It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Young earthers vs Old earthers the conspiracy keeps growing.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:05 PM
Who are the creationist scientist?

While I posted that most of the movement was indeed mostly “Protestant Fundamentalist” because they are the ones that are the most active on using politics to remove evolution in the school curriculum.

Its also other denominations involve like the Catholic Church. Indeed they all share one common believe, and that is the inerrant believes of the bible creation.

We have about 22 creationist organizations in the US and one in every state.

“The young earthers” creationism has become “Scientific creationism” and to the works of one man, George McCready Pirce, a fundamentalist Seventh Day Adventist. He published a book called “The New Geology”

Now what is the role of creationist in politics?

Very simple they want to bring the subject of creationism into the classroom to challenge Evolution or eradicate evolution completely.

How successful they have been?

If you take in consideration that about 80 years ago they became victorious in court, they have lost almost everything they gained.

Cases like the IMAX refusing to show certain movies that relates to evolution, example “Volcanoes of the deep”, making sure that schools teach “evolution as a theory including the genealogical times”. In Atlanta the definition of evolution was brought into courts to be redefined, then the 2002 stickers on books that later the court ordered to be removed.

We now have Texas wanting to teach classes in school on creationism alone with science classes, then we most ask ourselves how much political creationism can get.

How political can it get?

Well when you have our own president statements in 2000 "children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started." This echoed a similar statement Ronald Reagan made on the stump in 1980.

I wonder if the “exposed to different theories” was to teach all religious and myths of creation or just creationism.

During Reagan era creationism came very close to make major changes but thankfully it didn’t happen, but it was also the years in which apathy took over the schools curriculum in this country and sciences was relegated to a minimal subject in schools.

[edit on 5-7-2005 by marg6043]

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:17 PM
I think Marg is definitely onto something here!

I'm not about to argue that she is 100% correct and face some acerbic demand that I produce 14 verifiable sources.

My experience in politics goes back more than 20 years - that's front-line, hands-on, deep-inside politics - not just reading a newspaper. I've seen this kind of thing at work and you do not see it as a "casual observer". In fact, what I have observed is how the Christian Coalition works undercover so, Marg's statements match up pretty well to what I have seen.

In fact, I've never understood why anyone would think religion should be taught as a science but, I can understand how politics can and will make that possible.

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Al Davison
I'm not about to argue that she is 100% correct and face some acerbic demand that I produce 14 verifiable sources.

He, he I am only human but thanks for the kind words, most of my research is in the "Creationist movement" and actually goes back over one hundred years, you can trace their gains and loses in society, courts and they have indeed gone through an "Evolution" of their own, funny I have to used that word.

This people are very organized, they have infiltrated the sciences with scientist of their own mostly graduates from their own colleges.

They are in a mission and while I am not against the teaching of "Religion as a comparative class" I am against the taking over of the science over creation and the bible.

The group has new strategies they are now pushing their way in Politics, and even when the nation is majority Christians almost every where that the subject of creationist over evolution comes into light most "Christians" agree that evolution is part of sciences.

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
This people are very organized, they have infiltrated the sciences with scientist of their own mostly graduates from their own colleges.

Just to be clear tho, there are scientists who have graduated from actual universities and are also creationists.

Supposedly, in the 'hard' sciences, creationists tend to be engineers, the idea being that they appreciate the real detailed planning that needs to go into fitting form to function, and also there are some people who do detailed organic and bio chemistry that are 'creationist leaning' (but in that case they're more usually 'intelligent design' creationists, rather than, say, yecists).

But of course it varies group by group, and you rarely get people who have degrees in organismal biology who are creationists of any kind (tho I kow that there are some).

Another interesting example in the Intelligent Design that's relevant to this issue is that guys like Behe (a biochemist) and Dembski (a mathemetician) are out and out scientists, but Phil Johnson, who's perhaps the more vocal and organized member of the group, is simply a rhetorician, a lawyer, with no training in biology, and the result is generalyl that the ID movement sues in courts, and tries to subvert science itself, rather than focussing on establishing a science of detecting design.

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:05 PM
You know Nydgan, you are right occurs, but during the 80s it was a surge of Religious movements backed schools and colleges in which any body could become an expert on "Creationism" and they became under scrutiny due to the fact that their curriculum teaching was faulty.

Occurs now a days we have accredited "Experts", like you said many see creationism in a different way.

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:41 PM
Let’s look at the Scientific Creationism, many will see them as part of the fundamentalist movement calling themselves “engineers”

Actually most of their job is not to bring light to the believes that they are protecting, but to bring a stop against the actual scientist that are advancing science, education and intellectual growth, using the bible as the sole explanation for everything living in earth.

Because most of their “scientific work” can not actually be prove, they tend to attack any real research, that is why I said “that they mean to accomplish anything” with real facts.

