okay who did it.....

[theIdi0t]

They can't post in here,
so what do they do?!?
They PM me!
This is the second or third time I get my privacy invaded by a non-Creationist who feels obligated to correct me.

GOODBYE!

It wasn't me...

and when did sending PMs become an invasion of privacy?

 

[Digit]

It wasn't me...

and when did sending PMs become an invasion of privacy?

I guess if it's specifically unwarranted, or if you have indicated previously that you are not open to it, then it could be thought of that way.

Digit

 

[Dannager]

Actually, it was me, in response to http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35415353&postcount=18

The PM (shown here in its entirety) was:

Re: We don't change their minds, and they don't change ours

I can't address your post in the Creationism sub-forum and it really doesn't warrant its own thread, but I feel it's worth pointing out that we do change a significant number of minds in the OT board. I can recall at least a dozen creationists-turned TEs (many of whom still post there) who switched sides during my short couple of years here. In that same time, as far as I recall, not a single TE has become a creationist. Think on that what you will.

Hardly an invasion of privacy, and certainly a deserved response. FallingWaters simply overreacted (in a fairly extreme and worrying fashion). Not that it's surprising. The creationist "ohnoes-I'm-being-persecuted-for-my-beliefs-martyrdom-woohoo!" complex is pretty well-known here. The fact that the forum structure supports that trend by handing them an impenetrable back-patting fortress probably isn't that healthy.

 

[theIdi0t]

Actually, it was me, in response to http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35415353&postcount=18
FallingWaters simply overreacted (in a fairly extreme and worrying fashion). Not that it's surprising. The creationist "ohnoes-I'm-being-persecuted-for-my-beliefs-martyrdom-woohoo!" complex is pretty well-known here.

Seriously!

I've noticed the various "Dannager you hurt my feelings post", for comments implying YECs are gasp...literalist. Now, keep in mind I've been quite harsh a few times, but even I have never received such, "you hurt my feelings post". What's your secret Dannager?

I perhaps shouldn't have sent FallingWaters a PM right afterwards: "Hi, I thought you could use a hug ". I assumed the original PMer must have been quite cruel, but oh well, she hates me now .

You know what it is, it's that post in that subforum that's to blame, the whine spot. You can't be a part of it, unless you got something to whine about. I think they're competing for top "ohnoes-I'm-being-persecuted-for-my-beliefs-martyr", I think pop's in the lead , though FallingWaters is steadily gaining.

hum...i... wonder if we started a similar thread here will the symptoms follow?

....hum

 

[Dannager]

What's your secret Dannager?

Hahaha, I'm not really sure. It's telling to see where they direct their frustration, though. We don't create the conflicts they're agonizing over, we just point them out. The fact that they choose to feel insulted rather than critically examining their own beliefs lets us know that they haven't gotten to the point where they can listen to what the other side has to say. That's the turning point - when they stop feeling insulted during a debate, that's when they can be shown the other side of the issue and actually accept it.

 

[Digit]

Hahaha, I'm not really sure. It's telling to see where they direct their frustration, though. We don't create the conflicts they're agonizing over, we just point them out. The fact that they choose to feel insulted rather than critically examining their own beliefs lets us know that they haven't gotten to the point where they can listen to what the other side has to say. That's the turning point - when they stop feeling insulted during a debate, that's when they can be shown the other side of the issue and actually accept it.

No, no, no. That isn't true at all. We don't agonise over these conflicts. The problem and frustration come about from two things.

1) The attitude that people post with.
2) The sheer volume of attacks that are levelled at people who hold a YEC belief.

People don't just up and deside to be insulted because someone doesn't agree with them. Hell, the YECs being mentioned here would be pretty crappy Christians if that was the case, because it's not like the world agrees with Christian beliefs in the first place. They would spend their whole life being insulted if that was true. There is a reason they feel insulted, it's because that on occasion, you, and others, come across in an insulting manner. Coupled with the usual harshness of non-believer posts in the GA/CE areas, it forms a pretty formiddable wall.

I am not trying to be rude here. I am just speaking plainly, and I know that I can be insulting too. In fact, maybe this is one of those times, but if you look at your posting history, and especially other threads where you and I specifically have debated, things didn't end in a pretty fashion. I prefer to avoid any such instances, and indeed in my thread earlier I found it far easier to apologies to poster, rather than continue and have it devolve until it was closed.

