Why is it . . .

[Vance]

Actually, no, a strict reading of the genealogies comes out to a little over 6,000 years, and most held to this until fairly recently. The reason the 12,000 or so came about is the historical and archealogical record made it painfully clear that we have very strong evidence of human cultures going back to well beyond the Usher date. So, the YEC recouped by realizing they could expand out the genealogies by reading it to mean "ancestor of" in many cases (even though this becomes a fairly strained reading at times), and with maximum stretching, could come up with the 12,000 to 13,000 year mark. This puts them (for now) at a much safer distance from historical and archealogical records of human culture. So, that means they can just deny the dating methods used by so many other scientific fields and they can make the argument with a straight face. Well, *I* coudn't make it with a straight face, but they can.

Basically, though, the push back from 6,000 years was only because they had to. I am sure they wish they could find a way to get it back to around 20,000 or so just to be a bit safer for a bit longer.

 

[Plan 9]

The reason why, is because most of us aren't prepared to defend Creationism. Though I'm pretty sure I never was rude, it's a tendency to resort to ad hominem arguments when you have nothing better to say. Usually it's the experienced knowledgable apologists that are always calm and polite. Since there aren't any knowledgeable apologists in the areas of ecology and evolutionary biology, many must resort to ad hominem attacks when they don't know what else to say.

That's a tendency that you see everywhere. No matter what religion or faith a person is, when they're pinned personal attacks are last resort. I've been in apologetics, mostly in philosophy for a while, and I've learned to be careful with what I say.

I mean, c'mon, haven't you noticed that the people who say that stuff to you are the ones who know the least about whatever the discussion is on?

TTYL Jesus lvoes you!

I tend to agree with you, Drotar, and although I'm fairly new to these debates, I have yet to see a rude post of yours.

It's the degree of hostility evinced by some people which came as an unpleasant surprise to me.

 

[Plan 9]

What bothers me a little more than the insults and ad hominem attacks is the fact that a lot of people seem to be unwilling or unable learn.

I borrowed my sister's biology book and skimmed through a couple of chapters on Evolution. I admit, I didn't understand it at first. Sometimes I have the feeling that I'm one of the only ones who looks stuff up. Whether in a science book or in the dictionary or whatever. or I ask.

2 minutes to check facts ^_~

I concur, Arthur. Once again, you've posted what I wanted to, only your post is better than mine would have been.

 

[weblord]

gee i didn't observed that well.

 

[Cantuar]

I would expect to see condescending incivility from non-Christians,

Why?

 

[LorentzHA]

Well, YEC doesn't say 6,000, actually I know of none that advocate that position.

Most say 10-12,000. If you check all the geneaologies, it'd be pretty impossible for the earth to be 6,000 years old.

So, in effect, the idea is that it, (the Earth) has only been around as long as the ages of the people in the Bible combined from generation to generation? Seriously, I am trying to understand the YEC "thought process" ?? So the YEC's thought is that the Earth could not have existed before their God put people on it? This is the part that is odd to me..Drotar could you tell me why they believe this? Thanks

 

[Drotar]

We believe in literal six day Creation. The reason being, we try to see the act of Creation as more than a random or natural act, but as something more. As if God Himself has inspired and touched every aspect of nature so that it would be perfect. It's not as much "literalism" that we hold to, as much as the fact that God Himself made the act of Creation to be special.

We understand that the Jews particularly, and especially a God-inspired book, would not contain "figurative" or "symbolic" histories. It's not a fairy tale. The Jews were very proud of their heritage- it made them who they were. It was what defined them and set them apart as a nation. Thus, they wouldn't record a fairy tale of where they came from. What was written in their history, is ACTUALLY what happened.

Remember, the Fall of man was what introduced death into the world. Thus, man had to be on earth FIRST before the first organism died. Genesis 3.


You'd really have to read more than the elementary level Creationist books to understand. Of course the high school graduate level would be easy to refute. It was not designed to go into great depth, but rather lightly touch issues for the average Joe to understand.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. That'd be an example of upper-level YEC defense. Get the LONG ones, that have to be special ordered, that you're not going to find on a bookshelf in Wal-Mart. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[LorentzHA]

Thanks Drotar.

 

[Arikay]

But how do you know the earth is young?

Why is 6000 year date wrong in your opinion?

What if the evidence that creationism claims supports it is false?

What if All the evidence points to a different conclusion?

We believe in literal six day Creation. The reason being, we try to see the act of Creation as more than a random or natural act, but as something more. As if God Himself has inspired and touched every aspect of nature so that it would be perfect. It's not as much "literalism" that we hold to, as much as the fact that God Himself made the act of Creation to be special.

