teddyv

The most current resource is based on only 70 drill holes, less than 10,000 metres. That seems a bit thin. The consultants that did that work are recognized in the industry so I guess they can justify it, but based on my experience, I would want probably at least 10 times the amount of drill holes. The resource is considered measured and indicated. That needs to be upgraded to proven and probable, classifications that take into all economic concerns including extraction, recovery, processing, marketing and sales and reclamation. The grades seem reasonable for such a large tonnage deposit. I think the US government would probably not want to allow any sale to proceed to a competitor based in China or any other unfriendly jurisdiction. There are several European and American companies that deal with these type of elements.

I did check the page out. It is stated that the jet is a full-size model prop from the Top Gun - Maverick movie.

Takes a fair bit to verify this article as it appears cobbled together from a variety of sources. Found some of the quotes here and there. It would be nice (and probably good practice) to include the sources of the quotes (it looks like it might have almost happened as there is a random "4" at the end of the second last paragraph - possibly a footnote?

Slow down dude. The seven day week is derived as a fraction of the lunar month. Seems like a reasonable choice. The sun and moon were created to markthe times and seasons. Genesis is firstly story-telling and history-building for the nation of Israel. The language and imagery is consistent with the contemporary nations living side by side in this region of the world. The story is written for the ancient Hebrews, not directly to us as a blow-by-blow account of the history 0f the universe and the earth. Reading the Genesis (1-11) narrative as a literal time-after-time history is reading this scripture as a modern 20th-21st century human who has been raised in a world underpinned by Modernity and rationality which was ascendent during the Enlightenment.

I know what you meant, but to better qualify, Young Earth Creationists are not correct - at present (from a point of scientific explanation, not theological). Scientific inquiry is always open to new interpretations of the facts - nothing is ever proven. That said, YEC scientists have a A LOT of work to do to overthrow the present scientific theories, mainly those of biology, geology and astronomy. If there is a some new evidence discovered then it may be possible to support YEC - i.e. 6 day creation, some 6000 years ago. I've yet to see anything compelling, personally.

Sorry, I thought that was a well known acronym within these discussions. AiG is Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham et al). They are probably the largest organization that is dedicated to Young Earth Creationism. They built the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter out in Kentucky. Also: ICR = Institute for Creation Research CMI - Creation Ministries International

These contentions are very debatable by both conservative and more liberal theologians. I was literally reading a blog by Dr. Todd Wood (not a theologian, but a YEC creationist Ph.D.) about the genealogies earlier. Few view the genealogies as absolute except for people who hold to a hard YEC position. YEC organizations like AiG and ICR and CMI are all pretty committed to evolutionary processes (I think ICR may be rethinking this position). For example, they posit that wolves and foxes were not on the ark, but a common ancestor from which they descended after the Flood. I think it is well-established that neither of these species interbreed. There are also other varieties like jackals, wild dogs, and dingos that would have speciated from the common canid ancestor. Therefore this would represent a speciation within the last 3500 years. And this is proposed for a lot of created "kinds". (this is literally shown on their displays at the Ark Encounter, and elsewhere). Would you contend that AiG is spreading a lie?

If, at this point, over the last couple of years you even have to ask this question is remarkable but not surprising considering you usual M.O. If this was anyone else asking I might take the time to respond but I do not believe you are a capable of good-faith discussions around this issue. Sorry, I do not trust you when you say "no offense" and "genuine interest".

What, specifically, is contrary to the Bible? About not interpreting the Genesis narrative like you do? About modern YEC being corrupted by philosophical Modernism? About AiG? Are these matter salvific for to you?

No. @Scott Free is correct in applying caution and nuance to an ancient text as well as applying sensible hermeneutics of asking who was it it written by, when and to whom.. You, like Answers in Genesis you would recommend, fall into the trap of viewing the Bible through the lens of Modernity, exemplified by the modern YEC proponents. AiG is fundamentally flawed in their approach regardless of how many Ph.D.s they employ. Their explanations are ad hoc and they do not look into implications or their hypotheses beyond the soundbite. They promulgate a hyper-macroevolution while denying evolutionary theory. They promote their brand of creationism as the foundation of the gospel, which is their biggest failure.

