scigirl

Hello feisty chick (and any other creationists reading this):

This post is meant to make you stand back and look at the bigger picture. Do you realize what YECS are trying to do?

They are trying to prove that an ancient story, written by primitive men before most scientific theories were discovered, written without knowledge of DNA, or fossil strata, or the germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity, or the heliocentric model of the solar system, is more scientifically accurate than science textbooks! Doesn't that seem strange to you, Feisty one?

Consider how science textbooks are written. They are written for the purpose of understanding and knowledge, based on data and observations, and re-written hundreds of times as new theories and observations are made.

Young-earth creationism is as silly as the following creation story. Picture this discussion at a school board meeting, where YECS (Young Egg creationists) are petitioning to teach their version of events in schools:

( <a href="http://talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html" target="_blank">Other creation stories</a> are found here).

YEC: Now see, the eggs were REAL, and the 6 eggs became what we know of today as limestone quarries. If you carefully analyze limestone quarries today, you will see that they exactly match the only one TRUE (TM) version of creation, made by the Mother of the Water.

See, the sun used to be an egg yolk too. If you study sun spots, you will see the evidence, which astronomers have hidden and deceived because they don't believe in the Mother Egg.

scigirl: but the data you are using to "fit" your egg creation story was collected and analyzed by these scientists. If it is so obvious to a layman such as yourself, why haven't the scientists come to the same conclusion, that the earth was once an egg?

YEC: Scientists know that the earth used to be an egg, but they are too indoctrinated in the evil atheistic anti-religion anti-egg ways to see it.

scigirl: ok, but then why do you even trust their data to support your theory? Why aren't you and your eggers collecting data yourselves?


scigirl

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

freemonkey

Brava, scigirl! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Er... I mean... *bump*

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: freemonkey ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

scigirl,


Your comparsion of Young Earth Creationism with a "Grand Goose" story (hmmmm, maybe the "Mother Goose" myth is based on reality?) is completely bogus, I'm afraid. From what I've read, there ARE valid scientific facts which strongly support a Young Earth. Perhaps you've not heard of the book, "In Six Days (Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation)" by John F. Ashton, PhD? You might want to read through that book, at least, before making any such silly comparisons again.


In Christ,

Douglas

scigirl

Douglas,

You mean all those facts you posted on our formal debate?

Yes, the egg story does seem rather silly. Why? It's not any more or less silly than the genesis account, it just happens to not be your creation story.

I've read many excerpts from that book, and it is laughable. Those 50 scientists need help (and many of them have very shaky credentials to begin with).

I suggest you read Why people believe weird things by Michael Shermer.

Oh, and I also suggest you take me up on my offer, and wow me with these 'facts' of creationism. Specifically, ones that deal with the evidence for human-chimp chromosome fusion.

scigirl

foursquareman

Maybe if I give the reason I believe in YEC that you would understand our position a little more. I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. I don't believe that men made the story up. I have faith in God. That is why I can believe a book written before all of our modern science, because I believe it is the words of the one who created the world.

I hope this helps a bit. I can understand your position, but hopefully this clears a couple of things up.

hezekiah jones

Where does the Bible mention the age of the earth?

foursquareman

i don't think it mentions it anywhere, but we can trace the years back, by looking at the ancestry recorded in the bible.

Douglas J. Bender

scigirl,

It is far more silly than the Genesis Creation account. By several orders of magnitude.

Easy to say, scigirl. Perhaps you'd like to give some examples of where some of the things those scientists said in that book are "laughable", and where "many of them have very shaky credentials to begin with". I could just as easily say the same things about Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, Sagan, etcetera - providing EVIDENCE would be another matter.

Oh, and regarding human/chimp chromosome fusion - what was that evidence, again? Something about not only functional genes being the same in humans and chimps, but most "junk DNA" being the same and in the same places? Am I in the ballpark on this?

In Christ,

Douglas

RufusAtticus

How do you know that the Bible records every generation and the ages accurately? Is that an assumption or a verified observation?

hezekiah jones

Alrighty then. How can we see this star (never mind the planets):

<a href="http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020613/1/2zivx.html" target="_blank">Solar system similar to ours discovered</a>

55 Cancri is 41 million light years from earth.

How can we see it if the universe is less than 10,000 years old?