We understand that the Jews particularly, and especially a God-inspired book, would not contain "figurative" or "symbolic" histories. It's not a fairy tale. The Jews were very proud of their heritage- it made them who they were. It was what defined them and set them apart as a nation. Thus, they wouldn't record a fairy tale of where they came from. What was written in their history, is ACTUALLY what happened.

Remember, the Fall of man was what introduced death into the world. Thus, man had to be on earth FIRST before the first organism died. Genesis 3.


You'd really have to read more than the elementary level Creationist books to understand. Of course the high school graduate level would be easy to refute. It was not designed to go into great depth, but rather lightly touch issues for the average Joe to understand.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. That'd be an example of upper-level YEC defense. Get the LONG ones, that have to be special ordered, that you're not going to find on a bookshelf in Wal-Mart. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Cantuar]

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. That'd be an example of upper-level YEC defense.

Quite a lot of that paper is reporting the stuff done by Steve Austin and Andrew Snelling to discredit radiometric dating. It's very easy to send a young rock for K-Ar dating and then claim the technique is worthless under all circumstances. Meaningless, but quite easy.

Why not get hold of a copy of "The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple (published by Stanford University Press)? See what the people who do actual science in this area have to say for themselves.

"G. Brent Dalrymple received his Ph.D. in geology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1963 and a D.Sc. from Occidental College in 1993. He is retired and now Dean & Professor of Oceanography Emeritus in the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. His expertise is in the areas of isotope geology, geochronology, the origin of ocean island chains, and the age of the Earth and Solar System. Dr. Dalrymple is a Fellow and Past President of the American Geophysical Union, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. He has been a member of the National Academy of Sciences since 1993."

Sounds like a person who can be taken seriously on this subject.

 

[Drotar]

I BELIEVE, Arikay, that the earth is young by means of MY relative dating.

6,000 years could be right. Not likely though.

Regarding the last two questions, if I was wrong, it wouldn't be anything foreign to me, and in the scope of eternity, the answer is "Nothing." As I said, I accept the possibility of the atheistic agnostic view, but that is simply not what I believe hapened. All things in consideration, the one thing that seems the LEAST probable, the two things actually, are all animals, insects, birds, reptiles, and man evolving from the same 'protobionts'/ and the perfect conditions for life on this planet, and the alignment of the planets, holding each other in balance. The distance of the earth from the sun, the 23.5% tilt of the axis. Stepping back and looking at the broad pciture, things look perfect, orderly, and young.

Maybe we're wrong, and maybe y'all are. If I was wrong, when I'm dead, it's not going to matter. I am YEC now because this is how I interpret the evidence.

If you would like to discuss any single matter, I am certainly not an expert, but I would gladly explain why I hold to a certain belief. The discussion, on whichever topic, must however be private. To be fair, us YEC's are grossly outnumbered. As long as it's one-one I don't mind. I accept any opportunity where I can learn more. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Drotar]

I don't mean to sound cheap, but how much is that book going to cost Cantaur? My work isn't the highest paying, and doesn't offer enough hours. I'll probably get another one: @ Barnes&Nobles. Meaning I'll work with books and get a discount price for everything. UPS gives you free health insurance, etc. and so with those two jobs and their benefits, I'll have stacked together a great deal.

Right now, I have to date spent about $3,500 on different books, only two on YEC unfortunately. So, I'm concerned with spending more money. Lucaspa offered more titles I need to buy... :o TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Arikay]

It appears it will run you about $18 used.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Stepping back and looking at the broad pciture, things look perfect, orderly, and young.

It's not young, however, and there is no way to reconcile the geologic record with a young planet. The only way this can be done is to ignore certain pieces of evidence. Looking at the broad picture is essentially useless because that promotes observation from only a very superficial perspective. In such a case, you can see the evidence to fit any conclusion.

I am YEC now because this is how I interpret the evidence.

I don't think that's entirely true because of a disregard for evidence or just a generally superficial interpretation. You seem to be eager to study YEC only viewpoints, but why not actually study the science of geology for itself rather than going to website that only support what you feel you must believe?

For example, you are eager to point out a book likely written by the likes of Snelling or Austin, but they ignore what would be upper level geology themselves. They claim using a radiometric dating method outside of its limitations to get an anomalous date sheds doubt on actually using the methods properly, when that's clearly not true. Rather than learning about radiometric dating from YECists and biased, it would make more sense to pick up Dalrymple's book or even an introductory book in isotope geology or geochemistry. It just doesn't make sense to learn about something from people whom the scientific community dismisses with good reason and from people trying to validate a certain flavor of religion when you could learn about something from an unbiased perspective.

