slightly OT, but still connected

On 29 Apr 2005 00:30:50 GMT, Pierre Vandevennne
wrote:

In Europe, anyone seriously positing the universe is 6000 years old would
be perceived as idiotic, crazy or both. Basically, my interest is the
evolution (sorry) we are seeing in the way science is perceived and
taught. Again, this group being a sci newsgroups, people who oppose the
"sci" concept don't really belong here and should expect to be shocked.

I hope this clarifies things.

Doesn't really, sorry.

First, the article link you posted doesn't say anything about YEC that
I can see. Intelligent design does not equal YEC.

Second, the intelligent design crowd has been around in various forms
for the last century or longer. It is nothing new or anything about
which to be alarmed. You used the word "scary". I've never found
debate scary.

Finally, in the USA we also have these concepts of liberty and freedom
(many of our ancestors left Europe because of the lack of such), and
people are free to believe whatever they wish.

I agree with the statement in the article:

'If intelligent design is gaining ground on college campuses, she
adds, then scientists are as much to blame as anyone. "I think college
professors can do a better job of teaching evolution," she says.'

That said, I read Behe's 1996 book "Darwin's Black Box" and found it
wholly unconvincing.

---
Michael McCulloch

Clayton Doyles wrote:
On the other side of the coin, I don't see any evidence that the
universe is
really billions of years old.

Well, just because you don't see it doesn't mean that generations of
scientific effort haven't seen it either.

We have two schools of thought here that are
similar in one way: both ages come from man. Man, through the
disciples,
wrote The Bible with Divine guidance;

For which we have only the say-so of the theologians who read the
documents centuries after they were written, compiled, or spliced
together.

and it has also been man who has
determined the age of the universe in the billions of years.

After looking at countless evidence.

Are we so
sure that radiocarbon and other methods of dating aren't invalid?

The weaknesses of radiocarbon dating were exposed a long time ago, and
the method has since been recalibrated against samples of *known* age.
Today, the method is *known* to be acurate for its domain.

Trouble is that its domain is only a few thousand years back, and only
over articles that were once alive. When you use "age of the universe"
and "radiocarbon" in the same argument, you only confirm what any
scientist can deduce just by hearing your thesis: that you haven't done
enough research to form a credible argument. Here's a start:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/methuselah/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Are we so
sure that The Bible is correct?

Those who are so sure that the Bible is correct cannot be convinced
otherwise. I strongly recommend you stop courting them *now*, and move
onto far easier pursuits--such as observing QSO 3C-273 in a 50mm
refractor at high noon.

The point is... no matter how you look at
it, you must pick what you believe is the most correct and depend on
man's
correctness (or lack thereof).

Believing in the literal inerrancy of a document penned by man is to
depend on man's correctness.

Believing in the concrete evidence standing in the world in front of
you, or passing through a spectroscope from the sky above you is to
depend not on man's correctness, but upon God's very universe.

Think about it.

To me, there's just as much "evidence", if you will, that the
universe is
6,000 years old that there is 20 billion and I remain unconvinced by
the
so-called evidence that it is anything but.

Oh. In other words, you in fact are one of the people that i warned
you not to debate. Sorry. My mistake.

(That'll teach me not to read the whole article before i press Reply.)

However, that is my "belief"
just as you must "believe" that it's 20 billion.

Davoud wrote:
Mainstream Christians, both Protestant and Catholic,
have long since come to terms with the fact that the Universe is
about
14 billion years old, and the Earth about 4.5 byo.

Not necessarily.

Y'know, speaking of Catholics, your talk about picking our beliefs is
exactly the sort of relativism that Pope Benedict XVI has condemned.
You've now lost credibility with me not only as a scientist, but as a
Christian. Time for me to hunt for that ancient Tasco; QSO 3C-273
awaits!

(Double challenge since, at this time of year, i'd have to look through
12,000 km of rock in order to see 3C-273 during the daytime.)


Clear skies!

------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
--------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------

Michael McCulloch wrote:
On 29 Apr 2005 00:30:50 GMT, Pierre Vandevennne
wrote:

In Europe, anyone seriously positing the universe is 6000 years old would
be perceived as idiotic, crazy or both. Basically, my interest is the
evolution (sorry) we are seeing in the way science is perceived and
taught. Again, this group being a sci newsgroups, people who oppose the
"sci" concept don't really belong here and should expect to be shocked.

I hope this clarifies things.

Doesn't really, sorry.

First, the article link you posted doesn't say anything about YEC that
I can see. Intelligent design does not equal YEC.

That connection between the article and the part of the message you
quote is not present in the original context.

Second, the intelligent design crowd has been around in various forms
for the last century or longer. It is nothing new or anything about
which to be alarmed. You used the word "scary". I've never found
debate scary.

I don't think it's the debate he finds scary.

Finally, in the USA we also have these concepts of liberty and freedom
(many of our ancestors left Europe because of the lack of such), and
people are free to believe whatever they wish.

