Curious, even agreement is not enough

[rmwilliamsll]

reference to:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=2811041

where i posted a message agreeing that the truely consistent Biblical Christians are flat earthers and geocentrics, yet i am blasted for it.

curious? even agreement is not enough to please some people.

 

[shernren]

I don't know. But looking at your post in general, I think Creationism as a whole has an awful case of amnesia. On the one hand, they project themselves as the One True Christian Interpretation (TM), held from even before Jesus and by the church fathers. And yet what these people used creationist hermeneutical ideas to prove - spontaneous generation, flat earth, geocentrism, fixity of species, impossibility of extinction, fossils as satanic deception - creationism is strangely silent. As if creationism wasn't around before the 1900s to remember all this stuff.

 

[Willtor]

You know that in 200 years, the T in TEism is going to be redundant, and there will be another field of science against which many Christians will feel the need to defend themselves. The "creationists" of that age will think evolution is the plain reading of Scripture (didn't God command the Earth to bring forth living things?) and will insist that it was only the heathens that ever denied it. The new science will be perceived as the enemy.

 

[shernren]

You know that in 200 years ...

Given the state of Christianity and creationism today, I don't know. I can only hope.

 

[Willtor]

Given the state of Christianity and creationism today, I don't know. I can only hope.

Hopefully. My point is that - one way or another - we'll be in the same place in 200 years. It is on this basis that I'm more eager to fight theological battles than scientific ones. If Christians were more theologically aware I think a lot of these pointless contentions would be circumvented before they ever arose.

 

[jereth]

Hopefully.

Seriously, the demise of creationism may be closer than we realise. I suspect that eventually so many creationist errors will accumulate that the majority of Christians will realise its fallacy. In about 15-20 years someone will be able to publish a book called "200 creationist claims subsequently rejected by creationists".

Here are some examples of what I'm talking about:
1. Creationism in the 1980s: The Kuiper belt is a load of b**locks. Creationism in the 2000s: oops, they found it.
2. Creationism in the 1990s: Stars have never been observed forming. Creationism post Spitzer space telescope: oops.
3. Creationism in the 1970s: Plate tectonics and continental drift are a load of b**locks. Creationism in the 1990s: Plate tectonics is an essential mechanism, without which the global flood could not have occurred.
4. Flood mechanism: We used to believe in a vapour canopy. Now we realise that is a load of rubbish.
5. Distant starlight: Setterfield has the answer! Oops. Humphreys has the answer! Oops.

Hey, we could build up a big list here. Anyone else have something to contribute?

My point is that - one way or another - we'll be in the same place in 200 years. It is on this basis that I'm more eager to fight theological battles than scientific ones. If Christians were more theologically aware I think a lot of these pointless contentions would be circumvented before they ever arose.

Hear hear!

 

[shernren]

Hopefully. My point is that - one way or another - we'll be in the same place in 200 years. It is on this basis that I'm more eager to fight theological battles than scientific ones. If Christians were more theologically aware I think a lot of these pointless contentions would be circumvented before they ever arose.

Amen!

An interesting bit of creationist history to look up is the evolution of the concept of "speciation" in creationist thought. What I know for sure is that medieval theology's creationism made fixity of species and impossibility of extinction a direct consequence of God's design and the multiple "very good"s of Genesis 1. I've seen posters here who have said that modern creationism didn't consider speciation a scientifically observable event, until the 80's when the concept of evolution within "created kinds" suddenly came about when creationists realized that speciation was very real. (Was it you who mentioned that, jereth?) I do want to find out whether that was how creationist thought actually went, or not.

 

[IisJustMe]

You know that in 200 years ...

What makes you think Jesus will wait that long?

 

[Willtor]

What makes you think Jesus will wait that long?

If Christ returns before then, then I suppose it won't take 200 years for YECs to become TEs.

 

[IisJustMe]

If Christ returns before then, then I suppose it won't take 200 years for YECs to become TEs.

... vice versa!

 

[ChetSinger]

Don't lose your cool, Poke.

 

[Poke]

I don't know about Williams, but I earn money by scientific research. I'm sure there are many other members on the board that do so. It sure beats how Kent Hovind earns money, by deceiving people and getting them to buy into his lies.

Don't you mean "Theistic Scientific Research"?

People support Kent Hovind voluntarily. Do people support your research voluntarily, or are you supported by tax theft? If so, Kent Hovind beats you, hands down, even if he is dishonest, as you incredibly claim.

 

[Willtor]

... vice versa!

True enough. I'd make a friendly wager with you, but I'm not entirely convinced that it would mean anything in heaven.

 

[Poke]

"Dragging stuff out of it to this forum" is our only alternative to "spamming it". It happens all the time - a post comes up and an evo goes in and says "look, I don't agree with this and I'll be waiting for you at OT if you want to discuss it with me". I think that's the right thing to do, isn't it?

Rmwilliamsll started this thread to brag about his spamming of the Creationist subforum.

 

[random_guy]

Don't you mean "Theistic Scientific Research"?

People support Kent Hovind voluntarily. Do people support your research voluntarily, or are you supported by tax theft? If so, Kent Hovind beats you, hands down, even if he is dishonest, as you incredibly claim.

I don't know how much you know about research, but all scientific research is scientific research. The fact that I am a TEists has no bearing on the matter.

Also, yes, I take your tax dollars. I take about $40,000 of your tax dollars to learn about Godless evolution, Godless math (lots of Godless math), and Godless computer science. All I have to do is go to classes and eventually write a 10-12 page paper to submit to the atheistic scientific journals. And yes, my paper will make no mention of God. After all this Godlessness, I use your tax dollars to buy atheistic books like, "Chaos and fractals in Engineering Systems". Not only do I take your tax dollars to spend on all this Godless stuff, I also go to public elementary schools and teach science experiments about geology (which I mention Old Earth) and I also give a little talk on evolution to impressionable kids. I show them dinosaur fossils and talk about how these creatures lived long ago (much longer than 6000 years).

Take that Creationist! Kidding aside (about take that Creationists), I think you have no idea how important graduate students are to America. A large reason why America is a superpower is through science and technology. So much of the medicine and technology research is done by thankless graduate students.

EDIT: added to make it seem more outrageous. The reason why I make it sound outrageous is because that's what academic life is, through the eyes of the Creationists. However, it's just the norm for any college student doing research. I highly doubt that furthering the knowledge of humanity is considered "tax theft" considering the economic impacts of graduate students.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Rmwilliamsll started this thread to brag about his spamming of the Creationist subforum.

how is it bragging or spamming to agree with someone and to offer him excellent supporting evidence for his position?

is this an really appropriate way to discuss things? "brag" "spam" are loaded words, why use them? they carry emotional baggage without being particularly helpful.

i expressed a surprise that people reacted so strongly to my agreement with their position. sure surprised me.

 

[random_guy]

Just to point out how ridiculous Poke's claim of tax theft is, here's some information from my homestate of Utah.

My university, the U of Utah, is a research university that generates about $1.6 billion dollars of total revenue for Utah.

From this revenue analysis, it is clear that Utah’s re-
search universities are a good investment for Utah
taxpayers — for every $1 received in state appropriated
funding, Utah’s research universities generated almost
$6 in revenue from other sources.

The impact of research-related spending in Utah in-
creased business sales by about $610 million in FY 2003.
University research contracts and grants supported
almost 16,300 jobs statewide. The income associated
with these jobs totaled $302.8 million. The tax impacts
included $24 million in state tax revenue and $4 million
in revenue for local governments. (Table 4)

Based on these ratios, each $1.0 million in research gen-
erated by the U of U and USU returned $1.5 million to
Utah’s economy, created 39 jobs and $732,000 in earn-
ings. The impact on the state’s treasury was $59,000.
(Table 5)

Yeah, it's real tax theft. It's funny how Creationists take so many things for granted (modern medicine, technology, etc...) and then turn around and rail on the institutes that create it. However, it is good for lurkers to see how ridiculous some of the arguments get. Well, I'm going to go do research for 4 hours and take roughly $100 of your tax dollars. I'll think about evolution while doing so just for you Poke.

 

[Alchemist]

People support Kent Hovind voluntarily. Do people support your research voluntarily, or are you supported by tax theft? If so, Kent Hovind beats you, hands down, even if he is dishonest, as you incredibly claim.

Mt 22:15 Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how to entangle him in his talk. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Hero'di-ans, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the money for the tax." And they brought him a coin. 20 And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21 They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."