamentalist who rants and raves and tells us we are all going to hell for not accepting Jesus as our personal saviour.

I am not referring to you in those above comments, Don T., but to a few others who drop in here just to stand around and jeer and throw rocks at the "outsider" like a bunch of little kids bullying a strange kid who entered their schoolyard.

****

LEJ - You said: "Science has nothing to do with any presupposition."

Good science has nothing to do with any presupposition. Agreed.

Bad science, however, is based upon and dominated by presuppositions, and there has always been a fair bit of bad science around. Sometimes it dominates the officially sanctioned scene for a period of time. I'll give you a glaring historical example - The Nazis engaged in a great deal of well-funded bad science to prove their fallacious theories about the Aryan "Master Race". That bad science was widely publicized and promoted through the German government and media in the 30s and early 40s, and it was believed by a great many people. It is STILL believed by a few.

The same sort of thing happens now, only it's not the Nazis who are presently doing it, that's all. It's other political and financial forces who are presently doing it, and strictly for their own gain.

It is bad science that worries me...not good science. I am very much in favor of good science...meaning: honest science, without ulterior motives or presuppositions of any sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 03:50 PM

"Good, then, Shimrod. Maybe we can impose a Scientific Inquisition on Kent and give him the option to repent or die."

No, no, no, no!!! As I wrote in my posting (if you had bothered to read it)he should be perfectly free to believe whatever he likes. Although, because what he believes is complete nonsense, those beliefs don't deserve much respect. But he and his fundamentalist chums should only be vigorously opposed if they attempt to impose their nonsense on the rest of society. Remember that in some countries, including (to an uncomfortable extent) the US, religious fundamentalists have considerable political influence. In my opinion that makes them dangerous - and dangerous people should never be appeased.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 04:20 PM

A person may believe what they wish to.

When they act on that belief to cause harm there is a problem.

When they do not act to avert harm because of their belief there is a problem.

When they cause harm to themselves through action or inaction because of their belief there is a problem.

I did not start out to redefine Asimov's laws of robotics by the way!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: frogprince
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 04:34 PM

L.H; What you refer to as "bad science" quite simply ain't science . It is misguided or deliberately misleading activity passed off as science. (Man oh man, how my own profundity astonishes me!)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 04:57 PM

Are you sure?

Bad mathematics is mathematics that leads to an incorrect answer, but it's still mathematics.

Bad military strategy leads to defeat on the battlefield, but it's still military strategy.

Bad reasoning leads to incorrect conclusions, but it's still reasoning.

Badly done work leads to poor results, but it's still work.

Badly done science or science that is deliberate in creating horribly destructive things (like poison gas or atomic bombs) (and that's what I mean by "bad science") is still going through the outward motions and all the formalities and procedurs of science, but it leads to invalid theories, viciously destructive inventions, and/or misinterpreted results. It is still science, it's just not very useful science, that's all. It still requires labs, research papers, trained staff, reference materials, controlled conditions, and all the other acoutrements of science, so it's still science. Just piss poor science. ;-) And it happens all over the place at the behest of corporations (who desire a certain result) and governments (who desire a certain result). Their desire for that result is what creates the bad science.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:19 PM

""Badly done science or science that is deliberate in creating horribly destructive things (like poison gas or atomic bombs) (and that's what I mean by "bad science") is still going through the outward motions and all the formalities and procedurs of science, but it leads to invalid theories, viciously destructive inventions, and/or misinterpreted results.""

The basic flaw in that reasoning LH, is blindingly obvious. The production of poison gas, nuclear bombs, chemical and biological weapons is not bad science.

It is perfectly good science put to extremely bad uses. Logic demands that you do not blame the bullet, nor yet the gun, but blame instead the murderous human being who pulls the trigger.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:22 PM

Wow. I've heard of weird science, but bad science?

Science is essentially a collection of known facts about physical porcesses. These facts are either true or false. If false facts are applied to a design...because birds flap their wings to fly, any man-built flying device must have flappable wings...the design usually fails, revealing the flaw in the facts. But because facts are true or false, not good or evil, a collection of facts that leads to failure is flawed science, not bad science.
Are ICBMs bad science? They function extremely well at delivering bombs to their targets. If flawed science is employed, the missile may explode before reaching the target. But is the science bad, because an ICBM can kill vast numbers of humans? Can a missile also be launched into space that carries a satellite which predicts hurricanes, thus saving vast numbers of humans? It is essentially the same science, and it is by nature neither good nor bad. Those are human value judgements. Sound science yields a functional tool like the missile. Whether man uses it to kill, save, heal, or poison, is up to man.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:24 PM

in other words, what Don said. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:36 PM

Don - "It is perfectly good science put to extremely bad uses."

Don, you are absolutely correct about that. ;-) I agree with what you said 100%, I just did not elaborate quite far enough in my previous postings. So...what I really object to in science is two separate things, then:

1. bad science. (invalid or misleading theories and conclusions)

and...

2. good science that is devoted to an extremely bad use.

Those are the two areas of science that concern me. I am totally in favor of good science that is devoted toward a positive use.

Same deal with religion: I am in favor of religion that is put to a positive use. I object to religion that is put to a negative use. I don't particularly mind people using various mythological tales...if they use them in a positive way that doesn't hurt anyone. Most cultures have been enriched by their inherited mythos, and it has also been very beneficial to the world of creative art.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:50 PM

"God is an artist and the universe is his creation"

I remember a Star Trek episode, where the core troublemaker of the episode was a spoilt child who was mostly omnipotent, but was about equivalent to a 3-5 year old. The infant's 'creation' was a jumbled inconsistent mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:57 PM

I don't think Kent is delusional. I just think his heart has checkmated his mind in this particular case.

False dichotomy. Amounts to the same thing.

And how do you know its only "this particular case? An idiot who believes the 6000 year nonsence will embrace any absurdity, however preposterous.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 06:05 PM

"at least darwin acknowledged the possibility of conclusions opposed to his own[origins"

Creationists deny any other possibility, and declare that they will pray to their own Magical Sky Fairy to help brainwash any doubters to be converted to the Only True Position, without needing to do any further research . They then, as per the convoluted mind games of proponents of 'The Law of Fives' will do any rationalising necessary to keep their beliefs, unlike followers of Science, will will discard things and start research again.

Recent research on aging, for example, has rejected 'oxidative stress' and other ideas as not relevant - in spite of the 'faith' of some of the very researchers that these things really DO work ... :-)

In any lab research on animals, the test animals will do as they damn well please, in spite of what the prejudices of the researchers are.

See this graphic - a picture is worth a thousand words.

Science Vs Faith

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 06:26 PM

I haven't heard of the Magical Sky Fairy before, Foolestroupe. What a great idea! ;-) What does she look like? I'm envisioning something along the lines of Kate Blanchett, dressed in medieval robes and holding a magic wand. I could definitely go for that. If she looks like Shirley Temple, though, I'd be a bit disappointed, and if she sang "The Good Ship Lollipop", I'd be totally disillusioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 06:50 PM

that was a wordy denial of my point jack.
i am not denying that scientific creation models may change.
so do evolutionist models.
and i dont believe they are any more objective ; because they are committed to their own belief in evolutionism.
how do you suppose creationist scientists can publish in peer reviewed journals when evolutionism is jealously guarded.
the best they can do is offer debate on equal terms,which is often declined on the grounds[?]that creation might be seen to be taken seriously!.

so the literal creator is not nice penny?well the god you posit presumably;uses deep time and death and suffering over aeons to get things going?
he dont look very pretty either.
and it dont add up theologically either .cf other thread.
best wishes though.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:02 PM

penny-ijust looked on creation.com.todays article expands what i just posted to you.dont suppose you would read it?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: BanjoRay
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:03 PM

The world was created 6000 years ago by God. However He's not really a very patient being, because after such a brief amount of time
the world's going to end in May.
It was fun while it lasted.......

I wonder how many tunes I can play between now and then?

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:11 PM

Well..it says you get until October...unless you are 'saved' and are 'taken up' on May 21....so I suppose you can get in a lot more tunes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:43 PM

"....i dont believe they are any more objective ; because they are committed to their own belief in evolutionism."

Evolutionism, unlike creationism, is not a belief but a scientific theory supported by tangible evidence - something that creationists refuse to acknowledge because it doesn't mesh with their particular creation fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:49 PM

For the sake of those sensible people who don't hang around on those strangulated, dying threads, Pete, and once and for all, there are no "scientific creation models." And, yet again, you rattle on about creationist scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, etc. You will not respond, I know, because you never do, but all I ask is that you give us the names of these creationist scientists so that we can peruse their publications ourselves. But I won't hold my breath, as I fully expect the usual "you wouldn't understand anyway, even if I told you, Steve" response. Sorry...that should have been "steve."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:53 PM

Evolution is true. There are gaps and there are uncertainties for sure, but, in its general thrust, it is true. I know this will hurt certain persons, but they are simply going to have to live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 08:26 PM

The article "http://creation.com/naming-the-animals-all-in-a-day-s-work-for-adam"

is of course non-science.

QUOTE
Today we divide the animals into those we call tame (mostly herbivores), and those we call wild (both herbivores and carnivores), but this distinction did not apply before Adam sinned.

1:31, 'And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.' From these we conclude that animals did not kill each other for food pre-Fall, and they had no reason to fear man.

This means that we can regard them all as being tame at the time Adam named them. It also means that they would not have eaten each other, while taking part in any naming procession!

The animals which Adam named are specifically described in Genesis 2:20. They were the 'cattle', 'the fowl of the air' (birds), and 'every beast of the field'. This classification has no correlation with today's arbitrary system of man-made taxonomy (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, insects), but is a more natural system based on the relation of the animals to man's interests.

If we compare this naming list with the creation list in Genesis 1:20–25—birds and sea creatures (created on Day Five), beasts of the earth, cattle, creeping things—we see there are several very significant differences.2 Adam was not required to name any of the sea creatures, or any of the creeping things. And as the beasts of the field were not specifically mentioned in the creation list, we can regard them as being a subdivision of the beasts of the earth. That is, Adam was required to name only some of the total land animal population of his own day.

There is no suggestion that the naming was meant to be comprehensive. From this it follows that Adam's task was not to provide a scientific taxonomy, but a set of general names of a selection of the animals, for the benefit of average human beings who would come after him.
UNQUOTE

This is typical of the tortuous squirming of the 'Law of Fives' philosophy followers...

"From these we conclude that animals did not kill each other for food pre-Fall ... we can regard them all as being tame at the time Adam named them. It also means that they would not have eaten each other"

So all the carnivores were vegetarians! Or they magically did not need food before Man Sinned! Nonsensical gibberish!

QUOTE
a more natural system based on the relation of the animals to man's interests
UNQUOTE

The Bible commands man to go forth and trash the Earth, without needing to study ecology, or take care of it, as everything is just for Man's benefit! And when it runs out, the Big Magic Shy Fairy will magically take away his mindless slaves to some far away Magic Place.

Shy? that is a laugh ... er... Sky!

And this paragraph reveals the real motivations of Creationists
QUOTE
Why?

Adam had been given dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:28), and God now provided him with the opportunity to exercise this responsibility in a way which established his authority and supremacy—in ancient times, it was an act of authority to impose names (cf. Daniel 1:7) and an act of submission to receive them.

This exercise also shows that Adam was not an ape-man, and indeed it was intended by God to show that he had no ape-like siblings among which to find fellowship or a mate (cf. Genesis 2:20b: 'for Adam there was not found an help meet [i.e. helper suitable] for him').

Contrary to the wishful thinking of evolutionists, the first man was not some stooped, dimwitted, grunting hominid, separated from his ape-like ancestors by a genetic mutation or two. The Bible portrays Adam as being essentially different from the animal world, because he had been created 'in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27).

This term refers primarily to man's God-consciousness—his capacity for worshipping and loving God, his ability to understand and choose between right and wrong, and his capacity for holiness.10

A secondary meaning includes such things as man's mental powers, reason, and capacity for articulate, grammatical, symbolic speech. In Adam, before sin, these capacities may have dwarfed anything we know today.

God in His omniscience would have foreknown the rise of humanistic naturalism in the twentieth century. This episode, way back in the Garden of Eden, highlights for those who have an eye to see it, the false and unbiblical nature of the evolutionary theory of human origins!
UNQUOTE

"In Adam, before sin, these capacities may have dwarfed anything we know today."

The typical Golden Times of Mythology!

QUOTE
Was Adam equal to the task?

We learn language by association, but Adam, from the moment he was created, had language. Therefore he (and then Eve) must have already had built in 'programs' in their memory banks, so that when God said, 'Don't …' (Genesis 2:17), they immediately knew exactly what this meant. It seems that they must also have known what it would mean to die, even though they had never seen anything dead.

It is therefore reasonable for us to conclude that, at the 'naming parade', Adam could speak a precise language, using one or two words in place of a long description, just as our one word 'elephant' refers to 'a large, big-eared, trunk-nosed, tusked quadruped'.

It also means that he did not need to ponder each decision. His naming of each different kind of animal could therefore have been both quick and appropriate, and also without confusion, for he would have had the capacity to recall the names he already had allocated with a pre-Fall memory that was crystal clear and voluminous.
UNQUOTE

More 'Law of Fives' rationalizing - including just making more things up out of nothing to explain away problems, caused by making up previous things! 'Leaps of Faith' - with no need to 'prove/document' anything said! No deduction, no induction, but 'abduction' - ie Fantasy!

"separated from his ape-like ancestors by a genetic mutation or two"

Ah - so the Creationists can now insist they are smarter than The
Other People ! :-)

Poetry, perhaps Art, but NOT a 'branch of Science'!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 08:37 PM

Where can I find some Loose Christians? - They can give me all their property and I will let them live rent free till May .... OK it's a gamble and I may be wrong ....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 08:45 PM

I have no time for the creationist part of the discussion, as it has been beaten to death and I feel debunked to death.

However, I am curious how this YEC claim gets around the ample evidence (geological and other) that the world, the solar system and the Universe) is very old and that it is only 6,000 years young? I am certainly not a proponent of this claim, but was, and still am, curious as to how the claim proponents gets around this really big barrier, for it to be considered reasonable by anyone (including those who want it to be true).

Kent, How can it be so?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 09:21 PM

"how this YEC claim gets around the ample evidence (geological and other) that the world, the solar system and the Universe) is very old and that it is only 6,000 years young"

Ed - it's all to do with Einsteinian Time Dilation. Unless you just ignore that claims of 'older than 6,000'

After all

2 Peter 3:8 New International Version
"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. "

Don't ask me, mate, I'm not a believer in this stuff... after all, it's 'beyond all human understanding'....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 09:39 PM

I appreciate the thoughtful posts above. There are some attempts to disprove my supposed claim that YEC is scientific. I think YEC is TRUE, but I have made no claim that it is SCIENTIFIC. The scientific method is the best method I know to investigate continuing phenomena, but it is not the only fount of truth.   Experiments are great for telling us what happenS, but they are lousy at telling us what happenED.

If we were to place 1,000 ex-Marines in 1,000 warehouses along 1,000 parade routes, could we thereby discover whether Oswald killed President Kennedy? Of course not. We could, of course, determine what happenS when ex-Marines are in warehouses along parade routes, but we can never (by this method) determine what happened in Oswald's particular case. Both AEN and YEC have the same problem is this regard. One cannot experimentally create a universe.   We can certainly search for evidence of the Big Bang, but we also can search for evidence of the creation of light on the first day. Cosmic background radiation has been considered evidence of each.

Below are are some more beliefs which are common to most Ancient Earth Naturalists (AEN). Following them is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) response to those beliefs which, I hope, will further explain this point.

8. An organism that is more fit to survive is more likely to survive, especially if "fit" is defined as "more likely to survive".

9. An organism that is more fit to reproduce is more likely to reproduce, especially if "fit" is defined as "more likely to reproduce".

10. The descendents of an organism tend to resemble that organism.

11. Though the descendents of an organism tend to resemble that organism, they are not identical to it.

12. Because the descendents of an organism are not identical to it, populations which share a common ancestor may diverge from their common ancestor, and may diverge from other populations.

13. The differences between populations which share a common ancestor tend to increase as the number of generations from the common ancestor increases.

14. The differences between populations which share a common ancestor tend to increase as reproductive selection increases. In other words, in a population, the degree of divergence from the common ancestor is inversely related to the proportion of successfully reproducing organisms in the population.

15. In a population, the traits of the organisms with the greatest reproductive success will tend to increase, and the traits of those with the lowest reproductive success will tend to decrease.

Young Earth Creationists agree with all the above. This is what they are talking about when they refer to "microevolution". There is plenty of evidence that microevolution is happening all around us. Darwin did not discover these principles. Robert Bakewell (1725-1795) was systematically applying them to agriculture before Darwin was born. As you may know, Genesis 30:31-43 is an account of how Laban tried to use these principles to cheat his son-in-law Jacob, and of how Jacob used the same principles, along with some miraculously induced mutations, to prevail. (Please don't get "hung up" on the miraculously induced mutations. Whether you believe THEY occurred or not is beside the point. The point is that, at the time Genesis was written, the principles listed above were understood.)   What Darwin did was to suggest that these principles could, given enough time, transform a single population into both daffodils and donkeys (i.e., "macroevolution"). Young Earth Creationists are divided about whether or not this COULD happen (given enough time). The more important question, perhaps, is whether it DID happen.   The ideal way to determine that would be with an eyewitness. Obviously, that is exactly what the Torah, the Koran, and the Gospels claim that we have, a divine eyewitness. You certainly don't have to accept that claim, but that is the claim. Science can help us look for evidence for or against that claim but, ultimately, the question of what happenED is a question of history, not a question of science.

Kent
____________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 09:58 PM

QUOTE
8. An organism that is more fit to survive is more likely to survive, especially if "fit" is defined as "more likely to survive".

9. An organism that is more fit to reproduce is more likely to reproduce, especially if "fit" is defined as "more likely to reproduce".
UNQUOTE

In Formal Logic, this is called 'circular reasoning' and Real Science avoids this, when it is detected. Also falls under 'Law of Fives', because what is to be proved is defined as existing at the start.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:01 PM

QUOTE
What Darwin did was to suggest that these principles could, given enough time, transform a single population into both daffodils and donkeys
UNQUOTE

Bzzzt!

This is NOT what 'Darwin did'! He said that one organism could, over time, evolve into many differing descendants - remember the finches? They originated from outside the area from a single species, and changed on each island.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:03 PM

"One cannot experimentally create a universe."

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

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:04 PM

Penny S and Smokey,

I appreciate your comments. Smokey, I've been regretting using the term "straw man" all day. I am truly sorry I used it because it could have been taken as implying dishonesty on your part. That was not my intention at all. That is not what I think. What I should have said is this: "I've got my hands full explaining what Young Earth Creationists actually think. I can't also take time to explain what they might think, but don't really think. They don't think that the universe was created Monday. If you know anyone who thinks it was, ask him about it. I know no one who thinks that. I don't think it. It is not consistent with what I think and hope I know about God."

Penny S, I respectfully disagree that a "backstory" in someone's creation raises a question of honesty. As long as the creator makes it clear when the "artifact" and the "idea" begin to coincide, the creator is being honest. When MOBY DICK begins, Captain Ahab has already lost his leg. Is this dishonest? Did honesty require that, before MOBY DICK was written, Herman Mellville should first have written DUDE, WHERE"S MY LEG?

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:04 PM

"The scientific method is the best method I know to investigate continuing phenomena, but it is not the only fount of truth."

The problem with this statement is that you use two opposedly different meanings of the word 'truth' as if they were the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:30 PM

Foolstroupe,

I admire and appreciate your contribution to many threads, especially those related to science. I wonder if perhaps your irritation with me caused you to respond a bit hastily. I know perfectly well that the reasoning in items 8 and 9 is circular. It is, of course, a tautology. That is precisely the point. The point is that it is not the concept of "survival of the fittest" which differentiates YEC from Darwinism; "survival of the fittest" is merely a tautology, a truth that is true by definition.

Similarly, that all organisms, daffodils and donkeys, clams and cows, mushrooms and men, derive from a single population is precisely what Darwin did claim. I know you know that. Perhaps the word "single" threw you. Sorry if it did. Obviously, the single population would have to eventually divide for speciation to occur. But it was, Darwin said, originally a single population and, indeed, ultimately a single ancestor, from which we all descend. That, in his view, was the "origin of the species".

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:59 PM

I appreciate your comments. Smokey, I've been regretting using the term "straw man" all day. I am truly sorry I used it because it could have been taken as implying dishonesty on your part. That was not my intention at all. That is not what I think. What I should have said is this: "I've got my hands full explaining what Young Earth Creationists actually think. I can't also take time to explain what they might think, but don't really think. They don't think that the universe was created Monday. If you know anyone who thinks it was, ask him about it. I know no one who thinks that. I don't think it. It is not consistent with what I think and hope I know about God."

With respect, I didn't say it for you to use as a straw man either; we both know that no-one thinks that, and that it doesn't matter. I'm trying to ascertain why you believe the universe was created 6000 years ago, when it apparently could have happened at any time under the conditions you describe. If our understanding of fossils or carbon dating, for example, can be illusory, then so can our understanding of the Bible and its history.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 11:32 PM

Kent
I'm not irritated with you.

When one is presenting 'matters of faith', then one should be clear about what is assumed at the start, what one can deduce from those assumptions, and what is just 'magically' dragged in 'holus bolus' - sadly many 'matters of faith' are an incredible jumble of confusing and contradictory statements, and include many logical fallacies.... :-)

Inserting a tautology in a chain of logical reasoning is effectively a 'null step', and thus meaningless, cause it adds nothing to any 'proof'. If you (or whosoever's views you are presenting - you don't have 'to believe' - I did debating societies for some time!) want it as one of the 'starting assumptions', then it should clearly be represented as such, not mixed in with other concepts.

And if it is a 'starting assumption', then it cannot be a tautology (by definition!)...

