Mary Bianco

Well I just read today about this find from 2000. I think they said Montana
and it was put on display this summer. A duck bill dinosaur that was
mummified. My point is that they are dating it back 77 million years. Now I
understand totally how science can be off and wrong and all. But being off
millions and millions of years???? If there is such evidence for a young
earth, why wouldn't the scientists at least try to compromise in their
thinking some to maybe come to a reasonable conclusion. They say that this
fossil was embedded in very wet mud from a river bank and I'm thinking flood
here. But when I saw when it was dated back to, well I'm not sure again what
to think. It would be nice, whether people believe in the bible or not, that
we could come to at least a conclusion about our earth itself. I know I'm
asking a lot but I would think with all the evidence that people say exists,
a group would be able to scream it all out and reach a conclusion instead of
having two totally different scenarios.

Mary B

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Shyrley

On 13 Oct 02, at 14:29, Mary Bianco wrote:

that we
> could come to at least a conclusion about our earth itself. I know I'm
> asking a lot but I would think with all the evidence that people say
> exists, a group would be able to scream it all out and reach a
> conclusion instead of having two totally different scenarios.
>
> Mary B
>

Religiourtolerance.org quotes a poll which found that 99.6% of
scientists believe in evolution and the earth being billions of years
old. In non-american countries (yes, they do exist....) belief in
evolution and old earth is something like 97%.

So its not really two groups as such. More like, the majority and a
tiny portion of American fundamentalists.

I'm always astounded that young-earthers comeup with such
fantastical explanations that are much more far out than old
earth/evolution. Some of the explanations are even more non-
believanble than an invisible diety.
I once tried to explain the principles of Occams razor and
radioactive isotrope dating to a fundie. His eyes glazed over and he
said 'Oh that's philosophy and that's Satanic.'
His mind was so narrow he could have squeezed though insect
screening :-)

This is really my first exposure to Christian fundamentalism and as
a person who questions everything I find the lack of critical thinking
strange and somewhat disturbing. If you don't question things you
turn into a drone. Someone who believes everything they hear. A
McPerson.

I also don't think that religiour people should try and label religious
beliefs as science. Religion encourages faith, science is all about
questioning and not assuming that something is True.

Just my opinion.

Shyrley


"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you are all the same."

Rachel Ann

I doubt that we can ever make a definite decision unless we can go back in time, and only if we can then verify that we have actually gone back in time, which is a whole 'nother cundundrum.

It is an interesting idea for an in depth study. Someone wondered, and I can't find the original post so I'm writing it here, about whether they should study the origins of the earth from a creationist or an evolutinary position. Why not both? Look at both critically. Write to different scientist and religious leaders with your questions. Compare. Contrast. Slice and dice. This could be a study of their whole hs years... What a paper they could write at the end if they chose to stay with this.

I like the idea of pursuing both ends.

be well,
Rachel Ann, who feels as if she has been a pain through this whole thing and somewhat doubts that people actually have a good take on her own position....
----- Original Message -----
From: Mary Bianco
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 10:29 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] dinosaur stuff was bible


Well I just read today about this find from 2000. I think they said Montana
and it was put on display this summer. A duck bill dinosaur that was
mummified. My point is that they are dating it back 77 million years. Now I
understand totally how science can be off and wrong and all. But being off
millions and millions of years???? If there is such evidence for a young
earth, why wouldn't the scientists at least try to compromise in their
thinking some to maybe come to a reasonable conclusion. They say that this
fossil was embedded in very wet mud from a river bank and I'm thinking flood
here. But when I saw when it was dated back to, well I'm not sure again what
to think. It would be nice, whether people believe in the bible or not, that
we could come to at least a conclusion about our earth itself. I know I'm
asking a lot but I would think with all the evidence that people say exists,
a group would be able to scream it all out and reach a conclusion instead of
having two totally different scenarios.

Mary B

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~

If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).

To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]

Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mike Ebbers

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Shyrley" <shyrley.williams@v...>
wrote:
> Religiourtolerance.org quotes a poll which found that 99.6% of
> scientists believe in evolution and the earth being billions of
>years old. In non-american countries (yes, they do exist....) belief
>in evolution and old earth is something like 97%.

Interesting poll. It doesn't match what I've read, but I can't
quickly find a different poll. However, here are a few web sites
that show what creation scientists believe, including one that
addresses how many scientists could be wrong.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/wrong.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.ucg.org/articles/evolut/scande.html
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html
http://spider.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/pog_a.shtml

Here is a web site for those of us who like to read both sides:
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/new_index.html

>I once tried to explain the principles of Occams razor and
>radioactive isotrope dating to a fundie. His eyes glazed over and he
>said 'Oh that's philosophy and that's Satanic.' His mind was so
>narrow he could have squeezed though insect screening :-)
>Shyrley

This is frustrating, and wrong-headed. We should all be open to new
ideas, though not believing them without testing them out. I suspect
there are a lot of people who believe in evolution that are very
closed-minded and unwilling to entertain any thought of a creator God.

By the way, Christopher Columbus read the Bible and deduced that it
described a round earth (which it does). He set out to sail around
the world to India to tell them about Jesus. He landed on some
islands and called them the West Indies.

Mike
Knowing we won't solve any age-old debates here, but wanting to give
the Bible and creation a fair hearing