Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
JanusRook
Sultan
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
|
Quote Reply
Topic: How do creationist explain fossil fuels? Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 13:58 |
Which is why it is idiotic to teach creationism in practical schools - even if the creationists are right. |
So Gcle, does this mean that an acceptable compromise in your eyes would be a quick five minute explanation of why you cannot treat creationism in the same manner of evolution. But still explaining to the pupils that they can still discredit portions of evolutionary theory using the scientific method then that is an acceptable practice? So basically explain to creationist parents that they may know the "truth" and that it's best that their children "know the enemy".
|
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
|
|
Jams
Consul
Suspended
Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 14:32 |
It would be very easy to teach the "theory":
The world was created a little under six thousand years ago by God, and after a few days humans was created. Everything was created the way it is today, including the fossil record.
That's about it.
Edited by Jams - 23-Nov-2008 at 14:32
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 15:24 |
I don't object to it being taught in classes on religious beliefs, as long as it's on the same basis as other religions.
That's more or less the approach we took when I co-wrote a school textbook on religions some thirty-odd years ago - treating creation myths (or beliefs in an infinite universe - 'non-creationism') as parts of the teaching of the individual religious sects that believe in them.
|
|
Jams
Consul
Suspended
Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 21:16 |
Oh, I forgot, I assumed the Christian/Judaic myth by default, but it could be even more generic, I presume. "The world was created by some god or gods." I think that about covers it.
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 01:11 |
Originally posted by Beylerbey
Maths describes the reality, it does not create it. It is also perfectly possible to have a physical description (as well as an understanding) of the world without using maths. Faraday's lab notebooks did not have maths in them, yet they have the truth. Maths provide just the easiest way of describing the reality. and its need of premises is a shortcoming of the language not of the sense.
|
When dealing with complex open systems, such as biological systems, maths (at least in its present form) is not very helpful. Usually maths deals with simple idealized systems, which are far from being real. So, you are wrong here. I would say maths helps understanding the reality, rather than its describing. There are notable exceptions, however. For instance Hodgkin-Huxley model which is very precise and widely used by neuroscientists for 50 years.
Theory of Evolution to my opinion is quite valid model but we still cannot describe important massive changes which in Russian literature is called aromorphosis -- massive anatomical changes usually as a result of adaptation to entirely new ecological niches. For example appearance of flying animals. I also don't find convincing explanation of appearance of first cells from the suggested silly membrane "bags" full of different sorts of organic staff. Anyway, we kinda know little about what happened so I wouldn't be so confident claiming that evolution theory contradicts creationism. Besides, one can use religion and science simultaneously as instruments helping to understand what is happening around him. It is just a matter of initial premises.
|
.
|
|
Otto Von Bismarck
Janissary
Joined: 13-Jan-2009
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 04:26 |
It was just created.
There is no point in arguing with a creationist; they will use the God of the Gaps tactic and your back to step one. Let me elaborate:
Creationist: By my calculations, the earth is around 6 thousand years old. Atheist: Then how do you factor in all the evidence that shows that the earth is older? Creationist: Oh, that is just God testing our faith. Atheist: *Facepalm*
|
Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war.
Otto Von Bismarck
|
|
Dacian
Housecarl
Joined: 13-Mar-2009
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 43
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Mar-2009 at 22:02 |
time is a rather simple concept to explain (for the timespan relevant to this discussion ofcourse)
to prove things you take the ingredients, put them in similar conditions, accelerate the process by a factor and voila you have the end product
to draw a paralel its how they found out the flaw with the first commercial jet airplane (metal fatigue story). Same priciples apply
so to get more close to geology...you take a rock (magmatic, sedimetary etc) and put it to pressures and temperaturs they would encounter in the mantle. you obtain a different type of rock (that is also widely found on the surface now).
by the way rocks get "recicled" by getting sunken - plate tectonics - and then resurfacing its the only explanation of how this type of rocks can occur.
now if you factor in the speed with which rocks get recicled (so the speed of surface rocks to get pushed back in at subducting plate boudaries) you end up with millions/billions of years of process time.