"You can't just post this stuff and expect no-one to try to refute it"

Yep ...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 11:45 PM

"trying to ascertain why you believe"

In 'matters of faith' WHY WE BELIEVE is totally irrelevant, for we have already been told all that we ever need to know, and that there is nothing new to ever find out, so we never need to change our mind. It is only science, which says that if we look and use our senses, we will find out new things, which will often cause us to change our minds.

There were two schools of Ancient Greek philosophy - one said that the gods told us what we needed to know and that we should not question, and the other said that we should use only our sense to investigate the world around us and ignore what any gods were supposed to have 'revealed. The followers of one philosophy sentenced to death followers of the other, guess which of the two paths in the paragraph above is which?

Kent, I have no intention or desire to try to get you to change your mind (or insult or belittle you) - it is only you who can do that, and only if you undergo a 'Road to Damascus' style mental change - or as some may call it a 'mental breakdown', and start building up a new and different way of thinking.

I do appreciate you trying to lay out the philosophy. I don't need to to agree, unless you plan to kill me for not agreeing.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 05:10 AM

"Single population" is misleading and will get evolution scientists bristling. Better to stick to "common ancestor."

14. The differences between populations which share a common ancestor tend to increase as reproductive selection increases. In other words, in a population, the degree of divergence from the common ancestor is inversely related to the proportion of successfully reproducing organisms in the population.

Your second sentence is a non-sequitur, not "in other words." Also, it isn't a corrrect assertion. It's nothing to do with what proportion of the population is reproducing. It's to do with natural selection acting differentially on heritable traits, some of which will increase because of their advantages to the population. The rapidity of divergence may depend on changes in the environment or the appearance of advantageous factors by mutation (which itself may have environmental causes). In addition, generation times will have a huge effect on the rapidity of divergence as well. Fruit flies have a huge advantage over elephants in this regard, for example. Incidentally, I don't know what "reproductive selection" is supposed to mean. Something's getting garbled here.   

15. In a population, the traits of the organisms with the greatest reproductive success will tend to increase, and the traits of those with the lowest reproductive success will tend to decrease.

This is off-beam. Traits which confer advantages will increase over time because they confer advantages, not because of relative rates of reproductive success (whatever that is). Darwin was at pains to point out that natural selection acts on heritable traits within a species and not on individual organisms, still less between species.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 07:06 AM

Well Pete, I was addressing Kent's posts rather than your own, but since you so kindly addressed your last post to me I'll respond.

"so the literal creator is not nice penny?well the god you posit presumably;uses deep time and death and suffering over aeons to get things going?
he dont look very pretty either.
and it dont add up theologically either .cf other thread"

I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not positing any god, but no god. The aeons of death and suffering you refer to are actually replete with the the wonder and diversity of life, not some parade of death, in my opinion. It's the natural cycle of the universe and not controlled by some omnipotent creator - to suggest the universe is the work of one being trivialises the wonder and simply incredible nature of where and how we live.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: theleveller
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:24 AM

Before creationists and religious fundamentalists begin to spout theories about the creation of the world, they should go back and look at the creation of the Bible on which they base their ideas. How and why was this illogical and disparate medley of writings put together in the first place and peddled as the word of god in a single volume? What was the original editorial policy that included some writings and consigned others to the Apocrypha? How much has it changed by copying and translation errors and amendments for political and theological reasons over the millennia (assuming they believe it to be millennia old)? Why is it any more 'the truth' than the Koran or other religious tomes?

I could, for example, claim with equal justification that the writings of J R R Tolkein are the word of god and put together a convincing and closely argued theory of creation based upon them. Quite simply, in these matters, you pays your money and takes you choice of source material to believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 09:48 AM

I just want to see if I have got one bit of this "theory".

The stuff that we can measure to be n million years old, by using pretty consistent things like radio-carbon decay, are not proof that the earth is older than that, because they were made by a divine being merely 6 thousand years ago, and faked up to measure n million years old.

Do the YECHs believe that?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 10:59 AM

I know a "reformed" Christian fundamentalist who expressed a measure of pride that he believed that the fossil record may well be older than 6,000 years.

baby steps baby steps.

When a fool is in for a penny, he will go in for a pound.   People who have a linear mind tend to feel that if any one part of the gospel is contested, the whole gospel is challenged.
From my POV I respect the cafeteria christians who can pick and choose.

Today in Pakistan if anyone should question a single part of ISlam they are considered enemies of Islam and are legally exeduted under the BLASPHEMY laws.
In fact a sectarian Govenor of Pakistan was murdered this week under the Islamic blaspheny laws. The wave of fear and executions will sweep across Pakistan with more horror and tradgedy than the cultural revolution in China.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 12:53 PM

It is fear that causes such things to happen. Fear is, in my opinion, the greatest enemy of both life and truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 01:03 PM

how the claim proponents gets around this really big barrier

Easy! Ignorance, denial, delusion & general fuckwitism. Imbeciles can perform these wonders on a regular basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 01:50 PM

Richard ~~ Remember Philip Gosse, whose son Edward Gosse wrote the famous turn of C19-20 memoir of their relationship "Father & Son". He was a Plymouth Brother and zoologist, who sincerely postulated the age of the world as about 6,000 years, and explained ancient fossils as having been placed there by God at the Creation for the express purpose of tempting the unrighteous to blasphemy.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 03:50 PM

steve-one of your co atheists kindly made a link on another thread listing creationist scientists.did you miss it?

richard-no christian that i know thinks God faked anything to look millenias old.as i understand it, recent things are sometimes dated as ancient.

jack-apologies for unclear post.pt 2 was meant for penny.

foolestroupe-    article re adam naming animals was response to doubt that there would be time/ability to do so on one day.i do not think it was intended as a scientific piece as such.but pick a branch of science.i think you will find something on that site on the subject,though you would probably disagree.

leveller-jewish scribes were very meticulous, and dead sea scrolls of old testament were very similar ,i understand.
we have many NT ms with very little significant variations

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 03:58 PM

claim with equal justification that the writings of J R R Tolkein are the word of god

CRIKEY!! You mean they're NOT???

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:09 PM

"...recent things are sometimes dated as ancient."

If you understand what radio-carbon dating is, and how it works, you cannot rationally go on to believe that false or faked dating of any significant magnitude can occur.
The "Iceman" found in Austria lived about 5300 years ago, and he was nowhere near the Biblical lands.

Woolley Mammoths have been found in ice that were dated to 35,000 years ago. This was not faked, nor was it bad science. The decay of certain carbon atoms simply happens at a fixed rate, and if certain conditions are met, can be dated very accurately. To disagree with this 'because' you already have the 'authority' of counting vaguely described generations in Genesis is simply closing the mind to sound evidence.

You are free to assert that "God started it and planned it this way", but you cannot rationally assert that "it has all happened in only 6000 years or so."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:09 PM

Fortunately, Greg, we have all been relieved of having to grapple with that particular issue, due to the simple fact that Tolkien himself never asserted in any way that his writings were the Word of God.

Why do I have to TELL you these things? ;-)

****

pete - Would you be willing to consider the possibility that Adam was a symbolic figure, an archetype, not a literal figure, and that he serves as a symbol of the early beginnings of the human race...or at least of some part of the human race, such as the tribes in the ancient Middle East?

Why not? There are such symbolic founding figures in many religions. The Amerindians had legends about similar symbolic figures who started off their race, or who taught them to grow corn, etc, and it's quite clear that they are all archetypes, and that the stories are not literally about a single person. They are parables intended to describe a very lengthy natural event in simple, dramatic terms that people living a simple, natural life can easily relate to.

Surely it is the same type of thing with the story of Adam and Eve? At least, I would think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:14 PM

Sorry there, LH, but for that matter God never asserted that the writings that comprise "The Bible" were His words, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:19 PM

No, Greg, but a whole bunch of people did, including the authors. And there are statements within the Bible claiming that it is God's word, just as there are in the Koran. There is no statement within Tolkien's books that makes such a claim.

Whether "God" herself has ever said anything about it is a matter of opinion and anecdote...therefore unverifiable. I like to think she is modest enough not to make such claims. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:40 PM

"And there are statements within the Bible claiming that it is God's word"

There are statements within the Bible stating that Jesus is God's Word, and most of the references are to this assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:43 PM

I don't know who wrote the Bible, I wasn't there. Everything I know about who wrote it is hearsay, and is not admissable in the Mudcat court.

"And, dat be dat" (Quote by Little Kim).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:45 PM

As to whether the Bible claims to be the "Word of God":

There are numerous instances in the Old Testament where it is stated that "the word of God came to" one individual or another, "saying" whatever immediately follows. So far as the Bible itself defining the word of God, there is the explicit New Testament
claim that Jesus is the Word of God. The author of Revelation set forth that "book" as word for word inspired by God, in that he warned against altering any bit of it for fear of the wrath of God. The general fundamentalist interpretation has been that, since those are the last words of the Bible, that warning, and that implication, holds for the entire Bible. But John had no way to suspect that what he wrote would, long afterward, be placed at the end of the Bible or any other compendium.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:48 PM

(I was composing while Dave M.posted)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 07:45 PM

Er - hang on Pete. Your idea is that the things are not more than 6,000 years old so radio carbon dating is wrong? What is wrong about it? Radio carbon dating is error prone for things over 6,000 years old but accurate on the newer ones? Or the things are younger than their radio carbon date because your god made it so? Or is there a third option that I have missed? (Oh, I have it - you are a wind-up).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:21 PM

It's really very simple: ancient rocks are very old; so, if, 35 years ago, God made an ancient rock, it would be very old, and carbon dating would indicate that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:25 PM

I know I'm going to regret this but...

I get Kent Davis's point in his post of 03 Jan 11 - 11:06 PM that there is a distinction between the artifact and the idea but the trouble is, we are dealing with two different artifacts.

The first artifact is the bible. I'm not sure when this artifact was created, probably over quite a long time starting up to a thousand years BC through to 100 years AD. The "idea" starts (In the King James version) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.". There is no back story. No events are referred to before that moment of creation. The date of this event was calculated by Bishop Ussher in the seventeenth century to be 4004 BC purely from the chronology of the bible story without reference to anything in the real physical world that we inhabit. This is the origin of the idea that the world was created 6000 years ago. Whether the bible is the work of man or God I will leave to others.

The second artifact is the universe, within which the Earth, within which humankind. This is, if He exists, God's creation. Scientific observation suggests that it came into existence, by whatever means, about 13 billion years ago. There is no indication that anything of that magnitude happened in 4004 BC.

The implication of Kent's post is that the world was created 6000 years ago but made to look as if it had been created 13 billion years ago but that is not what the bible says. It says that it was created from nothing 6000 years ago.

Kent, would you care to explain a little further?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: BanjoRay
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:33 PM

It's really very simple: ancient rocks are very old; so, if, 35 years ago, God made an ancient rock, it would be very old, and carbon dating would indicate that.

So Thou shalt not bear false witness doesn't apply to God.....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 09:06 PM

So, could Bishop Ussher have gotten it wrong? If so, he would be out by quite a bit?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 09:43 PM

Steve Shaw,

I am surprised you found statements 14 and 15 misleading, incorrect, garbled and off-beam. Statement #14, the one that says that "In a population, the degree of divergence from the common ancestor is inversely related to the proportion of successfully reproducing organisms in the population" is straight Darwinism. It is a bit of Darwinism that creationists also accept, and it was well known before Darwin was born, but he adopted it as part of his theory.

Consider two previously finch-free islands. A storm blows 20 finches (10 male and 10 female) to each island. These 40 finches all come from the same population on the mainland. Island one is perfect for the finches. All 20 of the original colonizers reproduce and reproductive success is high for many generations. Island two is terrible for finches. Only six of the original colonizers reproduce (the six with, let us say, the longest beaks)and the population barely hangs on for generations. A century later, which population will be most divergent from the mainland population? It will be the population on Island Two. Their beaks will be longer than those of the mainland population and longer than those of the population on the other island. In other words, the degree of divergence is inversely related to the proportion of successfully organisms in the population.   

As for statement #15, the one that says that, in a population, the traits of the organisms with the greatest reproductive success will tend to increase, and the traits of those with the lowest reproductive success will tend to decrease, that too is straight Darwinism. Mr. Darwin called it sexual selection, I believe. This occurs naturally, or it can be done artificially. In my population of sheep, I am reducing the reproductive success of certain organisms, the rams Bartlett and Dale, to zero (by keeping them in the ram's field, with no access to the ewes). The traits of those organisms are therefore not being passed on. I am increasing the reproductive success of another organism, Caldwell the Ram, by putting him in with the ewes. His traits will tend to increase.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:08 PM

Banjo Ray, The Snail, Smokey, etc.

I am trying to be clear, but somehow what I'm saying is not getting across.   Please let me try again.

First, if you will allow a little rant, let me repeat for about the fourth time: I am attempting to explain a viewpoint, not attempting to prove that the viewpoint is correct. . Pardon my capitalization but I KNOW FULL WELL THAT I HAVEN'T PROVED CREATIONISM TO BE TRUE. I'M NOT TRYING TO PROVE THAT IT IS TRUE, as I stated in the first post on this thread. Feel free to stop pointing out to me that I'm "failing" to do what I said at the outset that I would not even try to do. I have a job. I have a family. I don't have time to write the Creationist equivalent of THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES and, if I did have time, I wouldn't write it as a string of posts on Mudcat. Rant over.

Here is what Young Earth Creationists believe: God exists. He is uncreated, eternal, and omnipotent. He made the universe. Being omnipotent, He could have made it any way He choose and, being eternal as well, he could have made it in 767 quintillion years, or in 30 billion years, or in six days, or in 0.04 milliseconds.    He could have made it 17 octillion years ago or 7,000 years ago or this afternoon.

God knows how long He took to create the universe and He knows when He created it. He could have chosen to keep this information from us, or He could have chosen to reveal this information to us. He chose to reveal it to us. If He did not reveal it, we could never figure it out, because it is impossible, in principle, to deduce, from WITHIN a work of art, when the work began UNLESS somehow "outside" information gets in.   

Why is it impossible?   Let me answer by first asking another question:   For how long had Lady Margaret's hair been growing?

Why do I ask such a question? Well, tonight I was singing about Lady Margaret combing her long yellow hair (Child Ballad #14) and I noticed , about 6 seconds into the song, that she and Sweet William were arguing. Sweet William said (for I had revealed it to him) that the song had been going on for about six seconds. Lady Margaret said he was an irrational fool because anyone could see that it would take at least a year for a lady's long yellow hair to grow as long as hers.   Sweet William replied that the singer made her hair long to begin with. Lady Margaret said this was nonsense. Such a singer would be nothing but a liar, tricking poor innocent ladies into believing their hair to be a year old when it was really only six seconds old. Sweet William replied that there was no lie involved; that the singer had made it perfectly clear how long the song had been going on.

I hope you see the point. If the universe is God's ballad, then the only possible way we (who are inside the "ballad") can know when the ballad began is by the revelation of the Singer. It is impossible, in principle, to deduce, from WITHIN a work of art, when the work began UNLESS somehow "outside" information gets in.   

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:18 PM

No-one has asked you to prove creationism is true, Kent.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:30 PM

Smokey,

Not many have asked me to prove that creationism is true, but many have had a grand old time pointing out that I haven't proved it. Ed T. did ask me to prove it (yesterday at 8:45), perhaps other as well.

Oh well, I hope those who are interested at least have a better understanding of what creationists believe.   

Have a great evening!

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:43 PM

What creationists believe is easily available knowledge, though I appreciate your efforts. The question is, why? On what grounds?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 11:51 PM

Ed T. did ask me to prove it (yesterday at 8:45)

No he didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:05 AM

Quote from Ed T. at 8:45 yesterday "Kent, How can it be so?"

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:18 AM

Well, I suppose it depends on what meaning you ascribe to things - I expect Ed knows what he meant better than either of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:21 AM

Yep.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:24 AM

". It is impossible, in principle, to deduce, from WITHIN a work of art, when the work began UNLESS somehow "outside" information gets in. "

Not really. With some scientific analysis you could deduce when a picture was painted. You could use the wooden frame to establish a dendrochronology, the fabric of the canvas will carry debris such as pollen that indicates a certain climate and location, the weave of the fabric will be unique in a certain place and time and the constituent materials of the pigments used will almost certainly be able to be traced and indicate their origin. All someone has to do is apply their mind to the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:43 AM

Can't see what all the fuss is about here.

If somebody exhibits irrational thoughts and behaviour, you ain't going to win him over with logic and reason.

I know all about such things, being a Sheffield Wednesday fan.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:31 AM

Kent. What you do with your rams, etc., may enlighten us as to processes in nature but the crux is that natural selection does not favour traits because they can be successfully reproduced. Any individual that reproduces will pass on both useful and non-useful traits. Many of the latter will not immediately confer "reproductive disadvantage" because they will be recessive. It favours traits which are advantageous to the species. Chihuahuas are full of inherited traits via "reproductive success" but these were not installed via natural selection. Set every chihuahua in the world free and see how many you have left after six months.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:34 AM

First, if you will allow a little rant, let me repeat for about the fourth time: I am attempting to explain a viewpoint, not attempting to prove that the viewpoint is correct

Sorry, but I still don't quite get it. If all your intention is to list out what creationists believe, then I have no problem. You could, equally validly list out Viking beliefs concerning Ginnungagap and Ymir. Both accounts of belief are interesting from anthropological, theological and social viewpoints.

My problem comes when anyone - and I accept you may not be doing this Kent - tries to take it even one step further. If they do so, there needs to be reasons why one set of beliefs is preferencial in any sense to the others. And that's the reason the insistance on 'why' this is believed keeps recurring.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:53 AM

To clarify further: why something is believed is quite a different thing to whether it is true. Lots of things are believed when their truthfulness is unknown or unproven. Equally 'denial' is a shorthand for the common human behaviour when things that are true are not believed. To me if you 'explaining a viewpoint' could easily include why it is *believed*, but need not go as far as whether it is *true*.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:21 AM

Try being a Liverpool fan, Willie. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:38 AM

I would but don't you have to have at least one conviction for handling stolen goods before you are a scouser?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:45 AM

It's okay, folks...we can quit debating... the Pope has weighed in. "God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident:"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:56 AM

I know information on "critical thinking" on the site below is elementary. But, it could give a guide (to anyone interested) to avoid some pitfalls in obtaining knowedge from discussions (and separating the non-meaningful from meaningful dialogue) I assume considering other viewpoints and obtaining knowledge is at least one reason for participating in Mudcat threads? But, I could be wrong:)

Anyway, its fairly short, so, look it over if you wish. Or, ignore it if you prefer. I hope it contributes in some small way to discussions, and a reduction of discourse. But, I will not be dissapointed if it does not:))

Short guide to critical thinking

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:24 AM

It's a fine synopsis, Ed... sadly, NON-critical thinkers will simply define their thoughts as being in compliance and inform us that they DO analyze all sides fairly & reasonably before settling on a rigid position. You just can't win when someone has mastered circular reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:33 AM

A Liverpool fan? Luxury! The season the Villa are having is making me wish for divine intervention.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:15 PM

Ahah!

Now... if I pray for divine intervention for Sheffield Wednesday to win the FA Cup this year, Jack does the same for Villa and Steve prays for Liverpool...

Every football fan knows, you cannot accomodate more than one faith. So somebody (any non Owls fan) is barking up the wrong tree.

There's a point to this somewhere but to be honest, thinking about winning the FA Cup has distracted my thought train somewhat. I'd settle for winning the next home game if truth be known and after the nail biting match at Huddersfield the other day.

Oh, and so M'unlearned friend can join in the debate, that's association football. (His phrase to describe what the rest of the world (except our friends across the pond) call football.)

Creationism is something Chris Waddle and David Hirst were doing in the box almost twenty years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:34 PM

As Mr Fluids knows but chooses to ignore, the term "association football" distinguishes that endeavour from "rugby football" - and indeed from Australian Rules football. It is the correct designation. The prevalence of an error does not make it other than an error.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:46 PM

Quote from Ed's link:

We are thinking critically when we...require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads...

Why, Ed, whenever I've proposed precisely this as the only way to think about God you have consistently opposed me and supported the irrational viewpoint! Good to see you onside at last...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:59 PM

"you have consistently opposed me and supported the irrational viewpoint!"

This from the man who believes that Atheists don't have to think logically.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:12 PM

Why don't you give us your opinions, Dave, instead of the pointless and vacuous one-liners? Does your brain work?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:20 PM

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:29 PM

Bill said:"NON-critical thinkers will simply define their thoughts as being in compliance and inform us that they DO analyze all sides fairly & reasonably before settling on a rigid position. You just can't win when someone has mastered circular reasoning."

Steve Said:"We are thinking critically when we...require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads...

Why, Ed, whenever I've proposed precisely this as the only way to think about God you have consistently opposed me and supported the irrational viewpoint! Good to see you onside at last"


Steve,
Unfortunately, I expected you to be the first to demonstrate just what Bill predicted earlier.

I suggest you read the entire article, rather than pick out what is convenient, and reinforce your approach to discussion on religion, (which you seem to mostly limit your BS thread participation to).

While you surely have asked for evidence a multitude of times, IMO, you have done it in a manner to stifle debate, rather than encourage it.

IMO, you have consistently dismissed or ignored those who have posted viewpoints counters to your (lack of) a god belief.

IMO, you have not made any attempt to follow where it leads, or encourage others to do so (the rest of the article, Steve).

Rather than be receptive, IMO you have belittled (and, IMO, bullied) others who have openly attempted to state their views on their belief and dismissed their points in a non-productive manner.

Yes, you have indeed given your opinion on how others should think about God. In fact, your approach, IMO, has contributed to folks not giving their views, rather than encouraging dialogue.

I don't recall having many discussions with you, opposing any such thing, as you state. But, unlike you, I will not ask you to "provide evidence" to back up the statement.

I have in a couple of occasions taken you to task when I felt you were disrespectful to others. However, since it only seemed to stimulate retaliation on your part, and seemed pointless, I have mostly avoided discussing anything with you directly.( I was also given wise PM advise from a number of other objective Mudcaters to avoid such discourse with you).

