From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

who were they?

The article says that the uniformitarian dates were assigned by secular geologists. Since we know their religious position, could they please be named and linked so we can go and read more about these people? --Scott 10:54, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

The dates have changed considerably over the last couple of centuries, so there are a number of different people involved. "Secular" may not be the ideal word, but assigning these dates indicates that they have ignored if not rejected the Biblical timescale, which makes "secular" pretty close to the mark. Philip J. Rayment 11:07, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
What about dropping the adjective completely? Surely there are Christian geologists who use the dates, even if they didn't invent them. --Scott 11:09, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Even though there are Christian geologists who use the dates (contradicting the book they profess to believe), the point is that the dates are based on a secular ideology rather than being simple, observable, facts. Philip J. Rayment 11:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Do you accept that there can be people who accept Jesus Christ as Lord without those people also rejecting every scientific theory that contradicts young Earth creation? Many of these models help to understand how God's creation works, whether it was actually created yesterday, 6000 Y.A. or millions of years ago. There's apparently a Creation Wiki for people who can't see past that. --Scott 18:50, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
I accept that there are many Christians who believe the atheistic origins myth which is contrary to the Bible. I alluded to that in my previous comment. But if a scientific model helps to understand how God's creation works regardless of when it was created, how does it contradict young-Earth creation? That sounds very close to the anti-creationist lie that creationists reject science. And I've yet to see any ideas that contradict young-Earth creation that can justifiably be called a scientific theory. Generally they are just-so stories about the past. Philip J. Rayment 22:31, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
The article as it stands appears to divide the world (or at least scientists) into "secular" and "Young Earth creationist", then document the tension between them. "Conservative" is not the same as "Young Earth Creationist", neither is "Christian". The title is "Permian", so that should be the focus of the article. The lead section should describe Permian without reference to any "side" of an argument. I think the first two paragraphs are neutral and accepted by all parties. The rest appears to be rather partisan. I think I'll have a go at cleaning it up. Please check that I don't misrepresent either side, but please try to avoid reinserting any bias or division I manage to reduce. --Scott 10:39, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm, I don't think that the article was as bad as you imply, but I do like your changes. You've done a good job of treating the subject fairly. Philip J. Rayment 21:49, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
By the way, I wouldn't really characterise Noah as being a "victim" of the flood, and it is often referred to as "Noah's Flood", even though, as you indicate, it wasn't Noah that caused it. Philip J. Rayment 21:53, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Treating the subject fairly around here probably means I'm a liberal. See Talk:Main Page#Hi where I've said school chaplains are more important than making the kids recite the Lord's Prayer at school. FWIW I wouldn't normally say Noah was a "victim" either, but I wanted to turn the sentence around to focus the other way. Noah could have lived out his retirement much more comfortably without the flood, so he was a victim in some sense. He just turned out to have played a fairly important part in world history because of it. To anyone else reading this later, the "victim" comment was in an edit summary for the article. --Scott 04:11, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
Hey, I think it should be treated fairly, which is why I liked your edits, but I'm no liberal! Philip J. Rayment 05:26, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't think I am either. Any other articles you know of that I should give similar treatment to? I might as well contribute the things I can do well. --Scott 08:13, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, some of the other articles listed under category:geologic systems. Philip J. Rayment 08:40, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
In looking at the sentence "Young Earth creationists reject the uniformitarian assumptions that processes in the world today have always worked in much the same way", is that really true? Wouldn't YEC proponents genearlly believe in the process of erosion being unchanged, but that other singular events were the primary cause of what we see today? Thanks Learn together 11:16, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools