YEC and Fossil Fuels

[BananaSlug]

"My" infallible Bible does not quote the Book of Enoch --- (a comparison will show that) --- "my" infallible Bible quotes Enoch, himself.

But you can quote me on this: the Book of Enoch can take a hike.

14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
Jude 1:14-15

1 Behold He comes with ten thousands of His holy warriors, to execute Judgement upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all of flesh for every thing which the sinful and unGodly have done, and committed against Him. Book of Enoch 2:1

Now how in the world would these words be passed down from Enoch to Jude at a span of 3400 years or so, unless they were written down. There are many other books mentioned in the Bible that are no longer canonical.

 

[BananaSlug]

Still haven't pwned me yet AV, care to explain why we have different types of coal rather than 1 type which could be associated with a flood? Care to explain why we find dinosaur tracks in coal beds if they were created and covered up by the flood?

 

[Cabal]

Please show me where I think that --- by highlighting in red a post I made to that effect.

Sure.

It was meant to draw out a YEC or two so they could be pounded on. I have seen it on these forums countless times.

What's wrong with that, bro?

I say BRING IT ON.

I eat those who draw out YECs for breakfast.

The OP was not about drawing out YECs - no one is required to be om-nom-nom'ed for breakfast.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Split-Rock:

"Can you explain why creationists are afraid to let science be taught in science classes?"

I appreciate your response.

I don't believe they are afraid to let science be taught in science classes, at least not in the absolute terms you phrase this in. I believe students are smarter than they are often given credit for, and can decide for themselves when someone is trying to unduly influence their thought processes. It simply appears that there is inherent fear in allowing students all of the tools necessary for them to reach their own conclusions on what creationism and ID are.

Agreed, I have read literature written by those within the Young Earth Creationist realm who certainly advocate opposition to evolution being taught (which is what your euphemism is actually referring to), but not all who believe in creationism are out trying to burn down the school houses. Advocating that creationist theory or ID be taught alongside evolution is not the same as advocating evolution not be taught at all.

And before anyone jumps to conclusions, as stated before elsewhere, I do not advocate teaching creationism or ID in science classes alongside evolution. I do advocate these issues being allowed to be discussed IF they are broached by students without fear of reprisal upon the teacher who simply answers a students question. Agreed, creationism and ID never have to be part of a science curriculum, but do you really want a teacher to have to stand in front of a class and be forced to say, in response to a question, "By law I am not allowed to discuss that"?

As a corollary, I find it odd that high school students can sit in an English Literature class and study The Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Iliad, both of which are chock full of gods, but get into more modern literature influenced by the Church of England or Christianity, and hold on, you can't mention god in schools. Or that a student is free to read the satanic bible in the school library but not the Holy Bible.

And as for thread hijacking, this is an often employed dodge. Threads often veer off from the original point made, the thread police usually only cry foul when the thread goes in a direction they object to.

"You really should not make assumptions about other people's motives."

Of course I am free to do this, as long as I qualify my comments, as I did, with a caveat such as "in my opinion". Note I did exactly this. The OP is free to come and set me straight himself, and I will be happy to entertain his response. If he convinces me that I am wrong about his intentions, I will certainly admit that for all to see.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still haven't pwned me yet AV, care to explain why we have different types of coal rather than 1 type which could be associated with a flood?

God should have created only one type of coal?

Care to explain why we find dinosaur tracks in coal beds if they were created and covered up by the flood?

I assume a dinosaur stepped in soft coal or something.

 

[AV1611VET]

The OP was not about drawing out YECs - no one is required to be om-nom-nom'ed for breakfast.

I agree with you, Cabal --- I don't think the OP was meant to do anything more than ask some valid (and very good) questions.

I don't think he's drawing out YECs, but if he is, and Gawron is right --- what's wrong with that?

This should give YECs a chance to shine --- in my opinion.

 

[Hespera]

Posted by Split-Rock:

"Can you explain why creationists are afraid to let science be taught in science classes?"

I appreciate your response.

I don't believe they are afraid to let science be taught in science classes, at least not in the absolute terms you phrase this in. I believe students are smarter than they are often given credit for, and can decide for themselves when someone is trying to unduly influence their thought processes. It simply appears that there is inherent fear in allowing students all of the tools necessary for them to reach their own conclusions on what creationism and ID are.

Agreed, I have read literature written by those within the Young Earth Creationist realm who certainly advocate opposition to evolution being taught (which is what your euphemism is actually referring to), but not all who believe in creationism are out trying to burn down the school houses. Advocating that creationist theory or ID be taught alongside evolution is not the same as advocating evolution not be taught at all.

And before anyone jumps to conclusions, as stated before elsewhere, I do not advocate teaching creationism or ID in science classes alongside evolution. I do advocate these issues being allowed to be discussed IF they are broached by students without fear of reprisal upon the teacher who simply answers a students question. Agreed, creationism and ID never have to be part of a science curriculum, but do you really want a teacher to have to stand in front of a class and be forced to say, in response to a question, "By law I am not allowed to discuss that"?

