Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 155 (38615)
05-01-2003 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NosyNed
05-01-2003 1:15 PM


Re: YET ANOTHER TOPIC DRIFT FLAG
Hey, I just noticed. I'm not a junior member anymore!
Gee, thanks for the promotion. Will there be a little extra in the pay packet? And now what do I have to do to make senior?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2003 1:15 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 4:12 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 155 (38634)
05-01-2003 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
05-01-2003 1:18 PM


Re: YET ANOTHER TOPIC DRIFT FLAG
Yeah, dude, your pay's been doubled! 2*0 = 0

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2003 1:18 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
amsmith986
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 155 (38709)
05-01-2003 11:59 PM


It's a sort of snatch the bacon game.
Whoever claims the beginings, gets to claim the schools,
and whoever gets the schools, gets to claim the youth,
and whoever gets the youth gets to claim the heart and
future of America.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 05-02-2003 12:08 AM amsmith986 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 19 of 155 (38710)
05-02-2003 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by amsmith986
05-01-2003 11:59 PM


Snatch the Bacon
You make it sound like a zero-sum game. There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser. In fact, most Christians don't see it as winning and losing.
What confounds me is why the literalists would choose a path which sets up a win-lose confrontation. One way or another they loose.
If they actually succeeded in driving science out of the schools it would kill the economy in a few decades. If it stays in they don't have a story to tell. As evidenced here. (or, that should be as not "evidenced" here.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by amsmith986, posted 05-01-2003 11:59 PM amsmith986 has not replied

  
amsmith986
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 155 (38714)
05-02-2003 12:45 AM


Since when was it unanimously decided that literal creationists lose?
-Evolution isn't the only science.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 05-02-2003 12:49 AM amsmith986 has not replied
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 05-02-2003 1:12 AM amsmith986 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 21 of 155 (38715)
05-02-2003 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by amsmith986
05-02-2003 12:45 AM


quote:
Since when was it unanimously decided that literal creationists lose?
I explained above. On a scientific basis there is enough evidence in to throw out YEC. I think OEC is gone to but can never figure out what they are claiming.
If they win on a political basis they wreak a big piece of the educational system.
If they leave the educational system intact and actually teach YEC along side science they get creamed. If you doubt that find a topic here that has come to a YEC winning conclusion (or any conclusion for that matter).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by amsmith986, posted 05-02-2003 12:45 AM amsmith986 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 155 (38721)
05-02-2003 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by amsmith986
05-02-2003 12:45 AM


How young is young.
I'm very interested in the 1987 supernova, 1987A.
It occured in one of the Magelantic clouds at a distance of about 170,000 light years. If someone thinks the universe is less than 170 Kyrs old then I suggest they start a SN1987 thread and show how the trigonometric measurements are wrong and/or the multiple checks on light speed at the time of the explosion are wrong and/or any other way they can make it work. Of course, it is allowed to say "God is fooling us into thinking that's how long ago it happened by a mircle". That is a scientific loose of course.
The right way to handle this is to take the suggestion Galileo made to the Catholic Church 500 years ago and one that they finally got some century or so later. If the evidence says the bible is wrong then you are interpreting the bible incorrectly.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by amsmith986, posted 05-02-2003 12:45 AM amsmith986 has not replied

  
amsmith986
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 155 (38726)
05-02-2003 1:48 AM


What's YEC and OEC? ( Can you tell I'm new here?
It wouldn't wreck anything if they replaced it with something better.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 05-02-2003 1:56 AM amsmith986 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 24 of 155 (38727)
05-02-2003 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by amsmith986
05-02-2003 1:48 AM


bloody acronyms
YEC - young earth creationism
It seems to have some fuzz in what is believed but I think it's safe to say that they say a minimum age for the universe is just over 6,000 years and a maxium is 20,000 or so (this is where it seems to get fuzzy).
OEC - old earth creationism
The earth and universe is as determined by science. 4.5 Gyrs(giga years) and 13.7 respectively. However, living things are created by God. Now it gets really fuzzy. Some agree with YEC that the earth was empty until 6,000 years ago, others that each new creature was specially created. The ID'ers (at least some) think that most of evolution and the history of life on earth is correct but that some steps require a miracle.
A whole bunch (most ?) of both YEC'ers and OEC'ers agree with very, very fast evolution over a small number of Kyrs (kiloyears) that is whole new genera arising in maybe as little as a couple of kiloyears. But a number don't.
Beyond a rough idea of the age of the earth I can never get clear what the two camps think or what an individual in one camp will decide to say. So don't take my word for it.
Hmmm I think that is a clear case of TMI (too much information) isn't it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by amsmith986, posted 05-02-2003 1:48 AM amsmith986 has not replied

  
amsmith986
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 155 (38729)
05-02-2003 2:20 AM