Hopefully, you will objectively read the entire article I linked to, rather than select snippets. It is never too late to brush up on ways to make a meaningful contribution to discussions.

And, in closing...it really does not matter to me what people believe in a god or not. IMO, it is their choice, using whatever criteria they wish. What does matter to me, is how they treat and respect others.

Adios

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:34 PM

Kent,

My thoughts on your explanations below:

"Here is what Young Earth Creationists believe: God exists. He is uncreated, eternal, and omnipotent. He made the universe. Being omnipotent, He could have made it any way He choose and, being eternal as well, he could have made it in 767 quintillion years, or in 30 billion years, or in six days, or in 0.04 milliseconds.    He could have made it 17 octillion years ago or 7,000 years ago or this afternoon."

Logic suggests that the creator must have been created (if so, who created the creator's creator?) ... Oh, I see you only have to declare that the creator is uncreated! But how do you know that?

Creation requires stocks of material, tools, computing power etc. Where, exactly were all those things stored before creation occurred? Where's the super-dooper, mega-computer that runs it all?

If I, and the rest of creation, were created "six days or 0.04 milliseconds" ago, does that mean that all of my memories of a previous life are just illusions and I'm really just sort of 'frozen in time'?   

"God knows how long He took to create the universe and He knows when He created it. He could have chosen to keep this information from us, or He could have chosen to reveal this information to us. He chose to reveal it to us. If He did not reveal it, we could never figure it out, because it is impossible, in principle, to deduce, from WITHIN a work of art, when the work began UNLESS somehow "outside" information gets in."

But he didn't reveal this to everyone, did he? Eskimos, American Indians, Tibetans, Papuan New Guineans, Australian Aborigines, the Chinese etc. seem to have been left 'out of the loop'.

To be frank, all of this seems to be an extreme example of a common human failing i.e. start from the conclusion and work backwards, ignoring any inconvenient information that doesn't fit. The creator might have been omnipotent but his creations are certainly not perfect, are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:46 PM

I'm still waiting to hear Kent's promised explanation of Creationism. All we've had so far is a sparse description, albeit couched in somewhat patronising allegory. A more comprehensive description can be found at creationist.com, but again no actual explanation; so far it looks rather self-referential to me, not to mention unsure of its ground, judging by Kent's reluctance to address any of the questions raised in response to what he has said, other than by claiming persecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:15 PM

Creationism is curious as a concept. But it is a "belief" rather than a "fact" supported by science. As such, we should, as thinking people, keep it in its place as fun (if it IS fun) parlor chat (maybe three or four beers into chat) rather than base any curriculum or public policy on it.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:31 PM

I read it all, Ed. Unfortunately, you either didn't read or didn't heed the bit I quoted, which is totally at odds with what you and your believer fellow-travellers have been preaching. My requests for evidence are eminently reasonable, in view of the fact that we're expected to believe in a supernatural being who is in breach of all the laws of physics, who is ludicrously more complicated and inexplicable than the things he's supposed to be the explanation for, and who has so far deigned never to put in any sort of appearance, and no amount of your bluster (as a result of your being sussed) can cover up for that. All I want is something even vaguely convincing. Not even proof! But you never get anywhere near. You're confused about this, Ed. Join the rational and ask for evidence!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:39 PM

"...so far it looks rather self-referential to me,"

It **is** basically self-referential... "The Bible says 'X'...I grew up believing the Bible, so I believe 'X', and no one can show me any 'proof' that 'X' is false, so my belief is as valid as your science.." --some version of that. And, it is the case that no one CAN 'prove' it false....all we can do is appeal to the intellect to recognize the circular reasoning and make the effort to integrate religious beliefs with scientific evidence...like the Pope just did. I have my issues with the Catholic church, but they are slowly responding to modern times better than many Protestant groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:40 PM

It ain't fun, Saul- its mindless, corrosive, dangerous bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:45 PM

"The Bible says 'X'...I grew up believing the Bible, so I believe 'X', and no one can show me any 'proof' that 'X' is false, so my belief is as valid as your science.."
That's it in a nutshell. But the belief is not as valid as the science. That's the whole point. It's self-evidently not so. I believe in the science (without accepting it as truth) because science searches for and presents me with evidence. Growing up being made to believe in the Bible instructs you to stop looking for evidence. And no, I won't turn the bloody record over. It's the whole nub of the thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:02 PM

"its mindless, corrosive, dangerous bullshit"

Oh...just like most modern political propaganda and corporate advertising, then? ;-) I'll do my best to avoid it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:07 PM

One explanation:

Click

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:12 PM

Steve... I basically agree with your position...but unlike you, I temper it with my awareness (perhaps from my years in **Kansas**) of how deeply religious beliefs are ingrained in some families, culture, nations...etc.

You cannot just say.. "get over it, you fools. I have better evidence & reasoning." You can explain patiently why you cannot buy into their belief system and you can offer 'divergent views' in a way that may at least invites their attention, instead of putting them off in a way that suggests they have wasted their lives & money going to church. I try to show Kent... and others... why I began IN a church, saw things that made me say...hmmmmmm... and eventually become a skeptic about religion and many other 'metaphysical' concepts.

It's as important as 'being sure you are right' to work out how to be right.... and that goes for BOTH sides.. including the guy who stuck the "pray to Jesus" circular under my car's wiper the other day.

--------------------------------------

(reposted for about the 6th time)
Old Peanuts cartoon:

Lucy, talking to Linus: "Change your mind!"
Linus just looks at her.
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND!!
Linus looks more intimidated...
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!!"

Lucy, walking away, disgruntled and mumbling."Boy, it's hard to get people to change their minds these days!"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:18 PM

Hi Bill. I'd agree with you up to a point, but there's a lot of good scholarship developed out of that sort of upbringing. Bart Ehrman tells in "Whose Word is it?" how his initial acceptance of a literalist interpretation led him to a completely new and much wider understanding of the sources and method of transmission of the texts. In David Kotz's "Words on Fire: the unfinished Story of Yiddish", he makes the case that cycles of Orthodoxy within the Jewish community have created the circumstances that led to Jews being able to contribute to a greater degree to the various non-religious disciplines in succeeding generations. A similar case has been made for the 18th century Scottish Enlightenment being fueled by the Puritanism of the 17th.

Having said that, I've never come across an argument for Creationism which didn't make the case for the accepted theories of evolution etc, then claim that they'd proved creationism with a quite 'elegant' non-sequitur.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:23 PM

ps Bill, Iwas talking about you're previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:54 PM

"...there's a lot of good scholarship developed out of that sort of upbringing.."

Sure.. scholarship flourishes when its driving force is rooted in promoting and documenting deeply held and valued cultural values. But as is often said: "scholars differ". We learn about ourselves when we investigate the foundations and development of our ancestors...and of 'theirs'.

Music & architecture all thru history were enhanced by the desire of artists to glorify their god(s). Would we have the secular equivalent of cathedrals & Bach's B Minor Mass without religion?...*shrug*... no way to test that. I can still appreciate the feeling and power of them....and I will NEVER be surprised when someone asserts that such creations must have been 'inspired'. Indeed they WERE inspired..by the very concept they strive to exemplify, whether 'real' or not.

..................................

BTW I did a search on the Lucy/Peanuts post I have reposted, and found this thread on Astrology. I could have saved typing by copying some remarks there and substituting some terms... *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:57 PM

Well, Bill, There is much religion in my own family and I have to learn to understand that, though "respect" is something that, in my view, is a little harder to win. Actually, whilst respect is demanded from us atheists, I detect very little respect from religion for the non-religious stance. Quite a double standard there. In spite of Ed's ludicrous assertions about me being some sort of bully (he's a confused man - I'm just a bit persistent, that's all! ;-)), it's the religious right, who have plenty of representatives on this board, who do nearly all the insulting and the bullying (I got fed up of constantly reproducing that sailor-boy's litany of offensive remarks, for example). The argument is simple (and these are threads which entice people to take one of two sides, unpalatable as that may seem to some). Any notion you wish to promote, in the presence of those who may embrace an opposing view, is either supported by evidence or it is open to ridicule. I have no issue (as I've said many times) with the billions of people who lean on God and quietly get on with their lives. But if such folks come on here with their unsupported assertions they have to be prepared to take the flak. Religion has managed to defend itself from criticism over the centuries by dint of ridiculous blasphemy laws (not to speak of death threats), but times have changed and we now find religion to be very uncomfortable indeed with criticism whilst having no recourse any longer to these repressive methods of shutting up its opponents. That old mindset which assumed that you'd be protected by having those daring to demur burned at the stake has cast rather a long shadow. All that remains for believers of a militant ilk is to demonise their opponents, having realised that there really is no recourse to argument. We see that in these threads all the time. Ed's intemperate and frustrated rant is merely the most recent in a long line of such desperate examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:11 PM

"I detect very little respect from religion for the non-religious stance."... Yes, I know... but I know a number of quite religious people who DO respect my feelings...and several who often post here..(I have been told seriously that I "am being prayed for" and that "God will see that you are honest and 'good' and you'll be fine" )....such a deal! I win either way....

*shrug*.. it's just my approach. You have yours...and you are a 'bit' less confrontational than a couple of others. *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:14 PM

Would we have the secular equivalent of cathedrals & Bach's B Minor Mass without religion?...*shrug*... no way to test that. I can still appreciate the feeling and power of them....and I will NEVER be surprised when someone asserts that such creations must have been 'inspired'. Indeed they WERE inspired..by the very concept they strive to exemplify, whether 'real' or not.

I agree with you that they must indeed have been inspired by the well-rooted religious concepts. I love all that stuff meself and I struggle to contribute to this forum whilst Radio 3 is playing so much of Mozart's religious music, which is sublime (I'm even thinking of having the Ave Verum Corpus played at my solidly-atheistic funeral...) In a theoretical world without religion, there's no doubt in my mind that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven would have composed with just as much energy and given us secular works to "replace" those religious ones. But in no way do I regret that they composed religious stuff. Hey, religion is an unshiftable part of everyone's heritage, believer or atheist or pagan. I lay claim to that just as vigorously as any devout believer would. And all that church architecture too. Pagan tax money is worth exactly the same as believer tax money!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:18 PM

If someone says publicly that they are going to pray for me, I'm very inclined to tell them to sod off and keep their stupidity to themselves. It's arrogant and offensive and they shouldn't do it!

Or maybe I should tell them I'll slit a goat's throat in their honour. No, hang on - that's more potential bodhrans. I retract that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:21 PM

BTW... I have quite a large collection of religious 'literature' and other anti-evolution...etc stuff from those extremists we both decry... I leaf thru it at times and remind myself that there is much to be done to at least keep the extreme views from impinging on my life thru crazy politicians...etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:25 PM

They can pray for me...can't hurt ME, and they feel better. just don't let them tell me they are going to make the textbooks agree with their view..


goodnight all...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:16 PM

Steve, I have no doubt you read it all. But, did you take it all in? Or, only the parts that show you have a superior thinking ability to others?

I note you frequently "promote" that you are "a believer in the way of science". Where is the evidence here? I don't see it?

No credible scientist would broadly (and inaccurately) lump all "people" together like you frequently do, and more recently did with me based on sparse evidence.

Before you make broad generalizations about others, at least pay a bit of attention on the content of what they post. That way, you can claim, at least, accuracy. That way, you would "seem" credible that you at least follow some concepts of scientific or critical reasoning to others, like me.

Please provide evidence that I have been preaching anything in any mudcat post that you say (such as "believing" like the "fellow-travelers" you refer to).

I did not say that your request for evidence (though your constant whine gets a bit tiring) is unreasonable...check it out. What I did say was you did not follow through on the other parts of the article you quoted ... ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads...you don't do that by setting unreasonable conditions for evidence, or blasting others when they give views that you disagree with.

Nowhere did I ever say I believed, nor supported, concepts that break the laws of physics, (religious or otherwise) such as evolution, creationism nor the 6000 old earth theories.... where is your evidence that I did that.

You probably missed posts where I raised new and evolving research in physics, that don't even make sense to physics experts.

You seem to conveniently miss recent questions I posed to Kent (in this thread), to explain his concepts YEC concepts...and yes, I stated creationism has been debunked and asked for evidence for the 6000 geological concept. But, I believe it is "critical thinking" to actually hear people out, before making broad pronouncements.

You probably missed it all, because, unlike you, I asked in a sprit of respect, to encourage meaningful dialogue.... as noted in the article.

One does not have to be disrespectful elitist, and boorish, just because one has arrived at a different conclusion (right or wrong) than others. You may be right. But, does that give you a license to be disrespectful of others? To get the most out of a discussion, and others participating, why not try a bit of respect?

You say, "All you want is something even vaguely convincing". Well Steve, you likely have to find that for yourself...and it seems that you have (as others have). Why are you still searching? Maybe it's time to admit you have found what you are seeking, or if not, never will? Especially through the approach you have chosen.


I hate to say this, but Steve we have to stop meeting this way. It does not work for me, and I suspect it does not do much for you either. :))

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:58 PM

Did I see above that the Pope has now said that God was there at the big bang?

That would seem to make OEC the view of the religious establishment and so YEC a heresy, wouldn't it?

I still can't get my head round anyone believing that a god made stuff that was millions of years old when he or she made it. The evidence is that the earth is millions of years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:12 PM

"I still can't get my head round anyone believing that a god made stuff that was millions of years old when he or she made it."

Makes no sense to me either, and I suspect likely not even most folks belonging to, or even regularily attending an organized Christian religion (me not being one of those, so I cant speak fer 'em). If it is proven to be true someday, I will be surprised, and open to correction:)

Like a previous poster speculated, most people who believe in a God (for whatever reason and personal choice) have no difficulty accepting evolution and all that science has proven to be most likely true (most, because there is always some room for new discoveries and updating). But, in most areas there is always a fringe group. Most are harmless (since they are small in number). It just makes life more colourful and interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 11:15 PM

Regrettably the apparent influence of the fundagelical right in the USA seems to me to be far more sinister (no pun intended) than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:24 AM

Just couldn't pass this one ...

QUOTE
Subject: RE: BS: Us elections/lunar orbit/tides
From: katlaughing - PM
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:46 PM

I know this is years later, but it seems to be a good fit for this thread:

How 'bout them tides?!

(Newser) – Apparently, Bill O'Reilly has never heard of the moon. In a debate Tuesday with Dave Silverman, head of the American Atheist group behind this, the Fox host tried to prove the existence of God by citing the unknowable mysteries of the tides. "I'll tell you why [religion is] not a scam, in my opinion," he told Silverman. "Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that. You can't explain why the tide goes in."

Silverman looked stunned. "Tide goes in, tide goes out?" he stuttered.

O'Reilly pressed on. "The water, the tide—it comes in and it goes out. It always goes in, then it goes out. … You can't explain that. You can't explain it."

Of course, Raw Story points out, people who passed high school science might tell you that tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits the earth.

But Silverman had a better response: "Maybe it's Thor up on Mount Olympus who's making the tides go in and out."
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:01 AM

It all depends on how you define "God". But what's the use even trying to get people to look at that...? ;-) Everybody just immediately leaps to their own favorite prejudice (their inner notion of what they think other people mean by "God") when it comes to that, and they seem to have no inclination to look beyond it. Too bad about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:34 AM

Pete, have you read the whole of the historical part of the Old Testament? I can't believe you haven't, but can you honestly claim that the god who commands the extirpation of whole peoples like the Amalekites is decent? Or is in any way likely to be the father of Jesus, who claims that if one has seen Him, one has seen the Father? Or indeed, likely to be the God who inspired Hosea and Amos?

I know you live your life according to the latter. I can imagine you very easily arguing like Abraham did with the angels about sparing people from destruction, and I can't imagine you acceding at all readily to what seemed a divine command to kill anyone. (I look back to merrily singing a children's hymn "Who is on the Lord's side?" with no knowledge of its context in the Levites slaughtering some of their brethren who had offended YHWH, and shudder.)

I appreciate your dislike of the idea of evolution being based on death and disease, but if there were less of that sort of thing in the OT, that argument would be more convincing. Wiping out most of creation in a flood is not so different from things being eaten, is it? Killing all the first born of Egypt, when only the Pharaoh was concerned with decision making? But evolution may not be depend on that as much as is presented, anyway. It is to do with not passing on genes rather than being devoured. In my family, the last two generations have included at least five women who will not be contributing to the future of the human race - we never managed to meet the right man at the right time. None of us, as far as I can make out, were in any way deformed or diseased, and the two who are dead had reached their full span.

I've bookmarked that article and will read it when I have time. But I don't believe that it is an essential foundation for belief in the Gospels to accept the OT as literally true. The essence of the gospels, I believe, is the witness of Jesus and his followers, and the action of the Holy Spirit in them. If that were to fail because of references to a history which cannot be confirmed in the real world, it would be much much weaker than the last 2000 years has shown it to be.

And it would be falling into a trap seen by Augustine of Hippo. He was very concerned by those of his fellow believers who rooted their faith in matters which the pagans around could easily see to be untrue.

The universe has a very convincing appearance of great age. If faith in Christ is to be hung on its reality being much shorter, but being made with that appearance for some reason, such as Gosse's suggestion, which brings into question the creator's desire for the salvation of all, it is going to become impossible to spread that faith.

Kent, I don't think you entirely took in my argument about authorship. The writer who includes a back story for a narrative's character is not dealing with the same situation as a deity who creates a backstory for a world, and without any indication that that is what it is, expects people to see that that is what it is, as opposed to the "real" situation. With a book, we select it from the shelves, with a film, we go to the cinema, or put a DVD in the player. There is a framework in which we engage with the author. With life, we do not have any such choice, and only one source to suggest that we are in a work of fiction. The result of failing to accept that is eternity in hell, is it not?

The God who so loved the world that he came down to show us that, and to save us, would He set up a misleading trap? Because that is what YEC's are claiming.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:19 PM

G'day, Ed. More bluster, I see, filled with inaccuracy and faulty observation. I clearly touched a raw nerve pointing out that your link directly contradicted your own approach, something you clearly hadn't noticed, but hey ho. My requests for evidence are not unreasonable. Read what I said to Georgiansilver on the other thread. That sets out my minimum standard, and I think it's exceptionally fair, don't you? Or do you go around gullibly believing every yarn peddled to you by strangers "because they said so?" You think I'm bullying/whining/whatever because I want at least some corroboration? In science, someone's say-so is just one possible starting point for further observation, experimentation and interpretation of evidence, and research must be reliable enough to be repeatable and peer-reviewed. And that's for work done which all falls within the laws of physics. In religion, someone's say-so appear to be an end-point, not the start of further investigation. End of. It must be true because he and his mates all said so. The "evidence" that you and your like-minded allies are inclined to accept consists of claims of miraculous interventions by beings who have never been seen and who break all the laws of physics - yet you set the evidence bar ludicrously low for them! Perhaps it is rather tedious reading to see this constant attack on the gullibility of believers, of their reliance on faith instead of evidence - but it is the whole crux of the matter. It wouldn't be a tenth as important if religion didn't use this as a springboard for ensnaring billions of people into accepting mythology as truth, but that's what happens and that what does the damage.

Incidentally, if you want to direct quote something I've said, please copy and paste in future, or at least leave out the speech marks: I note you frequently "promote" that you are "a believer in the way of science".
Never said those words, Ed. Hey, preserve accuracy and preserve your credibility is my advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:49 PM

Talk about blithering bluster, you sure give a good demonstration. Not used to be taken to task for your schoolyard bullying Steve?

"Filled with inaccuracy and faulty observation"

Where is your "evidence" to that, Steve?

"Your link directly contradicted your own approach",

Where is your "evidence" to that, Steve?

"You and your like-minded allies"
Where is your "evidence" to that Steve?

"Incidentally, if you want to direct quote something I've said, please copy and paste in future, or at least leave out the speech marks: I note you frequently "promote" that you are "a believer in the way of science".

Good try, Steve. I did not directly state you made that direct quote, as you allege. When I do so, I will say so, Steve. There is no convention in Mudcat indicating that putting " " before and after words meaning it is a direct quote. If there is, please provide the evidence to support your accusations.

Sorry Steve, I don't have time to look through your thousands of BS posts that are mostly, if not exclusively, on religious topics. If you have the time, which you seem to have) cut and paste it here yourself. BTY, do you have any time for anything else but your war against religion? Have you thought of taking up other post retirement exploits? Bowling may help you get some of that excess frustration out of your mind? Just a thought, not a direct suggestion O:>))

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:57 PM

Oh, guys! C'mon....


...never mind... who am I to interfere in a feud fueled by dueling quotations.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:58 PM

In defence of Steve, if rational people don't make a stance and tackle religion head on, we will be back in the dark ages before we know it. Do you know there are people who sit in the upper house (Lords) by dint of their pointy hat who want government to reintroduce blasphemy laws?

If that isn't an opportunity to do my "Jesus on a rubber cross" impression when on stage, I don't know what is.

Look, its alright humouring people by debating but when one side has a problem with reality and the other side knows religion is all fairy stories and population control, it does mean that occasionally, just occasionally, some, myself included, wander back to reality and point out that it is all hogwash, dangerous bullshit and there is no such thing as God.

Grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 01:16 PM

"There is no convention in Mudcat indicating that putting " " before and after words meaning it is a direct quote." Ed T

Ed T, I have no idea what else quotation marks could mean other than a direct quote. I think that is as true on Mudcat as on any paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 02:43 PM

Well Ebbie where is noted as the only format/use of to be used on Mudcat, which is not a "paper", but a internet discussion forum? Regardless, I do see where someone could easily interpret it as such. It wasn't intended to be a direct quote, and "that is that". Anyway, it is easy to see this is merely a "red herring" put forward by Steve, as a diversion.