It is not however, as you insinuate, that our apparent crazy and mythical beliefs, cause a lot of mental unrest where a rogue spark can set us off.

Digit

 

[Dannager]

No, no, no. That isn't true at all. We don't agonise over these conflicts.

Perhaps you don't. A lot of creationists, however, do.

The problem and frustration come about from two things.

1) The attitude that people post with.
2) The sheer volume of attacks that are levelled at people who hold a YEC belief.

Attacks are leveled at the belief, not at the person. There isn't anyone out there calling creationists stupid or bad people. There are people out there calling their beliefs poor theology and willful ignorance (myself included), because that's what they are. Creationists need to understand that they aren't being persecuted, they're being debated.

People don't just up and deside to be insulted because someone doesn't agree with them.

Actually, a lot of people do, but not consciously. It's a reaction to frustration. If someone with a entrenched belief (YECism, for example) is shown irrefutable evidence that their entrenched belief is wrong, they do not admit to that. They cannot. Their beliefs are so ingrained in their epistemology that to do so would cause them a lot of mental anguish. Instead, the result is redirected frustration. I'm not saying this just to say it, Digit. We've seen this dozens of times.

Hell, the YECs being mentioned here would be pretty crappy Christians if that was the case, because it's not like the world agrees with Christian beliefs in the first place.

Then it should come as no surprise to you that the Christians you find in the news getting incredibly outraged at minor events are almost uniformly young-earth creationists. YECism, for many, is the symptom of a mindset, not the cause. And it isn't the only symptom, either.

They would spend their whole life being insulted if that was true.

Thus the perception in the minds of much of the country that, for fundamentalist Christians, outrage is practically a cultural past-time.

There is a reason they feel insulted, it's because that on occasion, you, and others, come across in an insulting manner.

If you think that's the case, please report the post(s) in question. If your opinion is accurate, the mods will remove the post.

Coupled with the usual harshness of non-believer posts in the GA/CE areas, it forms a pretty formiddable wall.

This is the wrong way to view it. The only "wall" in existence here is the creationist sub-forum fortress that, by unanimous consent of its members, decided to disallow non-creationist participation entirely.

EDIT: Let me ask you something, Digit. Why is it, do you think, that when the issue regarding the sub-forums came up, the creationists unanimously decided to disallow participation from the other side and the TEs unanimously decided to allow such participation? And before you begin to claim that evolutionists are more hostile, I'd like to stop you and remind you that we get a pretty significant amount directed at us (after all, we're the ones who deal with the hit-n-runners). My conclusion is that creationists feel that their beliefs are more fragile, whether they admit this to themselves or not. Their beliefs cannot withstand the sort of extended scrutiny that debate here facilitates. What are your thoughts?

I am not trying to be rude here.

I know. No one is.

I am just speaking plainly, and I know that I can be insulting too. In fact, maybe this is one of those times, but if you look at your posting history, and especially other threads where you and I specifically have debated, things didn't end in a pretty fashion.

Just because there weren't hugs and reconciling of differences involved doesn't mean that it was an insulting discussion. That's the nature of debate.

I prefer to avoid any such instances, and indeed in my thread earlier I found it far easier to apologies to poster, rather than continue and have it devolve until it was closed.

Threads only get closed when actual insults begin to fly.

It is not however, as you insinuate, that our apparent crazy and mythical beliefs, cause a lot of mental unrest where a rogue spark can set us off.

Oh, no, I'm quite sure that the reaction to my PM was not the result of YECism. There have to be other things going on in a person's life for something as mildly-worded and insult-free as my PM to illicit a large-type, red, bold-faced angry tirade like that. Why do you think she responded in such a way to a PM that, even you must admit, did not warrant it?

 

[Digit]

Well I was just as horribly blinded by large the large red font as you were, to that I have no answer and obviously there is something I do not understand behind the scenes.

But seriously, you've done it again in your reply to me. When someone says something is one way, you disagree, and then tell them there may be a subconscious element to it. That undermines them, and their point. There shouldn't be attacks being levelled period. I actually don't agree with the different rulings in the forums, yet I can understand their point of view, as I can well imagine that if they didn't have that rule, they wouldn't have anywhere to talk about their beliefs without a continual, un-ending stream of replies from TEs. I wouldn't say this, if I hadn't experienced it myself. Recall ye olde pornography discussion?

