Why so quiet?

[oxmixmudd]

So - where have all the Nat Sci folks gone? Everybody take vacation at the end of August?

Jim

[Raphael]

So - where have all the Nat Sci folks gone? Everybody take vacation at the end of August?

Jim

Too busy fighting politics I guess.

[shunyadragon]

Yawn! Not much to respond to.

[Roy]

So - where have all the Nat Sci folks gone? Everybody take vacation at the end of August?

Jim

I did - week off for gf's sister's wedding.

[Christianbookworm]

Hmmm... can I make a thread to ask some questions? Like when do mountain goats and deer give birth? Or are there any animals too dangerous to keep in a zoo?

[Teallaura]

Hmmm... can I make a thread to ask some questions? Like when do mountain goats and deer give birth? Or are there any animals too dangerous to keep in a zoo?

1) At the end of their gestations
2) Yes, and quite a few too big and too complicated to keep. Blue whales come immediately to mind. Otherwise, it depends on the zoo.

[KingsGambit]

Humans are not kept in zoos either though there is historical precedent for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo

[Christianbookworm]

Humans are not kept in zoos either though there is historical precedent for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo

That is due to ethical issues with treating humans like they aren't sapient beings. Dangerous humans are in fact kept in "captivity". Prisoners aren't treated like zoo animals though.

[Christianbookworm]

1) At the end of their gestations
2) Yes, and quite a few too big and too complicated to keep. Blue whales come immediately to mind. Otherwise, it depends on the zoo.

And how long are the gestational periods? And when are the mating seasons? Sheep are born in early spring, so I'd guess wild goats are too. I want to think deer are born in the spring too. For some reason.

[Leonhard]

Because most creationists don't dare go here anymore, they lose and they know it, there's no one here talking about climate change denial either. At best we can wait for Jorge to come back and fling poo at people for a while before leaving again, though there's not much substance in him, or for another crank coming here denying the existence of stars or magnetic fields... but until any here actually starts a scientific discussion that'll be it.

[rogue06]

Because most creationists don't dare go here anymore, they lose and they know it

That hasn't stopped them or even slowed them down on other websites.

[Leonhard]

That hasn't stopped them or even slowed them down on other websites.

Scientific Creationism (or Intelligent Design Creationism as its also called), has been thoroughly relegated to the fringe now. In the US they lost hard, and in most of Europe there's are barely any schools left that teaches something like that, Turkey being one of the exceptions. It'll always exist, because the theological position of creationism will always exist. I have some respect for the integrity and drive of people who want to approach the world by understanding first the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, deriving even their cosmology from that. These people, because they're also rational human beings, want then for natural evidence to confirm these beliefs, and so some of them are attracted to sites that made by authors trying to give that. That tries to explain why there can be a worldwide agreement amongst scientists on the facts of evolution, despite it being wrong, and tries to tell a story of facts that 'clearly show evolution to be false and give evidence for the Creator'.

Trying to explain the origin of the Grand Canyon as being carved out quickly in minutes even by supersonic floods of water... Trying to sow doubt about the field of radiological datings, by finding various anomalies, proclaiming them to be proof that its bogus rather than sincerely learning about the field... Trying to do various kinds of a pseudoscientific exercises in math and probability to argue that evolution is impossible, or that its against the second law of thermodynamics, etc... we've heard it all, there's not really any of its that's new anymore.

And its all bad pseudoscience and it won't ever be anything other than that anymore. It'll exit alongside cryptozoology and ufologists, paranormal investigators and other weirdness like that.

Creationists, don't need Scientific Creationism. Its a religious position; Do you take natural evidence first and try to approach the God created world, as if it was made by Him to be approachable to the human mind, or do you consider the human mind so darkened by sin that nothing but the Scriptures and the Fathers can be taken as really trustworthy. I don't fault the Christians who take the other path on this.

That is a brotherly disagreement.

I do believe we should both reject Scientific Creationism though. Its neither religion, nor is it science, its a bunch of bad reasoning that tries to be science in order to give intellectual support for what should be a position of pure faith and trust.

[Christianbookworm]

So, it may be better to say I don't know when the universe was created than to dogmatically say it was created 6,000 years ago? It does seem silly for YEC to claim that their position is the only scripturaly sound position. It isn't of primary concern, so I'll leave it to folks who know more than me to discuss. Can I make some "science is cool" threads?

[Leonhard]

It does seem silly for YEC to claim that their position is the only scripturaly sound position.

Actually, on this matter I think I could have a brotherly disagreement with them on it. Of course, it depends on how important they take it, whether they like Jorge considers anyone, not a YEC a hellbound heretic, or whether they too believe its something we can disagree on. Then we have can dialogue, and talk about why, and there I believe complex arguments can be made. They have reasons I respect, even if I disagree with them.

But if they want to argue that what they believe is scientifically well grounded, that's where I'll depart

[Christianbookworm]

Actually, on this matter I think I could have a brotherly disagreement with them on it. Of course, it depends on how important they take it, whether they like Jorge considers anyone, not a YEC a hellbound heretic, or whether they too believe its something we can disagree on. Then we have can dialogue, and talk about why, and there I believe complex arguments can be made. They have reasons I respect, even if I disagree with them.

But if they want to argue that what they believe is scientifically well grounded, that's where I'll depart

So, what is a simple explanation of how scientists know that the universe is 13.8 billion years old?