Steamin' Willie,
Indeed is very credible to question people and ideas put forward. But, IMO, it is another thing to "bully and belittle" those who are merely putting their ideas and beliefs forward (BTW, I dont preach any beliefs that I may have or not have, which Steve alleged). My point is Steve's approach has not stimulated open discussion, but has done the opposite. It is just as easy to do it in a respectful way (which I put forward, that Steve does not). There is no loss doing that, and who knows, occasionally it results in someone learning something new. Why can a religious discussion not be civil? I have not detected any of the folks putting their concepts forward as the "nasty people" (careful,that is not a quote) who are trying to impose them on others? So, how does it hurt to be respectful, hear people out and be questioning at the same time?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 02:53 PM

Re: the guy who didn't know about tides - did he come from an inland state. people on coasts can see the connection, and the seeing sticks. If you don't listen to science lessons for ideological reasons, or you're just bored, maybe it wouldn't get into the noddle. Not to excuse him for being an ignorant idiot, of course....

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:07 PM

Re: responses to people saying they will pray for others - it rather depends on what they are praying for. If they are praying for the others to recover from some illness or other setback, it's one thing. If they are praying for conversion from a position of perceived superiority, it's quite another, and well worth resenting.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:22 PM

Pete, I've read that article, and it doesn't help. It wrongly characterises evolution as an entirely bloody business, which it is not. Admittedly some have characterised the survival of the fittest in that way, possibly for political reasons, or because of the way men of the time viewed the competition of males as vital for development of society. Then it places that violent view against the nature of a loving God. But that really ignores the Biblical matter that lies between Genesis and the Gospels, where the loving nature of the deity it portrays is often hard to distinguish.

It's not an effective argument. The premises are weak.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:43 PM

RE: carbon dating. Rocks are not dated by radiocarbon but by other isotopes with longer half-lives. They are also dated by other techniques - the way rocks lie on each other, cut across each other and push into each other. These allow the order of formation to be deduced. Then there is the observation of modern processes. If you have depths of hundreds of feet of a deposit which had to be formed in calm water and at the rate of less than a centimetre a year, times can be well estimated. And then they have to be buried, cemented, and hardened. Some show the signs of having been pressed, and heated at depth. The isotopes are only one strand of the dating processes which all combine to confim each other in establishing great ages. Or, if that must be believed, the appearance of great age.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:52 PM

penny.i just managed to lose a long response i one finger typed you so i will be brief.
i accept all the OT because the NT is built on it ,quotes it, and alludes to it, even if parts of it are difficult.

little hawk-similar to above as regards adam and eve.if the NT did,nt speak of them as real people you might have a point about them being figurative,but a good question.Jesus referred to them in his teaching regarding divorce, and paul also bases much of his teaching on the entrance of sin and death into the world following adams fall.
the narrative itself suggests a literal reading.the phrase"these are the generations of"used in introduction of those following begins with the eden story.gen2 4.
i know you "dont buy it"but thanks for asking why i do.

richard-i have been reading about 14c but i,m not competent to give you the YEC explanation and if i try i shall look silly trying to rehash scientific discussions.
just so you know i was,nt ignoring you.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 04:32 PM

Willie...and by implication, Steve Shaw

"... if rational people don't make a stance and tackle religion head on, we will be back in the dark ages before we know it.

That is just a mite of an exaggeration, perhaps....
There is a huge difference between being alert to attempts to force various arbitrary religious stuff into secular realms...(such as prayers at public meetings or the '10 commandments' being plopped down in government buildings, as was attempted in the South several years ago)... and taking on anyone who mentions their religion or states their belief just to show general antagonism to religious beliefs.
I have, for 10-12 years here at Mudcat, attempted to show the flaws and errors of certain claims & assertions about many metaphysical issues, from Astrology to Reincarnation to Creationism and beyond...and I suppose I'll do so again at times. I WANT bad logic to be noted and I seriously desire an end to attempts to impose religious doctrines on the country in general thru alteration of text books and embedding of biblical 'teachings' in public institutions...and yes, I DO want "In God We Trust" taken off my money and the original Pledge of Allegiance restored. When I learned it, there was no 'under God' in it.

However....as I indicated above, I have many friends who are quite religious but who do NOT pressure ME about it, and who are NOT trying to convert or proselytize others.

I am of two minds about a lot of these recent threads, because a few years ago, several dedicated Christians here voluntarily restricted their overtly religious posts and bowed out of directly arguing pros & cons of 'belief' in general....and it would be nice if those of us who are NOT religious could restrict the number of complaints and condemnations of religion.
I realize that it is hard to see what seems like an obviously irrational claim or scientifically bogus 'fact' tossed out...and to refrain from comment. *I* do not refrain from comment...but little is gained by direct insults...either to the motives or the intelligence... of others. (I seriously wonder if the same things would be said face-to-face). I argue positions and reason, not character and sanity...and I have to say, it is hard to **agree** with some posters here...even when I have almost identical basic views on 'basic truth'.....


so....**shrug**

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: saulgoldie
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 05:57 PM

One "believes" in religion. One "accepts" the findings of science. Science is a well-established process of forming and testing hypotheses. If a hypothesis does not work and cannot be reproduced with consistent results, then it is not true. Science has consistently pushed back the boundaries of the unknown.

Religion starts with the results, and through rhetorical gymnastics attempts to "prove" its hypotheses. It cannot support well-researched hypotheses with consistent results, and therefore is "belief" and "faith." Doesn't matter what the hypothesis is or what religion is promoting its own version of "truth." Early on in human development, religion was useful for attempting to explain the unknown. However, it has consistently impeded better understanding of the world in which we live, and it has outlived its usefulness.

"Values" is another topic. Many religions share certain values. But some religions disrespect other religions by claiming to be "the only true religion" and by aggressively attempting through various means to "convert" others to their religion. Any religion that is not self-confident enough to allow others to freely choose it without any form of coercion should be ignored by reasonable people.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:12 PM

While I find your statements interesting and mostly compelling, I suspect some will difficulty with the following direct quote.

"However, it has consistently impeded better understanding of the world in which we live, and it has outlived its usefulness".

I suspect the your definition of the "usefullness" of a religion, to those who follow "a religion", to be personally broader than you state.

But, since I do not adhere to an organized religion, I will leave that debate to others who do so. I am merely identifying what may be an omission.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:21 PM

Some of the possible areas where religious people may feel it is useful, I suspect there are many more?

A personal feeling of belonging and fellowship (one may consider joining a service club).

Charity and good works (again, some of this is done by charity groups not bound by religion).

Family related benefits (we all know it is a benefit, but not exclusive to religion).

Spiritual feelings, Nirvana(Some meditation classes may provide this,and I wont mention drugs).

A route to heaven, life beyond death, closeness to a God (well, if it exists, maybe, but then, there are no guarintees).

Morality and social (are atheists not just as moral)?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:59 PM

I always use double quotes and italics for quoting others verbatim.

I use single quotes for other purposes and for emphasis.

It seems to me that many others here do the same.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:01 PM

Thanks Don
Makes sense.
I shall do that in the future, to ensure no
misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:06 PM

"... (are atheists not just as moral)?"

Immanuel Kant spent a long time showing how & why morality could be shown to be the best path thru reason alone....others have done similarly.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:25 PM

David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland recently wrote:

"The trouble with the atheistic anti-God secular philosophy is not that it turns all of its proponents into Nazis. Thankfully, most atheists live inconsistently with their philosophy. And most of our Western Atheists are in fact Christian Atheists - wanting the fruit of Christianity while rejecting the roots. The problem is that once the philosophy of the blind, pitiless, indifferent universe without good or evil is adopted, there is no basis for hating evil and loving good. How can you hate what does not exist? That is why the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell stated 'Dachau is wrong is not a fact.' But that was just a feeling. But for the Christian, 'Dachau is wrong' is a fact. We hate the evil of the Holocaust because it was real - not because it was a passing feeling or a temporary fashion of philosophy. 'God is dead', said Hitler's favourite philosopher, Nietzsche. 'We have killed him and the whole of Europe is filled with the stench of his corpse.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:52 PM

I take it David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland has not read Kant... ;>)... or ignores him.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:58 PM

The Bible is a most interesting book, provided it is taken as what it is:   Judeo-Christian mythology. And like most mythology, it contains much wisdom and a great deal of truth. Provided one does not make the very prevalent error of accepting it as literal truth or historical fact. In fact, some of it is just plain wrong!

The following has been floating around the internet recently. Kind of puts things into perspective.

Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. She recently said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.

Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Homer Simpson-Caldwell

Your welcome,

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:07 PM

""I take it David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland has not read Kant... ;>)... or ignores him.



I take it David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland has approximately the cognitive faculties of a cockroach.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:33 PM

Thankfully, most atheists live inconsistently with their philosophy.

Jeez, Dave, I suppose the fact you can post this tripe is some kind of testament to the fact that you somehow agree with it. Numero uno: There is no atheist philosophy. The only reason atheists have to exist at all (and it's painful) is that believers exist. There is no philosophy. We just want evidence. Secondo: you can blithely post this rubbish and totally ignore the fact that huge numbers of Christians/Jews/Muslims/whatever are Sunday/Sabbath/whatever (excuse my ignorance) adherents and no more. They go to church/synagogue/mosque for an hour or two then come out and behave just the same as they did before they went in. Go into any church/synagogue/mosque and you will find (among large numbers of very good people, I hasten to add) bankers, capitalists, Tories, bigots, racists, warmongers (Blair?? Bush???), right-wing evangelists, fascists (Franco was a daily communicant), potential suicide bombers, paedophiles, and you name the rest. I suppose you will say that, thankfully, most believers live consistently with their philosophy? Places of worship are generally places of posturing. Atheists have to breathe the heavily-polluted default religious air. Just like socialists still have to use banks. Think for a change, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 08:50 PM

I have many friends who are quite religious but who do NOT pressure ME about it, and who are NOT trying to convert or proselytize others.

These are the good guys. But there may be fewer of them than you think. They may not pressure you - but do they have their kids christened at birth, do they send them to faith schools, do they make them attend Sunday School and religious services? Do they peddle myth as truth to their kids?

I am of two minds about a lot of these recent threads, because a few years ago, several dedicated Christians here voluntarily restricted their overtly religious posts and bowed out of directly arguing pros & cons of 'belief' in general....and it would be nice if those of us who are NOT religious could restrict the number of complaints and condemnations of religion.

Well I don't agree. For millennia, religion has had its own way. It has insisted that demurral should be punished by law, even by death, and, at best, by social ostracism and by having the fear of God and hellfire instilled into its adherents lest they should even think of wavering. It has built up riches beyond compare whilst praising the virtues of poverty (and ensuring that its adherents suffer just that). It is intolerant and authoritarian, no more than a blunt instrument of control. I think religion deserves all the attacks it gets, and more. We shouldn't keep quiet just because we know that many believers are meek and mild, which they are. Religion in all its forms is a very bad thing, and I'm not one for holding back on the criticism. Give me one good reason why I should.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 09:07 PM

Some of the possible areas where religious people may feel it is useful, I suspect there are many more?

A personal feeling of belonging and fellowship (one may consider joining a service club).

Charity and good works (again, some of this is done by charity groups not bound by religion).

Family related benefits (we all know it is a benefit, but not exclusive to religion).

Spiritual feelings, Nirvana(Some meditation classes may provide this,and I wont mention drugs).

A route to heaven, life beyond death, closeness to a God (well, if it exists, maybe, but then, there are no guarintees).

Morality and social (are atheists not just as moral)?

Save for the penultimate point here, which in any case is mere mythology, all this can be just as well attained without religion, and often is. Of course, we atheists don't club together as much as believers do (heaven forfend), so I suppose we could try harder. But don't go pretending that these things are the territory of religion. They are not. Nothing annoys me more than to hear, from a preacher-type person usually, that such-and-such's sense of fair play and morality was instilled into him by his religious upbringing. Cobblers!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 09:58 PM

Reality sandwich:

Charitable groups notwithstanding, in my city—in fact, in my fairly immediate neighborhood—there would be several hundred jobless people going hungry, along with sleeping in the park, were it not for Central Lutheran Church's free meal program, and LATCH, the Lutheran Alliance to Create Housing (dedicated to finding or building low-cost or no-cost housing). And there are about a half-dozen churches within a ten block radius of Seattle's Capitol Hill area who are doing the same sorts of things.

And none of them make you pay for the soup by listening to a sermon. No proselytizing at these free meal gatherings.

If these churches hadn't take it upon themselves many years ago—as a moral duty—it wouldn't be done.

And that's a rude fact!

Don Firth

P. S. I am not particularly religious. I'm just describing what I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 11:36 PM

Sugarfoot Jack,

I appreciate your post from yesterday which said, in part, about dating creations "With some scientific analysis you could deduce when a picture was painted. You could use the wooden frame to establish a dendrochronology, ...All someone has to do is apply their mind to the problem." Your point applies to dating a creation from the "outside". Many people do not believe that the universe is a creation, of course, but, IF it is a creation,then surely we are INSIDE the creation.

You can analyse the Mona Lisa and estimate it's age. If ol' Mona herself were to become sentient, SHE could not estimate the age of the painting she was inside. She was twenty-three on the day Leonardo finished painting her.

Penny S.,

I don't THINK I missed your point, but maybe I did. If God had not revealed the age of the universe to us, He could hardly have expected us to deduce it. But if He did reveal it, then there is no question of deception. Young Earth Creationists may be wrong in thinking that He did reveal it but, as far as I know, ALL of us think that He did reveal it. No one thinks that the creation was some sort of trick.

Smokey,

Sorry you found the analogies condescending. That was certainly not my intention.   

Everyone,

My goal has been to explain what Young Earth Creationism is. I could have simply referred you to some website that explains it. I thought something interactive would be more useful and more interesting. I hope you found it such.

Good night.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 12:31 AM

Sorry you found the analogies condescending. That was certainly not my intention.

I know it wasn't, and I apologise for saying that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 05:28 AM

Whatever one thinks about the validity or otherwise of his arguments, Kent Davis has achieved one very important result.

He has given us an object lesson in presenting a generally unpopular viewpoint calmly, politely and with unwavering good humour.

I have the greatest respect for the man, while reserving the right to disagree with the argument.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:32 AM

Well, Don, I know that and I agree with you and I fully acknowledge that religious people do good works. I did say that churches, etc., were full of very good people and I did say that perhaps we atheistic types could try harder. It's easier to do good work on a substantial scale within an organisation and atheists tend not to be in those kinds of organisations. That isn't sour grapes, it's an acknowledgement that we've allowed religion to dominate that particular territory, and, as far as I'm concerned, all power to their elbows. The world isn't black and white (and yes, it was me typing that).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:33 AM

That was a response to Don Firth, Dons.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 08:37 AM

i,ve not read kant either.
is it at all possible to summarize his ideas?.i appreciate that might not be practical,but one cant read everything.
all i can say is that i would,nt trust me if i were not a christian;you atheists must have evolved better!.
and yes i do know there are hypocrites in religion.

thanks don firth for your post regarding churches welfare programs.just goes to show how dangerous religion is!
can anyone verify the truth or otherwise, of a US survey finding that believers gave more to charitable causes[and not always specifically christian ones]?
as to levitical laws;it would be interesting to have dr lauras response of clever criticism.the christian position i think would be that the censures of leviticus only applied under the theocratic gov in OT times.

penny-thanks for reading suggested article.rejection noted.
re dating methods;do you claim there are not examples of anomalies and inconsistencies?

steve-it still interests me that one so anti religion, accepts[ the fruit of relgion]religious music and architecture-though glad you do,as its the nearest you get to accepting christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 09:25 AM

"Thankfully, most atheists live inconsistently with their philosophy. And most of our Western Atheists are in fact Christian Atheists - wanting the fruit of Christianity while rejecting the roots."

What a pile of utter crap. How condescending and arrogant some people can be; this bloke would not be out of place being in the Taliban. It's demonstrative of the complete lack of empathy and imagination some religious and dogmatic types have, regardless of creed (including atheists of course).

"accepts[ the fruit of relgion]religious music and architecture-though glad you do,as its the nearest you get to accepting christianity."

Why Pete? Art is universal and can be admired regardless of what the motivation for making it was. I love churches and other places of worship although I am not religious. They provide a connection with our history and ancestors in the same way a stone circle or castle might.

"Many people do not believe that the universe is a creation, of course, but, IF it is a creation,then surely we are INSIDE the creation."

It is a creation of some kind, although I would argue natural processes created it rather than some omnipotent being. However, you have a point that we are inside this universe. This is the incredible bit: If at the very least we are beings evolved as a result of physical, chemical and biological processes then we are the universe made conscious. We are made of starstuff, and each individual one of us can look out at the universe and say 'this is me, I am an integral part of this incredible place'. We are the universe contemplating itself, trying to understand itself and that is, to my mind, more wonderful and awe-inspiring than anything any religion can articulate. Here is the basis for a religion-free moral code such as our Scottish friend quoted above can't conceive outside his narrow, myopic and somewhat pitiful viewpoint.

Science and art both provide us with a way of articulating this wonderful, incredible and quite remarkable understanding of our place as the universe made conscious. In time, we will continue more and more to recognise and understand we share the planet with many animals that also are the children of the universe and deserve equality and the freedom to live in peace and in our own way we all desire and (mainly) work towards.

In some way, I think religion is a way of articulating this wonder, the understanding that our physical existence is unique as far as we know (although I'm sure it isn't) and we are something special, that we can see we are children of the stars themselves. It's feelings are genuine, it's just it becomes mired in superstition and dogma and hung up on the words of men who weren't there recording events they never saw.

We had a thread about this previously and some of the comments made actually changed my mind a little. I do not believe in God, and see Jesus as a historical figure rather than a messiah. However . . . it's not impossible there are beings out there whose existence could be explained by science who, to us might appear godlike. Perhaps we sense their presence but cannot contemplate the nature of their being, as ants on an anthill might feel observed by a naturalist studying them as they labour but whom can't conceive of the enormous complexity of that naturalist's life. Perhaps we see their workings in the stars and in some primitive way recognise the presence of another intelligence (or many intelligences).

It's a wonderful universe, and we are unique within it, yet we are not separate from it and everything will, though perhaps not for millennia, eventually be explained by science.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:01 AM

Pete, If you are really interested in Kant, there are likely summaries that can easily be found through a Google search. Someone may be able to help you get a summary. But one "to your liking" and interest level should not be that difficult to find.

However, Kant dedicated much of his life and career to religious philosophy (or related persuits). I don't believe he summarized his considerable works. To capture it all, (if you are interested) you may wish to go into a "deeper" read. I believe you may find his material interesting and thought provoking, as Kent would also.

I attach a link that may assist you. However, parts may require a "slow read" to get his concepts. But, to get a summary, you can either pick the parts you are interested in, or skip the areas that require more effort and time to read.

Good luck

Kant

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:06 AM

About Kant:
There used to be a comic strip in the US, called "Li'l Abner" telling stories of a bunch of rural folk we call 'hillbillies'. Abner Yokum's mother was a wise little woman who used to say "Good is better'n evil, 'cause it's nicer."
Kant spent many pages in turgid German saying essentially the same thing, but 'proving it' with complex philosophical language, which included stuff we would recognize as essentially "The Golden Rule". You might 'guess' that the Yokum family were Christian, but such was never mentioned and it just seemed like a good idea when Mammy Yokum said it.
   Many religions have a version of The Golden Rule, and of many other ideas of right and virtue similar to what is found in Christian teachings....Kant just tried to explain WHY almost everyone who thought much about it decided that 'goodness' was a sane, reasonable path, whether any Prophet or "god" told us so or not.

   Today, there are atheists who behave in a sane, fair, honest, loving manner towards others...without needing to be 'threatened' with eternal punishment.... and thus, they don't appreciate being threatened with eternal punishment for not 'believing in Jesus & the bible', when they are living good lives already.

   Most atheists treat all the layers of theological complication about 'original sin'...etc... as stories created to convince and scare people who can't comprehend Kant's...and Mammy Yokum's... basic idea.

That's the best I can do as a quick summary.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:09 AM

Just a caution:

Kant was a philosopher. And, IMO (which I have stated before), philosophers take a lot of time to get to what they see as truths.
Other philosophers try and shoot them down.

If you take philosophy too seriously, you probably would not get out of bed in the morning, uncertain that you could philosophically do the task.

Kant wrote his stuff a time ago, and I expect many of his works have been contected, and possibly even debunked by more current philosophers, or deep thinkers. But, I cannot attest to that one way or the other. Possibly Don would know, as I suspect he would have more expertise than I in this area..

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 10:09 AM

Just to help with the philosophers:

The Philosopher's Song (Monty Python)

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED...


John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away;
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 04:16 PM

can anyone verify the truth or otherwise, of a US survey finding that believers gave more to charitable causes[and not always specifically christian ones]?

Let's just suppose someone verifies that for you. What would it prove? What if I told you that there are many Christians in positions of political power who serially act to ensure that there will always be huge numbers of people who need these charitable causes? Two of the most explicitly prominent Christians in recent political life, Blair and Bush, plunged tens of millions in Iraq into poverty and misery and in need of charity, and had quite a bit to do with allowing Gaza to happen to boot. Do you think I'm going to contemplate using that as an argument against Christianity? No, I'm not. But I might use it as an argument to expose hypocrisy. Be careful what you fish for, Pete.   

steve-it still interests me that one so anti religion, accepts[ the fruit of relgion]religious music and architecture-though glad you do,as its the nearest you get to accepting christianity.

So, you want me to believe that great art and music can actually be the "fruit of religion." You'd better be careful there, otherwise I might just start listing some of the less desirable "fruits of religion," which are many and virulent, but which I tend to avoid rattling on about (I can't bear it when people rant on about the evils done "in the name of religion", because usually they were done for other reasons unnamed), and I prefer to be honest about that than to jump on to it opportunistically, as you appear to be doing here. There are many reasons why some people made religious sculptures or set religious texts to music, but direct inspiration from God was not one of them. Witness the rather obstinate and inconvenient fact that the self-same were just as adept at creating great works in the realms of the profane as well as the sacred. As ever, your reasoning in these matters seems woefully incomplete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 04:18 PM

self-same people

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:06 PM

"Possibly Don would know, as I suspect he would have more expertise than I in this area.. "

Gee, Ed...*I* know, having had 130 hours of university Philosophy... undergraduate & graduate....and Kant has not been at all "debunked". Fads develop, but Kant was and is one of a dozen or so major influences on Western philosophic thought, due to his depth and precision and 'completeness' of the major topics he covered.

