Is it hypocritical to be a YEC and still take for granted the benefits of science?

[Split Rock]

FYI, my pc and the Internet aren't run by evolution; and if you're implying that we can't enjoy what creature comforts scientists, who are one of God's gifts to mankind, give us without embracing evolution -- or we're hypocrites -- then consider me a hypocrite.

Why are most of "God's gifts to mankind" lying, lazy, foolish, stupid followers of SATAN?

And yes, I agree that you are a hypocrite.

 

[kharisym]

FYI, my pc and the Internet aren't run by evolution; and if you're implying that we can't enjoy what creature comforts scientists, who are one of God's gifts to mankind, give us without embracing evolution -- or we're hypocrites -- then consider me a hypocrite.

As someone mentioned previously, the processor in your pc was at least partially designed using genetic algorithms. Evolution impacts more than just biology. If it weren't for evolution, you'd be working on at best a hundred Mhz processor and a couple megs of RAM instead of a ~2Ghz multicore CPU with a few gigs of RAM.

CiteSeerX — A Parallel Genetic Algorithm for Multiobjective Microprocessor Design

Genetic algorithms are used everywhere, designing networks, cars, planes, sorting databases, designing other forms of hardware such as antennas... I think UPS might even use genetic algorithms to plan shipping of packages.

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/iht/cadproject/pdfs/Genetic%20Truss.pdf
http://www.ece.wisc.edu/~pharm/msprojects/marden_msproject.pdf
15 Real-World Applications of Genetic Algorithms

Theories as old as evolution don't exist in a vacuum. Technology derives inspiration from numerous sources, and there's no telling where something like evolution might posit an improvement. When you doubt evolution, you're doubting everything from the processor in your computer to the car you drive.

So yes, you're PC *does* run on evolution. As do countless other devices you own.

Hey, you got a cell phone? That antenna inside it used evolution, as did its processor, lcd display, software, cell network, the satellites used for uplink, the towers on the ground... the list is very long.

 

[AV1611VET]

As someone mentioned previously, the processor in your pc was at least partially designed using genetic algorithms.

That rhetoric doesn't work, kharisym.

Evolution can take a hike.

 

[kharisym]

That rhetoric doesn't work, kharisym.

Evolution can take a hike.

saying something 'doesn't work' then denouncing it out of hand doesn't work either- it fails to provide any substance to your argument.

Without substance you give me no choice but to assume you have no basis for your position, and without a basis for it your position is nothing but hot air and hubris.

If I've learned nothing else on this board, it's that creationist arguments are almost purely hot air and hubris. Your continuous use of out of hand denunciation is just more evidence of that realization.

 

[pgp_protector]

Yet another AV Zombie Thread

 

[Split Rock]

That rhetoric doesn't work, kharisym.

Evolution can take a hike.

saying something 'doesn't work' then denouncing it out of hand doesn't work either- it fails to provide any substance to your argument.

Without substance you give me no choice but to assume you have no basis for your position, and without a basis for it your position is nothing but hot air and hubris.

If I've learned nothing else on this board, it's that creationist arguments are almost purely hot air and hubris. Your continuous use of out of hand denunciation is just more evidence of that realization.

Bingo! You have AVET figured out pretty well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Without substance you give me no choice but to assume you have no basis for your position, and without a basis for it your position is nothing but hot air and hubris.

Don't ask for substance, kharisym, or you'll get just what you ask for -- then you'll really have something to complain about.

Hebrews 11:1a Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,

As for 'no basis for my position', qv please: 1.

 

[kharisym]

Don't ask for substance, kharisym, or you'll get just what you ask for -- then you'll really have something to complain about.

Hebrews 11:1a Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,

As for 'no basis for my position', qv please: 1.

'Faith is the substance of things hoped for'

Let us analyze this. When we hope for something, we quite literally desire it to be true. Desire does not make something real nor does it provide guarantee that something will be real, so if the substance of your position is faith, and we define faith based upon this bible quote, then you're telling me that your position is based purely on hope but not on facts, and based upon hope it has no guarantee to be true.

When you wave a baseless position about and demand that your baseless desires are more concrete than the evidence, you're exhibiting hot air and hubris.

 

[kharisym]

Yet another AV Zombie Thread

I didn't catch that!

