Conspiracy Theory???????

[Chi_Cygni]

Do the Young Earth Creationists (YEC) out there really believe that the scientific community is conspiring to promote an old earth model so as to undermine scripture?

Do YEC's believe that real science is being done in the creationist realm and that mainstream science is deliberately ignoring and/or sabotaging it so it doesn't get journal approval by the peer review process?

Isn't this hard to believe in light of the competitive nature of science and the recognition one gets if you refute existing theory and provide a new and better theory.

How do YEC's respond to the accusation that the only 'science' you see from the creationist organisations is considered by mainstream scientists (of which I am one) as either laughable or even fraudulent?

Why is it that most of the creation scientists seem to be engineers and medical doctors with no training and/or education in the fields of geology/physics/astronomy/biology. That is they are laymen. As a physicist the physics arguments I see often seem to lack even an understanding of high school level physics which makes it kind of hard to take the same person seriously when they start discussing more advanced topics. For example vapour canopy arguments seem to have forgotten 10th grade science.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Look for some posts by Jhessel if you want an answer.

 

[armed2010]

Look for some posts by Jhessel if you want an answer.

Hahahah good one

 

[Jet Black]

no, posts by Jhessel end up with you believing in lizard men and things like that.

 

[Drotar]

Do the Young Earth Creationists (YEC) out there really believe that the scientific community is conspiring to promote an old earth model so as to undermine scripture?

Do YEC's believe that real science is being done in the creationist realm and that mainstream science is deliberately ignoring and/or sabotaging it so it doesn't get journal approval by the peer review process?

Isn't this hard to believe in light of the competitive nature of science and the recognition one gets if you refute existing theory and provide a new and better theory.

How do YEC's respond to the accusation that the only 'science' you see from the creationist organisations is considered by mainstream scientists (of which I am one) as either laughable or even fraudulent?

Why is it that most of the creation scientists seem to be engineers and medical doctors with no training and/or education in the fields of geology/physics/astronomy/biology. That is they are laymen. As a physicist the physics arguments I see often seem to lack even an understanding of high school level physics which makes it kind of hard to take the same person seriously when they start discussing more advanced topics. For example vapour canopy arguments seem to have forgotten 10th grade science.

I've actually gotten in my first real debate on the theistic evolutionist side the other day. It's true. People that barely passed their science classes think that they know all the answers to science and that y'all (scientists) don't.




And BTW, simply taking a 10th grade science course doesn't put someone up to that level. I've seen high school seniors take a 10th grade science course WITHOUT having ACTUALLY learned anything from it. I talked to one the other day who thought that he knew everything about science theory, and that 'those scientists,' except for Creation scientists, 'don't know what they're talking about.'





One thing he said was: "Seriously, the evidence for Creation is so huge that, like seriously, ALL geologists are Creationists. No seriously man. I ain't making this up. Because there's so much evidence for it."


SERIOUSLY man, it was frustrating. Did I sound like that? I hope my posts were a little more legit than that.

 

[Arikay]

Drotar is right, I have known quite a few people when I was in high school that graduated without learning as much as you would expect. Credits and an A in a course is no guarantee that someone actually learned from that course.

It often seems like creation science is a way to feed someones need to be right and to feel superior. It seems people often feel like they are looked down apon by scientists and so they grab onto creation science because it fits their beliefs and it allows the normal man to appear just as smart as those evil scientists and appear to be able to show those scientists up. Allowing them to think that they have just beaten those snoby elitist scientists.
Unfortunatly they dont realize that they are being fed exactly what they wanted to hear, even when its false, and they are willing to eat it right up, and empty their pockets.
Basically, its a way to appear smart without thinking.

Of course, this doesn't go for all creationists, as there are many that are smart, they just dont realize that they shouldn't trust their sources.

 

[MartinM]

Do the Young Earth Creationists (YEC) out there really believe that the scientific community is conspiring to promote an old earth model so as to undermine scripture?

What, didn't you get the memo?

Oops.

 

[MartinM]

SERIOUSLY man, it was frustrating. Did I sound like that? I hope my posts were a little more legit than that.

I don't recall you ever being that bad.

 

[Mike Flynn]

It often seems like creation science is a way to feed someones need to be right and to feel superior. It seems people often feel like they are looked down apon by scientists and so they grab onto creation science because it fits their beliefs and it allows the normal man to appear just as smart as those evil scientists and appear to be able to show those scientists up. Allowing them to think that they have just beaten those snoby elitist scientists.

Perhaps there are some that are like this (we've seen this here), but many more are not.

The average person actually knows very little about science (Christian or otherwise). But creationists do have a problem: when they watch educational TV or their kids go to science class, they will almost certainly hear things about old earth or evolution. By contrast, I have no worries about my children being exposed to the likes of Hovind at school (at least where I live).

I think some of them feel like they are backed into a corner by science. Its natural, then, for them to misinterpret various scriptures to indicate that science is standing against God. Sadly, the have too much at stake in the debate to start reconsidering their interpretations of scripture. Jesus warned about this when he talked about the difference between building a house on the sand or on a rock.

Anyway, people like Hovind capitalize on this fear and resentment that people have against science. They set up the battleground: God vs science....who are you going to believe? Like true politicians, they claim the higher moral ground and do their best to distort and denigrate the 'opposition'. This includes any institution or individual, Christian or otherwise, that simply disagrees with any part of their ideology. Sadly, truth has very little to do with persuasion.

