Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
50 online now:
kjsimons, nwr, Tanypteryx (3 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Johnny
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 885,081 Year: 2,727/14,102 Month: 392/703 Week: 45/168 Day: 14/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 155 (38502)
05-01-2003 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by amsmith986
05-01-2003 12:42 AM


Beginnings
Right! And it's our beginnings that really gets the debate hotted up. It might be half as much fuss if humans weren't so obviously included in the whole thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by amsmith986, posted 05-01-2003 12:42 AM amsmith986 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 155 (38606)
05-01-2003 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Paul
05-01-2003 12:15 PM


Huh?
If ToE has to explain the orgin of life to be satisfactory to you does it also have to explain the origin of the universe? How about the behavior of the chemical substances which make up the genome? The physics of the atoms that make up those?

Since evolution is affected by environmental changes do I have to include plate tectonics, climate change and asteroid strikes?

The knowledge we have is without real boundaries, of course, but there are still convenient places to draw lines and work within them. If I want to tell you the theory of how a car engine works it is convenient not to go into any detail of the chemistry of the fuel/air combustion. You probably know that gas burns and if you don't you can understand how an engine works without knowing how gas burns anyway.

Evolution is about life. It does not attempt to describe the behavior of anything that doesn't reproduce. Therefore starting with a reproducing entity is a perfectly reasonable boundary.

Chemistry is about atoms so starting with electrons and nuclei (ignoring quarks altogether) is a perfectly reasonable boundary.

Geology presupposes the earth exists with certain properties. Ignoring steller evolution and formation is a perfectly reasonable boundary.

Do you want no boundaries at all?

If you wish to take that view then fine. In the total compendium of what we know there are holes. Things we don't yet know as well as other things. I expect (and hope) there always will be. That doesn't mean that nothing is knowable to some greater degree. It just means we should keep on testing to improve our degree of confidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Paul, posted 05-01-2003 12:15 PM Paul has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 155 (38614)
05-01-2003 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Adminnemooseus
05-01-2003 1:10 PM


Re: YET ANOTHER TOPIC DRIFT FLAG
quote:
As always, I may be wrong,

Not that I've noticed. Point taken. I will attempt to restrain myself. If someone want to start a topic on the "lines" between disciplines I might jump in. But it doesn't seem worth it to me since it might only be enumerating angels.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2003 1:18 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
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 yet responded

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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
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 yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
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 yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
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 yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
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 yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 155 (38812)
05-02-2003 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by amsmith986
05-02-2003 6:44 PM


sediments
I've started (or will in a minute ) a new topic to discuss sediments if that's what you want.

However, if you think that the universe is less than 100,000 years you have to answer the SN1987A question. If that is unanswerable then any other YEC issue isn't worth discussing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by amsmith986, posted 05-02-2003 6:44 PM amsmith986 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 36 of 155 (38844)
05-03-2003 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by amsmith986
05-02-2003 10:57 PM


SN1987A
Message 22 of this topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by amsmith986, posted 05-02-2003 10:57 PM amsmith986 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 42 of 155 (70059)
11-30-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Atapuercan Zusayan
11-30-2003 11:13 AM


Welcome to the forum!
It can be fun here, but it isn't easy. Good luck!

Darwinism is not science, it is political well as us Zusayan folk know it, Philosohpy. Philosophical dialectic-materialism turned dogmatic and as ever unscientific and anti-scientific.
Unlike creationalism which much science supports so it should be recognised by the non-Zusayan barberians.

Do you care to demonstrate the assertions you have made here?
I think this thread might be ok for the politicalization of Darwinism bu the others belong in other threads.

"much science supports" -- some here have waited, with varying degrees of patience, for this science. There are lots of threads here for you to post your evidence in support of creationism.

I don't know how you want to organize your posts but you might start with getting the age of the earth right.

[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-30-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Atapuercan Zusayan, posted 11-30-2003 11:13 AM Atapuercan Zusayan has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 44 of 155 (70093)
11-30-2003 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Atapuercan Zusayan
11-30-2003 4:11 PM


Those are all assertions! Could you back something up instead of just making unsubstantiated statements?

If you can't back 'em up then you might as well not bother making them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Atapuercan Zusayan, posted 11-30-2003 4:11 PM Atapuercan Zusayan has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 155 (70132)
11-30-2003 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AdminBrian
11-30-2003 7:08 PM


It is possible that it isn't intended to be racist. Instead it is to show how this individual feels about the term Xian. It is trying to say,perhaps, that all the terms, including xian, are, in some way, discriminatory.

However, I would suspend AZ just because s/he is obviously not going to do anything but assert her/his views with no attempt at debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AdminBrian, posted 11-30-2003 7:08 PM AdminBrian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Brian, posted 11-30-2003 7:22 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 59 of 155 (70780)
12-03-2003 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Syamsu
12-03-2003 12:06 PM


The eugeniclegislation in progress obsessed china?

What is this and what does it have to do with the topic?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Syamsu, posted 12-03-2003 12:06 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8957
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 62 of 155 (70900)
12-03-2003 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Syamsu
12-03-2003 8:41 PM


Syamsu, you were going to give me an alternative to methodological naturalism weren't you? Over in the thread for that purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Syamsu, posted 12-03-2003 8:41 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Syamsu, posted 12-04-2003 3:27 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021