"I chose YEC because..."

[Pats]

When I was a YEC, I hadn't "chosen" it. I was indoctrinated into it from my earliest education. Since I was kept in private Christian schools that did not teach evolution, I'd have to go with what Kerr is saying about not knowing anything other than YEC.

I am very glad to be learning more about God's creation, and learning that His word and His creation don't have to conflict.

 

[Pats]

However, are you saying that you advocate your plain language interpretation over my plain language interpretation? The plain sense, to me, is to take the creation account as a myth. Just as I treat the Psalms as poetry because I know what a poem looks like, so I treat the creation story as a myth because I know what a myth looks like. It couldn't be any more plain to me. However, I don't take it strictly as a myth because there are people (who I respect as having better understanding about such things than I do) who make a compelling case that it is not a myth (in the strictest sense). Should I ignore them and treat it as my plain sense advocates, anyway?

I've read this a couple of times, and I'm not sure what you're saying?

It reads to me that you are saying that although you think the creation story in Genesis is a myth, you are open to the possibility that it isn't? and you are not firmly decided?

 

[RichardT]

Because the bible says so.

 

[jckstraw72]

just bc they didnt understand Genesis 100% literally does not mean they believed in an old earth. St. Augustine believed all of creation happened in a single instant and in Miscellanies 1.21 St. Clement of Alexandria said that Adam was created in 5,592 BC. However, Ephraim of Syria, Theophilus of Antioch, Methodius, Lactantius, Victorinus of Pettau, Epiphanius of Salamis, Basil of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, and Gregory the Theologian all wrote of literal 24 hour days. Many Fathers did not specifically say 24 hour days, but they also did not say otherwise in speaking of days, making it the logical option that they believed in literal days.

 

[Pats]

Because the bible says so.

So, then, do you think the earth is a flat peice of land supported by columns?

 

[Willtor]

I've read this a couple of times, and I'm not sure what you're saying?

It reads to me that you are saying that although you think the creation story in Genesis is a myth, you are open to the possibility that it isn't? and you are not firmly decided?

I pointed out in another thread that I had been convinced that it would be better to treat it as a legendary saga. For example, the story of the garden is not the story of how the snake lost its legs and a moral reminder to people every time they look at a snake, but that the snake actually IS Satan (or one of his minions). At the risk of demonstrating my ignorance in literary forms, I have never seen a myth treated in that way. If I call Genesis a myth, I am speaking loosely in order to emphasize the distinction between it and history textbooks. In fact, if we get technical, I have been convinced that it is not a myth.

However, if I were to go with my plain reading, I would treat it as a myth. Thus, I asked the question as to why Laptoppop's plain reading superseded mine.

 

[Pats]

I pointed out in another thread that I had been convinced that it would be better to treat it as a legendary saga.

I am glad that I asked, because when I read that post it wasn't specific to Adam and Eve. We were more generally speaking of several scriptural legends. Your comparison of these stories to legands has helped me understand the points you're trying to convey a great deal.

I can definately see considering these stories, including Genesis, as legendary. It makes more sense to me than mythological, and it fits with the Jewish oral tradition.

It was just a little unclear to me what you were saying in the other post. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Assyrian]

I pointed out in another thread that I had been convinced that it would be better to treat it as a legendary saga. For example, the story of the garden is not the story of how the snake lost its legs and a moral reminder to people every time they look at a snake, but that the snake actually IS Satan (or one of his minions). At the risk of demonstrating my ignorance in literary forms, I have never seen a myth treated in that way. If I call Genesis a myth, I am speaking loosely in order to emphasize the distinction between it and history textbooks. In fact, if we get technical, I have been convinced that it is not a myth.

However, if I were to go with my plain reading, I would treat it as a myth. Thus, I asked the question as to why Laptoppop's plain reading superseded mine.

I'm not wild about the label myth. It's meaning is too broad at least in popular use, not just a story told to convey truth, but a story passed down as true because people didn't know any better.

I think it would be better described as an allegory (though this can be misunderstood too an people insist ever detail have a hidden meaning) a parable, or my favourite, a very early apocalypse. Perhaps we should describe it as a chiydah, a dark saying from of old (Psalm 78:2)

 

[Smidlee]

This is the problem. People won't be humble and stop typing long enough for a question to be answered anymore.

If you been here long enough you knew this would happen. There's some been here for years now just waiting to debate (attack) any YEC for what they believe.

 

[Willtor]

I'm not wild about the label myth. It's meaning is too broad at least in popular use, not just a story told to convey truth, but a story passed down as true because people didn't know any better.

I think it would be better described as an allegory (though this can be misunderstood too an people insist ever detail have a hidden meaning) a parable, or my favourite, a very early apocalypse. Perhaps we should describe it as a chiydah, a dark saying from of old (Psalm 78:2)

Myth, in a technical sense, is not very broad. But I can see that someone who thinks of Genesis as a myth would not want to use that word because of its popular meaning. There is a part of me that hates to give up a good word.