The average person has no tools to discern good from bad science. If people like Hovind can make a persuasive sell on creation science (and they are often quite good at this), then the literalists will eat it up even if that science is bogus. Its no wonder people believe in science conspiracies with hacks like Hovind running around convincing them that this is the case.

I'm impressed that there are many here (Christian and atheist) who care enough to set the record straight. The Bible says this is like 'light' and 'salt' for the world. Light to help people see more clearly, and salt (a preservative) to prevent the decay (like the message we get from Hovind + others) from spreading.

 

[Arikay]

I agree Mike, that not all are like that.

I also think Hovind sells things well because he brings it down to the average persons knowledge of science, and then shows the people that they can be as smart or smarter than those elitist atheist scientists. In a way giving the people an excuse to believe atheism is wrong, since most creationist science does come down to theism vs atheism.

 

[Mike Flynn]

In a way giving the people an excuse to believe atheism is wrong, since most creationist science does come down to theism vs atheism.

And since they bill it this way (and some atheists would happily do the same), they bind themselves and their faith to a tenuous position indeed.

 

[ZoneChaos]

Couple things to ponder:

Accepting the Bible as true (from a Christian POV), how old was Adam one day after he was created by God? How old did he appear one day after being created by God?

Could an earth, shown to be billions of years old by science been created as such?

Did God follow a pattern in creating: mature man | mature earth | mature creation.

In his knowledge, perhaps the Earth needed to be as old as it is now, when it was created to support us and our history that we have had (Industry, civilization, etc...), and that creating the earth "old" from day one was a part of God's design form the beginning.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Couple things to ponder:

Accepting the Bible as true (from a Christian POV), how old was Adam one day after he was created by God? How old did he appear one day after being created by God?

Could an earth, shown to be billions of years old by science been created as such?

Did God follow a pattern in creating: mature man | mature earth | mature creation.

In his knowledge, perhaps the Earth needed to be as old as it is now, when it was created to support us and our history that we have had (Industry, civilization, etc...), and that creating the earth "old" from day one was a part of God's design form the beginning.

These have been pondered many times on this forum. (and is by now a PRATT)

The problem is that it would seem that the *entire universe* would have been made 'mature'. In addition, several events would seem to have transpired that never really did. For example, the formation of fossil layers from creatures that never really existed, supernovae from distant galaxies that never existed, geological shifting before the earth was formed, etc. Light from distant stars would have to be created en route. Finally, the Lord would have set everything in motion in the heavens in order to give every indication that the universe began as a big bang billions of years ago. (expansion, cosmic background radiation, etc).

In short, the Lord have gone out of His way to make a universe such that once we had the intelligence to measure it, what we would find would certainly be in conflict with the literal translation in Genesis 1 (and bound to trip us up). Why all the fuss? Now, consider that its at least possible that the literal interpretation of Genesis is faulty (IOW, God may never have intended for it to be taken literally). It makes sense...why would God design creation to conflict with God's word? Clearly, we need to re-examine how we interpret God's word...our interpretations are subject to human error.

This doesn't mean that the Bible isn't true...it just means that we have not interpreted it correctly. Make no mistake, there is room for interpretation even if you *only look to scriptures* for it.

 

[Arikay]

What Mike said.

Mature does not equal ancient.
If the universe and earth are really 6000 years old, then the earth was created to appear 750,000 Times older than it really is, and the universe was created to appear 2,416,667 Times older than it really is.

So, if the earth was created mature, that must have ment that god created dead animals incased on the earth. What would be the point of creating dead animals, that appear to have been alive, but never were, and then stick them in rock?

Edit: nevermind, it wasn't in this thread that predicted the Oomphalo (spelling?) argument, it was another.

Couple things to ponder:

Accepting the Bible as true (from a Christian POV), how old was Adam one day after he was created by God? How old did he appear one day after being created by God?

Could an earth, shown to be billions of years old by science been created as such?

Did God follow a pattern in creating: mature man | mature earth | mature creation.

In his knowledge, perhaps the Earth needed to be as old as it is now, when it was created to support us and our history that we have had (Industry, civilization, etc...), and that creating the earth "old" from day one was a part of God's design form the beginning.

 

[Michali]

I've always wondered: What does "PRATT" stand for? And what is the acronymn "IMO" (in my opinion)?

 

[Michali]

This is my 667th post.

I'm a little superstitious.

 

[Arikay]

PRATT= Points Refuted A Thousand Times.

Yep, IMO = In My Opinion.

There is also,
IMHO = In My Honest Opinion
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I also think Hovind sells things well because he brings it down to the average persons knowledge of science, and then shows the people that they can be as smart or smarter than those elitist atheist scientists.

I've always wondered if this is partially or possibly largely the case when pseudo-science does so well. Some people seem to view mainstream science as an ivory tower for the intellectual elite, so the notion that scientists are really a bunch of ignorant dolts blinded by Satan is appealing.

Never mind that they use the results of hundreds of years of scientific progress to peddle such propoganda...

 

[Michali]

PRATT= Points Refuted A Thousand Times.

Yep, IMO = In My Opinion.

There is also,
IMHO = In My Honest Opinion
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion.

Thanks. I always run into these, and thought it be useful to know what they mean. There are some others, but I can't think of them now.

 

[TruthTraveler]

no, posts by Jhessel end up with you believing in lizard men and things like that.

LOL, I saw a guy that looked like a Pig at the Post Office. LOL
So why can't there be Lizard people? I think evolution would back this one up!