I just feel that you are attributing a shakey belief, to their unwillingness to expose themselves to what has become a rather negative experience. It's not like either side is learning anything, in fact, I think there is a very real intellectual quotient attached to these debates, and regardless of what information is presented, neither side will budge an inch.

Attacks are leveled at the belief, not at the person. There isn't anyone out there calling creationists stupid or bad people. There are people out there calling their beliefs poor theology and willful ignorance (myself included), because that's what they are. Creationists need to understand that they aren't being persecuted, they're being debated.

Erm? Lol?! Seriously, what is that? You can't seperate something so personal as a belief, from the person, and say you aren't attacking them. It doesn't happen, look to the forum rules of the two origins boards to see testimony to that.

Digit

 

[theIdi0t]

Hahaha, I'm not really sure. It's telling to see where they direct their frustration, though. We don't create the conflicts they're agonizing over, we just point them out. The fact that they choose to feel insulted rather than critically examining their own beliefs lets us know that they haven't gotten to the point where they can listen to what the other side has to say. That's the turning point - when they stop feeling insulted during a debate, that's when they can be shown the other side of the issue and actually accept it.

You know what else I find, that its difficult to get a YEC to deconstruct even just words, or even their own origin of life position.

If we ask them what do you mean by "design", they assume that we are asking the obvious, and we are just taking a cheap quip.
And I'm not trying to generalize by saying "they", but I have not run across a single YEC, who feels comfortable deconstructing.

And if you are lucky enough to get them to engage in a bit of deconstruction, they follow you for a bit, and then disappear, as if you hit a sore spot, and they are no longer feel comfortable playing with you.

I think what has happened is that we allow YECs to pick their fights, we allow nearly every thread to be about us, our science, our religion, etc... But we so rarely turn the tables around.

We allow YECs to get away with assuming evolution is in crisis because of a debate over punctuated equilibrium and gradualism--though this would be like saying that a marriage is in crisis because the husband and wife can't decide what to have for dinner.

When in reality creationism is in crisis.

The same people that say there is no evidence for evolution believe that evolution (though with strong reluctance to say the word) is the cause of the increased diversity from the time of Noah till now. They feel comfortable with that position, and yet deny beneficial mutations, and increased genetic information (however you define it).

Isn't a theory that assumes it understands itself, on further examination can be seen to not understand itself, the one in crisis?

A wife who says there is no evidence for evolution, and a husband who says "If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy (from AiG)." are in midst of an ugly divorce.

I have also been asking for some time why the tree of life in genesis is literal (though it had no function in the story) and the one in Rev. is allegorical. The answer has always been give or take a few words, "it just is". If you get them to explore the methods used in making these distinctions, you once again find that they disappear.

I think they've just built up this wall of specious reasoning, that allows them to preserve inerrancy, a literal genesis, twisted pseudo science, etc.....If someone shows them a glimpse of a crack, either accuse them of bullying, or run.

 

[Dannager]

But seriously, you've done it again in your reply to me. When someone says something is one way, you disagree, and then tell them there may be a subconscious element to it.

I do that occasionally, when I feel it's probably the case.

That undermines them, and their point.

If I feel their point isn't valid, I'm going to indicate that.

There shouldn't be attacks being levelled period.

The nature of debate is antagonistic. You can't have a debate without attacking the precepts of the other side's argument. It just so happens that this particular debate is an argument over beliefs. So, on the contrary, beliefs must be attacked (in the sense that they are challenged and their precepts critically analyzed in an antagonistic fashion) in order for debate to take place.

I actually don't agree with the different rulings in the forums, yet I can understand their point of view, as I can well imagine that if they didn't have that rule, they wouldn't have anywhere to talk about their beliefs without a continual, un-ending stream of replies from TEs.

That was hardly the case before the new rule of no-posting-whatsoever was instituted. Even before that, debate in the sub-forums was not permitted. The new ruling just changes that so that no posts at all can be made by adherents to the opposite belief.

I wouldn't say this, if I hadn't experienced it myself. Recall ye olde pornography discussion?

What about it?

I just feel that you are attributing a shakey belief, to their unwillingness to expose themselves to what has become a rather negative experience.

It is unfortunate that for many people taking a critical look at their own beliefs has become a negative experience. That's probably very close to the heart of the issue. A lot of fundamentalist Christians are so enamored by their religion that anything that bears the hallmarks of a challenge is met with avoidance and, at times, defensive hostility.

