767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 168:
Line 168: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Comment
:::: You draw the line at teaching the ''evidence'', both for and against. And denigrating people who disagree with you is not a good argument. Many of those who believe in a young Earth ''do'' understand ''why'' others reached another conclusion, because ''they themselves'' used to hold to that other view themselves, but have been convinced otherwise, often ''by the evidence''.
:::: You draw the line at teaching the ''evidence'', both for and against. And denigrating people who disagree with you is not a good argument. Many of those who believe in a young Earth ''do'' understand ''why'' others reached another conclusion, because ''they themselves'' used to hold to that other view themselves, but have been convinced otherwise, often ''by the evidence''.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm not denigrating and hope it hasn't been perceived as such. I'm going out of my way to remain as respectful as possible. But think of it this way: if you're anything like me (and every other human on the planet), sometimes you're just flat-out wrong.
This time: you're just plain wrong.
Geology (and I) do not claim to know how old the Earth is. No one alive knows the answer to that question. In a brazen display of arrogance, you claim to know the answer to that question. Geology claims to know how old the Earth appears. Actual age and apparent age are completely unrelated. At the same time, a Biblical scholar would be wise to say that a popular interpretation of the Bible suggests that the Earth is 6,000 years old. It would be unwise and presumptuous to assume that your interpretation of the Bible is fact. Others may interpret the Bible differently.
I'm quite sure that in the mountains of geological evidence that has been compiled you can point to certain factors that support your opinion. Just as the 9/11 Truthers can point to "evidence" to support their beliefs, I'm certain you have evidence to support your belief. I'm equally certain you can find mysteries in the science of geology. That's why we continue to study geology, because we don't understand the entire planet yet. Neither of those two facts change the reality that since the 18th Century, Young Earth geology has been shattered as a theory time and time again by countless geologists.
The question remains: are we going to take seriously the flat-earth theory, the green cheese theory and the other "scientific" theories? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
==Points of Agreement==
There are few points of agreement between the modern science of Geology and Young Earth science. But in the interest of advancing the article I'm going to labor through what I see as a very short list of agreement.
* You have a right to teach your children whatever you want.
* I have a right to teach my children whatever I want.
* Cataclysmic geology was a popularly held theory until 1775.
* A tiny almost invisible minority of "scientists" still believe in cataclysmic geology.
* The vast majority of working geologists scoff at "young earth theory" and "cataclysmic geology".
* Working geologists find mineral resources for mining companies, oil companies and others. Working geologists do not ascribe to the science of the 18th century.
* Theoretical geologists in the field perform research every day about the history of the Earth's crust. 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.
* We are in agreement that unpopular scientific opinion is not necessarily the wrong opinion. For example, it took thirty years to amass enough data for the scientific community to concur as to the cause of the dinosaur's extinction.
* You believe that geology has something to do with theology.
''That last bullet point alone should be enough to stop a well-reasoned person in their tracks.''
My biggest problem is that as a conservative, I don't want to look like naive, foolish or politically-motivated. As a conservative, I support the truth whether it supports my position or not. 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. Furthermore, I cannot stand silent, while under the banner of conservatism someone else champions a position founded in ignorance.
Maybe the conclusion or lesson is that online references such as this and Wikipedia can't work. How does one resolve the fact that there will always be vocal passionate minorities who hold beliefs that contradict accept theory?
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)