I'd never let a cat up on my model railroad. Fortunately we don't have a cat and our dog masquerades as a rug.

Born and raised in the Vancouver region of southern BC. Now living in the the "north" although really more central to the province. It's just that there is almost nothing further north of us other than a couple small indigenous villages until you get to Whitehorse in the Yukon. As far as religiosity, Canada is generally far more secular than the US, closer to many European nations, although our proximity to the US certainly influences our culture. The cities are all generally way more liberal/progressive, but once you get out into the smaller towns, especially in the western provinces, there a much more religious/conservative leaning. My own town, of about 5500 people has 3 Reformed churches only with Baptist, Anglican, RCC, Pentecostal, Evangelical Free, United and Seventh Day Adventist churches and also JW and Mormon churches. This is only at Point Roberts, WA, which is a small peninsula that cuts across the 49th parallel, only accessible by road via BC.

True, it was definitely pointed and came from a place of deep frustration that Christians, who reputedly claim to value and desire truth and honesty, cannot do basic background research to see if they understand what they criticize, or to supply some form of evidence to back up a litany of claims. A cursory search on evolutionary theory would clear up the second paragraph. Ultimately it's comes across as laziness. So yeah, I guess in your words, my comment was tacky.

When you have a new nation emerging from 400 years of residence and subsequent bondage in a deeply polytheistic nation, it's pretty important to set the framework of a theocratic nation right off the bat. There is, of course, application to us now that while don't (generally) believe in gods of all sorts of natural things, there are still philosophies and distractions that we need to be wary of.

Wow. Geocentrist? That's a pretty rare sighting.

No one. But that OP is all sorts of terrible takes and fallacies. It's nothing but a polemic. Absolutely wrong. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory and should not be confused with a philosophical application. It is fundamentally, as all science is, agnostic. Evolutionary theory is in its simplest form "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time". That's it. Not so scary is it? Kind of irrelevant. Unsupported assertion. Based on a pre-existing bias and ignorance of the OP. Laughable. Also, again a completely baseless assertion with no supporting evidence. Even creationist biologists would vehemently disagree with that statement. It flies in the face of everything that Answers in Genesis, ICR and CMI state (they advance a form of evolution). Who are these geneticists making this claim about DNA complexity? Names? Evidence that panspermia is taking over for evolutionary theory? (I am aware of the idea) Besides this is a typical creationist tactic of confusing evolutionary theory with origins. Origins chemistry and the attendant hypotheses are still not well developed, but that's nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Another assertion, assuming the OP actually has knowledge and intent of why astronomers and astrobiologists are looking for signs of life elsewhere from earth. In summary: A poorly constructed, propagandistic, polemic of unfounded assertions and assumptions to support a tenuous (at best) conclusion.

Stop strawmanning what you clearly do not understand.

When your premise is based on incorrect understanding, it's unlikely your conclusion has merit.

I'd put this more broadly on social media over public (or private) education.

I would say No, not in the most common use of "progressive" right now. That said, people come with a wide range of opinions shaped by things they are taught or things they have experienced which may lead to a more nuanced or reflective position on certain issues that get lumped into either the progressive or conservative basket. Despite where you may land on a topic, I think it is important to have those voices we disagree with us to further evaluate our own opinions by digging further into Scripture or simply reflecting on how/why we may hold them, and whether they are even important.

No, you believe your interpretation is correct. Which is fine. But I fear your confidence is misplaced.

Wow, Dutch Sheets. One of those NAR folks. Steer clear.

The Bible does not support these as absolute rights. Salvation is by grace, a gift of God, not by some declaration a selection of deists, theists and miscellaneous others. God desires the best for us, but that often means suffering into this world (Jeremiah, Job, etc). It is explicitly stated that we will experience suffering for the faith. I don't disagree with the intent of the US declaration as it is an excellent document for the basis of a more equitable society. Of course, it still took them a lot of time to even figure out the equitable part.

That sounds like idolatry to me.

The preamble does not have any Biblical justification despite the appeal to a "Creator". It's a deeply humanistic concept stemming from the Enlightenment. God grants us life, but he clearly can demand our lives at his pleasure.