"If you take philosophy too seriously, you probably would not get out of bed in the morning, uncertain that you could philosophically do the task. "
... oh, pooh! *grin* I know of NO Philosopher who has trouble "getting out of bed"...or even in walking & chewing gum. Even David Hume, who tried to posit something approaching Solipsism, admitted that he 'acted as though' things were real. Philosophy, in it myriad forms, is an attempt to understand, and as such, has provided some invaluable insights into 'what we are'. Much of it cannot be easily 'simplified', and my attempt to do that for pete from 7 stars was about as basic as can be done.

Don't marginalize serious Philosophy with silly remarks if you already admit you don't have depth in the topic....hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jan 11 - 06:50 PM

""the christian position i think would be that the censures of leviticus only applied under the theocratic gov in OT times.""

If that is indeed the Christian position it would of necessity surely also apply to the description of homosexuality as an abomination?

You can't pick and choose which bits apply and which do not.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 01:42 AM

Re Bill D's last post ~~ old Will Shax, as usual, had something pertinent to say ··· "There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently" (Much Ado About Nothing).

Re comic strip definitions of The Golden Rule, I prefer The Wizard Of Id's to Li'l Abner's ~~ "The Man who has the Gold makes the Rule".

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 03:44 AM

Pete, I am astonished that you say you wouldn't trust yourself without the restraints of your belief. There is absolutely no way you come across as someone who is a seething mass of violence held back by external forces. I think you are underestimating yourself there. (Though I appreciate you may attribute that to the action of God in your life.) It is one of the things I feel worrying about certain versions of Christianity that it teaches that so many people would be dangerous without it. Most people are not like that, whatever their personal fallings short of what they should be might be. Most people, once past their youth (and most people in their youth), are pretty steady. They might not stop to help someone in need, but they certainly wouldn't stop to join in beating someone up. With or without any sort of religion.

If we were like that, then evolution or no, we wouldn't be here to argue the issue. And we wouldn't deserve to be, either.

As for anomalies and inconsistencies, I'd be an idiot if I denied it. For instance, a friend of mine studying sea level changes found that the evidence for the sinking of South-East England all came from three tide gauges, Southend, Sheerness and Southampton. I'm sure you can spot that Southend and Sheerness aren't exactly measuring separate evidence, though you may not have spotted that both they, and Southampton are in troughs where the rocks are folded downwards. Measurements from areas of uplift give different results. During the same study, he looked at results from the Dover tide gauge. There were odd jumps in these, which I, having lived there, spotted as being related to building in the harbour. We checked it, and found that it had been moved, and the jumps related to that. but that is what scientific method does, uncovers things and corrects them.

I was taught how to calculate error margins in work. However, the error margins in dating are not such that a rock component dated as 3650±50 million years old (in Greenland) is going to be less than 6000 years old. Not with an error margin of 50 million either way, which is what ±50 Ma means. And as scientists do check each others' work, anomalies and inconsistencies would be uncovered and published. You know that Piltdown was a fake because of that process.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 03:59 AM

""Don't marginalize serious Philosophy with silly remarks if you already admit you don't have depth in the topic""

Well, Bill D, there would be little discussion on many aspects of life, possibly yourself included, (humourous, or otherwise), or on Mudcat, if everyone was asked to adhere to that rule you just mad up. I suspect we aren't all "experts" on everything we discuss throughout our lives. And, there is ample "evidence" for that on Mudcat, if you would want to seek it out. ":)"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:33 AM

Kant was a philosopher. And, IMO (which I have stated before), philosophers take a lot of time to get to what they see as truths.
Other philosophers try and shoot them down.

Quite so: and that is exactly analogous to 'peer review' in science. You present your view, others criticise it and then third parties get to choose which is the most convincing. That is one of the reasons that philosophy and science are not simply 'belief systems'; the reasons why you to propose your view must be open to a full and detailed examination of the reasons you believe it and while you are free to continue to believe whatever you like, what you as the proponent end up believing is not the point of the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:50 AM

"Whatever one thinks about the validity or otherwise of his arguments, Kent Davis has achieved one very important result.

He has given us an object lesson in presenting a generally unpopular viewpoint calmly, politely and with unwavering good humour."

I'd have to disagree with you there, Don. It's true that Mr Kent has been polite, but the 'argument'/explanation that he presented at the top of this thread was really designed to shut down debate (God created the Universe recently; mere mortals can't understand the mind of God; anyone who says different is deluded; the end). To my mind that is mere 'mindless' dogmatism - no matter how calmly, politely or humourously it may be presented.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:58 AM

DMcG
An interesting perspective on this matter

Why can't philosophy be like science?"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:36 AM

That's an interesting aticle, Ed. I'd better declare my interest: I am a mathematician by training and degrees, and a scientist by nature. Probably the strongest 'flash memory' I have of primary school was when I was seven and we were given the exercise books for science and I remember how excited I felt and thinking this was when real education starts. We had to copy the first sentence from the blackboard - 'Science is the study of alive, dead and never-alive things. It is also about what happens to them.' So, I am scientifically-inclined 'in all my being'.

My daughter, on the other hand, is currently studying for an MA in Philosophy and is applying for PhDs even as I type. So while I have had no training in Philosophy I have had many, many hours of discussion with her (probably at least 130hrs, Bill D *smile*)

I hear the quotation that was given above quite often ("'God is dead', said Hitler's favourite philosopher, Nietzsche") and my usual response is to say that's interesting and ask them to tell me anything else Nietzsche said. The usual response is silence or burbling, which is a pity because Nietzsche is a particularly difficult philospher to summarise as his writings are often obscure and arguably self-contradictory in places. Unlike, say, Wittgenstein who tried to make his position as clear as possible, Nietzsche's writings often require a synthesis of his work to appreciate what he is driving at.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:14 AM

The Three Miracles (James Alan Farrell, 2001)
On occasion I have told people about my belief that mysticism is false, and for the most part people agree. Until I apply this belief to Christianity. I imagine that this is because most of the people I know are Christians, and if I applied it to Hinduism my Hindu friends would protest.

Those who protest will then say it must be terrible for me to live with such a lack of imagination or sense of wonder. They tell me it must be terrible to live without believing in miracles.

What is a miracle? If we define miracle as something that cannot happen then, it is true, miracles do not exist. If it cannot happen it has never happened. If it has happened, then it can happen and it is not a miracle.

There is another definition of miracle, however. That which is profound and effects life in a profound way.

I do believe in miracles, and to prove it I can name three miracles. These miracles are profound and glorious. Compared to them merely walking on water seems hardly miraculous, and certainly no great wonder. Furthermore I can prove that these miracles have happened.

Ladies and gentlemen, the three miracles:

The Universe exists
Life Exists
Intelligence Exists

We can chalk these up to a deity, or we can chalk them up to scientific quirks. Given the current lack of evidence, I would say it does not matter. If you feel you should thank God for these miracles, so be it. I will respect you for it.

At this time we do not understand these miracles or how any of them came about. On the other hand, research is being carried out at a feverish pace, and it seems likely that soon we will have answers on at least two of the three. But just because we can explain and even replicate the process by which these came about does not make them less profound or less glorious. Even after we can explain them they will still be miraculous.

For that matter, once one looks at the universe in this light it is fairly easy to see many lesser miracles, at least lesser compared to the three. Many of these we can now explain: Breathing, the beating of the heart and the reproductive cycle are examples. Another example is the miracle of evolution. This is a true wonder and immensely profound. Without it intelligence would not exists. Even though we can explain these, they are not less miraculous.
Source: http://pages.prodigy.net/j_alan/Philosophy/NavelContemplations.html

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 12:13 PM

Ed's Miracles:

The Universe exists

Well, the universe, for all we know, may exist because a number of factors lined up in a big coincidence which resulted in the Big Bang. Perhaps those factors have "failed" to line up billions of times and the universe we now find ourselves in is just the lucky one. No rules broken then that we know of. It's 14 million to one that my ticket will win the lottery jackpot, but even if I do win it there's no miracle. It's just a coincidence. I got no matches with my six numbers this week. The lineup between my numbers and the winning numbers is no more common than the line-up of numbers of someone who got all six right. Coincidence-wise, they come out equal. Much mathematical work has been done on coincidences, and far from being miracles, they're inevitable.
   
Life Exists

Every process that goes on inside a living thing has been, or will undoubtedly be, explained by resort to no more than the laws of physics. What's more, the planet has had four and a half billion years for myriad "experiments" in kicking off life to have occurred. You say life's a miracle. I could, with equal validity, declare that perhaps life is almost inevitable, given the conditions and raw materials on the planet (another lucky coincidence) and the time span available (the main thing that anti-evolutionists forget). No rules broken then, so no miracle.
   
Intelligence Exists

Well, we can discuss that when you can tell me what intelligence is. Hint: try to better than GfS's definition!

I'm perfectly up for calling things wonderful, beautiful, astonishing, marvellous, but let's not degrade the meaning of "miracle" when we have plenty of alternative words available for these superlative, non-miraculous phenomena. And none of those other things you mention, including evolution, needs any resort to explanations outside the laws of physics. Instead of calling them miracles, why not just marvel at what amazing stuff can be achieved by such ordinary, normal means?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:15 PM

"There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently"

Quite true... but as I'm sure Michael would agree, that has little to do with his 'philospher-ness'.

...and to Ed, in reply to "...there would be little discussion on many aspects of life, possibly yourself included, (humourous, or otherwise), or on Mudcat, if everyone was asked to adhere to that rule you just made up."

Methinks you miss my point... I never suggested one could not 'disagree' with philosophical arguments: philosophers disagree on subjects and construct new ideas all the time. What I was concerned with was the seeming trivializing of, as I said, "serious philosophy" as a useful pursuit.
And THAT means that there is a real and important difference between "serious philosophy" and generally intelligent 'speculating on stuff' from a layman's viewpoint, which is perfectly ok and what is done in 99+% of the discussions here. The point is, IN a layman's attempts, it is quite possible for him to make errors **of logical reasoning**, usually described by one of the informal fallacies. It does NOT automatically mean he is 'wrong', but merely that his reasoning is suspect...which 'may' cast doubt on his conclusion.

Thus, some of the objection to Kent and his YEC beliefs boil down to suggestions that he has resorted to some of the fallacies noted here, such as:

Begging the Question
Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Belief

and at the bottom of that page is the "Fallacy of Equivocation", which speaks to why I bother to challenge your remark about philosophy. It just seems to me that you are using a 'simplifed' definition of philosophy, and equivocating about what the word really means...and thus doing what I said and 'marginalizing' serious philosophy by making fun of the 'common notion' of what it does.


So...you see how much work it is to explicate & clarify a point when attempting to use 'formal' language? I do NOT expect all of us here to talk that way in casual debate, but it can become relevant when entire arguments are getting muddy because one group simply means something different from another group when using certain words. (such as 'stupid' when 'ignorant' is meant.) At such points, philosophy can be useful...even if the formal terms of it are not used. One can just say, "Hey... I thing we are talking about different things here...what do YOU mean by 'X'?"

Now,I have no idea if you or anyone else bothers to read long posts like this, but hey... there it is...just in case it helps someone at some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:16 PM

Steve Shaw, do you see this specific quotation from Ed T's post as wrong, or as degrading the very concept of "miracle" ?

"There is another definition of miracle, however. That which is profound and effects life in a profound way."

If not, why are you bickering with him point by point over what are simply elucidations of that premise?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:17 PM

Wow, Bill D, I now fully see how to make something non-complex, really complex. Good job :)

I believe my main point (at least one of them, I kinda forget how many there were now...but there likely weren't many) is that it is much easier to follow science advancements on one issue than philosophy (my statement of being debunked). I believe the person on the link I provided gave a better explanation of that than me.

My other point relates more to a personal experience I had years ago while in University, while taking about four philosophy courses, (one, btw, was the philosophy of science).

One class was dedicated to discussing whether there could be movement or not. After going through all the different historic philosophical attempts to prove whether one could move from point A to point B, or not (including Zeno's motion paradoxes, which may or may not have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction to this day), at the end of the class, quite puzzlingly, no person, including the Prof had any difficulty moving out of the room.... thus I personally observed the legible impact the discussion had on the class...that led me to what I amusingly alluded to in my earlier (and shorter) post.

I now admit, I should have avoided the temptation, to minimize the "scorn" (not a quote) past down upon me.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:49 PM

penny-thanks for the vote of confidence!
seething mass of violence;probably not but i know there have been occasions when i could easily have gone badly wrong and i suspect if not for love of God i would have rationalized my going ahead.

you obviously know much about geology and i wont attempt to debate that with you,knowing next to nothing about it myself.i,m sure you realize that i will choose the scientific theory that accords with my theology.i appreciate your trainig and interpretations of data inform you differently to creationist geologists interpretations.

don t-do we really have to go off topic.hopefully you will accept that whatever your views;for me,if the NT speaks clearly on a subject it clarifies an OT issue

ed and bill-thanks for helpful info.you will have to forgive my not reading philosophy deeply.
i would agree that giving thought to the issues of moral choices ought to lead to the conclusion that goodness is better[hope i read you correctly]problem is; who thinks deeply in the throes of temptation.even as a believer it,s not easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:10 PM

Steve Shaw, do you see this specific quotation from Ed T's post as wrong, or as degrading the very concept of "miracle" ?

"There is another definition of miracle, however. That which is profound and effects life in a profound way."

If not, why are you bickering with him point by point over what are simply elucidations of that premise?

My post was very constructive, without name-calling, bickering or anything else obnoxious. It's a discussion forum, froggie, and I don't agree with his points, therefore I put up a counter-argument, perfectly civilly. Are you OK with that, or are you one of these folks who gets automatically blinded by any post, on any topic, by someone whom you think might just not line themselves up with you? Arrogant sod!!

And, for the record, I don't agree with that other definition of "miracle" either, and I do believe I covered that in my post (which you seem not have read properly - try again). It's simple. There are other words in this amazing language of ours, plenty of them, to cover the amazing, the wondrous, the superb. Let's keep "miracle" for magic, exactly where it belongs. You really can't see the sub-plot here,can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:46 PM

I have no peobelm with a counter argument. And, yes it was respectful.

But, just to be clear, they were not my points to claim. I do wish I could write as well. But, I only posted the article made by another perso, of a higher mental calibre than me (IMO). What his purpose was, I cannot attest. Maybe a read over the rest of his site mwould releal it.

But, I just felt they were interesting to the topic and may stimulate debate, as they have. No sinister plot on my behalf.

I do not have a counter argument, to Steve, as to what a miracle should be called, as I rarely, if ever use the term. Though, I suspect others do, with different meanings.

Anyway, onward.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:53 PM

Ed T:

Your account of the lecture on Zeno's paradoxes sounded to me like a good example which separates 'serious philosophers' from 'people who attend philosphy lectures'. Zeno's claim (simplifying greatly) was that he had proved movement was an illusion. Now, a serious philospher would either accept the argument as true or false (or, in fact, one of several other possibilities, but let's not go into that now.) Let's assume they think the argument is correct and that movement is illusion. Why on earth should the illusion stop just because you recognised it? Most illusions don't - look at optical illusions for example. The 'illusion' of the professor walking out of the class raises not the slightest complication. What does, though, is why some illusions seem possible, but others - flying unaided through the air for example - appear impossible. Are there different types of illusions? And this is what a serious philosopher would be thinking about for the next few days, weeks, or whatever.

On the other hand, our student could think the argument was false, even self-evidently false. Then they would spend the next few days, weeks or whatever, trying to understand where the flaw in the plausible sounding argument was. (And the chances are, in this day and age, that that is why the department told you about it in the first place, unless it was a history of philosophy lecture.)

Someone who is just attending philosophy lectures, on the other hand, would go to the pub, gym or whatever, and not think about it deeply at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:59 PM

Well, Ed, as you posted it without comment I assumed you sort of agreed with it. There you go.

Yours non-bickeringly (for now),

Steve ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:06 PM

""Well, Ed, as you posted it without comment I assumed you sort of agreed with it.""

Yes, I can understand that interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:16 PM

You caught me on that one, DMcG, though it was interesting, I was only taking the courses to fill in a few "electives",(except for the philosophy of science).

And yes, it is likely I went a pub shortly after, or at least had thoughts of one during or after the classes. You figured me out. I can tell that I'm not match for you. :)

On a more serious note, thanks for that explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:43 PM

*grin*,,,Ok, Ed.. a reference to Zeno would have tipped me off to the humorous aside you were making.

But a little depth in those fallacies I mentioned would have allowed those in your class to have simply said: "Well, since there IS obviously 'movement' from A to B, something must be tricky or ambiguous about the construction of the seeming paradox....let's see what it might be." Then, perhaps, embedded assumptions might be discovered about "moving" or equivocations on some of the terms...depending on how they were presented.

It ain't always easy to show precisely what is wrong with an assertion...but since we all occasionally 'just know' someone's reasoning is flawed, it can be quite useful to have some notion about where to go look....

"There was a faith healer of Deal
Who said "Although pain isn't real,
   When I sit on a pin,
   And it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 04:13 AM

My last post was designed to be a little provocative, although I suppose I stand by it. My wording hopefully made it quite clear that there is no God other than in the minds of those who believe.

Now...

Ignoring the usual Descartes reply to that, (which is a circular argument anyway,) I was quite rightly classed as somebody who knocks religion rather than debate it.

Sorry, but I cannot see how else to express my views? To debate is to accept the possibility that the other guy has a point. But when the other guy brings his imaginary friend to the debate, try as much I can to be civil, I am still left with the feeling that I am humouring irrational thoughts. As I am not a psychiatrist, I don't feel equipped to do that.

So, I am left with just stating, as much as some may not like it, that the Emperor has no clothes. Debate over young earth creationism is no different to any other creationism, or indeed intelligent design.

if there was intelligent design, then we have not yet worked out the ins and outs of it. I suspect it does not have a big white beard or had a son, (even if I were religious, I would have issues with that one, or three to be precise.)

Einstein said that the answer cannot be bound in aethiest means either, as that would mean chaos and the rules of physics seem to hold at all times, albeit we are still tweaking such laws. So clearly chaos isn't the answer.

Mind you, probability arising from the chaos is a bit more like it. I have no problem with accepting the probability of that describing the status quo.

But don't expect me to thank it for the good bits, absolve it from blame for the bad bits and worship it once a week with an inane smile on my face.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 05:38 AM

Glad you you took that in good heart, Ed. I've been to the student bar once or twice myself after lectures! Be assured I have no intention of trying to catch you or anyone else out.

There's just something about philosophy which mean people who fully admit they haven't studied it - like me - have quite strong options about it - also like me! As my darling offspring says, if she's at a club and mentions she studies philosphy people will inevitably mention Decartes, Nietzsche, Marx or some other well known name, but almost always be unable to say much more then one line. She doesn't believe if said she was a materials scientist people would say: "Ah yes, well I've put some decking down, so I know about that."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 08:03 AM

I post recent published research on ESP and background for discussion. Now, I am not saying it is true, because I post it for information and to stimulate discussion. If it were proven to be valid research, I suspect it would stimulate much additional research in science (to check the accuracy and look farther)?

Recent ESP research paper

Publication of ESP study causes furor

Some ESP history

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 08:07 AM

I havent read this article (opinion article) yet, just came accross it in the ESP research paper article.SO,I am not promoting it.

What's Truth? Scientific Method Under the Microscope

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 08:23 AM

Another interesting article...though I doubt mudcat has a huge Mexican membership?

Down in Mexico

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 09:13 AM

Thisa seems to be an interesting source of science stories and issues:
Science and the media:

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:18 AM

I have only one question for those who believe in Creationism. Do you think it should be taught in school alongside the Theory of Evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 11:16 AM

They could be taught in the same lesson by one of those "creationist scientists" that pete keeps going on about. Unfortunately, he can't name names.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 11:47 AM

It's interesting that the article "http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/science/4008/what's_truth_scientific_method_under_the_microscope" makes one of the most common mistakes about comparing 'science' with 'belief systems'.
It quotes Jonah Lehrer as summarizing the situation as: "When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."

   Essentially this argument has been put forth here on Mudcat threads many times using slightly different words. They assert things such as "Science is just one more belief system. You 'choose' to accept the conclusions of science, just as others choose to accept religious teachings or ESP results".
   The mistake is in confusing the obvious ability of our human species to accept or reject ANY proposition with the actual, ultimate status of the proposition.
We see this clearly when we continue the little stories about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and, perhaps, the Boogyman for children. From about 2 to 6 or 7, kids are able to simply 'believe' these stories, and often take other stories read to them as literal. After 6 or 7, they gradually begin to see flaws in the fabric, and just like the child who shouted "But...the emperor HAS no clothes!", they use growing 'reason' to relegate childhood myths to the proper place. (I remember at about 10-11, 'proving' to my younger brother that Santa could not possibly make all those stops in one night...though *I* had firmly held on to them until about 7.)
Still, we meet people who, despite their realization that Santa was only a nice story, continue to hold onto stories about elves, fairies, witches, unicorns, ....and many other entire 'systems' involving astrology, crystal balls, Tarot cards, Oujia boards, lines in the palm, reincarnation, out-of-body experiences, various forms of ESP, Alien abductions....and religion. And of course, they will tell you.."but THESE things are different! They are widely 'reported' and MY experiences were so intense that they MUST be real!"...etc.

   The ability of the mind to 'see patterns'...such as 'constellations' in the sky... is both a virtue & a problem, for although without the ability to see patterns, we could not do many things...yet it is so easy to grant certain subjective patterns a status equal to objective patterns.

If we had, as written about in some science-fiction stories, machines, computers...or in combination, robots... whose 'thinking' abilities rivaled our own... and fed those totally 'neutral', totally objective, programmed machines the same information we process in our free will, we just might get a lot fewer propositions ruled as 'verified'.

