Why not a Creationism vs Geology debate

Ah, the watch maker thesis--from Cicero more than two thousand years ago right up to the present, the religionists cannot help offering as argument their own ignorance about how natural selection operates.

Be fair, now, Set - give 'em credit where its due; they're doing the best they can with what they've got.

sad innit?

Surely everybody knows how natural selection works assuming they ignore any factors which are difficult to understand. It's child's play. It isn't a problem in these debates.

Change through the differential survival of genetically favoured individuals in ways that can be passed on has to take account of environmental conditions in which those changes are advantageous.

Also, culture, eliminates the process because it allows survival to take place in non-genetic ways as is achieved through marriage customs rather than promiscuity.

And the subject can't be debated without culture. And all known cultures have religion and here we are debating it.

Only monkeys would talk like the anti-religious do and monkeys can't talk as some of the above contributions demonstrate.

It is just youthful rebellion boys which has got set in stone in a few stubborn individuals. The rebellion is quite normal but to stick to the oversimplifications of youth into maturity is pathetic.

Maybe you want promiscuity in which case fair enough.

Ah, now that's what I'm talkin about, "It goes to the substance of how evidence is perceived and utilized".

A YEC (Young Earth Creationist) may object to evolution AND geology, while an OEC (Old Earth Creationist) may accept geology. But the OEC has a problem because evidence for old earth geology and evidence for evolution are intertwined and mutually supportive. And it's the same for a wide range of scientific knowledge. So to reject one, you really have to reject the root paradigm, "the substance of how evidene is perceived and utilized".

The only 'creationists' who escape this are Deists who either incoroporate creation events within the structure of nature, or who move creation to some time/place outside of the known universe (before the big bang for example).

I just find it strange that the most heated battles are over evolution, when to be fair, they really should be over naturalistic science itself. For some reason, evolution seems to be an emotional hot-spot whereas equally conflicting sciences like geology don't trigger the same emotional response.

Is it emotionally more devastating to know that we evolved than it is to now that the Earth wasn't created in seven days? Or that the Universe has been around for billions of years? Both those views seem equally catastrophic for anyone trying to cling to a biblical creation fantasy.

fishin. I realize you mean Theistic evolutionist. However, youve miread me. Such an individual(Theistic Evolutionist) has a God acting in the natural world with evolution as his mechanism. That is the definition useed in public by the NCSE, . My point was that natural occurences , periodic ecological change and cataclysmic change provide the engine of evolution in the basic "materialist" model .
A transcendent God is not part of the mechanism of the path life at all. Hes neither needed nor evidenced

spendi Actually youve got this almost 180 degrees off of what is considered evidenced fact.

You're not surprised are you, Boss?

Well, spendi is the one who, by veiled reference to others , attempts to elevate his own worth by "C&P" 's and irrational statements. When he pulls one out of the hamper that is for once relevant, he oughta at least try to get it close to the mark.

Watch this space for fulminating objections to "assertions," by the past-master of assertions himself.

Orders, no less, and assertions.

ros wrote- in this mutual back-scratching extravaganza-



Which evidence? That in the field you are interested in for one reason or another?

Nobody on here, as far as I'm aware is saying anything about the evidence fm was talking about. I accept it in its entirity. More than he does I might say. In all fields. fm is just in the tart's knicker's curtains territory. The coy stuff.

So who are you arguing with? Nobody. It is just a mutual back-scratching extravaganza.

What exactly was wrong with my statement that caused you to say it was ass-backwards?

I was leafing through Leakey, off someone's shelf I might add to avoid any misunderstandings, and there were some pictures of the Leakey family board of directors gazing pompously at a skull which they said was blah-blah-blah and it made them rich and famous and admired. I wish I could have heard them. I bet I would have pissed myself. At a distance I mean. Not actually there. They were in the bush for phewk's sake. In a tent. In shorts. Mary is shown cradling the little skull and no doubt teleologising like a Catherine's Wheel going off.

It's just not cool is evolution nut-casery. The Pope's cool.

PS- Have you heard Mr Blair's pulling troops out of S. Iraq.

Maybe he saw the article wande quoted from the Fort Worth Bumwad on the ID thread.

It does rather incline one to steal quietly away.

Cause its more sexy to argue with scientists than it is to argue against rocks!

PS

Geologists would tend to nail biblical stories like Noah's flood - the energy to move that much water, in that little timetable is around 10^26 Newtons in a month - about the same as exploding a Hiroshama sized atomic bomb on every square mile of the Earth's surface, every 14 seconds, for a year...

That sort of upheaval and energy density output should leave some sort of discernible energy signature on the Earth's crust - everywhere - trouble is no one's found it yet, and believe me they've looked!