My Graduate Challenge

[Loudmouth]

Whether he is sincere or not (and I think he is, but that's not the point) ...

Whether he is sincere or not, he's one doosey of a defender of his YEC beliefs.

I'd say he's the poster child for:

1. YECism
2. defender of his faith

My jaw still hits the floor when a someone as deceitful as Hovind is congratulated for his deceit.

 

[AV1611VET]

My jaw still hits the floor when a someone as deceitful as Hovind is congratulated for his deceit.

This has nothing to do with his secular shenanigans.

May I remind you of what started all this?

And yet he's a YEC that is very strong in his faith.

He's neither.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether he is sincere or not (and I think he is, but that's not the point) ...

Whether he is sincere or not, he's one doosey of a defender of his YEC beliefs.

Actually he is the opposite. He makes all YEC's appear to be fools by his foolish action. He does not make creationism look good at all.

I'd say he's the poster child for:

1. YECism
2. defender of his faith

1. If one makes arguments that are easily refuted how is he a poster child for YECism?

2. Since he does not follow his faith, in particular the verse "render unto Caesar" I don't see how he is a very good "defender of the faith" either. He only talks the talk, he does not walk the walk.

 

[bhsmte]

My jaw still hits the floor when a someone as deceitful as Hovind is congratulated for his deceit.

If there were not people that felt this way, Hovind never would have been in business in the first place. With 300 million people to choose from, guys like him will always have a crowd that wants him to appease them.

 

[Loudmouth]

This has nothing to do with his secular shenanigans.

He "defends" the Bible with lies. Why would you cheer for that?

May I remind you of what started all this?

It started with your claim that radiometric dating measures embedded age. Are you still running from that statement?

 

[crjmurray]

Whether he is sincere or not (and I think he is, but that's not the point) ...

Whether he is sincere or not, he's one doosey of a defender of his YEC beliefs.

I'd say he's the poster child for:

1. YECism
2. defender of his faith

I hear he's popular in the showers too.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hear he's popular in the showers too.

You were there?

 

[crjmurray]

You were there?

Just what I heard.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

In my opinion, YEC's are very weak in their faith. So the chances of graduating AND remaining YEC are very slim. The more likely scenario being either deciding to not continue with their studies, or not continue to hold YEC's views.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "YECs are very weak in their faith"? I see weakness in the structure of the YEC belief because it's like a poorly constructed building upon a foundation of literalism. Cracks into the foundation and the influence of the outside elements can cause it to deteriorate. I see it as being weak in that it's not tenable when challenged by established science or theology other than their own brand.

But I think YECs are strong in their faith in the sense that they fervently believe it to be the exclusive truth. Most also have benevolent intentions even if it manifests in less than positive ways. No scientific or theological evidence no matter how immense and compelling, and no expertise regardless of how profound and accomplished will ever matter because it can all just be waved away and giggled off as "men being prideful in their own eyes." I don't think it occurs to them that they could be following the prideful ideologies of men like Henry Morris, and that they could be in error. It's all about how their faith is bigger, stronger, and better than your faith, and is the magic card that can be always be thrown down. Or at least that's how I've felt on here. I think pridefulness is why many will not even take science classes at college taught by secular professionals unless required to because of GERs. The YEC kids who are willing to immerse themselves in science studies at secular universities and pursue a degree in a life science are the rarity. I think their courage to even dive in separates them from other YECs and makes them more likely to let their faith evolve.

 

[RickG]

Could you please clarify what you mean by "YECs are very weak in their faith"?

The question I think needs asking is why does creation science thrives on deliberately misrepresented science. Thus, misrepresenting science to support their literalism beliefs seems a bit lacking faith to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Could you please clarify what you mean by "YECs are very weak in their faith"? I see weakness in the structure of the YEC belief because it's like a poorly constructed building upon a foundation of literalism. Cracks into the foundation and the influence of the outside elements can cause it to deteriorate. I see it as being weak in that it's not tenable when challenged by established science or theology other than their own brand.