 

[Cantuar]

I don't mean to sound cheap, but how much is that book going to cost Cantaur?

At present it's $17.99 second-hand from Amazon. However, you might just want to start here, which won't cost you anything beyond a bit of time. The Dalrymple book is probably the best one on the subject in terms of technical level (this stuff can get incomplrehensible to nonspecialists rather quickly), but it still requires a bit of background knowledge.

 

[Cantuar]

Right now, I have to date spent about $3,500 on different books, only two on YEC unfortunately. So, I'm concerned with spending more money.

Good for you! Keep a lookout at Amazon Marketplace Sellers, Half.com, and eBay. Most of these titles don't need to be bought new. I hope "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr made it into Prof's reading list.

 

[Plan 9]

Cantuar, would you be so kind as to make up a short booklist, please, so I can order them from my librarian?

 

[Cantuar]

My recommendations would be "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr, "Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea" by Carl Zimmer, "Evolution" by Matt Ridley, and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins for general reading; "The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple for radiometric dating; "The Dynamic Earth" by Brian Skinner and Stephen Porter for physical geology (this one's expernsive, if I remember right);"At the Water's Edge" by Carl Zimmer and "Aquagenesis" by Richard Ellis for the sea-land transition; just about anything by Ian Tattersall on human evolution; "Fossils: the Key to the Past" by Richard Fortey for a discussion of the fossil record; "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller, "Science on Trial" by Douglas Futuyma, and "The Triumph of Evolution" by Niles Eldredge for the creation-evolution stuff; "The Elegant Universe" by Bryan Greene, "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" by John Gribbin, "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking, and "Cosmic Coincidences" by John Gribbin and Martin Rees for cosmology and the anthropic principle; and just about anything by Stephen Jay Gould for an entertaining read (except that "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" is a bit hard going).

I think Prof also recommends "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas Futuyma and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett; they're both really good but I don't think they're such easy reads as some of the others.

 

[Plan 9]

Thank you, Cantuar!
*prepares to copy and paste Cantuar's post onto e-mail to be sent to already overburdened librarian*

 

[Gracchus]

. . . that the be most hostile, insulting, rude, impolite and bad-mannered posters on this board (and the Christian version) tend to be the YEC's?

I would expect to see condescending incivility from non-Christians, but it seems more often than not it is the YEC's with the attitude of "you stupid evolutionists, don't you realize your theory is a bunch of baloney!?" etc, etc, etc.

hmm, kind of reminds me of the French guys up on the castle parapets in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "you silly ka-nig-its!"

I recorded the following exchange on 6/13/03, which might shed some light on what is going on here. The links were broken in the late great database crash, but let the material speak for itself. The names have been changed because the personalities are not important, except as to the choice of the method of communication.

Yesterday at 05:41 AM "Commentator" said this in Post (Link down)
"Creationist",
. . .why do you find it neccesary to tear down instead of building up . . . how come you can't look for a win-win situation and strive to find common ground . . . remember, everything you say about others is really something you are saying about yourself . . . blah blah blah . . .
Not only are you becoming a good skeptic, you are becoming a great hypocrite as well.

Since you seem to have a problem with the refutations give(n) to the opening post, perhaps you could enlighten us to what the "real" issue of this thread should be and how it was not addressed?

Yesterday at 06:55 AM "Creationist" said this in Post (Link down)
In order to do that I would actually have to read the thread. I will take your advise under consideration and give it some thought. But for now my objective is just to have fun with your guys. I like to push your buttons.

(Emphasis mine--Gracchus)

Creationists have no evidence. Their preferred strategies require none. All they do is post the same old fallacies and denials. If refuted they suddenly wander off, multiply unsupported claims, discover pressing business elsewhere, vanish in a cloud of brimstone-reeking scriptures, or try to drag the thread off topic. ("Creationist" almost always uses this last device. This time he let the truth slip out, which is something seldom seen from him.)

This in no way inhibits them from re-posting their same fallacious arguments on another day, another thread, another forum.

I think they want to believe that all the atheistic evil-utionists will suddenly realize that science is a trick of the devil and start singing Hosannas and Hallelujahs. This would then reassure them that the nonsense which constitutes their world view is verified, and that the Lord is with them in their holy crusade.

When it doesn't happen, they become insecure and afraid. They seldom resort to sarcasm, which requires at least a little wit, but they often become haughty and righteous.

I intend to repost this information everytime "Creationist" or his cronies try to drag the thread off topic. If I miss an instance, anyone should feel free to repost this.