Hey Guys, Help me Out...

[LouisBooth]

"There is exactly one remotely reasonable reason to believe young-earth Creationism: It's what a literal reading of Genesis gives you. "

Sorry, couldn't help but laugh at your loaded language...

 

[Morat]

Know any others? Seriously, can you name one person who believes in YEC who does not also believe in a literal Genesis?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Seriously, can you name one person who believes in YEC who does not also believe in a literal Genesis?"

Can you name one person that believes in evolution and literal genesis?

 

[Morat]

Actually, I do know a guy. Beats me. He claims they're both true at the same time, even though they contradict.

*shrug*. Freely admits that the Genesis part is faith, the evolution part is evidence, and that contradiction is something God can handle.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Seriously, can you name one person who believes in YEC who does not also believe in a literal Genesis?"

Can you name one person that believes in evolution and literal genesis?

Louis, I think you missed the point of the argument. If we are to claim that Young Earth Creation is a reasonable scientific theory, then the evidence for it should be convincing *EVEN TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CHRISTIAN AT ALL*. In fact, though, no one seems to be able to name a scientist who does *NOT* accept Genesis as literal truth, but who has come to the conclusion *based on physical evidence* that the world is very young, and life forms just popped into being.

This suggests that there's no physical evidence to support this conclusion.

 

[Lanakila]

There is physical evidence for YEC but, if I post it here, the evolutionists will just chew it up and spit it out. They have already made up their minds. Now, if someone were truly seeking some of this evidence with an open mind, I might just pm it to them. But, I am sure much of it has already been rejected on this board, as I am fairly new here.

 

[Morat]

That's ducking the question.

Why is it that the only people who believe in the YEC timeframe and concepts are Christians?

Are you telling me that there exist no open-minded people on the planet besides Christians? That the rest of the planet, including the vast majority of the people working in the field (many of whom are Christians), think it's poppycock are simply biased?

What is it about reading the Bible literally that makes you so unbiased towards the evidence?

And more importantly, why is your evidence so weak it can't withstand criticism?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Lanakila
There is physical evidence for YEC but, if I post it here, the evolutionists will just chew it up and spit it out.

Pesky scientists!

Now, if someone were truly seeking some of this evidence with an open mind, I might just pm it to them.

Fire away.

But, I am sure much of it has already been rejected on this board, as I am fairly new here.

If it's been rejected, what good is it, aside from comic purposes?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Freely admits that the Genesis part is faith, the evolution part is evidence, and that contradiction is something God can handle."

hmm...I think ya left some stuff out there...genesis has part evidence and evolution has part faith.

"accept Genesis as literal truth, but who has come to the conclusion *based on physical evidence* that the world is very young, and life forms just popped into being. "

Seebs that's like asking for a PB and J sandwitch without using PB and J.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Freely admits that the Genesis part is faith, the evolution part is evidence, and that contradiction is something God can handle."

hmm...I think ya left some stuff out there...genesis has part evidence and evolution has part faith.

"accept Genesis as literal truth, but who has come to the conclusion *based on physical evidence* that the world is very young, and life forms just popped into being. "

Seebs that's like asking for a PB and J sandwitch without using PB and J.

I think his point is that it is a strictly religious viewpoint, not one that can be arrived at by applying scientific methodology to the evidence.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I think his point is that it is a strictly religious viewpoint, not one that can be arrived at by applying scientific methodology to the evidence."

You mean faith? I'd say the same for science because its based on faith

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
You mean faith? I'd say the same for science because its based on faith [/B]

I know you believe that, but seebs point was that he has evidence of it. Only religious people arrive at YEC conclusions, and generally only those of a few specific religions and/or denominations. If it were a scientific view then non-religious people would also be led to it by the evidence.

You cannot make a similar argument in support of your belief about science being based on religion.

 

[LouisBooth]

"You cannot make a similar argument in support of your belief about science being based on religion."

Please don't misquote me. I said based on faith. Most scientists go out of their way to explain that nothing is 100%...so faith is required. You can't prove the basis of science either 1. the universe exsists 2. you exsist or that 3. you can relate to the universe. Those are taken on faith. Sorry, YEC or OEC are not any less scientific then evoultionists.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Please don't misquote me. I said based on faith. Most scientists go out of their way to explain that nothing is 100%...so faith is required. You can't prove the basis of science either 1. the universe exsists 2. you exsist or that 3. you can relate to the universe. Those are taken on faith. Sorry, YEC or OEC are not any less scientific then evoultionists.

Science is not faith-based. Faith is a belief in absence of or in spite of evidence. Science deals with neither of those so it can’t be based on faith. Creationists have gone from claiming that creation is scientific to claiming that evolution is religion. The words have changed but the propaganda hasn’t.

 

[Lanakila]

Some creationists will claim that evolution itself is a religion, I wouldn't go that far. The religion of naturalism or even humanism has at its base evolutionary theory though. Evolution supposedly does not require God, although Abiogenesis seems to need a designer.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Some creationists will claim that evolution itself is a religion, I wouldn't go that far. The religion of naturalism or even humanism has at its base evolutionary theory though.

Naturalism and humanism are not religions. They are philosophies. Both of them pre-date evolutionary theory, so it is impossible for you to claim that evolution forms their base. Many religions are humanistic and so are many secular people. I've heard many Christians point out that Jesus was a humanist.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
There is physical evidence for YEC but, if I post it here, the evolutionists will just chew it up and spit it out.

It's called review. If your "evidence" can't stand up to it maybe it's not evidence after all.

They have already made up their minds.

Maybe that's because creationists refuse to provide the definative evidence for YEC that they're always claiming to have.

Now, if someone were truly seeking some of this evidence with an open mind, I might just pm it to them. But, I am sure much of it has already been rejected on this board, as I am fairly new here.

What are you so afraid of? If your position actually has merit and evidence for it, then some lurkers might benifit.

 

[randman]

After listening to some of the people who presumably are part of the peer-group doing the review, I have some serious doubts as to the integrity of the process when it comes to evolution.

 

[Lanakila]

Naturalism and humanism are not religions. They are philosophies. Both of them pre-date evolutionary theory, so it is impossible for you to claim that evolution forms their base. Many religions are humanistic and so are many secular people. I've heard many Christians point out that Jesus was a humanist.

If you look at the humanist manifesto, Jesus was not a humanist. If by this you mean he cared for human beings, no one cared more. Humanism has been defined as a religion numerous times, but you don't have to take my word for it. Naturalism is defined in many books I have read as a religion, but again you don't have to take my word for it.
That means you say no, I say yes. We are at a standstill, you can be wrong and so can I but, then again I was just making statements without understanding religion (LOL, this is my area of expertise not yours).

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
If you look at the humanist manifesto, Jesus was not a humanist.

There is no the humanist manifesto. There are many different ones, and they tend to go by the title A Humanist Manifesto. Humanism is not restricted to any declaration of faith or purpose. I believe you are confusing Secular Humanism with humanism in general.

If by this you mean he cared for human beings, no one cared more.

Yep that's a humanist.

Humanism has been defined as a religion numerous times, but you don't have to take my word for it. Naturalism is defined in many books I have read as a religion, but again you don't have to take my word for it.

I think you should get some better books.

That means you say no, I say yes. We are at a standstill, you can be wrong and so can I but, then again I was just making statements without understanding religion (LOL, this is my area of expertise not yours).

Nice try. As far as I can tell, you are neither a humanist nor a natrualist. Frankly, that doesn't set you up much to being an expert on either.

BTW: Would you mind presenting any of that evidence for YEC which you claim to be aware of?