same applies to the fossil fuels.....it needs way more than what creation theory has in mind for the timespan
in no way I am denied the existance of God but certainly he did not create things 6000-7000years ago
so the fault can be put on: God - quite unlikely as he is not suppose to do errors Scientist with the dating of materials and processes - its quite well argumented across the board Creators of the Creating theory - they need to work on their numbers a bit
and that is my opinion
I'm a geophycisist btw and I'm looking for this fossil fuels as my job :)
|
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended
Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Nov-2009 at 19:38 |
Some people have theorized that fossil fuel, like natural gas, and oil, are a natural underground process that creates these substances thu the manipulation of organic processes via certain creatures who manage to produce such products naturally, and not as a result of buried forests or beasts!
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
Eric
Immortal Guard
Joined: 07-Dec-2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Dec-2014 at 10:28 |
God is not a deceiver. Nor has He created us as irrational beings. The process of making fossil fuels is knowable (deductible) and logical. The age of the earth is also. The young earth belief is a deduction from the history of lineage provided by OT records. It is a true account of the line of relationship-descendants down to Jesus and serves this purpose. This is where the problems begin. We are trying to apply man's reasoning to the spiritual purpose of scripture when in fact there are things unsaid. Notice in James it sais there are things , miracles performed that are not in this book but enough that you will know Him as the Christ... Talking snakes and Global floods serve as a vehicle for a message. People lacking the creative process cannot understand the liberties taken and the purpose they serve. This in no way diminishes God nor makes the purpose of our Bible invalid. The OT is, As a shadow of things to come. I think the OT timeline is the relevant story of man and God culminating in the conclusion of Christ. This is not to invalidate the vast history of the earth prior to this story. We must reconcile the knowable world with God's word and that requires some creative processes.
|
Eric
|
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2014 at 11:49 |
I'm not sure what it is your saying here. There isn't anyway you can reconcile the "young earth" idea with the Geologic and fossil record. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000. And in case you still hold with the "Global flood" concept, there never has been enough water, in any form, to completely cover the Earth's landmass. If this puts me in the group you identify as lacking the creative process, I have a couple of degrees in Fine Art to throw at you.
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
|
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Dec-2014 at 08:23 |
I haven't read pages 2-6 just 1 & 7 (sorry haven't got the time due to painter due here at 8 am this morning etc)
Fossils may be due to catastrophes like the Flood (Noah) and Atlantis continental shift.
Many cultures have scheme of 4 or so world ages which each ended in catastrophes. Some mention people/animals being turned to stone by floods or fires, and/or layers of coloured clay/stones.
Re light: the speed of light is slowing down. Plus the universe has expanded (perhaps sudden expansions like sudden continental shifts)
Antarctica ice date has been drastically revised according to Flem-Ath. Siberia Mammoths frooze suddenly.
Re not enough water for the Flood: 7/10ths of Earth surface are water. The average depth of oceans is 12,451 ft versus average height of land only 2,300 ft! If the surface of the earth was flat the water would stand over 7900 ft/1.5 mi deep. Mountains werent as high nor oceans so deep before the flood. Plus some other possible explanations.
Re the God sending them delusion that they believe the lie: that may not (just) be evolution (or even aliens or clever deception of antichrist) but the lie of genesis that we will not die but become gods?
There are more histories of the world than just the bible and modern evolutionists versions. They are closer to the bible than evolution.
|
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Dec-2014 at 19:27 |
i have no probs with either... as I remain an adherent of the 1st Amend. iow. let others believe what they will.
My respect and admiration for Science is profound (less the arrogance of those who will not brook an opposing view).
My attitude reference the Ancient One entails an even greater respect and admiration.
no drama is necessary in defending either.
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
J.A.W.
Consul
Joined: 07-Apr-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 320
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2015 at 04:56 |
Yeah.. ah.. righto then..
As the venerable Hitchens reckoneth.. ..AFAIR..
"What is asserted sans evidence - may be dismissed like-wise."
|
|