It's not like either side is learning anything, in fact, I think there is a very real intellectual quotient attached to these debates, and regardless of what information is presented, neither side will budge an inch.

That was the very nature of the PM I sent to FallingWaters. Perhaps you have not yet seen it, but there have been many switches to TEism over the past couple of years (and many of them still post here), while at the same time not a single switch in the other direction that I can recall. I realize that for creationists it can be reassuring to hear that no one is changing their beliefs, but it isn't the case at all. People are changing their beliefs, just not in the way that creationists want them to.

Erm? Lol?! Seriously, what is that? You can't seperate something so personal as a belief, from the person, and say you aren't attacking them. It doesn't happen, look to the forum rules of the two origins boards to see testimony to that.

Yes, you can. It is telling that many creationists seem to identify so closely with their belief system that they perceive any attack on the belief as a personal attack, but that's not the way it works. I believe in TEism, for instance, but I would never consider an attack on the precepts of theistic evolution to be an attack on me.

 

[Digit]

That's like saying I wouldn't consider an attack on my computer an attack on me. Our belief, Creationism, is tied a lot more closely to our hearts than that of TEism. For us it's Biblical, it's personal as it effects God, our Father, it's central to how we view the rest of scriptures because we believe in a historic and factually accurate Genesis. TEism is simply evolution with God as the maker of evolution. That's not personal, it's a system.

If you had sent me a PM asking to continue debating, I probably wouldn't have looked favourably on it either. What was the content of your PM, in context if you will?

Again, this is the very thing they have wisely avoided by ruling out postings in their forum. I say one thing, you say I'm wrong. Is everyone wrong Dannager? Seriously, it gets old fast.

Digit

 

[Dannager]

I think what has happened is that we allow YECs to pick their fights, we allow nearly every thread to be about us, our science, our religion, etc... But we so rarely turn the tables around.

We've tried, but it usually ends poorly. For whatever reason, creationists tend to be less willing to participate in that sort of discussion than TEs are when creationists do it to them.

We allow YECs to get away with assuming evolution is in crisis because of a debate over punctuated equilibrium and gradualism--though this would be like saying that a marriage is in crisis because the husband and wife can't decide what to have for dinner.

Well, we try not to let them get away with it, but they don't seem to be open to giving the notion up no matter how untrue it is.

When in reality creationism is in crisis.

Again, this is an example of redirected frustration. Creationists know that their beliefs are not doing very well in the public sphere. Instead of doing something to fix their own beliefs, the tactic has been to do everything in their power to make it appear as though their opponents' position suffers from the same malady.

The same people that say there is no evidence for evolution believe that evolution (though with strong reluctance to say the word) is the cause of the increased diversity from the time of Noah till now. They feel comfortable with that position, and yet deny beneficial mutations, and increased genetic information (however you define it).

Kind of like how many creationists assure us that their faith does not require evidence, while at the same time trying to come up with rationalizations for how the flood could have created the world we see today. It's contradictory, but that doesn't seem to matter.

Isn't a theory that assumes it understands itself, on further examination can be seen to not understand itself, the one in crisis?

Yes, most certainly. Though I caution against calling creationism a theory. It doesn't come close to meeting the requirements. It is, at best, a concept.

I have also been asking for some time why the tree of life in genesis is literal (though it had no function in the story) and the one in Rev. is allegorical. The answer has always been give or take a few words, "it just is". If you get them to explore the methods used in making these distinctions, you once again find that they disappear.

Having one's preconceived, closely-held religious beliefs challenged is uncomfortable, yes.

I think they've just built up this wall of specious reasoning, that allows them to preserve inerrancy, a literal genesis, twisted pseudo science, etc.....If someone shows them a glimpse of a crack, either accuse them of bullying, or run.

It's called having glass faith. Hit it, shake it or drop it and it shatters into meaninglessness. That's one of the reasons I'm convinced many of them enjoy spending so much time in the creationist sub-forum. Faith should be more akin to rubber, able to bounce back to meet criticism with an openness and honesty to admit that "Hey, maybe we didn't get it quite right the first time around," when shown to be initially flawed.

 

[theIdi0t]

But seriously, you've done it again in your reply to me. When someone says something is one way, you disagree, and then tell them there may be a subconscious element to it. That undermines them, and their point. There shouldn't be attacks being levelled period.

