Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh, come on AV, we've been over this before when I joined CF. We all know you have a sort of thingy about "maturity without history" (a variation of embedded ageism), so you don't have an issue with it because you have convinced yourself .
No, he didn't write a book about it.
AV1611VET said:Mike Elphick said:I'm not the first to identified the problem. It was Phillip Henry Gosse who wrote a book about it: that was in 1857, a couple of years before Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Gosse was a devout Christian and a creationist, and expected his book to be well received, but it wasn't because the Christian community could not accept that God could be so deceptive (actually, Gosse never implied this in his book).
Ever since, the problem of creation of a mature world that obviously has a history has been brushed under the carpet by creationists. But as I see it, it is still an unresolved problem for young Earth creationists.
Gosse wrote about Omphalism, which is maturity with history.
I too disagree with Gosse.
So there what????
U have not explained how it effects any one's life except by saying it hurts your feelings. Sorry about your feelings but that is not th point here.
I know that.Sorry, you've misunderstood me. The fist paragraph is about YOU, not Gosse.
Gosse didn't believe in embedded age, he believed in Omphalism.The second and third paragraphs are about Gosse and embedded age with history.
... which doesn't make sense.The second and third paragraphs are about Gosse and maturity without history with history.
You are quite right to say that my feelings are not the issue here, but you really ought to re-read my post before jumping to conclusions about me personally. In fact I explained how the pseudoscience of young Earth creationism has the potential to affect all our lives.
Ask him if young earth creationism 'has the potential to affect all our lives', does old earth creationism do the opposite?I don't believe either way has effected my life or the life of any one I know, and you have yet to explain how it would.
I don't believe either way has effected my life or the life of any one I know, and you have yet to explain how it would.
Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.
The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are of the Christian or Muslim faith, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabuses. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.
Creationists question the scientific character of certain areas of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, creationists defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.
We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.
There is a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our childrens minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An all things are equal attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.
<...>
Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In reality the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and spread doubt and confusion in their minds.
The dangers of creationism in education
Science is not about faith. It's not about beliefs. It's about thinking and examining and experimenting. Dangers erupt when faith is confused for science. Even Einstein himself fell prey to this when he refused to accept some of the basic tenets of quantum physics, a new science at the time when he helped discover it, claiming that "God does not play dice." Another prominent physicist, Niels Bohr, responded cleverly by saying "Quit telling God what to do!" The Dangers Of Creationism
I know that.
I'm pointing out where Gosse and I clearly disagree.
I don't even know why you brought him up.
Gosse didn't believe in embedded age, he believed in Omphalism.
Once again:
- Embedded Age = maturity without history
- Omphalism = maturity with history
Here's then, what you're saying, in effect:
The second and third paragraphs are about Gosse and maturity without history with history.
... which doesn't make sense.
Whoever said this wasn't familiar with Judaism or Islam, was he?Just Google the dangers of creationism and you will find plenty of explanations. I provide below two quotes from the first Google page:-
Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon.
So how do you explain the DNA science that tells us that people have been around a lot longer then 6,000 years?Nah, i don't think they did.
Originally Posted by brinny
Nah, i don't think they did.
So how do you explain the DNA science that tells us that people have been around a lot longer then 6,000 years?
No, he didn't write a book about it.
Gosse wrote about Omphalism, which is maturity with history.
I too disagree with Gosse.
Originally Posted by brinny
Nah, i don't think they did.
So are belly buttons (or even scars in general) a result of sin that only came about after the fall?
Yes -- Eve had no children prior to the Fall.So are belly buttons (or even scars in general) a result of sin that only came about after the fall?
You're trying too hard to pin Omphalism on me, and it's making you look bad.
if a female did not give birth to either of them, why would either of them have belly buttons? Whose umbilical cord would they have been attached to?
Originally Posted by brinny
if a female did not give birth to either of them, why would either of them have belly buttons? Whose umbilical cord would they have been attached to?
That does not appear to be a response to my question. But to clarify, since the belly button is a scar, and Adam and Eve didn't have them since they weren't born, what about other scars? Did Adam and Eve have any scars before the fall? If Adam tripped while walking in the Garden of Eden and cut himself on a rock, would that leave a scar?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?