|
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2001 : 03:23:07
|
The Bad Astronomy Board has seen a recent flurry of posts of trying to prove that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old, but a 'mere' several hundred million.
I've seen this tactic before, by creationists (I'm not sure if the BABB posts are by creationists but I'm assuming they are) and it makes absolutely NO SENSE to me at all.
It's all WAY older then 6,000 years. I once explained to a creationist that there are ten's of thousands of years of annual ice layers on greenland and antarctica. He said "Ice floats dosent mean there wasn't a great flood" (which was the argument at the time). Still older then 6,000 years though was my reply. He was silent.
Why do they use evidence to disprove the 4.5 billion year when it also disproves their 6,000 year old date? I don't understand...
"Goddammit! The world is just filling up with more and more idiots! And the computer is giving them access to the world! They're
spreading their stupidity! At least they were contained before--now they're on the loose everywhere!"?
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 07:05:28 [Permalink]
|
its the big lie technique the creationists have never shown a bit of intellectual honesty in the past; why would you expect them to start now?
comrade billyboy |
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2001 : 07:24:19 [Permalink]
|
I suspect they see the 4+ billion year age of the earth as a sort of layered barrier to "the truth." If they can chip off a few million years here, a few million there, they will one day reach the magic 6000. I have a feeling the YECs are the last of a dying breed, given our steadily expanding isotope-based dating prowess. Of course, the more they realize their way of thinking is less defensible, coupled with their dwindling numbers, the more they will answer with emotional rhetoric as a defense mechanism.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2001 : 21:33:11 [Permalink]
|
You miss the point. Creationist are not trying to prove the Earth is 6000 years old. They take this as a gospel truth that doesn't need to be proved. What they want to do is disprove evolution. If the earth is relatively young, then evolution is wrong. If evolution is wrong, then they must be right (the Creationist thought process permits no third possibility).
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 22:38:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You miss the point. Creationist are not trying to prove the Earth is 6000 years old. They take this as a gospel truth that doesn't need to be proved. What they want to do is disprove evolution. If the earth is relatively young, then evolution is wrong. If evolution is wrong, then they must be right (the Creationist thought process permits no third possibility).
Actually, there are old earth creationists. I debated one at a local church here in California. He excepted the geological record based on overwhelming evidence.
Old earth creationists are pushing "intelligent design." The argument often comes down to transitional species. Even though there are plenty of them in the fossil record they refuse to consider them. Show them a bird with reptilian features and they ask "if it's transitional than why has it been classified as a bird?"
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2001 : 11:05:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"if it's transitional than why has it been classified as a bird?"
LOL! They expect us to call it "Transitional creature XXI?"
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh? |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 22:04:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, there are old earth creationists.
Yes. I suppose I should have clarified that I was referring to young earth creationists. Actually, there are at least 4 different flavors of creationism differentiated by how literally they take the bible and how much of modern science they reject:
Old earth creationist who reject evolution.
Young earth creationist who also reject the big bang, radiometric dating, and most modern geology.
Geocentrist who also reject the Copernican model of the solar system.
Flat Earthers who reject the round earth heresy.
OK. Here's a thought. Next time someone is debating a young earth ceationist who wants creationism taught in school as a valid alternative to evolution, maybe they could employee the following strategy:
First point out that there are different versions of creationism and have them define which version should be taught as an alternative to evolution.
Unless they are actually a flat earther or a geocentrist, it's unlikely they will argue that we should teach the flat earth as a valid alternative to the round earth or geocentrism as an alternative to the Copernican model. Then you put the burden on them to explain why their particular brand of creationism is any less nutty than the others.
Edited by - espritch on 08/18/2001 22:05:13 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