 

[KerrMetric]

I would hope that as a professed Christian you would understand that humbledbyhim was referring to your Heavenly Father, not your earthly one. I don't know that I agree with the way he posted that, but a little Bible reading would have made the meaning of his statement evident. Your demeaning nature towards those that do not agree with you, leaves many including myself wandering where the Christian love is.

As someone else pointed out - I knew darn well what the insinuation was, the par for the course YEC accusation that if you aren't in step with their brand of literalism then you are not a Christian.

And what you call demeaning I call fact. The truth on here and pretty much any other forum is that 99% or more of the YEC's couldn't do any or understand any science if it bit them in the rear end. What is more they accuse people like me who have made science their lifes work as either being corrupt or not Christian. Well frankly I've had enough - especially when it comes from people who patently are incompetent when it comes to understanding science let alone actually having the skill sets to perform the work. I've said it before and I'll repeat it - talking science with most YEC's is like conversing with grade school children, they just don't follow what you are talking about - but someone has to counter the complete rubbish on science they utter.

 

[Smidlee]

As someone else pointed out - I knew darn well what the insinuation was, the par for the course YEC accusation that if you aren't in step with their brand of literalism then you are not a Christian.

I thought it was good for humbledbyhim to start a separate reply to stated "you show your true father by your behavior on these forums (and everywhere else) not by what you claim or adocate." All he reply to you personally was not honoring his request. I see nothing wrong with his statement because it applies to everyone and it's very true. Actions do speak louder than words.

And what you call demeaning I call fact.

Even facts can be demeaning. Like going around calling people fat.

The truth on here and pretty much any other forum is that 99% or more of the YEC's couldn't do any or understand any science if it bit them in the rear end.

science doesn't equal truth.

What is more they accuse people like me who have made science their lifes work as either being corrupt or not Christian. .

I've also seen here creationists called anti-science because they don't accepted Darwinist's interpretion of facts. When dealing with origins, science comes up way short. Thus science is badly overrated IMHO.

 

[KerrMetric]

Even facts can be demeaning. Like going around calling people fat. science doesn't equal truth.

When it works it is certainly a valid approximation for what is "truth". And the fact is it does work 99.99% of the time. Again, the people claiming it doesn't work seem to be the ones who cannot do it, funny observation that isn't it?

I've also seen here creationists called anti-science because they don't accepted Darwinist's interpretion of facts.

Evolution is just a tip of this iceberg. Most YEC's want to throw out anything that doesn't mesh with their worldview - despite the fact it seems none of them have the least bit of experience or expertise in the science arena.

When dealing with origins, science comes up way short. Thus science is badly overrated IMHO.

Based upon what? In all likelihood you have not the expertise to make that decision when examining the science. I have never seen a YEC on this or any other board who seems to even have an understanding of science beyond vaguely remembered high school classes they took years before. I am willing to wager a virtual $1,000,000 that you personally, though making absolute statements about science, have not a PhD in a valid science field related to the topics braoched on this board and have not worked in research in the said discipline for 5, 10 or 25 years - have you?

 

[Jase]

I I've also seen here creationists called anti-science because they don't accepted Darwinist's interpretion of facts. When dealing with origins, science comes up way short. Thus science is badly overrated IMHO.

I'm not quite sure why so many creationists use Darwin as a counter against evolution. Darwin is just the first one to observe certain mechanisms of evolution. Many of his ideas have been to shown to be wrong. Darwin's claims have no bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution. It stands on its own.

And evolution does not deal with origins. How many times does that have to be explained to creationists. The Theory of Evolution has zero, zilch, none, nada, zippo, to do with the origin of life. That is an entirely separate theory in an entirely separate branch of science.

 

[SeanSteele]

And what you call demeaning I call fact. The truth on here and pretty much any other forum is that 99% or more of the YEC's couldn't do any or understand any science if it bit them in the rear end. What is more they accuse people like me who have made science their lifes work as either being corrupt or not Christian. Well frankly I've had enough - especially when it comes from people who patently are incompetent when it comes to understanding science let alone actually having the skill sets to perform the work. I've said it before and I'll repeat it - talking science with most YEC's is like conversing with grade school children, they just don't follow what you are talking about - but someone has to counter the complete rubbish on science they utter.

This is exactly what I was talking about. If you go back to post two in this thread, you jump right in with your first insult stating that is should say don't know any better. Now you claim that we are as grade school children. I for one am not an expert in science, but I am versed enough to keep up. I can understand that science is your life work, but that gives you no right to jump in and start a flame war. You fired the first shot. You could have just as easily voted and said your piece without trying to belittle anyone.

Science is a wonderful field, but it is full of theories, not just facts. Evolution is just a theory. If it were fact it would be called evolutionary fact. I'm sure you have even read of the many scientists from all over the world that no longer support it. Are they all grade school children as well? Just what would prompt an atheistic scientist to drop evolution? One would have to say that there must be some rather big holes in that theory.

