From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:37:45 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <2A99B207.23744@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>The world is very real.  It has existed in its current state (post-fall)
>>  for roughly 6,000 years and will end its fallen existance and be returned
>>  to perfection.
>
>How do you come to this conclusion that the earth is young?  Certainly
>not by scientific study or from actual physical evidence...


While your question is reasonable on the surface, your editing hides
the intent of my post.  I was responding to a question about my
personal views.  I stated my views.  I did not say that I could support
them in a court of science.  My "evidence" for the quoted statement is
or a religious nature, and would not be relevant here.  From the
phrasing of your question, I doubt it would interest you.


>>We can also "learn" things which are not true and need discernment to
>>  distinguish right from wrong.
>
>And what have we learned that is wrong?

Check out alt.folklore.urban for a lot of examples.  Most kids learn
that dragonfly stings will kill you.  The statement was of general
application.  It was not a veiled condemnation of your beliefs.  If I
wish to condemn them, I will do so openly.


>>I feel that the idea that the world is millions of years old and life
>>  "just happened" is one of these things which are learned but wrong.
>
>Ah, I see.  The fact that the earth is billions of years old is wrong?
>Please elaborate on the evidence that leads you to believe this (rather
>silly and ignorant) claim.  In fact, while you're at it, do us a favor
>and be the first creationist ever to produce a theory of creation.  No
>one here has ever heard one yet.

The sentence began "I feel."  To most this would be taken as a
statement of opinion.  Since you probably prefer logical arguments,
refer back to my prior belief that the world is ~6000 years old.  That
(if true) prevents the world from being millions of years old (I don't
use "billions", as I forget the current age estimates and don't want to
leave an additional nit to pick).


A theory of creation?  How about:  The world was created by God.

You call me a creationist.  In the normal net usage, I don't think that
is accurate.  I believe in the creation of the world by God.  I do not
try to present "creation science" as a valid endevor.  To me it feels
(NOTE: opinion) like a kludge created by those who need numbers to
support their faith.


>(By the way, the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how
>life got here -- only how it evolved once it began to exist).

In its most common usage, it starts from a presumption of very simple
life forms (single celled, no-nucleus, etc.)  It is used to explain all
current life forms.  This is pretty close to a common usage definition
of where life came from.


>There is simply too much corroborating evidence to suggest that the
>earth is old and that common descent explains our origins.  The
>only evidence that contradicts these facts comes from the first
>few pages of a religious book.  Therefore, as far as scientists
>are concerned, it doesn't count.  But if you think there is
>scientific evidence that supports your claims, prove me wrong
>and post it.  That would be much more constructive than just
>saying "I'm right and you're wrong," now, wouldn't it?

You'll notice, if you re-read, that the post to which you responded did
not say, "I'm right, and you're wrong."  It said, "Since you ask, this
is what I believe."

I know that biblical content is not admissable in a scientific
context.  I have said so repeatedly.  What disturbs me is the trend to
use the presence of {fossils, isochron dates, sediment layers, etc.} as
EVIDENCE for the non-existence of God.  While it may lead an individual
to loose faith, it is not proof of that matter.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic