nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 178:
Line 178: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Comment: Making a distinction that doesn't exist.
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)
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)
: When you refer to creationists, which includes qualified geologists and other scientists, as "people who don't understand/don't want to understand/will never understand", you're denigrating.
: "''...sometimes you're just flat-out wrong. This time: you're just plain wrong.''": Or you are.
: "''Geology (and I) do not claim to know how old the Earth is. ... Geology claims to know how old the Earth appears. Actual age and apparent age are completely unrelated''": Can you find me ''one'' quote from a leading geologist that makes that distinction? I can't recall ''ever'' seeing a quote about the age of the Earth that qualifies it as merely "appearance". Here's some I just Googled:
:* "The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years"[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html Talk.Origins]
:* "Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54×109 years)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth Wikipedia]
:* "...scientists have been able to ... calculate an age for the Earth..."[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html USGS]
:* "How old is the Earth? 4.6 billion years (4,600,000,000 years)"[http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm]
: Not even a hint that they are talking about appearance rather than actual age. No, you're making a distinction that geologists don't make.
: "''It would be unwise and presumptuous to assume that your interpretation of the Bible is fact.''": Not at all. Words have meanings, else we could not communicate. Not all written text is clear, but the Bible is quite clear on this, and this is the way that essentially everyone understood it until atheistic geological assumptions took over. Even today, though, the experts of Hebrew and Old Testament say that this is the way that the writer(s) of Genesis ''meant'' it to be understood. Would you accept the argument, "geologists say that the Earth is/appears to be 4.6 billion years old, but there's different ways of interpreting that, and it can be interpreted to mean that it's only 6,000 years old? You'd think I was being stupid for arguing that, yet that is essentially what you are arguing about "interpreting" the Bible.
: Opposition to mainstream geological ideas does not comprise a handful of "mysteries" and a few facts. It comprises a different but equally valid interpretation of the evidence, based on a different worldview.
: I've already dismissed the flat-Earth and green cheese red herrings. They are ''not'' scientific theories, but anti-creationist propaganda and a fairy tale.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
==Points of Agreement==
==Points of Agreement==