Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why young-age creationism is good for science
Journal of Creation ^ | Brett W. Smith

Posted on 12/07/2009 7:30:12 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-171 last
To: editor-surveyor

Man, you are twisting things all sideways... Evolution is not an input AT ALL to the age of the Earth. None, nada, other than your little fantasy.

I guess I’m out, you cannot debate with someone who makes up their own facts and simply out-and-out lies about what the opposing position really holds.


161 posted on 12/08/2009 8:55:22 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

The sole reason for all “old Earth” approaches is the need for time for evolution.


162 posted on 12/08/2009 8:57:01 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bomb-a administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

What the simple-minded fail to understand is that market competition, AKA the popularity contest, works with material goods because there is no universal truth about which is the best car, or the best television set, or the best hamburger.

In areas where there is a universal truth, the truth is not determined by a popularity contest or a majority vote. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty because his high-priced lawyers succeeded in making the idea of his innocence more popular than the idea of his guilt among the jury. But that doesn’t change the fact that O.J. Simpson is guilty of murder. If 51% of scientists say that humans are causing the earth to warm and cap-and-trade is the only thing that can save us, that won’t make it so. If 51% of Americans say that the earth is 6000 years old, that won’t make it so either.

Anyway, these fools who are pimping young-earth creationism don’t want it to compete in a free marketplace of ideas, they want a theocratic government to ram it down our throats by force of law, while banning any competing theories. That doesn’t sound very free-market to me.

Why do young-earth creationists call themselves scientists when everything they do is completely anti-scientific? Their main argument is, “God says I’m right and anyone who disagrees is going to hell.” Yeah, really scientific.


163 posted on 12/08/2009 11:16:12 PM PST by JillValentine (The United States of America is a secular constitutional republic, not a theocracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
"Evolution is not an input AT ALL to the age of the Earth..."

What you are dealing with is a group of people that actually believe that creation took place less than 6,000 years ago over the course of six consecutive standard 24 hour earth days. Evolution is a persistent irritant to them because it undermines the credibility of their whole creation belief. Other are simply batsh*t crazy (You know who you are, Teddy)

164 posted on 12/09/2009 12:48:49 AM PST by Natural Law (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine
Anyway, these fools who are pimping young-earth creationism don’t want it to compete in a free marketplace of ideas, they want a theocratic government to ram it down our throats by force of law, while banning any competing theories. That doesn’t sound very free-market to me.

Except, you don't have evidence to support your screed. Young-earth creationists in the form of our founding fathers gave you the freedoms you enjoy, because we believe in a Creator God who gave everyone freedom of conscience and freedom of will. And that's why every significant creationary organization out there supports competitive education (teach both sides, or at least allow individual teachers freedom to teach without persecution), rather than the current one-sided monopoly.

Whereas we have plenty of proof of the exact opposite - of harassment and persecution, job losses, threats and intimidation and more, from evolutionary fanatics. (See for example Dr. Jerry Bergman's work in Slaughter of the Dissidents).

So if you really care about liberty, why are you standing with the fascists who have been very plain in saying they believe in persecuting and harassing creationists and that it is justifiable to do so? Of course, anything is justifiable in an evolutionary worldview ('might makes right'), so I'm not surprised at your hypocrisy.

165 posted on 12/09/2009 5:37:09 AM PST by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
And that's why every significant creationary organization out there supports competitive education (teach both sides, or at least allow individual teachers freedom to teach without persecution), rather than the current one-sided monopoly.

You have every right to teach your theories in their proper venue - theology class. For y0u to pass off religion as science makes as little sense as trying to pass of science as religion.

166 posted on 12/09/2009 5:43:05 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The sole reason for all “old Earth” approaches is the need for time for evolution.

And the purpose behind young earth creationism is the promotion of religion.

167 posted on 12/09/2009 5:44:49 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The sole reason for all “old Earth” approaches is the need for time for evolution.

James Hutton's published works estimated the age of the Earth to be at least millions of years, based on geological evidence in 1788. Darwin was born in 1809.

168 posted on 12/09/2009 5:54:40 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Yet it was lord Vishnu with his helper Brahma who made the word. The Vedic scriptures say so! Prove to me otherwise...


169 posted on 12/09/2009 7:10:48 AM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
James Hutton's published works estimated the age of the Earth to be at least millions of years, based on geological evidence in 1788. Darwin was born in 1809.

That should end the whole "we need an old Earth to support evolution" argument... Old-Earth theories not only pre-date the theory of evolution, they pre-date the birth of the postulator of the theory of evolution!

If it doesn't break that line of argument, then we have serious cognitive dissonance going on, and might as well just ignore the loonies on the path.

170 posted on 12/09/2009 7:13:15 AM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; Liberty1970
Yet it was lord Vishnu with his helper Brahma who made the wordworld. The Vedic scriptures say so! Prove to me otherwise...

Typo fix; still waking up at O-dark-30 here in Seattle! :)

171 posted on 12/09/2009 7:16:15 AM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-171 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson