Groups versus Individuals versus Discussions

[Melethiel]

I'll leave it to Dannager to rephrase his list if he so wishes. I was just curious if any YEC has a similar list.
I do agree with you here.

 

[vossler]

I'm sorry your sensibilities were offended, Scotishfury09. However, given that my interaction with you has been next to nothing, I'm not sure you're qualified to make that judgment. If you were somehow injured by my message, you might want to ask yourself why that is.

Dannager, I myself have had a number of interactions with you and find what Scotishfury has to say to be quite accurate.

We TEs use our sub-forum to discuss the mentality of creationists. We strategize, develop ways to effectively debate with you, and casually joke. Our sub-forum works like a meeting room. Your sub-forum works like a support group. How can you not see that this disparity is critical?

If that’s how TEs wish to spend their time, strategizing and developing ways to debate, hey more power to you. If we wish to do differently then what’s that to you? Somehow this difference is critical to you and to that I would have to say I think you need to take yourself less seriously.

Most creationists haven't a clue how evolution actually works. That's reality. And believe me, I would avoid using these kinds of generalizations to describe creationists if creationists decided to police themselves a little. But that doesn't happen. We TEs correct each other on getting information wrong all the time. Creationists almost never do. I've seen a creationist start a thread in the creationist sub-forum with a PRATT on AiG's Do-Not-Use list, and nothing happens but back-patting. And that's on your sub-forum. That happens in the main OT board all the time, except when it happens here it's the TEs doing every single correction. We do all your work for you.

I find that most evolutionists don’t have a clue as to how evolution works. Just yesterday while in the process of researching something I came across a site where the majority of evolutionists stated that evolution deals with abiogenesis. This isn’t some rare encounter, as a matter of fact if you asked people on the street who claim to believe in evolution I would venture to say that a large majority couldn’t tell you how evolution works. That in and of itself says a lot.

I shared with you our perspective. Would you rather I had not done you that favor? That's what many creationists make themselves out to be in our eyes.

You’re obviously one the many TEs who isn’t shy about telling us how you really feel. I myself appreciate knowing who it is I’m dealing with, so I do appreciate the favor. Thanks!

Oh, I do. Heck, I also rather enjoy cross-posting threads from the creationist-only sub-forum here, so that topics brought up there can be properly discussed.

If you feel so inclined then by all means do so, I would just ask that you do so without any direct references to the individuals or even the thread. If the topic is of any worth that shouldn’t be necessary.

I don't remember the last time FallingWaters posted in the main OT board. Maybe I just missed it, though. Or Floodnut for that matter.

If there are folks who’d rather not subject themselves to ridicule or mockery why should that bother you. There are plenty of other YECs from which you can throw your barbs at.

When all other recourses have been exhausted, yes it should be. We try civil, first. That usually doesn't work. Creationists tend to not be interested in hearing the other side. So we turn to hostile debate tactics (which, by the way, is acceptable - this is a debate) to demonstrate to whoever is watching that our opponents' arguments are nonsense. We don't use ad hominem attacks, we don't move the goalposts, we don't cite frauds. We refute arguments.

Is this what Jesus did?

Nothing is stopping creationists from recognizing where their arguments are lacking and fixing the problem. Most of the time, though, nothing is done.

If the argument comes from a secular worldview of Scripture and Creation, you’re right nothing is done.

I have respect for your faith as I have respect for my own. I am concerned for the faith of many creationists because of the demonstrated fragility of their own. I can't count the number of times I've heard (almost verbatim!) "If Genesis isn't literally true then I can't believe in any of the Bible and there is no right or wrong in the world." That's glass faith. Drop it, bump it the wrong way, accidentally hit it with something substantial and it can shatter. Your faith should be like rubber. It should be flexible enough to give a little in the face of legitimate criticism, but it should bounce back as strong as ever in the end. That's what faith should be, and that's not what I see in a lot of creationists.

Ahh yes, legitimate criticism. What is that based upon? For you it comes from science, for me it stems from God’s Word. Hence the dichotomy.

