26 Jan 06
I just saw this news article
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/26/content_4102608.htm
It says scientists have just discovered an earth like planet about 28,000 light years away.
I am curious to know what creationists on this site think about this. Clearly if the astronomers are right then the universe is at least 28,000 years old.
26 Jan 06
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's not just an earth like planet, but yet another earth like planet. I believe scientists has discovered several earth like planets this past decade.
I just saw this news article
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/26/content_4102608.htm
It says scientists have just discovered an earth like planet about 28,000 light years away.
I am curious to know what creationists on this site think about this. Clearly if the astronomers are right then the universe is at least 28,000 years old.
[Edit: I just can't stop saying earth like planet. It's impossible for me to conceive that earth being in the outer rim of our galaxy is actually the one planet resembling others and not the earth like planets resembling earth.]
[Edit: Did that make any sense to anyone else? Cause it made no sense to me even.]
[Edit: Although, I think I know what I'm trying to say. Oh well, back to work...]
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by stockenMy point was that all these discoveries are part of a scientific field or dicipline called astronomy which if the creation account is to be believed must be a field of science based entirely on false principles.
It's not just an earth like planet, but yet another earth like planet. I believe scientists has discovered several earth like planets this past decade.
So why do the ID crowd attack evolution but not astronomy ? Surely they can come up with another theory to be taught in school along side astronomy ? Sticker on text book to read "The existance of stars and Galaxies is just a 'Theory', there are other theories, for more information refer to ....."
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot all creationists are "young earth creationists." The YECs are probably a minority withing the creationist movement. But they all despise evolution.
My point was that all these discoveries are part of a scientific field or dicipline called astronomy which if the creation account is to be believed must be a field of science based entirely on false principles.
So why do the ID crowd attack evolution but not astronomy ? Surely they can come up with another theory to be taught in school along side astron ...[text shortened]... Galaxies is just a 'Theory', there are other theories, for more information refer to ....."
27 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy point was that all these discoveries are part of a scientific field or dicipline called astronomy which if the creation account is to be believed must be a field of science based entirely on false principles. So why do the ID crowd attack evolution but not astronomy?
My point was that all these discoveries are part of a scientific field or dicipline called astronomy…
Originally posted by rwingett
Not all creationists are "young earth creationists." The YECs are probably a minority withing the creationist movement. But they all despise evolution.
Not all IDers reject evolution or the notion that the earth is billions of years old. Accepting God does not require one to forsake science. Science helps to explain God’s creation so science and religion should work together. Many scientists for example are also theists.
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressTechnically speaking, yes, a creationist could be anyone who believes god created the universe by whatever means. But it is typically meant as someone who specifically rejects evolution.
[b]My point was that all these discoveries are part of a scientific field or dicipline called astronomy which if the creation account is to be believed must be a field of science based entirely on false principles. So why do the ID crowd attack evolution but not astronomy?
Not all IDers reject evolution or the notion that the earth is billio ...[text shortened]... tion so science and religion should work together. Many scientists for example are also theists.[/b]
27 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettThat definition is taken from atheists who seek to discredit creationists, so why should a creationist accept it?
Technically speaking, yes, a creationist could be anyone who believes god created the universe by whatever means. But it is typically meant as someone who specifically rejects evolution.
Edit: The technical meaning should have more weight than bias.
27 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThis is true. Both Dembski and Behe, the two most prominent IDer's, accept the scientific consensus on the age of both the universe and the earth. I know Behe, and I believe Dembski as well, also accepts that all species today, including man, descended from less complicated ones and that there was a common ancestor, or set of common ancestors for all life.
[b]My point was that all these discoveries are part of a scientific field or dicipline called astronomy which if the creation account is to be believed must be a field of science based entirely on false principles. So why do the ID crowd attack evolution but not astronomy?
Not all IDers reject evolution or the notion that the earth is billio ...[text shortened]... tion so science and religion should work together. Many scientists for example are also theists.[/b]
They disagree with the scientific community when they claim that these earliest ancestors could not have also arisen naturally and insist instead that they could only have been formed by what basically amounts to magic. Poof!
It is a testament to the uneducated fear, and thus irrational hatred, that YEC's show toward evolution, that so many support the efforts of Behe and Dembski. It's an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality.
P.S. TCE: Despite my disappointment with your reasoning skills and your ability to follow and understand semi-difficult arguments, I have always wanted to tell you that I appreciate that your willingness to challenge both believers and non-believers here. You do not play partisan games, and I commend you for that.
Edit: On second thought, maybe its a "I don't know what the heck you're talking about Behe, but if it goes against science and has God in it then Hallelujah!" mentality
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by telerionI'll second that.
P.S. TCE: Despite my disappointment with your reasoning skills and your ability to follow and understand semi-difficult arguments, I have always wanted to tell you that I appreciate that your willingness to challenge both believers and non-believers here. You do not play partisan games, and I commend you for that.