As a corollary, I find it odd that high school students can sit in an English Literature class and study The Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Iliad, both of which are chock full of gods, but get into more modern literature influenced by the Church of England or Christianity, and hold on, you can't mention god in schools. Or that a student is free to read the satanic bible in the school library but not the Holy Bible.

And as for thread hijacking, this is an often employed dodge. Threads often veer off from the original point made, the thread police usually only cry foul when the thread goes in a direction they object to.

"You really should not make assumptions about other people's motives."

Of course I am free to do this, as long as I qualify my comments, as I did, with a caveat such as "in my opinion". Note I did exactly this. The OP is free to come and set me straight himself, and I will be happy to entertain his response. If he convinces me that I am wrong about his intentions, I will certainly admit that for all to see.

Yes you are free to do it but its really better if you don't, since you are not likely to get it right, going by the track record, and, of course, it starts disputes going as we see. Is it ok and helpful if others make assumptions about what you mean, and get it wrong?

"And as for thread hijacking, this is an often employed dodge. Threads often veer off from the original point made, the thread police usually only cry foul when the thread goes in a direction they object to."QUOTE

The preposition at the end of the sentence is noted by the English Usage Police, as well as the, uh, dodge, of trying to put it on the other person when you hijack a thread. Also noted is the assumption that there is an objection to the direction. Really, you are not good at guessing others' thoughts and motives.

Where I went to school, it was British Empire and we got a good dose of Scottish Presbyterian sunday school. Prayer every morning, and bible reading, all that sort of thing.

I dont myself see a thing wrong with it. Im glad that I had that.

I'd agree with Gawron that teaching about the Iliad and not the old Tesatment is kind of weird. i doubt I agree with much or any of Gawron's reasons for it, but left up to me, I would allow / encourage the bible to be taught in public schools. Dont ask me to work out the details!

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

With the OP CactusJack set the tone for his thead, and makes his position clear on what he thinks of “YECers”. You may not want to admit this, but your disagreement alone will not invalidate my statement. Further, in his OP he provides the answers he would accept contained within his questions. Only, in my opinion, he wasn’t really looking for answers, at least not from any “YECers”, with the exception that one may show up and post a God related answer which could then be pounced upon. I admit part of this is subjective, but based on, among other considerations, my experience with this forum.

please do not put words into my mouth. i asked this question out of a genuine curiosity of what answers would be given since the scientific understanding of how fossil fuels form is inconsistent with a planet of less than 10,000 years.

“Not there in the OP.”

But his hidden agenda is.

my agenda in these forums is and always has been defense of science and education of those ignorant of it. i do try to not be insulting, so if that has come across i do apologize.

i have a degree in science and creationism is a perversion of science. creationism produces no science and it forces itself upon science education instead of going through the scientific process first like all other ideas in the textbooks. YEC is the worst brand because it is the base of the movement and it is in direct conflict with ALL of modern science, not just evolution. did i explain myself sufficiently?

 

[Gawron]

"Really, you are not good at guessing others' thoughts and motives."

Judging by the defensiveness of your response, I beg to differ.

English Usage Police, that's funny.

 

[AV1611VET]

did i explain myself sufficiently?

No --- please explain why you consider YEC as science, and not history?

 

[Gawron]

"did i explain myself sufficiently?"

Yes.

Quote:

"YEC is the worst brand because it is the base of the movement and it is in direct conflict with ALL of modern science, not just evolution."

Thanks.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No --- please explain why you consider YEC as science, and not history?

Why should it be considered either?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

No --- please explain why you consider YEC as science, and not history?

it's neither.
oh and is it history without age or age without history or how can one exist without the other?

 

[Cabal]

I agree with you, Cabal --- I don't think the OP was meant to do anything more than ask some valid (and very good) questions.

I don't think he's drawing out YECs, but if he is, and Gawron is right --- what's wrong with that?

This should give YECs a chance to shine --- in my opinion.

Fair enough. My sincerest apologies for the disproportionate response. Mea culpa

 

[AV1611VET]

it's neither.
oh and is it history without age or age without history or how can one exist without the other?

It's neither.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It has been my experience posting on this forum that, indeed, there are some quite intelligent people lurking about and posting commentary. It has also been my experience that many of the rebuttals or responses posted follow a distinct pattern, and yours, Lord Emsworth, could be the template.

Quote:

“I don't see anything like that.”

If this is true, which I doubt, then you know nothing of sarcasm, satire, allegory, or tone as conveyed via word choice and structure. You know, basic High School English subject matter.

There are numerous examples to be found in various threads where members have made use of the acronym YEC as a pejorative meant to denote stupidity on those it is meant to encompass, much as the terms “slope”, or “gook”, or “tard”, as another current internet favorite. Ever read any of TeddyKGB’s post? Regardless, this trend is by no means limited to users who post here. Below is an example from ScienceBlogs.com, no less:
[...]

With the OP CactusJack set the tone for his thead, and makes his position clear on what he thinks of “YECers”. You may not want to admit this, but your disagreement alone will not invalidate my statement. Further, in his OP he provides the answers he would accept contained within his questions. Only, in my opinion, he wasn’t really looking for answers, at least not from any “YECers”, with the exception that one may show up and post a God related answer which could then be pounced upon. I admit part of this is subjective, but based on, among other considerations, my experience with this forum.