And I yours. Don't mistake my concern for a lack of respect.

You sure have a funny way of showing it.

I can be and have been cordial in discussions here. Perhaps I could use with a tad more patience, but after a couple years here I've gotten a decent feel for when it's worth it and when it isn't.

I’ve seen you act this way.

Now where does it tell us in the Bible to quit being cordial and pleasant when we ‘feel’ it isn’t worth it?

No, you want it closed so that you have a place to retreat to. That's why you want it closed. The "abuse" you refer to is a forum rule. It's your justification for having it closed, but not the reason. You want what amounts to signs on the door saying "Creationists Only! TEs Keep Out!"

I personally don’t want that. The only reason I would support it is because TEs can’t seem to act hospitably. Why that is I haven’t a clue.

See, now you have a problem. I have no "faith" in theistic evolution. My acceptance of a scientific theory involves no faith or unsubstantiated belief. If, tomorrow, evolution is shown to be wrong I will throw it out in favor of whatever replaces it as being valid. That won't happen, in all probability, but if it did, every TE here would do the same thing.

I can’t say what you really have faith in, other than yourself, because it really isn’t evident. It would appear to me that science and it’s findings hold a high regard to you, so much so that when they contradict the Word of God you don’t have a problem with it. So if you would dismiss evolution if it were shown to be wrong is easy to say, but I’ve yet to see much evidence of that.

On the other hand, I am unhappy that you are so unquestioning in your faith in young-earth creationism.

The fact that we don’t question God’s Word should never be a concern for another Christian, yet today that is a seemingly common position. Questioning one’s faith when given the clear teaching on a subject is foolishness to me and also to God.

Ignoring that your reply had nothing to do with what you quoted, you're right! People don't! We know this! We can throw a person in a lake and he will not walk on top of it. We know that the only way this could have happened as described in the Bible is if God reached down (ostensibly through Christ) and performed a miracle. It is, otherwise, impossible. However, the origin of the current biodiversity of life doesn't work that way. We know how it could have (and did!) happen. It doesn't require (or even make sense with) a literal interpretation of Genesis.

How can you be so bold to say that “the origin of the current biodiversity of life doesn't work that way?” That statement is absolutely stunning and hard to grasp. Wow!

So do we. Every one of us. But not your interpretation of it.

This seems to be the calling card of most evolutionists. When Scripture clearly states something contrary to evolution or your view, it always comes down to a “that’s your interpretation” dismissal. This then give the evolutionist the green light to interpret Scripture how he/she sees fit without any proper or thorough exegetical support. It allows each and everyone to interpret Scripture as they see fit. If you don’t believe this to be an uniquely evolutionary position please find me a single post by a regular YEC poster that does likewise.

We're not insulting you. We're pointing out the truth and you're choosing to make it into an issue of who is being nice to who. That's not what this is about. We don't want to insult you. I would never willingly insult another creationist for the sake of insulting them. I would certainly consider it in some of my most frustrated moments, but it would blow over within seconds. We're telling it to you how it is, and it's hard for you to handle, we know. But choosing to view it as an insult is the wrong way of going about this. To build on the paper metaphor from earlier, when you were in school and got an essay back from your English teacher with criticism in the margins, were you insulted? Or did you just feel bad that you were criticized, however validly? Was your English teacher trying to insult you, or trying to help you out?

You certainly are arrogant and full of yourself if you believe creationists are finding it difficult to handle all the truth you are spewing out. I’m actually saddened more than anything else that as my brother you’ve been so captivated and swayed by the world. What’s really fascinating is how this truth that you espouse is so unrelated to the Truth of God’s Word and yet it never seems to concern you.

Listen to what we have to say. Some of us are really pretty smart (mostly the others, I'm still in college ). We spend a lot of time on our arguments, and they're correct. We don't post any refutations that we know to be wrong, ever. We like to check our facts. We take our own intellectual honesty as a matter of pride. We honestly feel bad if we slip up and say something wrong. There have been a couple of times when I've gone off on something that was a non-issue, or provided a refutation that didn't apply because I didn't understand the argument, and I've felt legitimately bad about it.