I think it's not just the nature of debate that causes some scuffles here and there, but what we are debating. I know this might sound insulting, but I am not saying that this is the truth, but this is the observation: To an outsider, someone who believes the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that dinosaurs and man walked together at some point, is in the same grouping as flat-earthers, moon landing conspiracy people, 9/11 conspiracy theorist (though I myself found this persuasive), geocentrist, etc..

A distinction that separates the YECs from this pool (other than being better funded) to the outsiders, to the TEs has not been made, and yet at the same time, each of these groups see the "subconscious elements" that have tainted the other groups. The YEC can see why the geocentrists are not being reasonable, the geocentrists can see why the flat-earther is not being reasonable, but what each of the groups cannot see is where they themselves are not being reasonable.

I know it perhaps sounds harsh on your end, and if I could throw you a life boat to take you out of that pool I would. But as of now, I have not figured out a way to draw a line, separating the Young-earthers, from the rest of the pack. Please forgive me.

It's unavoidable for a TE to go a full-on discussion without this dilemma popping out its head, even when one tries to handle it gently, as Dannager had attempted to do, the receiving end does not know how to register it, beyond a character attack.

See, I don't think anyone should be walking on egg shells, at the same time I don't think anyone should be actively cracking eggs.
But the nature of discussion on such a topic is going to leave a few bruises. Both parties need to know how to brush it off, and shake hands afterwards.

We're playing football people, not catch.

 

[Dannager]

That's like saying I wouldn't consider an attack on my computer an attack on me.

Ah, here's the problem. You're taking the word attack in the malicious sense. That's not how debate works, and we don't conduct debate with malice here. When I use the word "attack", I mean something closer to "critically challenge". And by participating in debate, critical challenge is something you need to be willing to experience.

Our belief, Creationism, is tied a lot more closely to our hearts than that of TEism.

I don't think that should be the case, but I agree that it is. And I think that's one of the problems with it.

For us it's Biblical, it's personal as it effects God, our Father, it's central to how we view the rest of scriptures because we believe in a historic and factually accurate Genesis.

Yes, I understand all of that. You feel that an attack on your beliefs is, in some way, an attack on scripture itself. We, on the other hand, know it to be only an attack on a specific interpretation of scripture, one that is, we are convinced, quite wrong.

TEism is simply evolution with God as the maker of evolution. That's not personal, it's a system.

The evolution part is, but you have to remember that we like Genesis, too. It helps us understand our relationship with God, and that is personal. The debate is still personal for us for other reasons, too. One of the things that compels a lot of us to come here and discuss it is the recent surge in political maneuvering to introduce religious beliefs like creationism into the classroom, and a lot of us take our children's (and future children's) educations very personally as well. I don't think calling your beliefs more personal than ours is an excuse to perceive insult where none is intended. If you really cannot handle having your beliefs challenged, a debate is not the right place to be.

If you had sent me a PM asking to continue debating, I probably wouldn't have looked favourably on it either.

I didn't send a PM to continue debating. It was simply a correction to a false statement that I felt was more than a little important.

What was the content of your PM, in context if you will?

I posted it in this thread (it's the third post). Did you miss it? I also provided the context. I was under the impression all this time that you had seen it already. I imagine that it will help shed some light on things.

Again, this is the very thing they have wisely avoided by ruling out postings in their forum.

I think they ruled out posting in the other forum to provide an uncluttered area for members with a specific belief to discuss the particulars of it, not to prevent members from experienced perceived harassment. If someone does not wish to read a PM someone else sends, they can very easily turn on the ignore option. The PM I sent was hardly insulting, though, and its language was very mild.

 

[crawfish]

You know, part of me understands how they feel, considering I've been on their side on atheist boards where my beliefs are treated with a total lack of respect. It gets old fast.

However, part of me objects to their hypersensitivity, considering that while some of us may seem condescending, many of THEM question our faith and dedication to God. Some have no problem with seeing us as fellow believers who differ on this issue; but SOME are openly hostile to our belief and deny our status as legitimate Christians. Certainly, even those that do not tend to point to sources - AIG, for instance - who have a strong opinion that our beliefs lead to all sorts of sin and, thus, we are dangerous to Christianity itself.

Tell me, what's worse: being called "stupid", or being called "satan"?

 

[Melethiel]

Guys, it's really not nice to discuss certain members behind their back. (Yes, I know she's free to respond in here. You get the point.)

To address the rest of the issues, I can see why YECs may feel harassed at times. They are greatly outnumbered here, and some posters do tend to be a bit rhetorical in their arguments, myself included. However, it does go both ways - I get really tired of some YECs constantly questioning our commitment to the Faith. Personally, I prefer one of my arguments to be called "stupid" - that can be argued (and I love to argue). Questioning my commitment to the Gospel, on the other hand, hurts deep.

 

[Digit]

To an outsider, someone who believes the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that dinosaurs and man walked together at some point, is in the same grouping as flat-earthers, moon landing conspiracy people, 9/11 conspiracy theorist (though I myself found this persuasive), geocentrist, etc..

I wanted to mention something about this.

The fact that people may think of us in this light, means absolutely nothing to us. Perhaps I shouldn't lable all YECs as having my approach, but lets say it means exactly zero to me. I know my belief is not popular, it's not like in the grand scheme of things Christianity is a popular belief either. It's one of the more successful religions, but by no means popular when everyone is put in one boat and asked what they think.

The reason it means nothing is because we believe it's Biblical, and in that sense, as odd as saying grace before each meal makes us weird, or praying for those that cause us grief in real life makes us odd; praying full stop in fact to an 'invisible man in the sky' as most people believe. Means nothing. We do it, because we have faith.

To touch on something you mentioned earlier, about deconstructing, how far exactly can YECs deconstruct, eventually we get down to what we believe in, which is that God created. Evolution talks about , what you believe is, how God created things. We don't have that in our belief, it ends with God. So we can't deconstruct further than that, or at least I can't anyhow.

I was reading an article today where a student was debating with a Creationist scientist about the age of the Earth and the fact that it must be older than 6-10k years, because there are stars that are 19 billion light years away, and we can see them now. It basically went on to highlight that many of the facts, and I had to try and not italicise that word, the 'facts' that we take for granted today, are assumed, and heres the catch - they are assumed only because people reject Biblical creation.

Actually something else of interest, is that there are many dating methods supporting a young Earth, as there are those supporting an older Earth, oddly the age most commonly accepted is one which has some of the lowest supporting dating methods. I find that odd. If you can believe in a 911 conspiracy, which I too find oddly possible, I do not see why this is so far fetched, especially when it's grounded Biblically. In fact, that's my main bone of contention, if the Bible hinted at evolution, lets just say that in a pretend world, it actually did, I wouldn't care. I really don't give a damn how we were made actually, as long as it is Biblical.

Digit

 

[theIdi0t]

I wanted to mention something about this.

The fact that people may think of us in this light, means absolutely nothing to us. Perhaps I shouldn't table all YECs as having my approach, but lets say it means exactly zero to me. I know my belief is not popular, it's not like in the grand scheme of things Christianity is a popular belief either. It's one of the more successful religions, but by no means popular when everyone is put in one boat and asked what they think.

From the TE perspective, the YEC position is frowned upon not because it's not popular. I don't frown upon the Phelp's family because they are not popular. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but it is because the YEC position attaches ignorance with the gospel.

It hurts me to see Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on youtube talking about the "Atheist's worst nightmare the Banana" and only after a few million hits do they realize how ignorant their position was, that they drop it from further arguments. Or when those two go on TV, and pull out pictures of frogs with bull horns, to say no transitional forms have been found, touting a sentence that's been circulated in YEC circles, with not a single person understanding what it means.

To give you an example of what I am seeing:

A tells B that 1+2= 4, thus God exists, so be gets so excited he doesn't take the time to think about what 1+2 really equals. He appears on Atheist boards, around this forum, on Youtube, on TV, in church, spreading his message 1+2=4, thus God exists, and he is greeted with applause of human esteem, by the YEC masses, who seek so earnestly for a sign, that 1+2=4 will fill that yearning. (But no sign has been given.) Now, you have not a few, but a bunch of people going around preaching, 1+2=4, thus God exists. Some tell you this is wrong, but sucked up in rapture, you refuse to see it, and you tell the brother that he has been duped and not you. The brother does not give up, he tags along as far as he can, to talk to you, and tell you listen, you have not thought about this, think about it, 1+2 does not equal 4.

You do not listen, you tell the world.

And everyone laughs, not because you are not popular, but because you have played the fool. You spread faith on a erroneous foundation, only to have time catch up with it, and crush it, mercilessly.

