"I chose YEC because..."

[KerrMetric]

On the other hand to say that science has proven that YEC is not a possiblity would also be incorrect.

Wrong - the YEC position has been falsified and this happened over 150 years ago.

Everyone is more likely to accept the scientists for their own team.

There are no YEC scientists - End of story. They don't have a home team. There are a few ex-scientists and a few people with a science education who are YEC's but no one that in any way shape or form that can truly be said to be a working scientist doing research at the frontiers of science - such a beast does not exist.

 

[PETE_]

Wrong - the YEC position has been falsified and this happened over 150 years ago.



There are no YEC scientists - End of story. They don't have a home team. There are a few ex-scientists and a few people with a science education who are YEC's but no one that in any way shape or form that can truly be said to be a working scientist doing research at the frontiers of science - such a beast does not exist.

A quick google search will prove you wrong.

 

[Willtor]

A quick google search will prove you wrong.

There was another thread where Kerr walked through a list of something like 20 people identified as Creation Scientists and showed that almost none have ever been scientists of any kind, and the few left weren't scientists in any relevant fields.

 

[Jase]

A quick google search will prove you wrong.

That quick google search will show that every creation scientist likely belongs to ICR or AIG, and their statement of faith directly contradicts the meaning of science, so they aren't doing science.

 

[PETE_]

That quick google search will show that every creation scientist likely belongs to ICR or AIG, and their statement of faith directly contradicts the meaning of science, so they aren't doing science.

You dismiss the message because of the meeanger.

To exclude all but naturalistic explainations, is biased as well.

 

[Jase]

You dismiss the message because of the meeanger.

To exclude all but naturalistic explainations, is biased as well.

No it isn't. Science is the study of the natural world. There is no way to test the supernatural world, so why would science include it?

Sure God could have done everything exactly as it says in the Bible and then wiped away all the evidence and implanted fake evidence to look like it does today, but by the same token, God could have created the universe last week and given every human in existence a fake memory. There is no point discussing anything if you are just going to plead to God did it all without investigating everything. The universe would look a lot different if it occured the way the Bible says it did.

 

[random_guy]

There was another thread where Kerr walked through a list of something like 20 people identified as Creation Scientists and showed that almost none have ever been scientists of any kind, and the few left weren't scientists in any relevant fields.

I bumped it, and it can be found here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2815921-modern-creationist-scientists-heroes.html

KerrMetric does an excellent job dissecting the members of ICR.

 

[Willtor]

That's the one. I'd also like to make a shameless plug for the second-to-last entry in my blog regarding methodological naturalism in science.

 

[Pats]

You dismiss the message because of the meeanger.

To exclude all but naturalistic explainations, is biased as well.

If a non literal interpretation of Genesis were based soley on naturalistic postulations, then this statement might be accurate.

But one can see from the scriptures themselves that they are not intended in this literalist manner.

Would you like me to elaborate?

Here's a thread you should check out! There's a lot of easy to read posts in there that speak directly to the arguements against treating Genesis as a science or literalist history book.

 

[PETE_]

If a non literal interpretation of Genesis were based soley on naturalistic postulations, then this statement might be accurate.

But one can see from the scriptures themselves that they are not intended in this literalist manner.

Would you like me to elaborate?

Here's a thread you should check out! There's a lot of easy to read posts in there that speak directly to the arguements against treating Genesis as a science or literalist history book.

I did not mention Genesis as a literal reason for looking beyond naturalistic postulations. Scientist might figure more things out if they were not so blinded by their own definition of science.

 

[Silent Bob]

I did not mention Genesis as a literal reason for looking beyond naturalistic postulations. Scientist might figure more things out if they were not so blinded by their own definition of science.

The problem is that when early scientists were not blinded by their own definition of science astrology, phrenology, alchemy, spiritualism and many more pseudosciences were acceptable scientific theories.

The restriction of methodological naturalism is VITAL without it any pot smoker can claim that his/her ideas deserve to be published and taught.

For example: http://www.timecube.com/

 

[mark kennedy]

posting this to see why people chose YEC: Please, let enough people (at least 15) respond to the poll before mass debate ensues .

You left out the most obvious choice, scientfic evidence conclusivly demonstrates special creation. I rarely use religious arguments in these discussions, creationism can be concluded strickly on the scientific evidence. I have been doing it for years and it is far easier then I would have ever thought. Evolutionists just don't want to admit that their precious theory is hopelessly flawed so they desperatly cling to their naturalistic assumptions.

 

[PETE_]

There is a beginning to the universe that implies a cause that transcends the universe. The laws of physics are fine-tuned for life. This fine-tuning implies design. There is information in the cell. This implies a designer. To start life would require biological information that point to a prior intelligence.

 

[Mallon]

You left out the most obvious choice, scientfic evidence conclusivly demonstrates special creation. I rarely use religious arguments in these discussions, creationism can be concluded strickly [sic] on the scientific evidence.

I think fellow creationist Laptoppop would disagree with you on this point. He conceded in another thread:

most YECs do not try to validate scripture with science, but rather prefer a particular model of interpreting the physical evidence because it is more consistent with our understanding of scripture. Scripture is supreme, not a particular scientific model, and we are not looking for additional validation of scripture. Rather we are integrating the scriptures with the physical evidence.

Evolutionists just don't want to admit that their precious theory is hopelessly flawed so they desperatly [sic] cling to their naturalistic assumptions.

I think the fact that we TEs exist is a testament to the fact that this assertion is wrong. I wish the scientific evidence clearly pointed to God; it would make believing in Him much easier. There may be many people out there looking for a reason to reject God, but I would argue that there are many desperate people out there looking to find Him, too. If science truly does validate the Lord, then people could easily turn to science to find Him. Thing is: we know this doesn't work. Jesus himself taught us to change hearts, not by teaching creation science, but by telling the gospel message. It's probably worth listening to him.

 

[jereth]

Jesus himself taught us to change hearts

AMEN!

not by teaching creation science

AMEN!

but by telling the gospel message.

AMEN!

It's probably worth listening to him.

AMEN!