I don’t think there are any YECs who would say that TEs are not very smart. That’s just it, it is your intelligence that is your own worst enemy.

When we provide refutations from TalkOrigins or other such websites, don't discredit the refutation because it comes from TalkOrigins. First, TO is right pretty much 100% of the time. They have an enormous database of great arguments and cite all their references. If a legitimate concern is raised against one of their refutations, the refutation is fixed. And I know you could counter with "Well then don't disparage AiG and ICR!" I'm going to be blunt: they aren't good resources. They're probably the best available to you, but they do not do well in this debate. They can't compete with the science we've got, as hard as they try.

I find this observation rather humorous. TalkOrigins is a solely secular site that has no biblical worldview what-so-ever, yet we’re to see them as superior to organizations that hold the Word of God in high steed. I wish you could just take a step back from your entrenched position to see how ludicrous that request actually is.

I will think on your words, and I appreciate the response. Perhaps I am a tad jaded, and that's showing. There is a place for compassion, I believe. That place is almost everywhere, and almost every time. But there is a place for being blunt and honest even if it's hard to hear. This was the place for that, I believe. I've stated my perceptions as carefully and thoughtfully as I can.

I hope you do think on this and see where all of this eventually leads. God calls on us to love one another, especially the brethren. If being blunt and honest is so important to you then you would be far better served by attacking the position or subject as opposed to the person or group.

 

[Jadis40]

I'm reminded strongly of Glenn Morton. He used to be YEC. But, when the evidence came in that seriously cast doubt on the whole YEC model, and he tried to point out inconsistencies - to those who were also YEC, he got shot down.

Why is this?

I quote from his own story here: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.
In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man--believing two things.

 

[laptoppop]

While we are rapidly floating off-topic -- I'm reminded of Dr. Kurt Wise.

• Ph.D. Invertebrate Paleontology, Harvard University
• M.A. Geology, Harvard University
• B.A. Geology, University of Chicago

Trained under Stephen Gould, a noted evolutionist. Here's an interview with a bit of his journey from evolutionist to young earth creationist:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/fossils.asp

 

[laptoppop]

I'm reminded strongly of Glenn Morton. He used to be YEC. But, when the evidence came in that seriously cast doubt on the whole YEC model, and he tried to point out inconsistencies - to those who were also YEC, he got shot down.

Why is this?

Perhaps because he didn't know what he was talking about? He only has a bachelor's degree, and that is in physics, not geology. He even specifically states that he has never even taken a course in Geology. I read his article -- the "problems" he mentioned are easily accommodated in the current YEC model (which admittedly has significantly matured since the early years of modern YEC).

 

[Jase]

While we are rapidly floating off-topic -- I'm reminded of Dr. Kurt Wise.

• Ph.D. Invertebrate Paleontology, Harvard University
• M.A. Geology, Harvard University
• B.A. Geology, University of Chicago

Trained under Stephen Gould, a noted evolutionist. Here's an interview with a bit of his journey from evolutionist to young earth creationist:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/fossils.asp

And yet despite those credentials, he has stated that absolutely no amount of evidence, of any kinda, even if it's right, will dissuade him from the YEC views. In other words, even if evolution were able to be 100% proven, he would ignore the evidence. That requires a heck of a lot of cognitive dissonance, fancy degrees or not.

 

[laptoppop]

Actually that is a misstatement of his views. He has stated that he does not *expect* any evidence to come up that is irreconcilable with YEC. He has not stated what he would do if there were irrefutable evidence against it.

One of the prime issues for YEC is that it admits a bias toward believing the Scriptural account. Everyone has biases -- this one is out in the open. It gives supremacy to God over current science fads.