Soon even you realize that 1+2 does not equal 4, so you stop using the argument. Then you hear, 3+4=9, thus God exists, and that light in your eyes that was once dull, has been lit again. Our brother finds you again, to tell you that 3+4 does not equal 9, but once again you do not listen. You tell the world, and they once again laugh at you for being a fool. But then you find supporters and take the debate from the public square into the courthouses, trying to include 3+4=9, into the textbooks. Those that laughed at you for being a fool, are no longer laughing. Their laughter turns to stones. You have tried to force 3+4=9, on their beloved children. Now their anger is no longer directed at those who say 3+4=9, thus God exists, but at those like the brother who says God exists, and at God. Everytime they hear God, they hear 3+4=9, so god does not exist.

How often, must the brother chase after you to correct you, before his kindness, starts to get hard as well?

To touch on something you mentioned earlier, about deconstructing, how far exactly can YECs deconstruct, eventually we get down to what we believe in, which is that God created. Evolution talks about , what you believe is, how God created things. We don't have that in our belief, it ends with God. So we can't deconstruct further than that, or at least I can't anyhow.

See, here is the problem.

You just said you believe God created, but you don't believe that God "created things".

Now, What do you truly believe?

So far I have not run across a single YEC, when inquiring a bit further, who denies that evolution is the cause of the increased present diversity from the time of Noah's ark till today. AiG even goes on to boldly claim that if evolution was just about this, then there would be no debate?

So what is it?

I believe that God used evolution from point B --------- Z, while AiG believes and it seem all the YECs that I have talked to as well, believe God used evolution for J ---------------------- Z.

The ignorance does not appear because a YEC believes or preaches, that God did not use evolution from B----J, but because they refuse to sit down and figure out what J----------Z means. They accept J-------Z, because they accept the evidence---well perhaps more so because their leaders accept the evidence---but also because they see that it is the only logical position.

What they have yet to figure out is that when they go around telling others, that there are no beneficial mutations, there is no evidence for evolution, evolution is a satanic religion, there are no transitional forms, etc, is that they are not fighting B----J, but foolishly fighting J----------------Z.

A man divided within himself cannot stand.

Recently I have kept my discussions with YECs, from focusing so much on B----J, but J-------------Z which they accept but do not understand all that well. I sit down, I pour them tea, ask how many cubes of sugar, and proceed. I take them from J to K, to L, and soon they become uncomfortable and kindly leave the room. This is what I am referring to, when I talk about a resistance to deconstruct, to self-reflect, to think.

I had to try and not italicize that word, the 'facts' that we take for granted today, are assumed, and heres the catch - they are assumed only because people reject Biblical creation.

If the world was only a few thousand years old, Genesis would still be allegorical to me, as Augustine also believed. I have tried in other threads to show how a literal Garden of Eden is quite silly. When you sit down with a YEC (from my experience) to get beyond the surface of what a literal GoE means, they kindly disappear as well.

I inquire why they assume thr tree of Life in Rev. is allegorical, and the one is Genesis is literal. I ask them, if we get apples from a tree of apples, peaches from a tree of peaches, in the garden of Eden do we get Life (eternity) from a literal tree of Life, and did Adam and Eve, get their knowledge of Good and Evil, from a literal tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I remain kind, but it's not long before they depart, when we start to get to the good stuff.

I wouldn't care. I really don't give a damn how we were made actually, as long as it is Biblical.
Digit

Well, the bible does not care how we were physically created in th begining eather. Moses does not care about dirt------man. Perhaps one day you'll understand what Genesis is concerned about.

But now it's hidden from dull eyes.

 

[Dannager]

Guys, it's really not nice to discuss certain members behind their back.

I hate to be short, but really, where else can we discuss them? We can't do it right in front of them because we can't post over there, and clearly personal messages are for some reason completely unacceptable no matter how mild. The OT board, perhaps, but the member in question has already stated many times that she doesn't go there anyway (and, as you noted, they're just as free to post here as they are to post in OT).

 

[crawfish]

I hate to be short, but really, where else can we discuss them? We can't do it right in front of them because we can't post over there, and clearly personal messages are for some reason completely unacceptable no matter how mild. The OT board, perhaps, but the member in question has already stated many times that she doesn't go there anyway (and, as you noted, they're just as free to post here as they are to post in OT).

Sometimes, it's just better to bite one's tongue.

You can drag a YEC to truth, but you can't make 'em think.