 | | Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
....that I wouldn't re-enter the creation/evolution debate but I've changed my mind. Oh well. (For reference sake and to clarify some definitions): I believe that God created everything about 6000 years ago (possibly as much as 10) and that about (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
Tim Culberson <t_c_c@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3A7F69BB.27714E...hoo.com... (...) Check out (URL) these arguments and many more creationist arguments are refuted (with references). (...) Guess so 8?) ROSCO (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
You know what I always wondered Tim? Have you ever seen the chromosome numbers on the DNA of different species? There is no (apparent) relationship of chromosome numbers to the complexity of make up of animals. That means that through evolution, (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) This has been shot full of holes centuries ago when they found chinese genealogies going back further than 4004 BC. I've mentioned this before. Europeans were scratching their heads about this almost 400 years ago - why can't Creationists get (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Ooh, can I handle this? We just covered this in my astronomy class I am pretty psyched about the whole concept. Yes, you are right, the earth is slowing down. Furthermore, you are also right that in the very small amount of time that humans (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I'll point to the talk.origins clearinghouse site, which is one of the best catch-all refutations of the Creationist argument (and exploration of misconceptions about Evolution that cause otherwise intelligent people to subscribe to Creation (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) 1650 for Bishop Ussher (and some further expansion in 1654). 17th century. (...) The earth is slowing. Tidal forces are doing it, similiar to what the earth has already done to the moon, just a lot weaker. If one considers the 8 hour workday, (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) And don't forget that earth is basically spinning within a vacuum! Of course a spinning ball in our atmosphere soon gets slower and will stop, but without friction a ball (even a big ball called earth) will spin for a VERY long time almost in (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Ack, you're right. I have no idea why I typed 18th. Do I have to give back my Secret Historian Decoder Ring and washroom key now? :( I should always remember to check my desiderata. But in any case, it just strengthens my point. And actually, (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Well it's nice that you bring that up....what is it about evolution that you DO believe exactly? (...) Jeepers Bruce! At least Ross showed me where I could find counter-arguments! Not only do you not cite a source you just throw a couple (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I can't say as I've actually pondered those particular facts personally....but you sure do have some good points! (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Thank you Ross. This citation is the most direct refutation you could have found :)...and since I don't have any counter-refutations myself, I'm not going to argue it :) Please note that this does not, however, mean that I believe it or admit (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I'd just like to clarify that I never said that at all, but you rather assumed that's what I meant. I did say "interestingly enough". Just one response to this message (see my reply to Ross's message for why I didn't respond to the others) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
Tim Culberson <t_c_c@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3A806AF4.C5570B...hoo.com... (...) (URL) > ments/ (...) Just as my quoting the above site doesn't mean I agree entirely with everything there. But there are some very good references! Regards, (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I'm neither into biochemistry or microbiology, so I have no great opinion on the matter. Or were you refering to evolution in general? (...) Look at your statements: they don't say that anything is impossible - simply put, they do not argue (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Welcome back Tim. Would you mind having a look at an earlier post of mine, questioning your basic assumptions? (URL) rather than getting bogged down again (in different interpretations of observed phenomena), could we examine the premises of (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) So therefore chromosomal change never happens? Is that the point? (...) Maybe. Seals seem to do okay though. (...) Could be an okay fin and a really ordinary leg first. Ever heard of lungfish? (...) If there wasn't anything else on land to eat (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) And here's a couple of late-breaking stories which seem to contradict the idea of a "young world": (URL) I havent investigated these at all... (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) That's an excellent point-by-point clearinghouse (with some cross-links to the talk.origins site I posted, as well). Thanks for posting it, Ross. (...) article is the singularly most unflattering "official" photograph ever taken of a person? (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) No, I think Downs Syndrome is a case of such chromosomal changes. I just want to know why critters that look so much alike outwardly are so genetically different and how they got to be that way. I wish I had the charts that I found in my (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Generally a full autopsy requires the examination of such soft bits as are seldom preserved for 65+ million years. With this in mind, it's difficult to assess the viral pathology of an organism of which you have only fossilized bones (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Many organisms, particularly plants, cope very well with multiple copies of the same (or similar) chromosomes. For example, modern agricultural wheat has three "sub-genomes" which are more or less identical. Spelt (I think), a more ancient (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I don't know if it would spread through the population. Before I go on, I really want to keep this on friendly terms. I'm not a fighter and I am a creationist. And as a Christian I don't feel any argument is worth the cost of mutual respect (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Ditto :o). I hope to make teaching evolutionary biology an important part of my career, and I don't think that I can be a good teacher if I resort to name calling etc. I'm not interested in harassing people just because they have a world-view (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
