Monday, November 26, 2007
“there are alternative views in relation to the age of the Giant’s Causeway..”
Mark Devenport also spotted a mischievous question from the Alliance Party MLA Trevor Lunn to the Environment Minister, the DUP’s Arlene Foster [scroll down] - “Mr T Lunn asked the Minister of the Environment what is her assessment of the age of the Giant’s Causeway.” The problem is that her answer, an official written answer as the Minister for the Environment, a) doesn’t answer the question, and b) in doing so appears to give equal weight to those alternative views.
Mrs A Foster: Geologists generally agree that the Giant’s Causeway is some 60 million years old. As you will be aware, however, there are alternative views in relation to the age of the Giant’s Causeway.
And a reminder of where the future of the Causeway Centre fits into that.
Pete Baker @ 09:00 PM
ulsterexile @ 09:30 AM and @ 11:07 AM:
On second thoughts, take a patent out on that word evole. “Have you evoled?” could be a neat shorthand for asking any opinionated public figure: “Are you a man or a mouse?”.
Sorry: I’ll go back on the medication.
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 04:10 PM“Jared Diamond (nice one, Dewi! How you done his Collapse! How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed?)”
Sure have Malcolm - fascinating on Vikings in Iceland- but read “Guns etc” first - and still look at maybe once a month....
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 04:32 PMSorry, we seem to have offended the Darwin Fundamentalist fanatics here by daring to suggest that their “pet theory” which is riddled with pre-suppositions and “constants” may be wrong!
Incidentally, could anyone here even explain why we KNOW as a fact that the Causeway is 60 million yeras old - apart from you read this in the Guardian while in your local pub!
A quick glance through science textbooks will unfold that they “estimates” has increased exponentially over time - good evidence in court? I think not......
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 11:16 PMSam Hanna @ 10:16 PM:
Good question (particularly the corollary: why am I not reading the Guardian in the pub?).
Try any one of a number of Geology 101 course notes on the web: the one I found was http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/agea.htm, which explains in short order how the notion of geological time evolved (sorry: I’ll wash my mouth out for using the word). If you don’t want to do the look-up yourself, the answer seems to be the mass-spectrograph measuring the decay of radioactive isotopes.
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 11:32 PMSam,
Of course science changes over time. It’s continuously improving and correcting itself as our understanding of the world around us improves. I don’t know why you have a hard time understanding that.
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 11:40 PMSam
I’m genuinely interested to know what is the current biblical/creationist estimation of the age of the earth, and how this figure is calculated.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 12:31 AMI am always attracted to these threads like a small child to a horrible eight or a moth to a candle. I really do not want to get involved but then I find myself tying more and more gibberish (I do that a lot). I also guess in my new found status as approved by a Jim Allister staffer I should try to avoid any flat earth nutter accusations.
I am, however, a creationist. There I have said it. Several of you are supposed to stand up and congratulate me now for being honest, the rest are meant to pity me.
Why am I a creationist? I do not really know. I was not always one. Even long after becoming a Christian I believed in evolution or such like. I gradually came to the feeling that that is what God wanted me to believe in. I do not, however, take a great interest in all the ins and outs of creation (nor evolutionary) theory. I am sure several people here will demolish most of the evidence for creationism. Then we can show some inconsistencies in evolution. Then we can all argue that both are beliefs. Then we can all quote famous important people who agree with us. Then we can all insult one another. Sound familiar?
Will I be remotely annoyed if I get to heaven and discover that the world evolved. No I am sure God will have much better things for me to do should he deign to grant me salvation as I believe he has through no merit at all of my own.
The one thing I would hold absolutely to is that God will not cast people into hell for believing in evolution. It is not a fundamental tennant of calvinism nor any other part of fundamentalist Christianity. I also (and I know I will annoy Sam Hanna here) believe that the most important role of Christians is to make Christ and Christianity attractive to non Christians. I believe we must put no stumbling block at all before anyone coming to Christ. There is a danger that Christians talking endless about creationism will make non Christians think they are mad or even that they (the non Christian) cannot become a Christian as they will have to believe all that. I do not doubt irrestible Grace for a moment but my reading of the bible is that one should put no stumbling block before anyone.
Incidentally Malcolm Redfellow, I am glad you like Paradise Lost. To my mind a brillant piece of writing, you can pick it up and read a few sentences, quite brillant. In that way a bit like Ulysees (sorry trying to look pretentious and half educated).
