767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 104:
Line 104: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Comment
:Perhaps a nice, calm scholarly article comparing [[young earth]] and [[old earth]] scientific (and/or religious?) views would be helpful at some point. There are excellent reasons for Bible-believing Christians to adhere to the view that the [[age of the earth]] is in the thousands of years, as well as excellent scientific reasons for religious people to accept the modern mainstream view of billions of years. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
:Perhaps a nice, calm scholarly article comparing [[young earth]] and [[old earth]] scientific (and/or religious?) views would be helpful at some point. There are excellent reasons for Bible-believing Christians to adhere to the view that the [[age of the earth]] is in the thousands of years, as well as excellent scientific reasons for religious people to accept the modern mainstream view of billions of years. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Ed, with all due respect, the scientific reasons for believing the Earth appears thousand of years old were largely undermined more than 200 years ago. Granted the Earth might be older or younger than it appears, but there is little doubt or controversy about how old it appears. As for an example of a retarded sentence:
::''Applying these varied and complicated sciences with careful observations and math, scientists who believe the earth is billions of years old assert that one can calculate and [[extrapolation|extrapolate]] a presumed age of the Earth.''
Belief has nothing to do with calculations. Calculations are calculations and nothing more. We don't know how old the Earth is. In that regard you may believe whatsoever you choose. But we do know the results of the calculations and in that regard there is little argument.
The problem of "appearance of age" is best explained by "Adam's navel". Did Adam have a belly-button? Afterall, he was never in the womb and thus never had a placenta. Did he have DNA? Afterall, he did not have parents and thus inherited no genes. I would say, of course Adam had a belly button and genes. By the same token, geology stands apart from creationism.
The ''Theory of Earth'' was published in 1775 and the observations and science of generations of geologists have relentlessly advanced the field since that time. As a result one is free to believe that the earth was created six thousand years ago (or six days ago for that matter), but no informed person can reasonably argue against the evidence of a much older Earth. Geology makes no claims regarding creationism and I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some to believe that God would create a system that makes sense.
It must be understood that at this stage in the game, the burden of proof is not on the field of geology. The burden of proof is on the Young Earth theorists. Geologists around the globe have found pieces of a puzzle that seem to fit nicely together telling the story of this planet. At the risk of making Conservapedia seem foolish, this article might include a link to Young Earth theory, but there is absolutely no room for any Young Earth poppycock in an article about Geology.
When I said the article "needs work", that's because the article in general needs work. I would like to insert more than a few paragraphs into this article and I would like to edit it for further clarity. My problem is I don't want to invest the work while fighting an argument with a well-meaning soul who is quite uninformed about Earth Sciences. To be specific, I have no reason to hold any animosity or grudge against the goodly gentleman Rayment, but I am quite certain from his rhetoric that nothing positive can come from my interaction with him regarding geology.
Because of what I've seen in the study of Intelligent Design and in the case of the IPCC, I'm willing to accept the remote possibility that Young Earth science has some basis in reality. That said, the burden of proof is on Young Earth Theory and not on standard geology because geology is so widely accepted and has practical uses every single day. What I've seen of YE "science" is a reliance on out-of-date facts couple with ignorance of other facts wedged into a particular interpretation of Genesis. I have no tolerance for this argument because the "9/11 Truthers" and others sapped my energy long ago.
The 9/11 "Truthers" taught me that arguing against ignorance is futile because as soon as you explain one mystery another will arise. So with apologies to Mr. Rayment, I can only say that he may be a good fellow and well-intentioned, but he is arguing from a passionate philosophical point but a position of utter ignorance of geology.
I hate to admit it, but this article is sort of an epiphany for me and I must thank Mr. Rayment for that. Although I know that evolution is a fact, I also believe in Intelligent Design Theory. I could never understand why some folks would want to keep ID out of schools. I now fully understand why some liberal parents feel threatened by us conservatives and religious types.
Previously, it was obvious to me the atheistic agenda in teaching Evolution, but I was blind to the dangers of the reverse. Though he will never accept this from me or another, and though this is not intended as an insult, it is clear to me that Mr. Rayment has only a vague and faulty understanding about the science of geology. I respect his right to teach his children whatever he wants. But, I absolutely do not want him teaching my kids anything about Earth Science. Thanks to Mr. Rayment, I now fully understand the issue for our schools: "What does one do with passionately held beliefs which are founded in ignorance?"
I have no easy solution. In this particular case, I think segregation is the best option. This is because, I'm certain that Mr. Rayment is equally certain of my ignorance or of my involvement the geological conspiracy against the Bible.
So, after rambling a while, I'll get to the point. What I'm asking the "powers that be" to enforce segregation here. In an article about Geology, I think that the best Young Earthers can hope for is a link to an article about their theory. I personally refuse to write this article as if there was any controversy between "young earth theory" and "old earth theory". I know too much about the field of study to pretend as if these were two different but equal lines of thought.
I'm a conservative. Therefore, I don't want informed people to think that conservatives are ignorant. I firmly believe that if Conservapedia allows "young earth theory" (disproved long ago) to mingle with modern geology, then we make ourselves look uneducated and ignorant. And I don't say that flippantly or with anything other than Conservapedia's best interests at heart! But for the fact that some people interpret Genesis to mean what they want it to mean, there is little difference between taking young earth theory and flat-earth theory seriously.
I would like to improve and edit this article but I don't have energy for an edit war. If I have to write this much on the talk page before a single edit is made, then you have an idea of what I'm talking about. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)