nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 212:
Line 212: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Points of Agreement: Still no substantive argument, but rhetoric.
All this and the radio-carbon dating article just popped in my head---an article which is mostly poppycock. I suppose I need to walk away and find some liberal moderate friends so I can empathize with them when they are embarrassed by the far left. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
All this and the radio-carbon dating article just popped in my head---an article which is mostly poppycock. I suppose I need to walk away and find some liberal moderate friends so I can empathize with them when they are embarrassed by the far left. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: There's actually ''lots'' of points of agreement. The ''only'' areas of disagreement relate to origins: how old they are and how they formed: Both things that are ''not observed'', but ''inferred''.
: "''You have a right to teach your children whatever you want.''": Up to a point, but if I have my children in a government school, the government decides, not me. The only right I have is to not put my children in a government school.
: "''A tiny almost invisible minority of "scientists" still believe in cataclysmic geology.''": You downplay it a bit too much, especially the "invisible" bit.
: "''Working geologists do not ascribe to the science of the 18th century.''": First, some working geologists are YECs, so that statement is incorrect. Second, creation geology has advanced beyond the 18th century, so that was a loaded statement.
: "''...it took thirty years to amass enough data for the scientific community to concur as to the cause of the dinosaur's extinction''": Even ignoring the creationist component of that community, I don't think they've agreed ''yet''!
: "''You believe that geology has something to do with theology.''": No, not really. I believe that claims about the ''history'' of the rocks are claims about ''history'', which conflict with the Bible's claims about ''history''. So it's all about which ''history'' is correct, not that geology has something to do with theology, although the history does have implications in other areas.
: "''The percentage of theoretical geologists who concur with standard geological theory are much higher than say Stalin or Hussein's percentage of the popular vote.''": Neither science nor history are popularity contests.
: "''The rarity of such a concurrence is so rare as to defy my ability to take your position seriously on any level.''": Again, see the popularity contest point. Further, how rare do you think it is?
: "''My biggest problem is that as a conservative, I don't want to look like naive, foolish or politically-motivated.''": Sorry, but if you believe in intelligent design, then you already do look that, in the eyes of most scientists. I'm sure that if anti-ID people made the sorts of statements to you about ID that you are making hear about YEC (as they do), you wouldn't accept it. So why should I accept it from you? Second, you should be more interested in the truth than in how you look.
: "''As a conservative, I support the truth whether it supports my position or not.''": So which is your biggest concern? Not looking naive, foolish, or politically-motivated, or the truth?
: "''I can no more embrace young earth geological theory than I can embrace any other 18th century scientific theory that has long since been proven faulty''": Again, creation geology is not stuck in the 18th century: that's not a valid argument. Second, I totally disagree that it has long since been proven faulty.
: "''All this and the radio-carbon dating article just popped in my head---an article which is mostly poppycock.''": Yeah? How about pointing out what's (supposedly) wrong instead of making meaningless hand-waving statements like that?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)