Pauljames,
In answer to your question, it involves working backwards from the genealogies in Genesis and elsewhere and the ages of the people mentioned.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 01:01 AMStrangely enough I am reading Guardian in the pub. Know nothing about the religious stuff u talk about (why do not you have a special corner of slugger for religious stuff ?) nos da anyway.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 01:27 AMCheers T
I appreciate your honesty and I agree that it is presumptious to argue with a person of faith about why you hold that faith. I only ask that its not taught as science to my kids at school
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 01:37 AMpauljames, the trouble is that the creationists don’t understand what science is. They think that it is, like religion, about statements of irrefutable fact, and that is why they think religious views about origins are equivalent to the scientific views.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 10:30 AM-
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 10:58 AM
pauljames,
I am inclined to agree with you. Mainstream science seems to accept evolution. Since science education in schools is meant to be realtively basic it would seem sensible to teach what most scientists think. I would not mind a passing reference to there being other views but that should be about it. I do think that in RE children should hear the creation story though I do not regard it as the most fundamentally important part of the bible.I tend to think that a lot of the current creationism / ID in schools is driven by the absolute ban on religion in American schools. As such religious Americans (of whom there are very many) want to have some sort of religion in their schools and this is a sort of back door for that desire to be achieved. The lack of any great demands for ID etc. in UK schools may be partly due to the fact that we have RE and assemblys etc.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 01:55 PMCheers Turgon
Groups such as truth in science are allowed to promote ID in a way that would not be allowed in the US. I believe RE should be taught as a course in comparative religion so that pupils are aware of the cultural and social references of all religions and should be the only place in school for bible stories.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 03:43 PMMalcolm, Comrade Stalin et al
It always amuses me to read of these conflated views of the explanatory power of “science” to understand the world. I remember being at A Level Chemistry class many years ago and the teacher simply pointing out that any radioactive decay tests with a margin of error of 5-10 million years should be taken with a large pinch of salt. That advice has proven timely as I have studied the subject more over the years.
Let us utilise Malcom’s example of all of the ancient texts of the world as a reference point to see the problems. Almost all that I have read refer to a universal flood that changed the earth’s topography and biological balance, which prima facie suggests that this may be a truth as they are from different cultures, languages and geographical distributions. We know that the last 2,000 years e.g. the carbon/nitrogen balance has remained somewhat unchanged beacause of the historical records handed down to us. Likewise, it is only fair to judge the 4,000 years before that in light of the major extant sources of history.
The radioactive tests (assuming of course that they are correct and the constants are)are predicated on the pre-suppsoition that the world has always remained in the same state for the last 60 million years. That view is extremely questionable for the historical reasons above as well as numerous other problems e.g where are all the lost civilizations, bones, artifact, even how can we account for the fact that the oldest languages only appeared 5,000 years ago each very distinct and with highly complex grammars.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 08:05 PMPAul James
I respect your right not to have creationism taught to your kids - can you give mine the same right not to be taught evolution as science, tolerance for sodomite lifestyles etc?
If not, your position is a sham.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 08:08 PM“the trouble is that the creationists don’t understand what science is. They think that it is, like religion, about statements of irrefutable fact, and that is why they think religious views about origins are equivalent to the scientific views.”
err...and you base the Scientific Method on what objective fact? The reality is, as you well know, that all of us in this debate start with our own pre-suppositional faith commitments, whether you are a rationalist of theist.
It is sad that Kant, Hegal, Hume et al tried to sell this pup centuries ago and despite all of this time so many here at Slugger are uncritically falling for it. Use your mind to think for yourself. I know that is a problem as most of you here are passionate a priori material determinants and that by definition rules out your freewill and ability to trust your reason and logic. Yet you still try to reason and argue to change our opinions - why why why???
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 08:16 PM“Almost all that I have read refer to a universal flood that changed the earth’s topography and biological balance, which prima facie suggests that this may be a truth as they are from different cultures, languages and geographical distributions.”
Or it may suggest that as global climate has varied over the millenia, there have been localised floods which have been recorded separately in early written accounts. To establish a decent case for that argument, you would need to show that the different accounts refer to flooding at the same time, and to somehow show that the floods you refer to were truly “universal”, though global might be a better word, and not merely flooding that encompassed the complete geographical range of a given culture.
There is plenty of evidence for flooding of low-lying areas like the Mediterranean or the Black Sea, which had previously been dry land, and which must have seemed to those living in the areas at the time to be “universal”
I’d also call you on the sugestion that language emerged in distinct and varied forms in a variety of locations. All the linguistic research suggests that there were at most a handful of proto-languages that evolved into the vast range we know today.
The lack of evidence for “civilisations” prior to 5000 BP doesn’t add up to much either. There have been many cultures that leave virtually no trace - the vast majority of hunter-gatherer societies fall into that category. If pre-agricultural humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers, as the evidence suggests, and limited in group size, there is no mystery as to why they didn’t build cities.