YouTube - barney

 

[AV1611VET]

'Faith is the substance of things hoped for'

Let us analyze this. When we hope for something, we quite literally desire it to be true. Desire does not make something real nor does it provide guarantee that something will be real, so if the substance of your position is faith, and we define faith based upon this bible quote, then you're telling me that your position is based purely on hope but not on facts, and based upon hope it has no guarantee to be true.

When you wave a baseless position about and demand that your baseless desires are more concrete than the evidence, you're exhibiting hot air and hubris.

Except I'm not waiving a 'baseless position' around.

You may want to familiarize yourself with what Biblical hope is.

Biblical hope is not the same as worldly hope.

In worldly hope, we wish that something anticipated will come true.

But in Biblical hope, we already know it is going to come true, it's just a matter of when.

In other words, Biblical hope is the time that transpires from a promise given, to its fulfillment.

This is why the Bible can call our spiritual helmet:

1Thessalonians 5:8b ...and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

No Christian should 'hope' he's saved -- (in a worldly way).

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Except I'm not waiving a 'baseless position' around.

You may want to familiarize yourself with what Biblical hope is.

Biblical hope is not the same as worldly hope.

In worldly hope, we wish that something anticipated will come true.

But in Biblical hope, we already know it is going to come true, it's just a matter of when.

In other words, Biblical hope is the time that transpires from a promise given, to its fulfillment.

This is why the Bible can call our spiritual helmet:

1Thessalonians 5:8b ...and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

No Christian should 'hope' he's saved -- (in a worldly way).

You may want to look into the definition of "baseless hope". You have used it incorrectly in this context.

 

[Greg1234]

You may want to look into the definition of "baseless hope".

The ability for chance to build a man.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The ability for chance to build a man.

How does that happen, exactly?

 

[Greg1234]

How does that happen, exactly?

Thats what we want to know

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Thats what we want to know

Don't bear false witness. It's one of the ten no-no's.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't bear false witness. It's one of the ten no-no's.

Rookie error? mental block? lack of education? just plain careless remark? typing too fast?

Or was I incorrectly assuming you were referencing the Ten Commandments?

 

[Greg1234]

Don't bear false witness. It's one of the ten no-no's.

Denial. tsk

 

[MoonLancer]

Denial. tsk

ignorance your part is more like it.

 

[eleazar57]

It is remarkable to me that creationists never seem to consider that the same "atheist conspiracy" that gave rise to evolution also produced the computers and internet that they use to rail against it. The medical science that keeps them healthy is based on the same biology that holds "evilution" as its core principle. The geologic science that finds oil and mines metals tells us of the age of the earth and a history of change over that time. food is safe to eat because it is preserved and packaged to prevent the growth of potentially harmful bacteria, a concept unknown without science. water is free of hazardous chemicals and microorganisms, something that has helped more than double the average human lifespan.

How can you be against concepts so central to science as evolution and billions of years of history and yet take advantage of the fruits of the very science that let you live as long and with the quality of life we have? Isnt that hypocritical?

No, I don't think it is at all hypocritical for a Young Earth Creationist and take for granted the benefits of science. I believe it is not hypocritical, but it is a bit ignorant perhaps. But I note you didn't say "deny the findings of science" but chose instead to say, "take for granted the benefits of science". I'm quite certain much of the world takes the amazing changes in our lives for which science can claim some or much of the credit for discovering all for granted. I couldn't even explain very well how Velcro is made, but I'm glad it was discovered and has so many uses.

There is good science and not so good science. There is rock solid, not likely to ever be refuted science, and there are the premises of scientific thought and reason that aren't as solid as many believe.

Think about it...if you were to have a discussion with the average man on the street 100 years ago and describe the existence of black holes...the harnessing of atomic energy...the dimensions of the universe...the function and life cycle of stars...the incredible, insurmountable complexity of a single human cell, let alone the human body...would he have laughed and walked away, shaking his head? Why argue or debate such lunacy, with so little to show for evidence save a bit of wishful thinking?