   So... the article "What's Truth? Scientific Method Under the Microscope
God-experience, ESP, and the decline effect." IS attempting to show how 'scientific truth might be just a choice'...and falling into the same trap as many people do every day.
To repeat my main point- The mistake is in confusing the obvious ability of our human species to accept or reject ANY proposition with the actual, ultimate status of the proposition.

...and... it is instructive to read another article on that site:

A Philosopher of Religion Calls it Quits, where basic assumptions are explored & questioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 01:27 PM

If you say that "science is just another belief system," you're disingenuously trying to have science seen on the same intellectual level as belief in God. I'd argue that it is an attempt to severely drag science down. In other contexts, for example when believers say that religion has evidence, just like science, only it's a different kind of evidence, it's an attempt to severely drag religion up. Religion finds itself in a very unhappy place with science, a function of the fact that we're closing in on many of the unknowns that religion would have had us believe were exclusively in the realm of "God's Mysteries." Those damned laws of physics... In a way, the advance of scientific discovery has the same effect on religion as the growing-up of a child has on belief in fairies and Santa, except that religion is notoriously reluctant to let people go, unlike sensible parents. It's interesting to see how religions might react to this. Certainly, demonisation of scientists, especially in the field of evolutionary biology, is still flavour of the month at the moment. One day the Church will have to apologise to far more people than just Galileo. Note the pessimism in there, the assumption that there will still be a Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 01:52 PM

Dave McKenzie quoted someone (with evident approval) as follows:

The problem is that once the philosophy of the blind, pitiless, indifferent universe without good or evil is adopted, there is no basis for hating evil and loving good. How can you hate what does not exist? That is why the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell stated 'Dachau is wrong is not a fact.'

First, that speaker/writer heavily implies that 'the blind, pitiless, indifferent universe' is necessarily 'without good or evil'. That's his own projected interpretation. "Good" and "evil" are judgments, not entities or facts

Which is why Bertrand Russell was correct in saying that 'Dachau is wrong'; 'Dachau is wrong' is not a fact. It is a true recognition that "wrong" is a judgment.

As to the sentence fragment above, that 'there is no basis for hating evil and loving good,' I say, "Bushwah!" "Good" and "evil", as I stated above, are not facts of the universe, handed down by some metaphysical lawgiver. "Good" and "evil" are concepts derivable from nonreligious ethical and moral principles. They relate to what is seen to harm humans and possibly other sentient beings. I love actions or situations or attitudes that do good as I see it, and hate actions or situations or attitudes that do harm. Those are the entities that are lovable or hateable, not some abstraction called "good" or "evil". The reality is in the action, not the metaphor.

No supernatural or metaphysical basis for existence of the universe is necessary, to cause or support those loves or hates.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 03:06 PM

Dave paraphrases Immanuel Kant quite well....in much simpler sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 03:10 PM

Science is decidedly NOT just another belief system. It is, in fact, intentionally a *disbelief* system.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 03:57 PM

THe notion that having a code of good and evil means you have to buy the Young Earth hypoithesis, with its blatant contumacious obdurate ignoral of facts in evidence, is like saying you have to be stupid in order to be good. It's absurd on the face of it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 06:42 PM

Back when I was a freshman at the University of Washington, when the world was young, the idea that to have a sense of ethics—a moral code—one must be religious was pretty well dismissed in Philosophy 100 (Introduction to Philosophy) and totally demolished in Philosophy 115 (Ethics).

Some people who lack a certain kind of introspection, or are not very clued-in to the world, or seem to have a natural predatory bent, perhaps need the kind of guidance that religion often provides (a lot of it being just common sense).    But it's a pretty sad code of ethics if the reason one follows it is dependent on expectation of reward for doing the right thing and fear of having one's ass roasted for Eternity for doing the wrong thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 08:51 PM

"contumacious obdurate"

{standing ovation!!!!!}

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:08 PM

Amos,

Rest assured that Young Earth Creationism does NOT hold that, in order to have a code of good and evil, you must accept their beliefs.

A code of good and evil fits well with, and flows naturally and logically from, YEC.

Equally obviously, SOME Ancient Earth Naturalists (Ayn Rand and Herbert Spencer, for example) have had, let us say, some "issues" with good and evil.

However, it absolutely does NOT follow that one can't have a code of good and evil without YEC.   

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:38 PM

Yes.
They are completely separate issues.
Kent is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 04:24 AM

Just to be pedantic, TIA, Kent is correct that YEC as described in the first few posts above means "it absolutely does NOT follow that one can't have a code of good and evil without YEC". However, I disagree that "A code of good and evil ... flows naturally and logically from, YEC." I could accept that Earth was created some 6000 years ago (I don't, by the way!) and that that required some supernatural intervention (ditto!) without accepting anything whatsoever about a system of ethics. That flows, in YEC, from further assumptions about the nature of this supernatural intervention which are not listed above.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 04:40 AM

I get the impression that the Free Church of Scotland, unlike the Free Church (Continuing) is prepared to discuss the possibility that Creation did not take place in seven earthly days. Personally, I agree with Dave Oesterreich and Bernard Russell.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 01:48 PM

Kent, do you think that Creationism should be taught in schools alongside the Theory of Evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 03:05 PM

"should"?

What does "should" have to do with it? Why not make all viewpoints generally accessible to young people and then let them decide for themselves what to think about it? Have a little faith in them for a change. They have intelligence of their own, so let them use it. If some of them decide to believe something you don't believe, I hardly see that it threatens the foundations of your existence. ;-) There will probably always be people who believe in creationism and people who believe in evolution...and others who believe in BOTH those concepts...and so what? I can live with that.

Anyway, adults should have enough honestly to tell young people...

"I don't actually know for sure. This is what I was told about it by various other people. It might be true, what they said, but how can I ever know for sure? This is just my best guess, okay? So you give it some thought and see what you think about it, and I will not penalize you if you don't think the same as I do."

That's an attitude I'd encourage all adults to take. Stop pretending you've got the answers to everything. You don't. And the young people will presently figure that out anyway. ;-) And they'll respect you a lot more if you were honest with them, and admitted in the first place that you don't know everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 03:18 PM

i would not say "science is just another belief system".it is something data may be derived from.
however various alternative belief systems are using the data to different ends,and drawing different conclusions regarding beginnings,usually informed by the worldview/preconceptions of the scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 03:47 PM

Little Hawk, saying that I don't want Creationism taught in science classes is not the same as saying I think I know everything. Two things I do know, however, is that Creationism isn't science and that religious instruction doesn't belong in public schools. Are you seriously suggesting that we teach something so ignorant and illogical as Creationism as if it were serious?

Creationists can believe any damn fool thing they want, but when they force it into our classrooms they cross the line into forcing their beliefs on others, and expecting me to pay for it. Fortunately, we in the U.S. have something called separation of church and state, even though it isn't always enforced. Save Creationism for philosophy or history classes, and teach it as an example of ignorance run amok and of logical fallacy.

And please, don't anyone start on me about enforcing my "scientific beliefs" on others, unless you want me to explain in great detail how ignorant and illogical you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 04:22 PM

Opening the door to creationism being taught in public science classes, opens up a big can of worms, IMO, and may open the door to many other religious thought. Best to ""let it be"" in the public school system. t

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 06:34 PM

You CAN'T exactly 'teach creationism' in a science class, because all it is is a statement that "the Bible is literally true". Teaching is done about processes and theories that are documented in various ways.

You could teach about creationism in a class about History or Political science.... that is, make note that it is a viewpoint that is debated AS an alternative and relevant in society's struggle to deal with reality.

Unfortunately, what many wish is to require science teachers to put creationism and evolution on an equal footing as 'merely' theories. This is simply a severe distortion of the status of BOTH concepts.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 07:04 PM

John, I am suggesting that we don't try to unload our own prejudices on our children, and that we don't try to give them the false impression that we are all-knowing oracles with the answer to everything. 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.

I think religion is mostly about the search for meaning in life...it asks the great philosophical questions. And science is mostly the search for verifiable facts and ways of applying those facts in a practical manner. Either search is quite justified, in my opinion, and they could work together very well if people took their blinders off and got off their silly little soapboxes and stopped throwing rocks at each other for being interested in different things. Religion and science are not fundamentally opposed, because they are devoted to seeking out different objectives. It's just the silly damned stiff-necked people who exclusively identify themselves with one or the other who are opposed...to each other. They have to have it all THEIR way. Well, a pox on both their houses, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 07:48 PM

I think religion is mostly about the search for meaning in life...it asks the great philosophical questions.

Yes. We are not, however, talking about what religion is or what it can do for people. We're talking about telling lies to school children. There's a big difference.

And yes, I am opposed to people who want to teach religion in science classes. If they do it, I admit to getting stiff-necked about it. I am not, you will notice, stiff-necked about religious folks who leave me alone and don't try to take over my schools.

You can call a pox on any houses you want, but in this instance it just means that you agree with the Creationists, or at least are willing to let them force their religion on unsuspecting kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:00 PM

"We're talking about telling lies to school children"

What is not clear is how many KNOW they are suggesting lies, and how many actually manage to lie to themselves convincingly first.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:04 PM

Religion is most decidedly not the search for the meaning of life. It is the very opposite. It is an attempt to impose a totally implausible explanation for life and the world and the universe on people, and, what's more, one which attempts to assert a measure of control over people's behaviour and (maybe worse) their intellect. It closes down enquiry by encouraging people to be satisfied with a wholly unsatisfactory "explanation" of everything. It purports to provide an "answer" for everything that, out of all possible answers, is the one which is by far the most improbable, requiring us to suspend belief in all the hard-won laws of physics and believe in a being who has never revealed himself and for whom there is no evidence. It pretends to ask philosophical questions, but these are asked only within a ringfence of utter falsehood. Science is not opposed to religion. It would be more accurate to say that science need not concern itself with religion, but that religion obsessively opposes and demonises science whenever science starts to answer those awkward mysteries that religion would much rather keep as its own.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:11 PM

You are deliberately telling lies to children if you tell them that things are true which you know may not be. I was brought up in a religious environment (and I'm not that old) and I don't recall much equivocation about the stuff I was told to believe. And anyone of faith who embraces such certainty is not someone who is fit to be put in front of kids in a school, frankly. Religious indoctrination of children is one of the greatest evils that humanity perpetrates, and an awful lot of very nice people connive in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:16 PM

John P.,

What I think about teachining creationism in public schools has little to do with what I think of creationism, but a great deal to do with what I think of the role of the government, and a great deal to do with my philosophy of education.

That said, I could not have answered any better than Little Hawk did in his answer of 3:05 today.   

To repeat, this answer is NOT due to my position on YEC.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:26 PM

What I think about teachining creationism in public schools has little to do with what I think of creationism, but a great deal to do with what I think of the role of the government, and a great deal to do with my philosophy of education.

That said, I could not have answered any better than Little Hawk did in his answer of 3:05 today.

So let me get this right. You think that any wacky topic should be allowed on any school curriculum, no matter how demented or deluded its protagonists are. Well I think you and Little Hawk are wrong. Creationism is not a bona fide topic. It's a sneaky, back-door way of getting an anti-science voice into schools. I'll tell you what. I'll compromise. Let's not have creationism put against evolution. Let's put it where it truly belongs, in lessons which give equal credence to atheism and the books of Dawkins. That way you can leave science to be science (and to tell the kids that there is no evidence for creationism and that they should always ask for evidence before believing anything). You OK with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:28 PM

Primarily, children should be taught the difference between fact and opinion, and encouraged to question everything. Any religious indocrination of children is profoundly wrong in my opinion, and in this day and age tantamount to abuse. By all means equip them to make up their own minds when they are of a responsible age, but first ensure that they have their own minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:30 PM

Insert 't' where required..

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:32 PM

""Primarily, children should be taught the difference between fact and opinion...""

Primarily, "adults" should be taught the difference between fact and opinion.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 06:46 PM

An idea that just popped into my head - and I am sure I am not the first one to propose it: If one were to say that God created the world in six ages, how would that figure into the equation?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 06:53 PM

It'd save having to create the sun and earth first to find out how long a day is..

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 07:00 PM

Sorry Ebbie, I misread you and consequently wrote gibberish - it's not unusual :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 07:14 PM

Smokey,

I am sorry that I took your remark about the value of pi as a dig. I am relieved that you didn't mean it that way.

Guest, TIA,

I completely agree that falsifiability is characteristic of the scientific method.   Technically, Ancient Earth Naturalism is falsifiable. Practically, it approaches unfalsifiability. Suppose, for example, someone were to find a living population of organisms previously known only from fossils, organisms that had supposedly been extinct for many millions of years, what would happen? Or suppose a fossil find turned out to be a hoax, what would happen? Would AEN be falsified? We don't have to wonder. We know what happened when the coelacanth was found, and when Wollemia was found. We know what happened when Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax, and what happened when Archaeoraptor was exposed.

Bill D.,

Actually I do not accept that the earth is billions of years old. The "young" in Young Earth Creationism" refers to the belief that the earth and the universe is thousands of years old, not billions.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 07:38 PM

Hi, Ebbie,

You can find a lot of support for that idea you had earlier today. The reason I've been specifying "Young Earth Creationist", instead of just saying "Creationist", is that there are lots of "Ancient Earth Creationists".

Your idea is sometimes called the "Day-Age Theory". A related approach, the "Gap Theory" says that God created the universe and God created humans, but that, between these acts of creation, there was a "gap" (or "gaps") of millions or billions of years which were not recorded in Genesis, but which left fossils and other evidences of the passage of time.

I am no authority on Roman Catholicism, but it is my understanding that the current Pope is an Ancient Earth Creationist.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 08:37 PM

I copied this (below) a while back from a source I do not know. )It is not my writing). I found it thought provoking. I am posting it to share, and stimulate thought and discussion.

Steve and others see no reason for religion to exist, because of science. But, why have and do so many (around the world) adhere to religious belief? Many of whom who can do so while also believing in science, which sometimes seems to put forward a contrary prospective. That seems like a good discussion in the making to me.


""It seems likely that religion has existed in the world, in different forms, as long as the human form has had a 'consciousness', that separates it from other "less reasoning" living forms. A good question that few ask is "Why should any religion exist in the world at all"?

Could it be a part of the unique human 'consciousness', acquired through evolution, that humans struggled to understand the nature of "being human" and what separates or "makes us special from other life forms, finding a meaning of human existence. Or, as Monty Python put it, "The meaning of Life".

Is it not reasonable to say that many have an 'innate awareness' or consciousness of something beyond what we can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell? Something that is very important and more powerful than we can possibly know or imagine? But, that doesn't seem to stop us from trying - and so we have, or manufacture religion to assist. Is it unreasonable for many (though not all) to speculate, and even believe that this "innate inner awareness" or "consciousness" could be the 'image of a God' within us?

Science seeks to discover and understand our physical world of our existence around us. From its earliest recorded beginnings to its present-day, a history of physical evolution, of which the origin and evolution of humans is just a smaller component.
The 'missing link' between humans and animals, is yet to be confirmed found.

But, do we define becoming human as 'when we stood up and walked on two legs'? Is it not our 'consciousness' that is also a part of what makes us 'human' and how can we determine when, where, and how it 'appeared and stood up and walked', so to speak, in order to properly place it on the time-line of earth's physical history? Possibly somewhere within the many sub-levels of the 'animal kingdom' is where some form of human 'consciousness' begins to appear and develop? Even with the most perfectly preserved physical specimens, evolving carbon-dating technology, DNA analysis, etc. how could we determine a non-physical characteristic like 'consciousness' or 'Self-awareness' from even the most stupendous archeological find?

Creation as one, and science and religion as two sides of one coin. It is clear that science can provide convincing physical evidence of evolution of humans. But, where does one find the non -physical evidence? Understanding this has left a wide opening for religion, as can be seen by human history. Could that be why religion broadly exists in the world, to answer the question science cannot, what is "The meaning of Life".

Until science can answer that question, religion will likely be around for some time?""

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 04:49 AM

Steve and others see no reason for religion to exist, because of science.

I would never have said such an inane thing. If you want to characterise what you think I think I suggest you stick to copy/paste in future.

But, why have and do so many (around the world) adhere to religious belief?

Because they were told what to believe by their parents/schools/pastors. The evidence for this is that, by and large, you believe the version of religion that's prevalent in your own region, and tend to demonise the versions practised in other regions. Christians denounce Muslims, Muslims think we're all infidels, the Catholics hate the Prods and nearly everybody hates the Jews. Because they are told that to demur from that which they have been told to believe is a very bad thing which may lead to ostracism at best and death and hellfire at worst. Because religion, craftily, weaves itself intimately into the social fabric, which not only makes it difficult to get out of but also even prevents questions about its validity being raised. The fact that there are millions of believers means one thing - that millions of people have been deceived. It does not add up in the slightest to evidence that "there must be something in it."

As for the rest, you do what religion always does when confronted with solid science. You resort to the woolly, the airy-fairy, the "concepts" that you know damn well there can't be evidence for (not least because, even if the concepts themselves have any basis at all, which is highly questionable, you may have little grasp of what they actually are). Things like "consciousness" or "innate awareness" or "being human." It's no different from positing an impossible supernatural being then challenging us to show he's not there. And this search for "the meaning of life." It's just words, innit. If there is a "meaning" at all you're not going to find it by following false paths such as those inviting religious ones. The best you can hope for, and it's pretty good actually, is to make full use of the brain and five senses (you know, those things that faith requires you to circumvent?) and try to understand the world around us and study its wonderful diversity and complexity. Edification will come through the joy of knowledge and (even more) the effort to get it, not from closing your eyes, joining your hands and praising some invisible, impossible bloke who's 99.9999999999999999% certain to have had absolutely bugger all to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 04:53 AM

Sorry, I really ought to have edited that to acknowledge that it was someone else's musings, not yours. Just as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 05:03 AM

Suppose, for example, someone were to find a living population of organisms previously known only from fossils, organisms that had supposedly been extinct for many millions of years, what would happen? Or suppose a fossil find turned out to be a hoax, what would happen? Would AEN be falsified? We don't have to wonder. We know what happened when the coelacanth was found, and when Wollemia was found.

Nothing apocalyptic would happen. The fossil record is a massive jigsaw full of both wonderful evidence for evolution and huge, gaping holes. It isn't some linear thing that can be totally disrupted by a single new unexpected discovery or refutation. Science actually welcomes such things. Perhaps you'll tell us what this post is driving at.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 05:46 AM

""Because they were told what to believe by their parents/schools/pastors. ""

Sorry, Steve, good try. But, not a passing grade. Given the history and number, your reason is just too simplestic.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 05:49 AM

That's "Simplistic". :(

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 06:55 AM

Are you really going to deny that most believers don't believe what they do because of the accident of where, and into which culture, they were born? Of course they do! And they tend to stay with their religion of birth because of those rituals that trap them in as little babies, many years before they can think for themselves, not to speak of the indoctrination to come in the years to follow. Do you really think that most Muslims/Jews/Catholics are converts, seduced by the many irresistible attractions of their chosen faith? Hahaha!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 06:56 AM

Deny that they believe. Unintended double neg there.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 07:00 AM

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

Show me one piece of verified data, in a journal published peer-reviewed paper, in support of creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 07:04 AM

I've asked him that loads of times, Jack. He never responds. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 07:05 AM

Steve,

Of course people are learn of religion from their parents/teachers...I see no need to repeat the obvious, that has been posted here by many before.

Given the history of religion, its broad scope and nature, how it's many forms developed, evolved, spread and remains strong, your reason is "simplistic, as I norted before. Kinda like Religion -101.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:13 AM

Amongst many other problems in the paragraphs quoted by Ed above, the terminology is hopelessly fuzzy. Take a term like 'conciousness' or 'self-awareness'.

I have a thought-experiment for you. I have a creature in mind that may be a newborn human baby (hours old), a human infant (pre-speech but mobile), a kitten or a cheetah.

I wish to determine whether the creature is 'concious'. What tests do you propose to help me decide?

(My only constraint is that the test should not be something like 'wait several years...' *smile* )

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:26 AM

""Angst many other problems in the paragraphs quoted by Ed above, the terminology is hopelessly fuzzy. Take a term like 'conciousness' or 'self-awareness'.""

Your "test" is interesting. But, it leads to a question. What criteria, test or words would "you" suggest to differentiate man from other animals?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:29 AM

"Angst many other problems in the paragraphs quoted by Ed"

What specifically are these problems you failed to note?. My stated purpose in posting "someone elses quote" was to stimulate debate/discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:35 AM

That in its turn begs the question whether I do differentiate in that manner. Or at least more than I differentiate dogs from cats. Naturally, as humans we have a species-loyalty to other humans, and I am sufficiently carnivorous not to insist on widespread animal rights, but I am by no means certain that the distinction you are seeking exists in any clear way.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:36 AM

Kent, you say:

"Actually I do not accept that the earth is billions of years old."

What observation or evidence (hypothetically speaking) would cause you to reject that statement and accept that the Earth is billions of years old?

You only need to answer this if your belief is scientific. If it is purely a matter of faith, the question is not applicable.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:39 AM

What specifically are these problems you failed to note?. My stated purpose in posting "someone elses quote" was to stimulate debate/discussion.

Well, the one I picked up is in the first sentence and the foundation of the whole thing. I am loathe to dilute the discussion with several parallel topics simulataneously. But be assured, if we sort out the one we are currently pursuing I am happy to raise more *smile*.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:47 AM

"That in its turn begs the question whether I do differentiate in that manner. Or at least more than I differentiate dogs from cats. Naturally, as humans we have a species-loyalty to other humans, and I am sufficiently carnivorous not to insist on widespread animal rights, but I am by no means certain that the distinction you are seeking exists in any clear way."


