Yec/Not Yec? - A "let's keep it short topic"

You have a question, ask it. If not, what the heck are you asking for position statements for?

Not sure I follow your points here.This message has been edited by randman, 12-26-2005 01:00 AM

Hi Randman,I think Minnemooseus is, like the rest of us, having difficulty seeing the consistency or central theme within your perspective, so he asked for a clear statement of what you believed so that it could be referred to from time to time whenever we became confused about where you're coming from. You replied with a statement that barely qualifies as musings: My guess is that, surprised at the lack of specificity and any evidence-based foundation, he asked if this was really what you wanted for a position statement. If you think it sufficient, fine. Perhaps some will be interested in exploring this with you in an attempt to tie your musings in with real science.But returning to the thread's topic, what YEC research are you thinking of that you described as "interesting." I think knowing this will give us a better idea of your position on YEC.--Percy

quote:

---

Not sure I follow your points here.

---

That's quite alright. Few people look at the written word for what it actually says. More fun and more rewarding to give it that personal twist.

Percy, I repeatedly state my beliefs, position, whatever, and you guus just stand there and basically seem to be saying you don't believe me.What gives?I don't know as much about YECism as evolution. So I don't have as strong positions on YECism. I am unconvinced the earth is as young as they say, but some of their dating arguments are interesting such as the idea that erosion would have made all the hills flat if the earth was millions of years old; that catatstrophic events can be overlooked to explain some features of the earth; that polonium halos indicate instant creation of granite; etc,....But I don't argue YECism because I don't know enough about these arguments. I was never taught YECism, just ToE, as most Americans. So I never had some solid material taught to me that I could then look into for myself. I looked into what was taught for ToE and found an appalling level of misrepresentation, and you know that's how I feel about the way evos generally treat data when the discussion is the evidence for evolution.So that's what I talk about.I talk about aspects of ID because some arguments made by ID had occurred to me prior to ever reading about them, and because I think QM involvles the potential for creating ID mechanisms; in other words that we ourselves can learn to directly engineer aspects of reality, maybe even producing artificial consciousness via quantum computers. I don't see ID as involving a God of the gaps as you guys claim, but to be firmly based on evidence whereas ToE is based on misinformation and imagination.I think that any theory as to the past is somewhat speculative in nature from a scientific perspective, and that there are basic assumptions we make in order to assess data, but that these basic assumptions may be incorrect. I don't think for instance that the past is static, and so as we assume that when we find something telling us about the past, that it was always so or will always be so in the future, that may be incorrect.Those are a lot of specific beliefs. I have no idea how you guys could claim I am secretive in the slightest here.

There really isn't that much to know about YECism. God created everything in 6 24 hour days, about 5 to 10 thousand years ago, and a while later did a remodeling via the great flood. Pretty well covers the essence of YEC. I think that the age of the Earth is fundimental in the creation vs. evolution debate, and by extension, the exploration of ID.If you are unwilling to take a position on the age of the Earth, then we have no context to discuss anything else.Moose

I stated I think the age of the earth is old, right now. I don't particularly believe it stays the same. For example, the universe may have been 2 billion years old 1000 years ago, and could be 20 billion 1000 years from now, or maybe space-time contracts, and the universe becomes only 4 billion years old or some such.I don't think we can get into here too much, but if there are causal events, much smaller, that occur from the present towards the past, then the longer more time passes, the more the past will change, which is something I believe.

I'm just trying to really nail down your age of the Earth position.You stated "I think the age of the earth is old". By that statement I assume that you accept the mainstream scientific view that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. Correct me if my assumption is incorrect.If that assumption is correct, then YECism should not be any part of any discussion between Randman and those of the mainstream evolution persuasion. In other words - Randman is in no way a YEC.Moose

Moose, I stated repeatedly and frequently here for months that I am not a YECer. That doesn't mean I think they are wrong on everything, and I would not consider it derogatory to be a YECer if I was one, but I am not convinced yet of a young earth argument.Geesh!As far as the exact age, I really don't know, but I can accept a very ancient age, and have never really examined all the the arguments within mainstream science for the 4.5 billion years.I do think however that we are on the threshold of discovering time expands not just linearly forward, but all the wayu around.

I will take that as Randman being an "old Earther", and not remotely being a YEC in any way. That should end this topic.I hereby request that an admin (other than Adminnemooseus) close this topic. Please keep the subtitle of this message in the subtitle.Moose