I am grateful to the scientists of our world and the significant contributions they have made to our existence. Our lives, at least in our part of the world...not everyone can claim such blessings...are in many ways safer and more enjoyable. I can't get too hyped about giving a clean water supply credit for doubling the lifespan of man, however. You must first consider the lifespan of the first generations of scripture, and living to be 85 ir 90 isn't so impressive. Also, the huge majority of the world's water supply is not drinkable. And, undeniably, science is also guilty of making some of the "discoveries" that have lined the pockets of some while shortening the lives of others, as is the case with the miraculous product we call "High Fructose Corn Syrup", which is finding its way into nearly everything we consume.

Science still hasn't cured cancer, heart disease, or figured out how to arrest the decline and decay of our organs as we age. Does that mean they are incompetent, or worse, completely stupid? Certainly not. They just haven't gone put the pieces together in the right order to understand how some of these diseases and characteristic flaws in our physical makeup can be prevented, cured, or arrested. Science has done much, true. They have failed at much also. They are not a god...they share the same tendency to make poor decisions or arrive at the wrong conclusion we all do. Why do you think that thousands upon thousands of the same types of experiments are carried out all over the world, yet we still lack so many answers?

Don't forget, the Bible has much to say about scientific understanding on this planet thousands of years ago. Whether you're discussing time, space and matter, the innumerability of the stars, the movement of our sun through the universe, the hydrologic cycle, the movement of winds, how to avoid illness from mishandled food or contact with a corpse, even the fact that the earth is suspended on nothing...hung in space. And this was written in the book of Job, considered to be the oldest book of the Bible, during a time when most of the world's civilizations had beliefs about the earth...about it being on the back of an animal...or carried by a god...but Job 26:7 says, [FONT=comic sans ms,sand]"He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing." [FONT=comic sans ms,sand]Job 26:7 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=comic sans ms,sand][FONT=comic sans ms,sand][/FONT][/FONT]

You may know that even Darwin was trained in the ministry before his voyage on the Beagle...but he fell away from his faith because he made the mistake of so many, saying..."It doesn't make sense..." For example, he thought a loving, benevolent God would not send anyone to hell. It wasn't fair. So how does man, frail, of limited understanding and ability, assume to know the mind of God? Besides, as I've said before, God isn't going to send anyone to hell. They will make their own personal decision about the identity of Christ, the one who went to the cross for us all, and if their short-sightedness or pride or denial pushes them farther away from God, then the pit is their reward, but based entirely on their decision, not that of a capricious and vengeful God.

How about scientists who were Christians? Any of those around when significant scientific thought was formed on this planet? How about Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Rene Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Mendel, and dozens of others...then and now. Even Einstein, though not a Christian, said, ""I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

You made an effort to establish a line of demarcation between science and faith in God, but not only is there considerable evidence to refute that concept in scripture itself, and many competent and valued scientific minds who also believed in God, but it would seem that the scientific community itself is deeply in debt to the Word of God for its initial accurate information, often unique in the world in its description of the universe around us, but also for the many, many great scientific minds who made such significant contributions and discoveries over the centuries, minds themselves that acknowledged and praised God for His Hand in Creation.

Where science struggles, however, is in areas that are as yet unproven, though many are perfectly contented to ride on a belief in information that will never be verified at any point in our lifetime. For example, the methods used to determine the age of rocks, indeed of the earth or the moon or the universe itself. The conclusions are all based on the assumption that things are now as they were billions of years ago with regard to the presence of this isotope or that gas or compound and that it has behaved in a uniform and totally predictable manner since the beginning of time. The only problem with that hypothesis is, nobody was around four billion plus years ago to sign off on our theories and experiments. It's wishful thinking we can never prove in a laboratory...because you would need a lab verifiably as old as the samples you were testing. To say a rock is 4.5 billion or 65 million or one million years old without having a constant, a documented comparison sample, science is using "circular reasoning" to try to document the age of the earth and the universe.

Your narrow and presumptive view of the beliefs and values of those who believe in a younger, created earth seems to lump all believers everywhere in the same pot, and that's clearly not the case. Some Christians, generally those who haven't studied the Word of God thoroughly enough, will cop out and accept or consider seriously the claims of evolutionary thought, because it seems to make sense, even in the absence of adequate evidence. Well, we all make mistakes, and most of us want an easier, softer way of explaining things we can't understand.

I think you'll find that if you honestly and openly seek solid answers to some of the ideas on which you appear to operate, you'll find you had a pretty slanted and incomplete view of just what the Bible says and what Christians, those who are blessed to sit under the teaching of a pastor with decades of experience in the study of scripture, really believe.