From the article (which it seems like you may not have read):
Apart from evolution, Dr Wise says that one of the things that has really bothered him is finding creationists who fall into the trap of dismissing justified criticism. He said he has presented data to point out areas that some of them needed to change, and it was either fobbed off or was still being repeated next time he saw them.
'You know, there's no data that I ever ran into that bothered me as far as my creationist position went. But this issue did.'
He believes that this may be why he has a reputation for being critical of creationists, or even why some have accused him of being a 'closet evolutionist'. But he says he simply has an extremely high regard for the truth.

 

[busterdog]

And yet despite those credentials, he has stated that absolutely no amount of evidence, of any kinda, even if it's right, will dissuade him from the YEC views. In other words, even if evolution were able to be 100% proven, he would ignore the evidence. That requires a heck of a lot of cognitive dissonance, fancy degrees or not.

So many absolutes in that post!

"absolutely no amount of evidence" will dissuade him.

Most of us find some evidence of evolution to be of weight and interesting. How we ultimately come down on the issue is a different matter and it doesn't mean that both sides have not been considered.

Since the requisite quantity of evidence has not been presented to Mr. Kurtz, the proposition is academic in any event.

"If evolution were 100% proven." The proposition is of course hypothetical.

"he would ignore the evidence" -- in what sense? In deciding that there is more weight behind YEC or whatever he is? How is that "ignoring" the evidence?

"Cognitive dissonance" is what far, far too few of us have. If he has it, he is alright by me.

 

[laptoppop]

In any case -- back to the topic. I find it deeply saddening that in a thread urging us to treat each other with love and respect and not as monolithic groups that there have been posts that do exactly the opposite.

Whether we like it or not -- there are people who take BOTH positions who are very intelligent, educated, who love the Lord, etc. Neither position has an exclusivity on intelligence and knowledge and faith. It is also true that the vast majority of people who take BOTH positions do not do so because they have a doctorate in Biology or Paleontology or Geology, etc., but because its what they have been taught.

It is also true that there are many, many, many more researchers who believe in evolution as opposed to YEC, but truth is not a popularity contest. It is also true that YEC proponents try to do things to popularize their position, just as evolutionists do (ever hear of Natural History museums???) - but again, that is irrelevant to the veracity of the position.

So, I'm begging -- please let's stop referring to groups and talk about each other, interpretations, and evidence. Yes, there will be newbies to the forum from both sides who come in and throw rocks, but at least if we set a high standard and don't support it, the amount of contentless rock throwing should go way down.

 

[crawfish]

Actually that is a misstatement of his views. He has stated that he does not *expect* any evidence to come up that is irreconcilable with YEC. He has not stated what he would do if there were irrefutable evidence against it.

I think this is the quote Jase was referring to, from the book In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

 

[laptoppop]

OK, fair enough -- I can see what is being said. At the same time, please include it with his known penchant for honesty and seeking of truth -- even if it disagrees with other creationists. He is widely known as an honest man -- even among evolutionists -- and Jase's post did not reflect that, but made him sound like he was not interested in the evidence.

 

[Dannager]

In any case -- back to the topic. I find it deeply saddening that in a thread urging us to treat each other with love and respect and not as monolithic groups that there have been posts that do exactly the opposite.

Whether we like it or not -- there are people who take BOTH positions who are very intelligent, educated, who love the Lord, etc. Neither position has an exclusivity on intelligence and knowledge and faith. It is also true that the vast majority of people who take BOTH positions do not do so because they have a doctorate in Biology or Paleontology or Geology, etc., but because its what they have been taught.

It is also true that there are many, many, many more researchers who believe in evolution as opposed to YEC, but truth is not a popularity contest. It is also true that YEC proponents try to do things to popularize their position, just as evolutionists do (ever hear of Natural History museums???) - but again, that is irrelevant to the veracity of the position.

So, I'm begging -- please let's stop referring to groups and talk about each other, interpretations, and evidence. Yes, there will be newbies to the forum from both sides who come in and throw rocks, but at least if we set a high standard and don't support it, the amount of contentless rock throwing should go way down.

See this for what it is: an attempt to level the playing field and raise the legitimacy of creationism to the same level as evolution for the purpose of this discussion. I cannot condone this. Creationism is, as a concept, inferior to evolution in every way I can think of. The playing field is not level, nor should it be.