 

[KerrMetric]

.... but I am versed enough to keep up.

to be contrasted with

Science is a wonderful field, but it is full of theories, not just facts. Evolution is just a theory. If it were fact it would be called evolutionary fact. I'm sure you have even read of the many scientists from all over the world that no longer support it. Are they all grade school children as well? Just what would prompt an atheistic scientist to drop evolution? One would have to say that there must be some rather big holes in that theory.

is exactly what I am talking about.

If you are well versed then you don't make errors at the most basic level like this. Evolution is a fact - the mechanisms to explain it are the theory. Theory is the highest level of scientific status such an explanation can receive yet you seem not to understand this which makes me question the first quote of yours I used.

And no I haven't read of such "scientists" since they basically don't exist outside of YEC propaganda. I and my wife between us have attended conferences and seminars with literally thousands of researchers in the fundamental sciences and I know very well hundreds of them - and I have never in 20+ years met a single case of the situation you describe. Not one. I also no of no other scientist who has ever described such a conversion either. Finding a couple of obscure teachers at a Bible college is not the same thing or the dozen or so paid hacks at AIG or ICR who between them do NO research and publish NO research.

These scientists that "convert" to use an analogy do not exist in the mainstream science community. Curious that the couple of hacks at AIG and ICR who claim to have done so have a research record that is spotty or zero and that their "conversion" only occurred after they got a bad case of fundamentalism. They are scientists in the same sense I am a pro basketball player for the Lakers.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Science is a wonderful field, but it is full of theories, not just facts. Evolution is just a theory. If it were fact it would be called evolutionary fact. I'm sure you have even read of the many scientists from all over the world that no longer support it. Are they all grade school children as well? Just what would prompt an atheistic scientist to drop evolution? One would have to say that there must be some rather big holes in that theory.


This is exactly the problem
You simply do NOT understand science.
Theories don't get promoted to facts when they are proven correct.

Theories are not the same as hypothesis nor are either the same as conjectures. Each has a narrow range of meaning in science that those same terms do not have in the common parlance.

Evolution is a theory, it will always be a theory, it will not become something else, like a fact or a law or whatever else you might desire it to be, it will forever remain a theory.

1-science does NOT prove anything in the same way that maths or logics do, it demonstrates evidence to much the same level as law does-beyond reasonable doubt.

2-could you name one atheistic/materialist/evolutionist/naturalist etc scientist who does not accept the framework supplied by the TofE?
tia.

3-can you tell us one major hole in the TofE, please be specific?
again tia.

 

[steen]

I for one am not an expert in science, but I am versed enough to keep up.......Science is a wonderful field, but it is full of theories, not just facts.

So you claim to be well-versed, and yet you show ignorance of the stuff you should have been taught in the very first day of science class?

Evolution is just a theory. If it were fact it would be called evolutionary fact.

This is a false claim, showing serious ignorance of science.

I'm sure you have even read of the many scientists from all over the world that no longer support it.

"the many scientists"? More babbling nonsense? Science is about the evidence. Do you even KNOW what Evolution is?

Are they all grade school children as well?

Well, so far they are no different than a figment of your imagination, as all we have so far is your "just because I say so" postulation.

Just what would prompt an atheistic scientist to drop evolution?

I wouldn't know, I am not an atheist. Neither are most other scientists that I know. That aside, to drop evolution, there would have to be scientific evidence against ti, showing all the current evidence wrong. This would be true regardless of the Faith or lack thereof of the Scientist. What gave you the silly idea that this has to do with faith or religion rather than evidence?

One would have to say that there must be some rather big holes in that theory.

Hmm, as the Scientific Theory (You DO know what that means, right) is generated from the evidence through the evaluation of the evidence through the application of the Scientific Method, there isn't anything in there that is not supported by evidence. There may be "holes" where the research isn't done yet, but that's a bit different, and indeed, the Scientific Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about what there is no evidence for.

So what do you mean with "holes"? Could you clarify in some logical, rational way?

 

[humbledbyhim]

As someone else pointed out - I knew darn well what the insinuation was, the par for the course YEC accusation that if you aren't in step with their brand of literalism then you are not a Christian.

And what you call demeaning I call fact. The truth on here and pretty much any other forum is that 99% or more of the YEC's couldn't do any or understand any science if it bit them in the rear end. What is more they accuse people like me who have made science their lifes work as either being corrupt or not Christian. Well frankly I've had enough - especially when it comes from people who patently are incompetent when it comes to understanding science let alone actually having the skill sets to perform the work. I've said it before and I'll repeat it - talking science with most YEC's is like conversing with grade school children, they just don't follow what you are talking about - but someone has to counter the complete rubbish on science they utter.

there was not any insinuation. when you are of God, you show it through polite behavior. that better?

 

[KerrMetric]

Yes there was an insinuation about not being a Christian. I don't know how you have the nerve to suggest otherrwise with what you posted. However, since the post has been edited or removed it's a moot point.

But you specifically posted that you could tell who my real father was by my posts - a direct insinuation that I was not of God but of Satan.