Changes

::As I size up various angles to broach the subject with you, I am only reminded that I will be fighting tooth-and-nail against your strongly held beliefs with facts that have already been discovered by generations of geologists. These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you. That means it will fall to me to educate you about a great many things.  I'm not a very good teacher in the best situations. And, I refuse to teach those who don't want to learn, but rather they wish to use their own ignorance as a basis of argument.   

::As I size up various angles to broach the subject with you, I am only reminded that I will be fighting tooth-and-nail against your strongly held beliefs with facts that have already been discovered by generations of geologists. These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you. That means it will fall to me to educate you about a great many things.  I'm not a very good teacher in the best situations. And, I refuse to teach those who don't want to learn, but rather they wish to use their own ignorance as a basis of argument.   

::I'm well aware that this may sound insulting, but it is not my intention to insult. It my intention to explain to you and others why I feel debate on this subject is pointless with you. The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs. To argue against you would be to relive Galileo's argument against the cardinals, bishops and astronomers who believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This is a painful argument and there is no joy in being right. The argument is about educating the position of ignorance. But Galileo made the argument because it was important for others to understand. In this case, others already understand.  There is but a tiny head-in-the-sand minority who agree that there is geological evidence that Earth is only 6,000 years old.  

::I'm well aware that this may sound insulting, but it is not my intention to insult. It my intention to explain to you and others why I feel debate on this subject is pointless with you. The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs. To argue against you would be to relive Galileo's argument against the cardinals, bishops and astronomers who believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This is a painful argument and there is no joy in being right. The argument is about educating the position of ignorance. But Galileo made the argument because it was important for others to understand. In this case, others already understand.  There is but a tiny head-in-the-sand minority who agree that there is geological evidence that Earth is only 6,000 years old. So, this argument with you has all the pain of Galileo's argument, but none of the nobility of the result.  It's just a huge time sink.  

::That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created. For all I know it was created the day before I was born.  But if it was created the day before I was born or 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory.  In other words, I see absolutely no theology in earth science. (No theology -- except for the obvious fact that the Creation is so intricate an divine as to defy the belief that it was created randomly from randomness.)  

::That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created---nor does any geologist. For all I know it was created the day before I was born.  But if it was created the day before I was born or 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory.  In other words, I see absolutely no theology in earth science. (No theology -- except for the obvious fact that the Creation is so intricate and divine as to defy the belief that it was created randomly from randomness.)  

::All that aside, my suggestion is that there are two different articles here.  For those who want to believe in YE Geology, more power to you. Good luck finding oil and explaining coal.  I wish you the best. But, there is no place in a Geology article for those opinions and for that position.  The best you can hope for is two distinct articles/sciences which allow the reader to choose.  You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone. So long as this article stakes out this position, Conservapedia will suffer credibility problems.

::All that aside, my best suggestion is that there are two different articles here.  For those who want to believe in Young Earth Geology, more power to you. Good luck finding oil and explaining coal.  I wish you the best. But, there is no place in a Geology article for those opinions and for that position.   

 

::The best you can hope for is two distinct articles/sciences which allow the reader to choose.  You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone. On this I can see no possibility of compromise. So long as this article stakes out the position that YE Geology and geology are just two different views of geology, Conservapedia will suffer serious credibility problems.

::As a parting shot, why not mention that the Celts and Irish believe in fairies who tend the Earth and the Norse believe that earth spirits and dwarves shaped the mountains? Why not mention the Greek creation theory and how the gods deposed the titans before taking their place atop Mount Olympus?  

::As a parting shot, why not mention that the Celts and Irish believe in fairies who tend the Earth and the Norse believe that earth spirits and dwarves shaped the mountains? Why not mention the Greek creation theory and how the gods deposed the titans before taking their place atop Mount Olympus?  

::Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)