Thanks! This is so much fun. I get about a page's worth of material for every sentence I put down.
Evolution says that the oceans are about 3 billion years old, yet there is only enough sediment to account for about 62 million years.
( Noah's flood could have upset things a little don't you think)

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Quetzal, posted 05-02-2003 2:50 AM amsmith986 has not replied
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 05-02-2003 2:53 AM amsmith986 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 155 (38733)
05-02-2003 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by amsmith986
05-02-2003 2:20 AM


This forum is a lot of fun, isn't it? From what I've seen here, you can pretty much find a knowledgeable person for just about any question you ask - as long as you show you're willing to actually read and consider the answers. However, I think you'll find it's even MORE fun to participate. For example, your statement:
Evolution says that the oceans are about 3 billion years old, yet there is only enough sediment to account for about 62 million years.
would seem to require a bit more info provided on your part before it can really be addressed. For instance, could you reference where you got these figures? They seem to be somewhat off as far as what geologists and pedologists say is the case. "Evolutionists", for instance, mostly say things like, "Wow, those 3.5 gya microstructures sure resemble stromatolites. That must mean there were oceans that long ago, since those critters only live in oceans."
If you could give a reference for the 62 million year sediment figure, that would be helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by amsmith986, posted 05-02-2003 2:20 AM amsmith986 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 155 (38734)
05-02-2003 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by amsmith986
05-02-2003 2:20 AM


Evolution says that the oceans are about 3 billion years old, yet there is only enough sediment to account for about 62 million years.
Is yet another person ignorant of plate tectonics/geology? Not to mention that evolution per se makes no claim about the age of the oceans (or the age of anything, for that matter.) Dating and age claims are generally geological.
For that matter, I'd like some idea of how you're arriving at that calculation. For instance I'm not sure which ocean you're referring to. The Atlantic is probably only 100 million years old or so, inferring from the models of continental drift I'm looking at (No webpage found at provided URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html). You're probably referring to the Pacific ocean.
As for the accumulated sediment, the ocean floor is in motion - being created at rifts and being subducted back into the Earth at trenches. Therefore I would propose that what's happeing is that any given area of the Pacific floor is only around long enough to accumulate some 67 million years' worth of sediment before it's subducted back into the mantle. That's just my guess.
Noah's flood could have upset things a little don't you think
I do think. It would have upset the fossil record's generally well-reserved sorting. It also would have upset an ark full of animals. That's just two things it would have upset and already it's enough evidence to discard the idea of a Noahic flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by amsmith986, posted 05-02-2003 2:20 AM amsmith986 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 05-02-2003 3:20 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 28 of 155 (38738)
05-02-2003 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Adminnemooseus
05-01-2003 1:10 PM


Re: YET ANOTHER TOPIC DRIFT FLAG
quote:
An interesting line of discussion happening, but it seems to belong somewhere else.
As always, I may be wrong,
Adminnemooseus
I love a good echo!!!
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-01-2003 1:10 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 155 (38740)
05-02-2003 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
05-02-2003 2:53 AM


crashfrog writes:
For that matter, I'd like some idea of how you're arriving at that calculation.
Our friendly nieghborhood admins may have a point. If you would like to explain your calculations (or present the source for them), I think you'd best be served to start a new topic to do so. Since we're totally off-topic at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 05-02-2003 2:53 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
amsmith986
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 155 (38783)
05-02-2003 2:50 PM


I'll try to get some research done.
I got the info from a seminar By Ken Ham.I'm not sure how soon I can get back.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Coragyps, posted 05-02-2003 3:40 PM amsmith986 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024