Archaeological evidence for early humans is scant at the best of times. The vast majority of evidence simply disappears over time, and it is only in very specialised circumstances that it survives.
Physics is the relevant area of research that may be able to support the uniformitarian assumption. The vast amount of circumstantial evidence that supports it does not prove it, but I would argue that it leaves the onus on those who wish to falsify it. It remains our current best assessment of the nature of the universe.
“err...and you base the Scientific Method on what objective fact? The reality is, as you well know, that all of us in this debate start with our own pre-suppositional faith commitments, whether you are a rationalist of theist.”
This is just a complicated way of saying that my opinion is worth as much as yours, even though yours has evidential support and mine is merely a nonsense. It doesn’t hold water.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 09:01 PMSam
Same question to you that Turgon honestly answered, what is the age of the earth and how do you arrive at that figure?
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 09:56 PMPaulJAmes
There are numerous views among Conservative Christendom as to the age of the earth such as:
(1) The Gap Theory - This view believes that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is billions of years and from Genesis 1:2 to today is around 6,000 years. This view is held by the current First Minister of NI - I don’t think we would refer to him as a rabid liberal.
(2) As Adam was created a mature man, all the trees and animals were created mature in Genesis Chapter One so the earth was also i.e. with the appearance of age so it could function immediately as a perfect ecosystem. That explains why we can see the light from distant stars etc. This may sound incredulous but no more so than ex nihilio of the Big Bang which passes for a credible theory in most scientific circles.
Personally, I believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I am sceptical of radioactive dating pre-suppositions for the reasons I have set out above. However, even if they were accurate I have no problem with the view that God created the earth with the appearance of age.
I don’t believe in Theistic Evolution as it is a nonsense and raises far more questions than Creationism. For instance, when did the soul of man evolve?
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 12:09 AMTurgon.
I don’t pity you, I respect your right to trust in fairy tales.
If you choose to ignore the evidence and trust in tales of the magic man, that’s your prerogative.
Where I do take exception is in you suggesting or implying that those of us who accept the evidence regarding evolution are somehow believers in the same sense as you.People like to lean upon the theory part of the expression evolutionary theory, but this just tells us that they don’t really understand what a theory is.
For a theory to be accepted in the scientific community it has to fit three criteria.
It has to be something which fits the available evidence.
It has to be able to withstand the discovery of new evidence and still be true to it’s basic premise.
It has to be able to accurately predict what new evidence one is likely to find, before it is found.Evolutionary theory fulfills these criteria perfectly.
When Intelligent design fulfills even one of them, come back and talk to me.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 12:31 AMSnakebrain,
You are right that the extant historical records do not all agree as to the facts, but the fact that the majority refer to such a flood is surely suggestive. You are being a tad disengenuous or else you are less wide read than you claim for there are at least 500 legends of a “worldwide” deluge. For instance tablets excavated from Iraq recount the myths of ancient Mesopotamia. They speak of a vanished culture in Sumer and of a king called Gilgamesh. He was renowned for his great wisdom and knowledge. Gilgamesh related the story of a worldwide flood. For a more fuller listing for those who are interested:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/flood.asp
Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.
After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Bureau of Census on March 1, 2006.
Impact of the Flood
We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 12:31 AMTAFKABO,
I hate to tell you the bad news as clearly you haven’t matured yet in your thinking to join the grown up thinkers. However, what you call the “scientific community” is deeply divided over these issues. Secondly, and wait for it, scientists are as equally prejudiced in favour of the prevailing views that are in vogue, especially as to reject them would cause them to be held up in society to the highest ridicule.
Prevailing public opinion generally is the grounds of what sways most scientists. AS evidence of that I produce Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell all committed creationists and not bad scientific thinkers either. In our own “Norn Iron” where it is still permitted to be a Creationist and a scientist publicly we have the leading recognized scientist in the Province in 2007, Sir Norman Nevin as a committed 6 Day Creationist who firmly believes evolution is a false theory.
Your Emperor has no clothes....go away and do some more research
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/217/63/
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 12:40 AMSam
Incidental question:
What’s the theological basis for the existence of a soul in humans?
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 12:51 AMSam
Sorry I didnt make myself clear enough, but what is the evidence for the earth being 6000 years old?
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 12:55 AMSam you are selling what no one is buying
I hate to tell you the bad news as clearly you haven’t matured yet in your thinking to join the grown up thinkers. However, what you call the “scientific community” is deeply divided over these issue
The scientific community is not deeply divided over this issue, unless you count the 1/100th of 1/10th of 1% of scientist willing to sell their souls to your little fantasy.
Wait I gues .00001 is a fairly signifigant number. NOT
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 01:35 AM