Ooooh, you lucky things. Aren't you also free to inform crazy-ass
mother****ers they are off their trolleys? We are here in Europe.


Tim
--
May contain traces of nuts.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:45:45 +0100, Tim Auton
wrote:

Ooooh, you lucky things. Aren't you also free to inform crazy-ass
*** they are off their trolleys? We are here in Europe.

Sure, what do you need to know?

---
Michael

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

SNIP
\
Also, please thinks before you post to determine if your
post is going to offend anyone's religion or political convictions.

Since I don't consider people with religious convictions to be
intellectually human, I can't offend them by any definition of the
word I accept. And nobody should be offended by a political view they
don't happen to agree with. (And I did think about this last paragraph
before posting it g.)

Common Chris that is rather over the top even with the grin!

Klazmon.



_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Clayton Doyles" wrote in
k.net:

SNIP


On the other side of the coin, I don't see any evidence that the
universe is really billions of years old. We have two schools of
thought here that are similar in one way: both ages come from man.
Man, through the disciples, wrote The Bible with Divine guidance; and
it has also been man who has determined the age of the universe in the
billions of years. Are we so sure that radiocarbon and other methods
of dating aren't invalid?

Well radiocarbon dating is only good for sixty thousand years or so. It
has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth. Radiometric
dating based on long lived isotopes is used for that. As far as being
valid you would have to come up with a plausible reason why is isn't.
Since it is based on physics that is identical in everything from a
modern nuclear reactor, to the ancient naturally occuring Oklo reactor in
Gabon, to the radioactive decay of elements in the aftermath of Type Ia
supernovae explosions detected at vast distances and therefore times in
the past. There is overwhelming evidence that the earth and the universe
are billions of years old.

Klazmon.


SNIP

On 29 Apr 2005 00:37:50 GMT, Pierre Vandevennne
wrote:

Ouch, that is a bit strict Chris ;-)

Yeah, I'm a brutal guy. I have Great Danes- believe me, I know when a
chain needs to be yanked g.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Since I don't consider people with religious convictions to be
intellectually human, I can't offend them by any definition of the word
I accept.

???????

What does it mean to not be "intellectually human"?

That's a mighty broad brush you are painting with. I could turn it around
and ask if you believe God does not exist. Since the topic is God, and you
would be stating a conviction and not a proven fact, any answer means you
are not intellectually human. (whatever that means)

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in understanding optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

To reply, remove Delete and change period com to period net
************************************************** ************

And nobody should be offended by a political view they don't
happen to agree with. (And I did think about this last paragraph before
posting it g.)

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:26:05 -0700, "CLT"
wrote:

That's a mighty broad brush you are painting with. I could turn it around
and ask if you believe God does not exist. Since the topic is God, and you
would be stating a conviction and not a proven fact, any answer means you
are not intellectually human. (whatever that means)

Actually, I'm not talking about whether or not there was/is some
creator(s). I'm talking about belief systems that actively contradict
scientific knowledge (like the belief that there was no human evolution,
or that the Earth is a few thousand years old). The existence of a
creator is not necessarily at odds with science- it is simply outside
the realm of questions science can (for now, anyway) deal with. Silly
things like Judeo-Christian creationism are not.

What distinguishes humans from other animals is our profound ability to
reason. If that is a facility that was deliberately granted by a
creator, I think those who deny that facility by blindly maintaining
beliefs that are patently wrong are insulting that creator.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Hi Chris,

So what did you mean when you said:

Since I don't consider people with religious convictions to be
intellectually human, I can't offend them by any definition of the word
I accept.

With the placement of the g accompanied by the "I did think about this
last paragraph before posting it," I wasn't sure what you meant.

Is it just that people who don't believe in evolution, people who don't
believe in unguided evolution, people who believe in a young earth... Are
you really drawing a line and saying at some point they are not
"intellectually human"? If so, what does that phrase itself mean?

Usenet is a cold medium without the nuances we need in a conversation like
this g

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in understanding optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

To reply, remove Delete and change period com to period net
************************************************** ************

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:26:05 -0700, "CLT"
wrote:

That's a mighty broad brush you are painting with. I could turn it around
and ask if you believe God does not exist. Since the topic is God, and
you
would be stating a conviction and not a proven fact, any answer means you
are not intellectually human. (whatever that means)

Actually, I'm not talking about whether or not there was/is some
creator(s). I'm talking about belief systems that actively contradict
scientific knowledge (like the belief that there was no human evolution,
or that the Earth is a few thousand years old). The existence of a
creator is not necessarily at odds with science- it is simply outside
the realm of questions science can (for now, anyway) deal with. Silly
things like Judeo-Christian creationism are not.

What distinguishes humans from other animals is our profound ability to
reason. If that is a facility that was deliberately granted by a
creator, I think those who deny that facility by blindly maintaining
beliefs that are patently wrong are insulting that creator.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com