“Not there in the OP.”

But his hidden agenda is.

Pointing to other posts made by other people is not making a very strong case. Pointing to a hidden agenda isn't either. Alluding to some sarcam or satire but not showing it, fails as well.

And as I said in a previous post, I don't see anything wrong with labels per se. YEC (Young Earth Creationiost) may have connotations, but it is generally more the reader who infuses these connotations; they are not necessarily there. (Same with "atheistic evolutionists" I guess.) It may be true that here on this people mostly do equate "YEC" with "laughing stock," but you could refer to YEC in any way you wanted, you could write it out for example as "Young Earth Creationists" or you could circumscribe YEC beliefs in any way you wanted, that what lies beneath the label would still be equated with "laughing stock."

With the OP CactusJack set the tone for his thead, and makes his position clear on what he thinks of “YECers”.

Actually, I don't think that was done. There is nothing objectionable to me in the OP, apart maybe from amending "ers" to YEC. But even that makes me feel pedantic.

You may not want to admit this, but your disagreement alone will not invalidate my statement.

I could have said that.

Further, in his OP he provides the answers he would accept contained within his questions.

I took them as having a clarifying purpose. And, they could easily be negated. "Nah, I do not think fossil fuels are ancient lifeforms, but ..." No problem at all.

Only, in my opinion, he wasn’t really looking for answers, at least not from any “YECers”, with the exception that one may show up and post a God related answer which could then be pounced upon. I admit part of this is subjective, but based on, among other considerations, my experience with this forum.

You might have more of a point with other threads. The OP here can easily be answered in an orderly fashion by someone who is a "YECer" even if the tone of the reply is the same as that of the question. In principle at least.

I think the tone of the OP is even fairly kind and forthright, even if a little casual. Sarcasm, satire, or riducule is generally not veiled much around here.

 

[Split Rock]

Posted by Split-Rock:

"Can you explain why creationists are afraid to let science be taught in science classes?"

I appreciate your response.

I don't believe they are afraid to let science be taught in science classes, at least not in the absolute terms you phrase this in. I believe students are smarter than they are often given credit for, and can decide for themselves when someone is trying to unduly influence their thought processes. It simply appears that there is inherent fear in allowing students all of the tools necessary for them to reach their own conclusions on what creationism and ID are.

I actually think that ID could be used as an example of what science is not... in which case it could be discussed in a science class. Other than that, it is not up to pre high school or high school students to determine what science is, or should be. Scientists determine what science is. It is also wrong to confuse students as to what science is, or what scientists really do for a living.

Agreed, I have read literature written by those within the Young Earth Creationist realm who certainly advocate opposition to evolution being taught (which is what your euphemism is actually referring to), but not all who believe in creationism are out trying to burn down the school houses. Advocating that creationist theory or ID be taught alongside evolution is not the same as advocating evolution not be taught at all.

It is only a default plan, since the alternative is no longer considered possible. In the years befoe Sputnik, there were laws on the books in several states banning the teaching of evolution. Nowadays, creationists understand such laws are just not practical.

And before anyone jumps to conclusions, as stated before elsewhere, I do not advocate teaching creationism or ID in science classes alongside evolution. I do advocate these issues being allowed to be discussed IF they are broached by students without fear of reprisal upon the teacher who simply answers a students question. Agreed, creationism and ID never have to be part of a science curriculum, but do you really want a teacher to have to stand in front of a class and be forced to say, in response to a question, "By law I am not allowed to discuss that"?

I do not believe such a gag order exists in any state. As I said, ID can be discussed in terms of why it is not science. It simply can not be advocated as a scientific alternative to evolution.

As a corollary, I find it odd that high school students can sit in an English Literature class and study The Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Iliad, both of which are chock full of gods, but get into more modern literature influenced by the Church of England or Christianity, and hold on, you can't mention god in schools. Or that a student is free to read the satanic bible in the school library but not the Holy Bible.

I challenge that this is the case. Are school libraries really prevented from having the bible in their collection? I don't think so. I remember passages from The Bible as part of my Death in Literature course as an undergrad... but I don't remember if we ever used The Bible for an English class. It would not be inappropriate, as English Literature.

 

[juvenissun]

Probably a video game.

You don't think these guys get their theology from a Bible, do you?

In fact, I am interested to know what kind of god people could figure out. I tried it on a few intelligent people (professors). They did not go very far. That makes me feel the theology in the Bible is really fantastic. So, I could not help to ask people about details of their god when I heard a new one.

 

[juvenissun]

YEC "theories" do not allow time for the burial, generation, migration and charging of large oil reservoirs as you'd realise if you knew the first thing about the oil industry.

How much time is needed? I believe it is still within the range of a YE.

 

[juvenissun]

XENU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

Thanks. So, it is part of a science fiction. I like science fiction. But the Galactic Battleship stuff is too long and I don't have enough time for it.