nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 56:
Line 56: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Article in need of serious help ...: A lot of rhetoric, not much substance.
::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)
:::"''...the "Young Earth" position is not dissimilar to the "Flat Earth" position ...''": This is nonsense. The "young Earth position" has been held by many millions of people for thousands of years, including many very intelligent people (Ussher, Newton, Kepler, for example) and estimated tens of thousands of scientists today. The [[flat Earth]] "position" is largely an invention by evolutionists to discredit creationists (see that article).
::: "''These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you''": I don't ignore facts, and I don't reject them without good reason. And how would you know that they are unknown to me?
::: "''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...''": Yep. Because I use good arguments, not ignorance. You're using rhetoric and insults.
::: "''The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs.''": I've studied this issue for over 30 years. I'm not arguing from ignorance, and I use scientific arguments as well as religious/philosophical ones.
::: "''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.''": Galileo's issues were not so much with the science, but internal politics and rubbing people the wrong way. Many actually already accepted his ideas.
::: "''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.''": There's another insult. You're talking about many highly-qualified scientists there, and simply insulting them rather than refuting their arguments.
::: "''That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created---nor does any geologist.''": Then why do they claim to?
::: "''For all I know it was created the day before I was born.''": I take it that you believe the Bible, but if so you don't believe that what He said is true!
::: "''But if it was created ... 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory.''": Oh? What evidence? Near enough to no scientists managed to see this evidence until around the time that various agnostics, atheists, etc. starting proposing a much older Earth around 200 or so years ago. It couldn't have been very obvious.
::: "''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.''": There's nothing hard to explain about coal. And the YEC view has as much right to be in the article as the atheistic view.
::: "''You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone.''": Why not? Other than people's biases getting in the way, of course?
::: "''...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?''": Perhaps because, unlike YEC, there's no scientific or other good evidence for them?
::: "''Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology?''": For a layman, I believe that I have a pretty good grasp. And your post has been nothing but rhetoric, with a touch of insult. For someone who claims to have a good grasp of the science and geology, you sure didn't use much of it.
::: Here's something to think about. I gather that you reject evolution? (If not, ignore the rest of this.) Pretty-well everything you said about YEC (e.g. "the vast majority of informed people know that these theories are preposterous") is also said by evolutionists against those that believe in ID or creation. So what makes ''your'' supposedly-minority, supposedly-unscientific, position any more credible that my supposedly-minority, supposedly-unscientific, position?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)