DMcG
Good job of talking around a circle:)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:56 AM

Not circular at all. There are all sorts of techniques that have been used throughout the ages to separate creatures into groups, from physical similaries to DNA measurements.   So it is quite possible to identify groupings. But you asked for a test to differentiate man from other animals which carries the implication - perhaps unintended - that man is in some way more distinct from the rest of animals than a tiger is from the rest of animals, and that's what I doubted. If you were not making such a claim, I apologise. I'd be grateful if you can confirm that one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 09:07 AM

OK, lets go back to your statement

""I wish to determine whether the creature is 'concious'. What tests do you propose to help me decide?""

I ask, do you have such a test to suggest? If no, it's fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 09:18 AM

I believe no such test exists. If that's the case, then I don't see that you can attach a clear meaning to 'conciousness' and if so you can't use it as a criteria to distinguish mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom (though as I said, that are measurable biological quantities that do allow such a distinction.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 09:52 AM

Thanks, DMcG

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 12:30 PM

it certainly is simplistic to assert that religion is only around because of parent/cleric/culture imput.
christianity for one would never have started like that.its first converts were quite obviously not following authoritarian figures or surely they would have remained in their original religions.
as it is;they became christians in the face of persecution.

jack and steve -i dont suppose many creationists get on to peer rev iewed publications.i suspect they are excluded at first whiff of creationism.there are over 7000 articles on creation.com of which many are too scientific for me.you wont agree with them no doubt ,but its just hot air IMO claiming they have no scientific arguments.
i understand that creationists have been published if the work was unrelated to origins.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 12:41 PM

The nearest I can think of is the 'Turing Test', designed to identify whether a machine possesses 'artificial intellegence'. There was a tv programme recently where a professor subjected a machine to the Turing Test and decided that there definitely was no intelligence involved. Personally, as I said at the time, I thought that the conversation sounded remarkably like a Mudcat thread.

Is homo sapiens a rational creature? WE need proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 12:59 PM

it certainly is simplistic to assert that religion is only around because of parent/cleric/culture imput

That isn't what I said, is it? He was asking why there are so many believers, not why religion is around. He didn't ask me how it all started. The fact is that almost everyone who adheres to a religious faith (not absolutely everyone - I know there are converts, etc.) is in that faith because of the accident of birth into whatever culture surrounds them. Not very many people spontaneously leap into bed with the Almighty unless they were signed up first by someone else, typically as infants by their parents. I honestly can't see what's so hard about understanding this. I know you'd like us to think that there are so many believers "because surely there must be something in it," but that simply ain't the case and you're just clutching at straws.

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

Pete - you're better off not bothering with creation.com, as it's about as scientifically accurate as, er, creationism ;-)

For instance, from the first page of articles:

"First, they were surprised that the octopuses were even fossilized. Unlike animals with hard shells or bony skeletons, cephalopods, like the octopus and squid, have no hard parts (other than the mouth2). One report said that fossilizing an octopus was as unlikely as capturing a "fossil sneeze"."

Total cobblers. Many cephalopods have hard parts that are eminently suitable for fossilisation. Apart from ammonites and belemnites (external and internal phragmacones respectively), the modern nautilus has an external shell, the squid has a chitinous internal pen that would fossilise readily under the right conditions, cuttlefish have their internal cuttle, spirula, an octopus-like cephalopod retains a vestigal spiral internal shell. As for soft tissue preservation - it's not uncommon and there are way to many examples to list.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 02:33 PM

"Actually I do not accept that the earth is billions of years old. The "young" in Young Earth Creationism" refers to the belief that the earth and the universe is thousands of years old, not billions."

It took me awhile to read back and see where I got that mistaken idea.It seems that in scrolling up & down,I read part of one of Little Hawk's posts (12 Jan-9:30 PM) as one of yours....and I responded to it because of the 'apparent' treatment of 'beliefs' as grounded in just hearsay and youthful absorbing of unfounded ideas. Sadly, that IS how it works for many people.

That leaves me trying to discern from your post of Jan 2, and your metaphor(s) of creation as 'art', exactly why you DO accept YEC as fact, when it flies in the face of scientific data.

IF as you say, you believe that "God is an artist. The universe is his creation. He could have created an "acorn"...." etc...well.... that is simply circular reasoning in which you include your conclusion in your premises. **IF** you begin with a pre-digested acceptance OF 'god', his nature, and his techniques, you can, of course, come to any conclusion you wish. Your reasoning is fine...but if you have started from false premises, it means little.

It is not within MY powers to persuade someone who just 'likes' a particular story that there are explanations which make more sense, and many belief systems depend on a "good story" to push their agenda..(such as getting Muslim suicide bombers to 'believe' that Paradise & 40 virgins await them).

So...I have made all the points I can, in hopes that others who read this thread will see why so many are bewildered & unhappy with your views. I will retire to the background now and perhaps browse it a bit at times.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 03:48 PM

steve-i was not directly quoting you albeit alluding to your post ,and i admit to not reading it accurately.

jack-"total cobblers"is a bit of an exaggeration IMO.I read wiki on the subject and it seemed to me that creation.com were broadly correct though i think that they should have been exact.esp when opponents of creationism are on the lookout for inaccuracies.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 12:03 AM

Steve Shaw,

You asked, in your post of 5:03 a.m. today, what I was driving at when I wrote that "Technically, Ancient Earth Naturalism is falsifiable. Practically, it approaches unfalsifiability. " What I was driving at is that AEN, as a practical matter, is unfalsifiable.   

Suppose, for example, I were to find a mountain which overlay rock "known" to be 400 million years "younger" than the mountain itself. Would that falsify AEN? Would it even falsify AEN's geological dating? Suppose I were to find layers of sedimentary rock BELOW metamorphic rock. Would that falsify AEN? Would it even falsify AEN's geological dating?

We don't have to wonder. We know about Chief Mountain in Montana, where "older" rocks overlay "younger" rocks. We know about Scotland's Knockan Crag, with schist over limestone, and Ben More Assynt, with quartzite over sandstone.   Did these discoveries falsify even the geological dating system of AEN? They did not.

As you correctly noted, "nothing apocalyptic" happened. We agree on that. That was my point exactly.   

Guest TIA,

See above. Practically speaking, neither YEC nor AEN is falsifiable.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 04:03 AM

We know about Chief Mountain in Montana, where "older" rocks overlay "younger" rocks. We know about Scotland's Knockan Crag, with schist over limestone, and Ben More Assynt, with quartzite over sandstone

Well, I didn't, so thank you for bringing an interesting snippet of information to my attention.

This is at the heart of science and the biggest single difference between it and a religious belief. Scientists know that even when it explains all the facts it is likely that any theory it has is oversimplified. When new data that doesn't fit is discovered, a minor adaption may be all that is required. In others, a significant adaption may required, and in some cases the whole shooting match needs to be dumped (eg 'phlogiston theory', 'the ether') but let me stress the obvious: in each case the original theory is falsified.

Now, your claim is that AEN 'approaches unfalsifiability' which is a pretty hard phrase to interpret. The only meaning I can assign is that you agree it is falsifiable, but the evidence required to falsify it would have to be very substantial. I'd agree with that. If, on the other had you mean it does not 'approach' unfalsifiability but actually is unfalsifiable, I'd beg to differ. If, for example, we discovered a way to take non-radioactive elements and create an artificial stone in the lab that mirrored the carbon dating results of a 'real' stone that we were modelling, then all evidence based on radioactive dating would be suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 04:03 AM

Sorry the underlining got out of hand. Can an elf fix this, please?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 04:56 AM

Please excuse me, but I've thought of a much better example. Quoting Wiki 'The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.75 billion years of cosmological time. This model is well understood theoretically and strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP.'

So the age of 13.75billion is reached because it fits well with the Lambda-CDM concordance model and measurements (though there may be other reasons as well, I can't say). Suppose however we get new data and we need to refine/replace that model as a result. Then it is certainly possible the estimated age moves to 15billion or 12billion to fit better with that new model. To what extent would you regard that as falsifying AEN?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 06:42 AM

". . . that creation.com were broadly correct though i think that they should have been exact.esp when opponents of creationism are on the lookout for inaccuracies."

The problem is Pete, the initial premise that article was based on is utterly flawed. The statement I quoted is total cobblers, and is skewed towards presenting a certain viewpoint and twisting the evidence to fit it and ignoring the evidence which contradicts it. This isn't a practice confined to creationists; look at the amount of total crap talked by climate change deniers and who pick and choose their arguments in a similar fashion.

The problem here is creationism desires to be seen as the intellectual, scientific branch of religion. It craves the respectability of science without the rigour and discipline of scientific methodology and without engaging directly with the mainstream scientific community. Of course the reason for this is simple - it's not science. Australian aborigines don't try to push the Dreamtime on people as science, buddhists don't try alter the history of the planet and the universe to reinforce their beliefs. The creationist movement is a peculiarly western phenomenon, a struggle to be accepted in a technological world, where progress is driven by hard science (how many creationists are happy to take advantage of the very technologies the science they descry has developed?) where as a race we are now at the beginning of a new age of understanding in science, one which will be a fantastic journey for the human race, providing we can keep from destroying ourselves and our ecosystem.

I am an amateur palaeontologist and have spent years (and hope to spend the rest of my life) studying and collecting fossils (dinosaurs are my real passion), learning about geology, sedimentology, taphonomy, tectonics etc etc. The big joke amongst professionals in the field is when you start getting hate mail from creationists you've been blooded in the professional sense, it's a rite of passage.


"Suppose I were to find layers of sedimentary rock BELOW metamorphic rock"

"Did these discoveries falsify even the geological dating system of AEN? They did not."

But why would they? No offense Kent, but do you have a clue what you're talking about here?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 12:19 PM

Good Morning, Sugarfoot Jack,

You asked "how many creationists are happy to take advantage of the very technologies the science they descry has developed"? Sorry I can't help you there. I've never met a creationist who descried science.   

As to why finding metamorphic rock above sedimentary rock posed a problem for geological dating, I have little doubt you know quite well and are only testing me.

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.

Before anyone rushes in to tell me all about overthrust faults and mountains creeping slowly through the Scottish Highlands, let me assure you that I know the explanation. The point is NOT that AEN folks do not have an explanation. They do. The point is that they have an explanation for that and for everything else. 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?

Any evidence I could possible produce, your approach could handle, perhaps with minor or maybe even major revisions, yet still retaining the basic framework of AEN. And that COULD be because AEN is true.

However, YEC can do the same thing, can also handle anything while still retaining the basic framework of YEC.

A common response to the fact that YEC has an explanation for everything is to say, "See, those YEC guys aren't scientific; their theory is unfalsifiable". Be fair, guys. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If creationism is dismissed on the grounds that it is unfalsifiable, then AEN had better check its own house.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 12:32 PM

DMcG,

I have not one clue what the Lambda-CDM concordance model is, but I will enjoy finding out. I am glad you found Chief Mountain interesting.

If I understand your question aright, I would say no, it would not falsify AEN if there were a finding which decreased the estimated age of the Universe by (for example) 10 billion years. Ten billion years is a major revision by any standard but, if the updated theory were still fully naturalistic, and still required billions of years, it would still be AEN, and thus AEN would not have been falsified.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 12:39 PM

I can't think why you brought this rocks business up. It's perfectly normal for older rocks to overlie younger ones and for metamorphic, or igneous, rocks to overlie sedimentary rocks. The explanations are no more complicated than for anything else. As you mention Assynt and Knockan Cliff, I'd recommend two things. First, go there: it's sublime, and second, buy a book called Hutton's Arse, by Malcolm Rider. It's one of the most inspirational books on geology you'll ever read, and it might even get you away from this abject creationist nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 12:46 PM

I am an amateur palaeontologist and have spent years (and hope to spend the rest of my life) studying and collecting fossils (dinosaurs are my real passion), learning about geology, sedimentology, taphonomy, tectonics etc

Jack, I was at university with Bob Spicer (aka Professor Robert Spicer these days!) who I believe was responsible for raising the profile of taphonomy in the UK. He got a first and I scraped a boozer's 2:2 so I'm not going to bathe in reflected glory. That was 40 years ago and, would you believe, I only found out what that word meant last week!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 02:57 PM

".....initial premise..flawed.."?
i admit that my learning is way below yours jack[and most posters here]but it seems to me that if an octopus is mostly soft, that there has to be some explanation if it gets fossilized.
rapid burial in sediment-, or some other process in longer time for which no doubt you have an explanation for.
i may well hold to the first but i am interested in what the alternative theory is ,if i can understand it. best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 04:24 PM

Soft tissue fossilisation is perfectly possible. Google it and you'll see. At university I studied 200 million-year-old Ginkgo leaves and 300 million-year-old ferns from coal measures. Observing individual cells in tissues of fossilised plant remains, and not just woody ones, was routine. I studied a fossil of bacterial remains from Australia almost two billion years old. The answer to all these things, Pete, as ever, is to get off your arse, stop admitting you're ignorant and go out there and grab yourself some knowledge. The more you learn the more you appreciate, and the more you see those abject God-explanations for the vacuous and pointless notions they really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 05:51 PM

The post eater is at it again. I suggest assembling all thoughtful posts offline.

For those who want to learn, the BBC is next week examining science pertaining to the 160 million year dominion of dinosaurs over the earth - and whether anything like their re-creation as depicted in "Jurassic Park" is possible.

For those who don't, a conundrum. How could all later humans be descended from (a) Cain and Abel or (b) Shem Ham and Japeth - all of whom were male?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 06:21 PM

I think their wives were included in the small print, but nonetheless, we were lucky not to have all been born deformed or insane.. Hmm..

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 08:45 PM

Steve Shaw,

I would love to go to Assynt and Knockan Cliff. Maybe someday.

Smokey,

Thank you for your wise and witty comment on the Biblical population bottleneck, "I think [Shem's, Ham's, and Japheth's] wives were included in the small print, but nonetheless, we were lucky not to have all been born deformed or insane.. Hmm.. "

Sometimes I wonder if the best "argument" against AEN isn't summed up by that "Hmm".

We do not resemble apes grown wise nearly so much as we resemble angels corrupted.

Kent

P.S.

For your reading pleasure, a little creationist dark humor:

Three monkeys sat in a cocoanut tree.
Discussing things as they're said to be.
Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two
There's a certain rumor that can't be true,
That man descended from our noble race.
That very idea is a disgrace.
No monkey ever deserted his wife
Starved her babies or ruined her life,
And another thing you will never see
A monkey build a fence around a cocoanut tree
And let the cocoanuts go to waste,
Forbidding all other monkeys to taste.
If I put a fence around this tree
Starvation would force you to steal from me.
Here's another thing a monk won't do,
Go out at night and get on a stew,
And use a gun or club or knife
To take some other monkey's life
Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss -
But, brother, he didn't descend from us.

(author unknown)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 08:51 PM

A musical version of the above:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFgjGaIhkUs

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 09:03 PM

Well, whilst you're waiting to go to Assynt, get yourself a copy of Hutton's Arse. Brilliant book (and not anti-religion, don't worry).

We do not resemble apes grown wise nearly so much as we resemble angels corrupted.

We don't resemble apes. We are apes. We are the Fifth Ape. Be proud!

And those monkeys need not have worried. We are not descended from them. They share a common ancestor with us, but you would have to go much further back than you would have to in order to to find our common ancestor with the other apes, to which we are much more closely related.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 01:32 AM

One of the amusing things about that creationist poem - and Steve is quite right in his comments - is that almost all the behaviours listed ARE things that apes do - and many other animals, too. Ok, they don't build 'walls' or use 'guns', but they do have territories and use weapons, 'cheat on' their partners, kill others ...

I say 'almost all' the behaviours because I am not knowledgable enough to make it any stronger. I would not expect any single species of ape to exhibit all the behaviours - they vary in how aggressive and territorial they are, for example - but if all the species are considered I would not be surprised to learn all the behaviours are documented in one species or another.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:07 AM

I have recently finished reading The Panda's Thumb by Stephen Jay Gould. (You can read excerpts at that Google Books link)

It is one of my recommendations in a list of books I have tentatively titled "How to Think". (I have been planning a thread on this for weeks now....this may be the impetus to get me organized.)

"The Panda's Thumb" is an exploration of topics in Natural History, with many examples showing how the discussion and study of **evolution** has been confused and misunderstood.

The point is: it is not enough to be 'for' or 'against' the idea of evolution.... it is just too complex to dismiss OR accept based on various simplistic arguments.....and Gould goes into all the pitfalls that many on both sides encounter.

Those who already accept the concept of evolution would find exceptional explanations of just what is at issue...and discover that there are several camps, even among those who do accept it.

Those who resist the very idea of evolution need to explore the carefully organized points and become aware that accepting evolution does not necessarily conflict with notions of some 'higher power'.
(I really doubt that most hard-core creationists will manage to grasp either the book's explanations or the overall intent....but one can always hope....)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:58 AM

Precepts taken from religious doctrine can't be classified as science. There is no actual scientific process that has taken place to define either AEN or YEC or any other acronym with the exception of provable scientific processes such as DNA, RNA etc.

This YEC or AEN enters the realm loosely of philosophy and has a "metaphysical" tinge to it, not a scientific explanation of events.

I'm not sure what the value of this acronymic parsing is. I don't see that it makes our world a better place to live.

Doctrine separated from educational models as to how society can best be benefitted is useless to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:29 PM

////Neither you nor I nor anyone else thinks He created the universe yesterday. That's a "straw man".

No it's not,////

In a way, it is. It points out a type of weakness in the argument. It does not refute the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:36 PM

/////But, why have and do so many (around the world) adhere to religious belief?

Because they were told what to believe by their parents/schools/pastors.////

False. Many people believe in a religion against all advice from family and friends not to do so. Ultimately, people believe because they want to not because they are told to.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 01:04 PM

Many people also believe that the Holocaust never happened, that people are regularly abducted by aliens and have horrific experiments performed on them aboard spaceships, that them nig***r are a degenerate race cursed by God, that the U.S. Civil War had nothing to do with the issue of chattel slavery & on & on & on.

They'reall weak-minded ignorant fu*kwits & its time people stopped humouring them.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 01:54 PM

...given the trend of responses so far, I am not sure that a course... or even suggestions of a reading list ...on "How to Think" would accomplish much ☺.

One of the wonders of being human is how frustrating it can be to cope with even those you basically agree with.

But...Greg F...they are NOT "...all weak-minded ignorant fu*kwits...", and *I* never "humor" them. But sometimes I can make a start on getting thru to them if I don't begin with direct insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:04 PM

LEJ alleged (pun intended) that:

Science is essentially a collection of known facts about physical porcesses (sic)

No, LEJ, science is a process (and, loosely, those who carry it out) which is essentially organized curiosity. The organization referred to there essentially resides in rules like the Scientific Method and the principles of free publication of results.

The product of science constitutes technology. (Your "known facts", LEJ.)

And the application of technology is engineering.

And of course many who engage in science also engage in engineering.

The confusion of these categories with each other (sometimes even in the minds of scientists and engineers) is a great source of popular misunderstanding of what goes on.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:08 PM

sometimes I can make a start on getting thru to them if I don't begin with direct insults.

No, Bill you can't get thru to a "true believer" who chooses believe outrageous bullshit and to live and operate in a fact-free enviroment, and you are wastting your time trying.

If these people could think critically, they wouldn't believe the arrant bullshit that they obviously do.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:10 PM

I fail to see what an individual's belief in a supreme being has to do with anyone else. Basically, people have a right to their beliefs. That doesn't give them the right to tell me about it.

When proselytizing people come to my door I politely ask them to leave. If they don't, I tell them to leave. If they still don't, I start talking in tongues. Religious, political and other.

Yer gabbit shafling corderum ragables fernucormun. BEASTS! FORNICATORS!

I get very very few second visits.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:29 PM

Greg... I wonder how long it's been since you even attempted to 'get thru' to a 'true believer'.

Did you ever play with silly putty? It will shatter if you throw it hard against a brick wall, but you can s-l-o-w-l-y mold it into a shape if you are patient.

Insults serve ONLY to make someone retreat and harden their defenses and close their mind tighter. A little teasing and patient Socratic dialogue can sometimes get someone to relax and allow a new thought....and maybe THEIR children will benefit. Education is a process, not an edit or a threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:46 PM

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.

No, they were intellectually honest, and the scientific evidence was so clear that, even with the many problems(*) of Darwin's schema in the science of the time, they accepted that natural selection is a far better explanation of the biological world than the story in Genesis. They then understood that Genesis was a metaphorical description of God's interaction with his creation rather than a complete factual account. That was a break with the past in some respects, but other parts of the Bible had always been interpreted as metaphor or allegory, so the change was in the end not too traumatic. It also marked perhaps for the Church of England, a step on the path that took them from an unthinking supporter of State power to a more thinking view of the origins of morality. Some may not think that a good thing, but they at least believe that they can get souls into Heaven without requiring them to deny the proven.

(*) Problems like:

1. No known mechanism of inheritance- the discovery of Mendel's work forty years later started science on the investigatory path that is still going on, but has led to a much deeper understanding of the mechanisms of Life.

2. No known way the Sun could have produced energy in sufficient quantities for the millions of years required by Darwin's slow selection of minute reproductive advantages. Fifty years passed before the discovery of radioactivity gave the first hints that the Sun has enough energy available to last for not just millions, but many billions, of years.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:51 PM

In the dark, one crock of shit smells about the same as another.

Better to light one candle than to stand about in a cloud of unknowing smelling horse manure.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 03:02 PM

Greg... I wonder how long it's been since you even attempted to 'get thru' to a 'true believer'.

Its been quite a while, Bill, because, apparently unlike you, after a lifetime of experience spanning some 65 years, I'm able to recognize a lost cause and a futile waste of time and energy when I see it.

Go thou and do likewise.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 03:35 PM

"..., after a lifetime of experience spanning some 65 years, I'm able to recognize a lost cause and a futile waste of time and energy when I see it.

