Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
==Thats their idol
Yep, and apparently this idol can be quite liberating:
“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”
Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.
How does “recent catastrophism” date the Earth?
No actual question has been asked. I was asked if coyote's list was scientific, and my response is that the list was not presented as scientific. It was presented as an exhaustive list of possibilities. There has never been a time since Darwin's first writings on the subject of evolution when the exact origin of first life was important to how life subsequently behaves.
Running Wolf's question is juvenile. It has been repeatedly answered.
But let me ask an equivalent question. Does the origin of the first traffic light affect the way you respond to traffic lights. Do you stay up nights thinking about whether the behavior of traffic lights is affected by the origin of the first one? Do you?
See Glacial Movement.
Still waiting for you to explain why the author thinks the evidence relating to your ice-cores example supports recent catastrophism, rather than “millions or billions” of years.
I don’t have doubts that it has been addressed - I was just curious of the answer. It is one of those things I have heard expressed and didn’t understand, and don’t know where to look for the answer.
A search of the article for the term “catastrophism” returns “Text not found”.
If you read the article you will find reference to recent catastrophism.
Just one, in all of that?
I appreciate your approach to the question. Here’s the best layman’s explanation I’ve found.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
Scientists consider the ice in Greenland a more accurate "historical" record than Antarctica (which is what the origial question was about) because it gets much more precipitation. The ice has much thicker seasonal layers that provide more sample data. Antarctic ice has considerably thinner seasonal layers. This means it provides a much longer timeline before the pressure causes the individual layers to become indistinguishable.
You've tried to answer a question about the age of core samples taken from Antartica with an article about someone's speculation about the formation of the Greenaland ice sheet based on incidental data, and that ice sheet is a physically much different propostion that what's found in Antarctica.
I thought the question posed on this thread was whether ID should be taught in science class.
It is, and what’s important to remember is there are people who have ZERO interest in science on your side of the aisle who want to squash God not just on science class but EVERYWHERE, the pledge, legal system, govt...etc.
It’s interesting that Louisiana has a new law protecting teachers and school boards who teach scientific alternatives to evolution.
GOOD! It’s sad that in this country Christians have to be protected by laws bwcause godless liberals have hijacked the legal system, but so be it.
Oddly enough, no one has found any.
I doubt that...ID/creation is gaining steam everywhere. BTW, how old is this law?
I found this when I was looking it up earlier:
the amount of annual snowfall at the Lost Squadron site (near the coast) is much greater than the GISP2 site (far inland near the summit of the ice sheet). The annual snowfall at the Lost Squadron site is around 7 ft per year. So 268 ft of snow in 50 years isn't unusual for that site. The amount of annual snowfall at the GISP2 site is much lower (around 1 ft per year). Using the amount of snowfall accumulation at the Lost Squadron site to infer the rate of snow accumulation at the GISP2 site is wildly inappropriate.
I thought ID was science and creation was religion. Didn't you get the talking points? You are supposed to pretend that the two are separate to get by the court system.
(But google cdesign proponentsists for the real story behind the tissue of lies. Busted!)
No, but you must lose a lot of sleep thinking up stupid questions to ask people so as to avoid answering questions.
Thank you very much.
Where exactly is ID gaining steam?
Here, perhaps?
Hmmm... last article posted in 2005.
Or perhaps here...
Hmmm... They seem to have taken down the request for original papers.
Where is it again that ID/creationism is publishing original research?
Yes, the earth orbiting the sun does have religious consequences!
Why?
Many Judeo Christian teachers and schools would use this as an example of a rational God. It teaches the children that man can work to understand the creations of God and their workings. In fact, in my particular sect of Christianity it is our duty and obligation to learn all we can about God's creations.
If the lesson that the earth orbits the sun is merely taught as a dry fact, children are left with a materialistic, atheistic, and Secular Humanist worldview that is not religiously neutral in consequences or content.
Finally, there is **no** possible way to teach about the earth orbiting the sun that is religiously neutral. The government through its schools will establish the religiously worldview of one group over the other.
Now....I expect that the Darwinists will put their fingers in their ears and chant, “Yes it is religiously neutral! Yes, it is religiously neutral! It is just a fact! It is just a fact!” .....And, in the meantime demand that government use the threat of police to force children into its schools, and force taxpayers to pay for it.
Darwinists are bullies and government schools are their biggest bully weapon.
While it is true that some Creations and IDrs fight to have ID in the government schools, most are merely asking for their school tax money back or that they be able to direct their school tax money to a sympathetic private voucher foundation. Most suggest that the funds follow the child, not the school. In this way, Secular Humanist Darwinists can choose schools for their own children that reflect the religious values that are taught in the home, and those who are God believing can choose theirs.
Who are the bullies here? Darwinists win that answer hands down.
By the way, for the most part I “believe” in evolution, but think that the IDers are make some good points that need closer and ( unbiased) investigation.
There are many conjectures and many lines of research, and many of them are productive.
js post 176: I read quite a bit about the subject [string theory]in pop science media and have never seen it treated as anything but controversial. Not just as to whether it is “true,” but as to whether it qualifies as science.
There have been at least two recent FR threads on string theory, and both support what I’m saying about this.
OK, so now you have taken both abiogenesis and cosmology out of the realm of science because they apparently, according to you, are not theories but conjecture.
The question still remains about the origin of these concepts in the first place.
Were they not proposed by scientists? If not, then what field of human endeavor proposed these concepts first?
Are scientists not looking for evidence to support them? Is scientific research not being done in these fields?
If they are not science, then what classification would they fall under?
Is Hawkings not a scientist?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.