 

[laptoppop]

Actually, it is merely an attempt for us to treat each other with respect and love. You can believe whatever you want - but you don't have to present your case with insults or put downs.

 

[pastorkevin73]

By tough I mean able to handle criticism without running for safety in the creationist only forum where people who will always agree with you are.

As for my post, Dannager posted the This is telling, i posted the other part. What about it? That's quite tame compared to the venom floodnut spews at us in the creationist forum. I just think it's sad you guys choose to wall yourselves off so much.

There is a difference between being criitcal and constructive. We all should seek to be constructive. God never told us to be critical, but to be like iron sharpening iron.

 

[Jase]

There is a difference between being criitcal and constructive. We all should seek to be constructive. God never told us to be critical, but to be like iron sharpening iron.

Being constructive would require YECs to actually listen to what we have to say and consider it. Most YECs don't do that, so how can we be constructive?

 

[gluadys]

There is a difference between being criitcal and constructive. We all should seek to be constructive. God never told us to be critical, but to be like iron sharpening iron.

A problem in communication here may be the word "critical". In common parlance criticism tends to have a negative meaning virtually synonymous with condemnation. But the word derives from the Greek for fair judgment, a thoughtful discernment. We still use it that way when referring to a professional critic such as a literary, art or drama critic, a film critic or restaurant critic. Or for that matter, when speaking of biblical criticism. In this context, appreciation is as much a part of criticism as condemnation. Fundamentally such criticism is really careful study such that one can make a fair judgment. Fair judgment gives praise where praise is due, condemnation when it is deserved, but always better understanding.

In this sense, God does expect us to be critical. For criticism in this sense is iron sharpening iron. It is a matter of becoming more sensitive and discerning, of developing one's capacity to comprehend as fully as possible, so that one may appreciate what is good and true and turn away from what is wrong or false.

I think Jase is speaking of criticism in this sense. Ideas must be subjected to discerning criticism. And if they fail to pass muster, that should not be taken as condemnation of the person who proposed them, but of the ideas presented.

Of course, one is going to feel bad about having one's opinions shown to be without basis. But to translate that feeling into an accusation of personal insult is also without basis. One should rather re-examine one's opinions instead and look to improve them or replace them with sounder opinions.

 

[shernren]

Actually, it is merely an attempt for us to treat each other with respect and love. You can believe whatever you want - but you don't have to present your case with insults or put downs.

Insults or put downs like these?

Pressing them on theology is fruitless and finding a cohesive core set of convictions that defines TE is like making a sandcastle, it looks nice but sooner or later the tide comes in and washes it away.

When your position is as scripturally weak as theirs is, is it any wonder this [TEs never conceding a point that would contradict TE] is true?

I wonder if these posters would say the same things in an environment where they knew half a dozen TEs were going to call them on it right in the same thread.

 

[Dannager]

I wonder if these posters would say the same things in an environment where they knew half a dozen TEs were going to call them on it right in the same thread.

Yeah, instead we have to resort to calling creationists on it in other threads. It's sort of an inconvenience and it doesn't get the attention of the person in question all the time.

 

[theFijian]

This isn’t some rare encounter, as a matter of fact if you asked people on the street who claim to believe in evolution I would venture to say that a large majority couldn’t tell you how evolution works. That in and of itself says a lot.

Substitute the word 'evolution' for the word 'Christianity' and your argument is just as applicable. Therefore we see that your argument says nothing about the veracity of evolution as a theory and much about peoples lack of understanding.

And frankly it's a bit rich coming from you. I've had dealings with you and you had real problems parsing simple sentences and statements. We could all check for the plank in our own eye first.

 

[Dannager]

Substitute the word 'evolution' for the word 'Christianity' and your argument is just as applicable.

To boot, the percentage of creationists who know the basics of how evolution works is going to be astoundingly smaller than the percentage of non-creationists who know the basics of how evolution works.