This people are good at “scientific words” usage to present their version of facts and to render real scientific work incompetent.

This people are killing science. The ICR will like to insist that their “Engineers” are competent and highly educated most of them fall ignorant when it comes to biology, genetics and geology. Their job is to find anything that will match their own views of Creation in the bible and to make it sound like intellectual work.

Also we have to take in consideration that for most of the Fundamentalist Creationist movements in the nation their “highly skilled” Engineers are part of the leadership of their movements.

The ICR likes to list its Highly skilled engineers as prestigious technical advisors, involve in education.

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Valhall
nice try somewhere. Now - you go off and play yourself and I'll stick with what I said in the first place.
Oh please, save your limp rhetoric for those you think you can bully.

Here is the count Valhall; you now owe marg two apologies and the 10-1 reader ratio of this thread, one as well for the unmitigated and unsubstantiated attack on Marg, and for those pieces of "obnoxiously wrong" and "obnoxiously ignorant remarks emanating from your obnoxiously wrong keyboard. I won't be holding my breath though, since you should be the last one launching a tirade, against anyone for "obnoxiously wrong", "arrogant" or "ignorant" posts considering the massacred, erroneous and totally misrepresented Piri Reis map and Malacca Straits water depth posts you made.

And obfuscate to your hearts content, backtrack, deny, why even pound your desk until you are thoroughly convinced that this display of anger and outrage in defense of your post where you reprint Rren's words and charge Marg with having said them, makes you feel like somehow you have saved face. If that to you is the far more adult thing to do than to apologize for launching an uncalled for and totally erroneous attack, then so be it.

Your false allegation was already exposed by me, and just so you understand that the extrapolated and contrived charge against Marg applies to yourself:

Nice tactic marg, but it aint selling.
Take note of those who have posted to date, including me, who have 'bought' what she has 'sold' because she has done a damn fine job of presenting her case, proving you obnoxiously wrong.

[edit on 7/5/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:05 PM
Thank you and you are welcome, Marg.

I've spent too many years in southern politics battling these kinds of straw men and trying desparately not to let them try to put me on the wrong side of the "God and country" issues and, to be honest, I still haven't mastered it. I've won a lot more than I've lost but I've lost some big ones to this kind of stuff. The truth is rarely so simple but voters are drawn to the simple so... I'd have to say that my biggest failing is understanding the motivation - as I alluded to, above.

I see nothing wrong with people holding dear to their beliefs. I see nothing wrong with challenging beliefs and findings. But, I draw the line at massive injections of emotion into debates of fact. If any form of creationism is PROVEN to be more correct than any form of an evolution theory, then, OK. I'll always be on the side of the facts. I'll always be against any attempt to squealch a discussion of the facts by interjecting nothing more than an accusation of heresy and a general damning of those who would dare to try to expand the knowledge of humankind with research and evidence.

I am open to researching any credible evidence that any one of the YEC'ists might wish to present but, please don't bother with third-rate hacks like "Dr. Dino". I've read those jokes and they aren't funny, any more.

BTW - did y'all see the story about the 40,000 year old human footprints found very recently in Mexico? It was on several news channels, tonight. Here's a link to one of the AP reports (there are many):

How might this new find change the debate?

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:21 PM
Indeed, I did see that! I was wondering what the article was implying, by stating that the new evidence adds doubt to the "Bering Strait crossing" theory. What are they saying now? Are they saying that the people swam or cartwheeled over?

Timelines I'm familiar with (google) place man's Bering Strait crossing at 35,000 B.C.E., which is in the ballpark of 40,000, eh?


posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:00 AM
Al Davison,

Thanks for the link, I have been keeping an eye to the newest ancient ruins found in South American that makes our "New Continent" no so new when it comes to human habitation.

This discovery is going to bring the "Young Earthers" to used all their power and influence to debunk it.

This discovery will be a good example of how the "Creationist movement" branch of "Creationist Scientist work"

I will be keeping an eye on their "Scientific Site" and also the site that Skeptic Overlord provided on Pro evolution, is going to be very interesting to follow through.

Al Davison you most remember that is various groups with various degrees of acceptance when it comes to evolution and Creationism.

The moderated ones are not problem because they accept evolution to a certain degree and the age of the earth also, they are the "old Earthers"

The group that seek to kill science and evolution are the more fundamentalist part the "young earthers"

They have teams of lawyers, lobbyist and members in politics, that are fighting very hard for their "cause".

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:42 PM
Marg - you are too right!

I understand how they are fighting but I just don't understand why.

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Al Davison
Marg - you are too right!

I understand how they are fighting but I just don't understand why.

I kind of have an Idea of why, but that will be a nice brand new topic for discussion and debate but I am going to let you be the initiator or zipdot.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in