Subject:
|
Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:37:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
126 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
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, as
a historian, if you look at what was going on in England and
Ireland between, oh, say, 1649 and 1660, you might notice
something else too...I wonder what the Primate of All Ireland
was thinking about?
> > > 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! ;-)
Well, yes, it is slowing, but nowhere near on the order that
the original message implied. All objects lose *some* energy
over time--but the specific case is as I've pointed out above.
And about that eight-hour workday...that will truly stink for
those of us who aren't paid salary! :(
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
