Subject:
|
Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:18:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
173 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> Of course not, much as without the Bible and the calculations of
> the venerable Archbishop Ussher in the 18th century, Young Earth
> Creationism also doesn't have a leg to stand on. (It's probably
> the only science I know that openly relies upon such old ideas
> for a young Earth. It's rather ironic, really.)
1650 for Bishop Ussher (and some further expansion in 1654). 17th century.
>
> > Despite claims that all evidence points to a multi-billion year old
> > earth and that a 6000 year old one is impossible, that simply isn't
> > true. There is evidence to support a young earth that interestingly
> > enough "fits" perfectly with the creation record. Below are three
> > examples:
>
> Just because something fits timewise doesn't make it so.
>
> > Slowing Earth Rotation:
> >
> > The speed of the earth's rotation is slowing down. Approx every 1-1/2
> > years another second is added to "the clock" in order to match calendar
> > time.
>
> This is wrong, wrong, wrong. This addition doesn't have to do
> with the slowing of the Earth; it has to do with the way humans
> measure time. The solar year does not divide evenly into the
> units of time we recognise. Our calendar has been tweaked and
> tweaked (remember adding almost two weeks a few hundred years
> back?), and now, with the leap-year system and judicious addition
> of a second here and there, we've ensured that the same months
> coincide with winter each year, summer each year, etc., etc.
>
> So this isn't evidence of the Earth's slowing, it's evidence
> of mankind's inability to measure it accurately until the very
> recent past. Creationists like to pretend that human measures
> are perfect enough to reflect accurately what's seen. They're
> not; they are only representations designed for human enterprise
> and convenience in understanding a universe of infinite complexity.
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, we will get more time off in the future! ;-)
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