*grin*.. I'm 72, and have had genuine success [admittedly never enough] using MY system. Go thou and try it.....,

"Banging your head on the wall is such a great thing, because it feels so good when you stop."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 03:45 PM

I'm not as venerable as either Bill or Greg, but I venture to say I think the real point being missed, and it's one I raised months ago. When these get put to the vote it will not be decided (directly) by the enthusiasts from either camp, but by those who are either genuinely undecided or, more likely I am afraid, those asking where their personal political advantage lies. That's why neither bunch of enthusiasts can afford to let the others talk away and just assume 'those of good sense' will simply agree with them

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:09 PM

////A common response to the fact that YEC has an explanation for everything is to say, "See, those YEC guys aren't scientific; their theory is unfalsifiable". Be fair, guys. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If creationism is dismissed on the grounds that it is unfalsifiable, then AEN had better check its own house.////

Yes, I've read your examples of how AEN, as you call it, is unfalsifiable and found it wanting. Piltdown man was simply a hoax not something that proves AEN right or wrong--it was just a hoax. You brought up nothing that proved AEN was wrong. Your argument about the various timelines in a work of art was similarly unconvincing simply because your analogy doesn't work. You are trying to compare an ordinary human endeavor to something that no human endeavor can be compared, i.e. the creation of the universe. And you did this without offering a shred of proof. No need to go all philosophical on you. You offered a bad analogy and nothing else. I hope you have more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:09 PM

Well, ONE of the real points is that such issues should not be "put to the vote". The very idea that matters of either morality or science are subject to occasional 'votes' is crazy.
No one can tell you what to think...but it is possible to describe and identify bad reasoning, which, if taught openly and clearly, can gradually 'help' clarify both matters of morality and science.

This is what is implicitly embodied in the 1st amendment to the US Constitution when it says that we will not deny the right to worship, but also will not endorse any religion. Views specifically based on religion...OR the rejection of religion... should not be a matter of who can get the most votes....yet many current members of Congress ignore this. *IF* rational thinking were more common, this at least would begin to sink in.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:57 PM

I agree with Bill's general statement. I fail so see why two 'great' areas of human thought cannot co-habitate. If religion is about morality and not power, then it can be used to help keep the misapplications of scientific research from being put to nefarious/evil purposes. And for some people that is the reality. Conversely, cloning is a concept that was shown to us in Genesis(?) when Eve was made from Adam's rib.

God made it and Darwin explained it. Then came Jerry Falwell. Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:17 AM

Nurse! Nurse!

Ahhh.... that's better.

When's supper?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:44 AM

" I fail so see why two 'great' areas of human thought cannot co-habitate."

Then you need to understand what science is, how it works and what its fundamental aims are. I'll give you a clue: It's about finding out the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 08:00 AM

Well, ONE of the real points
I stand corrected. I did not intend to imply the point I raised was the only one. I agree it lacks a fundamental understanding of logic that such things should be put to the vote, but, in at least the case of these current bills, that's what's happening. So they need to be defeated (or, if you are that way inclined, won) by persuading others who are not in committed to one camp or the other. Which means these arguments are worth having, even though neither side expects to convert the other. But, agreeing with Bill's point, they need to be persuaded by reasoned argument, not be either side simply declaring the other to be fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 05:57 PM

bill-i certainly agree that a polite reasoned case is more likely to be heard than the foulmouthed insults of some who perhaps have no other means of making a case?!not that i can recall anything you,ve said as making me rethink,but at least communication is possible.

paul-just to say,-creationists have no argument against natural selection.species were known to change within the parameters of their type before darwin as you probably know.indeed it is thought by some that he got it from the creationist edward blythe.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:40 PM

"Then you need to understand what science is, how it works and what its fundamental aims are. I'll give you a clue: It's about finding out the truth."

If by truth you mean something that can be observed and repeated by people in other times and places, I am aware of that, but in your dash to be superior you neglected to read what I wrote. The search for truth is found within most disciplines. Science is one, mathematics another, ethics also another, philosophy yet again another. If you stop your thinking in a single area of human research you cut yourself off from other truths.

Where you got the idea you are able to give ANYone a clue is beyond me. That has to be the single-most puffed-up and egocentric remark I've read on this site. I think you got the initial sounds of your Mudcat name reversed.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 09:52 PM

"...initial sounds of your Mudcat name reversed."

**stifling a giggle**

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 11:47 PM

If God actually created (on purpose; to test your fatih perhaps?) those photons enroute from all those suns, galaxies, and nebulae farther than 6000 light years away, he/she is just purely fucking with your head, so why do you believe anything else he/she tells you?
Or are you going to claim that the universe is finite, with a radius of 6000 light years?
Sorry, you've got no other choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:08 AM

Well, I think it would be a very good idea for students to learn about the various creation myths in school - along with understanding that while these are not merely myths and they do have great value, they are not scientific fact.

I suppose the fundamentalist believers would have trouble with the "myth" and the fundamentalist nonbelievers would still have trouble with "creation," even if described as myth. If we could manage to offend the extremes on both sides, then we might accomplish something.

Myths are not (necessarily) untrue, and they often have profound meaning - although they are not scientific or historical fact.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:22 AM

That is how we do it in UK Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 05:26 AM

Amongst others from here

There are several creation stories in Egypt, attached to rival gods. The most common one begins with Nun, the primeval ocean, from which Amen rises in splendour. He takes the name Re, thus in effect merging two rival deities. By an act of masturbation (described as such in the temple texts) he produces a divine son and daughter. These two breed a race of gods, while the tears of Amen-Re become mankind - appropriately enough, for man's behaviour soon persuades the creator to withdraw from earthly affairs. He retires to the heavens, where he reigns as the sun.

I don't believe this. Nor do I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Does that make me a "fundamentalist nonbeliever" or is that only lack of belief in specific creation myths?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:46 AM

At the risk of sounding like one of pete from some star or other's "foulmouthed insult" jockeys...

Of course people will listen politely to your reasoned argument. I have a friend who does that all the time.

He listens to people, nods as to respect what they are saying. he even makes notes whilst they are saying it.

Then he makes his clinical assessment.

Look. Surely far better for someone to tell you that your ideas are silly, weird and have no place in reality over and above any other fairy story than to have people pretend to debate with you because they feel sorry for you?

I am at least treating you as an equal by taking the piss?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:54 AM

"Fairy Stories" Deliberate, insult and attempt to provoke with possible homosexual overtones.

If that is "clinical assessment, I AM the flying spaghetti monster. You are obviously not a voice of reason, you are a acting like a child of taunting mockery.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:13 PM

Hello Sailor!

Wow! I'm out of my depth here. Unlike you, I am not qualified to make clinical assessments.

You must be though, to drag the word "homosexual" into the debate. I don't understand that bit, so as I say, out of my depth. If by homosexual you mean that YEC is a load of cock, then I am with you in a tenuous way...

The other bit that is spooky is how you brought the flying spaghetti monster into your reply to, I think, my post, as opposed to the post it was mentioned in above? It is spooky because I joined the said church (largely because I like being called a pastafarian) in order to put something silly on the monitoring forms I get to fill in when doing work for the government. Atheist is an insulting term for those of us who see religion as irrelevant to us and a pain to society, although comforting for some.

So you don't think young age creationism is a fairy story? What, pray, is it then?

(Do you like how I managed to put the word "pray" in there? Does it make me sound like the voice of reason? Who here from The UK can remember the voice of reason, Woodrow Wyatt? it was pricks like him who made me act like a child of taunting mockery in the first place.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:17 PM

"I think you got the initial sounds of your Mudcat name reversed."

Bingo - you got the joke.

"Where you got the idea you are able to give ANYone a clue is beyond me. That has to be the single-most puffed-up and egocentric remark I've read on this site."

Haven't read much then have you? I apologise if my remark came across as holier than thou, perhaps I misunderstood your point. I'm full of shit but at least I admit it; after a decade posting here I'd be a fool not too. Especially given some of the crap talked on here.

"Science is one, mathematics another, ethics also another, philosophy yet again another. If you stop your thinking in a single area of human research you cut yourself off from other truths. "

Agree. But science and religion can co-exist only if each other side agrees to disagree, and then what's the point?

"If religion is about morality and not power, then it can be used to help keep the misapplications of scientific research from being put to nefarious/evil purposes."

This is the bit I must have misunderstood Guest 999. So clear this up for me:

1) How can religious morality be used to stop misapplications of scientific research?

2) Can science provide a framework for a moral system?

3) Which religion should be allowed to exercise it's moral authority over science (or anything else for that matter)?

4) What is the ultimate source of that authority?

5) Is it possible the source of religious moral authority might not sit too well with the people who are being directed by it?

6) Does politics have a role in this?

Make it so even a pompous fat twat like me can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM

Mather, Obviously your religion is a Quixotic quest to to waste the time of people with better things to do by drawing them into arguments through insults and taunts. May the GSM bless you and rain marinara upon you.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 02:07 PM

tia-last i heard evolutionary cosmology had its own problems to solve.creationist scientists have theories too about time /light travel.i,m not scientific enough to explain it in any depth and you are u nlikely to consider it anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 02:46 PM

"creationist scientists " is an awkward term. One can do certain kinds of science and still believe in biblical creation... but in so far as one is expressing creationist views, one is NOT being a scientist. It's similar to a teacher who also has kids in school-- when you act as a parent, you can't also act directly as a teacher. There a lot of quick hat changes involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:02 PM

The amount of sheer dullness awaiting any poor soul who is unwilling to face simple facts is unfathomable.

Science is about the measurable testable, falsifiable. Morals is about consideration of individual, group, and global goodness of choices. The too may have some intersecting territory but they have no claim on each other.

There is no science to creationsim. The creationist hypothesis requires the ignoral of huge amounts of simple, irrefutable data, and avoids hundreds of simple, direct questions it cannot answer.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:22 PM

"creationist scientists " is an awkward term...

No, its not. Its an oxymoron and arrant bullshit into the bargain.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:23 PM

Aw, Greg, you say the sweetest things!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:33 PM

last i heard evolutionary cosmology had its own problems to solve.creationist scientists have theories too about time /light travel.

This illustrates neatly the necessary conflict between science and "revealed" religion. All science always has problems, that's what's really exciting about it, and why it is so fruitful. Every explanation provided by science is provisional; it's the best we can do until some snag shows our understanding to be incomplete or even completely wrong. The work of getting to the next better explanation is the exciting bit, and where all the advances made by science, and which benefit us all, come from.

Dogmatic religion on the other hand already has all the answers, and so is never looking for better ones. Indeed, if any fault in their understanding is pointed out, they simply refuse to consider the evidence. And that is why this sort of religion has never in thousands of years advanced the human condition one bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 04:37 AM

And people are still making comparisons between religion and science. Explanation of experience and belief are chalk and cheese.

I believe Sheffield Wednesday to be the best football team ever. Facts tend to disagree with me, but I don't let facts get in the way of my belief.

You can't have a theory about anything, let alone time travel without either acknowledging or adequately disproving current theories.

Bringing imaginary concepts into the argument to balance observable evidence doesn't help, doesn't explain and doesn't need courtesy either. Rather, it requires either ignoring or the noble art of pointing and laughing.

(Bridge got it right, (stop saying that Mather!) at the very top of this thread when he said he could do with a good laugh.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM

" Explanation of experience and belief are chalk and cheese."

Careful . . . try telling that some some people and you'll be slagged off big style.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Mr Happy
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 10:59 AM

What's the latest on the dates for:

*Doomsday ?

* The Rapture ?

* The next messiah's arrival ?

as I want to plan this year's festivals & gatherings without clashing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:12 AM

Dunno about the rapture, but for me the rupture will be this Saturday. I have decided to pull out a tree stump that is getting on my tits.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 02:55 PM

Maybe you should aim for tit reduction instead, and avoid straining yourself. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 06:55 PM

bill-i think i understand your point.but in using the term i intend a shorthand that more fully means,-fully qualified scientists that use their expertise not only in operational science but in origins science defending creation and exposing the flaws in neo darwinism.
you ,i appreciate ,do not accept their conclusions but i hope that you accept that they are not ignorant arguments,as is the argument by ridicule advanced by gregg et al that they are idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:02 PM

"origins science defending creation and exposing the flaws in neo darwinism."

That is a very unscientific thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:33 PM

1) How can religious morality be used to stop misapplications of scientific research?

It can't because religious morality is all over the map and means different things to different people. The misapplications of scientific research such as the Manhattan Project or hydrogen bombs will never be stopped by religious morality in fact religious morality has been used to rationalize the use of these odious weapons.

2) Can science provide a framework for a moral system?

Of course it can, when it is applied for the benefit of society. The problem with frameworks for a moral system is that it turns out to be system(s) which often clash with one another.

3) Which religion should be allowed to exercise it's moral authority over science (or anything else for that matter)?

None. It should not interfere with the practice of science. There is no moral authority that can govern the behavior of mankind without damage. There is "ethics", however, and you don't need religion for that.

4) What is the ultimate source of that authority?

The ultimate source is the dictatorial constructs used to manipulate others.

5) Is it possible the source of religious moral authority might not sit too well with the people who are being directed by it?

Dictatorship never sits well with anyone. The religious moral authority is often an excuse to oppress others.

6) Does politics have a role in this?

Religion is a form of politics. It has been so since Saladin and Constantine. It is hierarchical in nature and hence political.

Make it so even a pompous fat twat like me can understand.

Religion's use is only as good as it improves the way society functions for the benefit of all. Young Earth Creation serves no positive function to improve society. It is a construct
that has meaning only to oppress those by subjecting them to a cultish mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:43 PM

sorry pete...but "exposing the flaws" is an unwarranted assumption that there are such flaws.

As whether they are 'ignorant' arguments or not depends on how they(meaning each one individually) explain & justify their beliefs. A "qualified scientist" can mean either one who has some 'credentials' or one who carefully follows scientific procedures. A scientist with advanced degrees who ignores logic and picks & chooses evidence based on data that is NOT scientific is not behaving as a good scientist.

This problem occurs in many areas of science, from chemistry to genetics to astronomy.....some people just WANT certain results more than they want accuracy.
As YOU can appreciate, I suspect that 'creationist scientists' usually make some error along those lines. The hard evidence simply shows that, over long periods of time, we and other living beings DID evolve from simpler forms.
   If you want to claim that 'God planned it that way', I can't prove otherwise, but it is what it is, whether it was planned or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 10:36 AM

fully qualified scientists that use their expertise...in origins science defending creation and exposing the flaws in neo darwinism.

If they are doing that, they obviously do not understand the scientific method and are therefore, de facto, not "scientists".

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 11:53 AM

sorry bill,-maybe i should have said"problems/gaps/inconsistences"or something else.though respecting your learning an argument from authority is not exactly convincing,though greatly superior to argument by ridicule!.
being very sure of your position you would be an excellent candidate to tackle the "15 questions for evolutionists"?
best wishes-pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 03:45 PM

pete 7*, I'm getting a little short of patience with your studied obtuseness.

As I've pointed out, ALL science has many flaws, some of them fundamental (though we don't know which ones, and why, yet). And all scientists are trying to find these flaws. That's how our understanding of the world improves. It's never perfect, and nobody expects that it ever will be. All scientists have to do is show their evidence.

Evolution science has progressed in the last 250 years fromn a guess based on the apparent similarities of some animals, to a hugely powerful tool that can, amongst other things, successfully predict the form of ancestral animals whose fossils were unknown. The subsequent discovery of fossils that matched the description closely shows that the theory is on the right track.*

Creationists are dismissed, not because they are too bold for science or for fear of upsetting the applecart, but because they have not brought up any verifiable evidence to support their point of view.

Religious people and romantics are fond of claiming that science does not present a complete picture of the world. That is true. But if they then claim that their contribution expands, complements, or supersedes that picture, why should anyone believe them, unless they present their evidence? At which point the evidence can be tested, and it becomes science.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:49 PM

" ... fully qualified scientists that use their expertise not only in operational science but in origins science defending creation and exposing the flaws in neo darwinism."

Yes, pete, it's been said before, but it bears repeating, a "fully qualified scientist" who spends his/her time "defending creation" is not practising science in any legitimate or recognisable form.

On the other hand a "fully qualified scientist" who exposes the "flaws in neo darwinism" may (possibly) be practising science. Or to express that concept in a more reasonable form: a scientist who critically examines an existing theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, in the light of new evidence is practising legitimate science.

Note that the contents of an ancient text, of dubious provenance, or the dogmatic ramblings of its past or present adherents does not constitute new evidence!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 02:08 PM

Genesis being a "scientific" explanation for anything is specious.

Young Earth Creationism is one of the most adolescent views of religion that I have ever seen.

Faith=ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 03:27 PM

paul-at least you attempt an insult in a more grammatically eloquent form than some of your fellow evolutionists!
seems i try your patience for alledgedly trying to be stupid.you are entitled to your opinion though i suggest you misunderstand what i say ,unintentionally[?]setting up a misrepresentation .
i am fully aware that scientific theories are flawed and incomplete and that applies to creationists also.however,IMO,evolutionism is so flexible it can accomodate whatever evidence is raised against it.
for example i doubt anyone before hell creek dinos would countenance the idea of soft tissue/blood spots lasting 65 mill yrs.i,ve no doubt that if they find dinos in the congo darwinism will adjust again because anything goes except darwinian dogma.
however iam interested to know what these predictions are you mention.i can venture no comment on the general claim .
regards pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 05:15 PM

Hi *******
The preservation of soft tissues is an unexpected bonus, exactly the opposite of a "problem". Similarly, the survival of archaic lifeforms is not a problem. Were ichthyosaurs to be discovered in Loch Ness, or pterosaurs in Pakistan, that would be a wonderful new field for study. Sadly this does not often happen.

As for "flexibility", that is better described as toughness. When evidence comes forward that contradicts the current understanding, it is studied, and if found to be true, the theory changes. That's science. Like wrought iron, it bends to a new shape, but doesn't break. (As an aside, it's really difficult to beat swords into ploughshares. Carbon steel is hard and springy, not tough and malleable).

If you really want to find out about the wonderful world of the (sometimes successful) prediction of the forms of transitional fossils, read some of the excellent popularising writers- Stephen Jay Gould is very good. You'll also read about failures, because failures are sometimes as important in science as successes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 07:39 PM

I'm guessing this would be a bad time to mention theistic evolution, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 08:56 PM

ixixix:

Parthenogenesis doesn't (per se) include a mechanism for mixing genes. And anyway gods are immortal. So in theistic evolution not Darwinian, but Pratchettian.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 09:18 PM

I have mentioned Stephen Jay Gould before...I have been reading The Panda's Thumb for weeks now. If YOU,Pete *******, would take the trouble to actually read something like that by someone who understands the issue and explains all the arguments for & against evolution, you might avoid some of these attacks.

I will tell you... understand that **evolution happens** need not be a hindrance to your basic faith.... there are many sincere Christians who accept the age of the Earth and the forces of evolution and still go happily to church.
Try it...you might feel better with the idea that God was even clever than you thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 10:34 PM

Yep. It is a bad time. (I've never been called ixixix before. Better than vivivi :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 12:11 AM

CMXCIX

I think if it had been IX IX IX It would have been respectful. But I don't think roman numerals even included small case.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 07:11 AM

"for example i doubt anyone before hell creek dinos would countenance the idea of soft tissue/blood spots lasting 65 mill yrs.i,ve no doubt that if they find dinos in the congo darwinism will adjust again because anything goes except darwinian dogma."

Pete, had you been at the Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology meeting this year in Las Vegas you might have seen a presentation which indicates the soft tissues found in the Hell Creek Tyrannosaur were not blood at all. I have a ref for this but can't be arsed to trawl the abstract book.

They are find dinosaurs in the Congo (birds are dinosaurs) ;-) If they were to find non-avian dinosaurs in the Congo I doubt there isn't a palaeontologist in the world that wouldn't be cock-a-hoop over the discovery, as it would answer the many questions we have regarding these animals. Of course, the survival of a non-avian dinosaur in no way runs counter to Darwinism - why would it?

All you have to do Pete is find a horse in the Solnholfen, a bony fish or a whale in the Burgess Shale, an elephant in the Hell Creek (I hope to be there digging dinos later in the year so hopefully I might find one) and you can challenge the robustness of evolutionary theory and be famous as the man who brought down Darwinism.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 10:44 AM

pete.... back aways you answered me this way:

"....though respecting your learning an argument from authority is not exactly convincing,though greatly superior to argument by ridicule!."

I somehow missed the opportunity to ask you just how MY opinion constitutes "an argument from authority" while yours does not.

If you 'respect my learning' - and possibly the learning of several others here who debate you on this topic - I must ask why you consistently reject this learning? My primary education was in philosophy and logic, which is why *I* dispute the patterns of reasoning you use. Others here, as you see, have pretty extensive knowledge of paleontology and geology...and even I have read extensively in those areas. You, on the other hand, refer mostly to creationist web sites which offer 'evidence' about things like 'hell ceek', which have been studied by experts and shown to not prove what you suggest.

I appreciate that you are anxious to preserve & defend ideas which seem to support the Biblical accounts of Genesis. The problem is- Genesis, as a book, is several thousand years old, and those who copied and translated it (and probably are the 'authors') only had myth and guesswork to work from. We have only had science which can understand dinosaur bones and DNA and carbon dating of materials for a short time. We can now begin to KNOW what happened when the Earth was young, and what our place in it represents.
If, as I said before, you want to say that this is HOW God directed it all to happen, I can't prove you wrong....but it is really an exercise in futility to cling to 'young Earth' theories and assert that all these experts, whose learning you respect, are wrong. The math and the science simply show that Earth IS several billion years old and that human history IS several million years old and that legends about floods are based on local events, not world-wide events.

There are many ways to express religious convictions and show reverence for Higher Powers that you believe in, but stubborn denial of obvious scientific facts is NOT a very useful way.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 04:45 PM

interesting that a different verdict is now concluded on the dino soft tissue despite the previous best efforts to prove the same.yes,i know it happens,-things that were once definite to evolutionists are shelved in light of new evidence,but as it was a ref not to hand i will remain sceptical ,having read some secular as well as creationist articles on the original discovery.
it is at least refreshing that gould[and apparently some of yourselves ]admit that arguments exist against darwinism.i,for my part admit creationism has the same-and certainly with my limited ability am not equal to some of your challenges.thankyou to those who opposed me in a civil manner- pete.