But I think YECs are strong in their faith in the sense that they fervently believe it to be the exclusive truth. Most also have benevolent intentions even if it manifests in less than positive ways. No scientific or theological evidence no matter how immense and compelling, and no expertise regardless of how profound and accomplished will ever matter because it can all just be waved away and giggled off as "men being prideful in their own eyes." I don't think it occurs to them that they could be following the prideful ideologies of men like Henry Morris, and that they could be in error. It's all about how their faith is bigger, stronger, and better than your faith, and is the magic card that can be always be thrown down. Or at least that's how I've felt on here. I think pridefulness is why many will not even take science classes at college taught by secular professionals unless required to because of GERs. The YEC kids who are willing to immerse themselves in science studies at secular universities and pursue a degree in a life science are the rarity. I think their courage to even dive in separates them from other YECs and makes them more likely to let their faith evolve.

I think it would be more accurate to say that "creation science" shows a weakness in faith. It is essentially saying that science is better than faith. Afterall, you don't see creation scientists trying to make their claims more religious. You also don't see scientists calling YEC "just another science". What you do see is creation scientists trying to call the theory of evolution a religion in order to discredit it which is a tacit admission that the religious beliefs of creationism aren't worth believing.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Whether he is sincere or not (and I think he is, but that's not the point) ...

Whether he is sincere or not, he's one doosey of a defender of his YEC beliefs.

I'd say he's the poster child for:

1. YECism
2. defender of his faith

Oh yeah. But he should not have done the tax frauds.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh yeah. But he should not have done the tax frauds.

I know you guys want to crucify the man, but I'm not going to accept hearing he's not a YEC or defender of the faith.

Yes, it's a good point that this defender of the faith should have "rendered unto Caesar" but after all, we're sinners saved by grace, aren't we?

 

[crjmurray]

I know you guys want to crucify the man, but I'm not going to accept hearing he's not a YEC or defender of the faith.

Yes, it's a good point that this defender of the faith should have "rendered unto Caesar" but after all, we're sinners saved by grace, aren't we?

We aren't all felons.

 

[bhsmte]

The question I think needs asking is why does creation science thrives on deliberately misrepresented science. Thus, misrepresenting science to support their literalism beliefs seems a bit lacking faith to me.

A strong psychological need for some to have it survive.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

The question I think needs asking is why does creation science thrives on deliberately misrepresented science. Thus, misrepresenting science to support their literalism beliefs seems a bit lacking faith to me.

Professional creation scientists deliberately contort and misrepresent established science to make it fit into their literalism beliefs. They're sort of like the sausage factory the average consumer doesn't peer into or think about when consuming sausages. I think creation science has thrived because of the support it has received from sincere young earth creationists who lack any expertise or advanced unbiased education in science, and will continue to click on their ad-revenue supported sites and buy their textbooks and other materials. They also use so much emotional manipulation.

Like here:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/evolution-say-rape-not-bad.7889902/#post-67996340

and here:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/duggers-and-3-questions.7889784/page-15#post-68043138

I think many creationists my age and thereabouts are very sincere in their belief that creation science is a legitimate and credible science, invented by God himself rather than Henry Morris and in support of the Bible, because that's how they've been trained to believe. They're not the manipulators and charlatans. They're just students of people who are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Professional creation scientists deliberately contort and misrepresent established science to make it fit into their literalism beliefs. They're sort of like the sausage factory the average consumer doesn't peer into or think about when consuming sausages.

What about those who believe in a literal six-day creation, but believe "creation science" is a contradiction in terms?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What about those who believe in a literal six-day creation, but believe "creation science" is a contradiction in terms?

Oh, they also misstate and abuse the regular science. Why, I heard one of them expressed the opinion that all the water from Noah's flood was transported to Neptune! For what reason, who knows?

Of course we all know the water REALLY went to the rings of Saturn . . . ;-)

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, they also misstate and abuse the regular science.

What science?

Can you name one law in effect when God called the earth into existence ex nihilo on the first day?

Why, I heard one of them expressed the opinion that all the water from Noah's flood was transported to Neptune!

Did you ask him what the Flood has to do with the creation week; or were you too busy shaking your head to think of that?

For what reason, who knows?

More like: who cares?

Why are you searching for reasons about the Flood in a conversation about a literal six-day creation?

That's like hearing a mother talk about the night her child was born at the hospital, then asking her if that's why she failed to show up at choir practice last night.

 

[RickG]

What about those who believe in a literal six-day creation, but believe "creation science" is a contradiction in terms?

In today's view yes. Creationism used to be solely on faith. Creation science, is deliberately misrepresented science and really has nothing to do with religion other than using it as a crutch.