It would be fair to say that the vast majority of generalizations I hear from non-believers about what Christians think or believe are not based at all on study, research, discussions, interviews, a large number of believers they know intimately, live with, work with, or often share views with. The descriptions I hear more closely resemble a cartoon or sound byte than the people I know who make every effort to know and understand the truth, and ask God for guidance and and insight in their desire to understand God's efforts in Creation, some of the earliest examples of His love for us.

I wish you the best as you mature, ponder, consider, and ultimately, with God's help I pray, choose. It's the most important decision you will ever make.

If I can be of any assistance, within reason of course, feel free to email me.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No, I don't think it is at all hypocritical for a Young Earth Creationist and take for granted the benefits of science. I believe it is not hypocritical, but it is a bit ignorant perhaps. But I note you didn't say "deny the findings of science" but chose instead to say, "take for granted the benefits of science". I'm quite certain much of the world takes the amazing changes in our lives for which science can claim some or much of the credit for discovering all for granted. I couldn't even explain very well how Velcro is made, but I'm glad it was discovered and has so many uses.

There is good science and not so good science. There is rock solid, not likely to ever be refuted science, and there are the premises of scientific thought and reason that aren't as solid as many believe.

Think about it...if you were to have a discussion with the average man on the street 100 years ago and describe the existence of black holes...the harnessing of atomic energy...the dimensions of the universe...the function and life cycle of stars...the incredible, insurmountable complexity of a single human cell, let alone the human body...would he have laughed and walked away, shaking his head? Why argue or debate such lunacy, with so little to show for evidence save a bit of wishful thinking?

I am grateful to the scientists of our world and the significant contributions they have made to our existence. Our lives, at least in our part of the world...not everyone can claim such blessings...are in many ways safer and more enjoyable. I can't get too hyped about giving a clean water supply credit for doubling the lifespan of man, however. You must first consider the lifespan of the first generations of scripture, and living to be 85 ir 90 isn't so impressive. Also, the huge majority of the world's water supply is not drinkable. And, undeniably, science is also guilty of making some of the "discoveries" that have lined the pockets of some while shortening the lives of others, as is the case with the miraculous product we call "High Fructose Corn Syrup", which is finding its way into nearly everything we consume.

Science still hasn't cured cancer, heart disease, or figured out how to arrest the decline and decay of our organs as we age. Does that mean they are incompetent, or worse, completely stupid? Certainly not. They just haven't gone put the pieces together in the right order to understand how some of these diseases and characteristic flaws in our physical makeup can be prevented, cured, or arrested. Science has done much, true. They have failed at much also. They are not a god...they share the same tendency to make poor decisions or arrive at the wrong conclusion we all do. Why do you think that thousands upon thousands of the same types of experiments are carried out all over the world, yet we still lack so many answers?

Don't forget, the Bible has much to say about scientific understanding on this planet thousands of years ago. Whether you're discussing time, space and matter, the innumerability of the stars, the movement of our sun through the universe, the hydrologic cycle, the movement of winds, how to avoid illness from mishandled food or contact with a corpse, even the fact that the earth is suspended on nothing...hung in space. And this was written in the book of Job, considered to be the oldest book of the Bible, during a time when most of the world's civilizations had beliefs about the earth...about it being on the back of an animal...or carried by a god...but Job 26:7 says, [FONT=comic sans ms,sand]"He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing." [FONT=comic sans ms,sand]Job 26:7 [/FONT][/FONT]


You may know that even Darwin was trained in the ministry before his voyage on the Beagle...but he fell away from his faith because he made the mistake of so many, saying..."It doesn't make sense..." For example, he thought a loving, benevolent God would not send anyone to hell. It wasn't fair. So how does man, frail, of limited understanding and ability, assume to know the mind of God? Besides, as I've said before, God isn't going to send anyone to hell. They will make their own personal decision about the identity of Christ, the one who went to the cross for us all, and if their short-sightedness or pride or denial pushes them farther away from God, then the pit is their reward, but based entirely on their decision, not that of a capricious and vengeful God.

How about scientists who were Christians? Any of those around when significant scientific thought was formed on this planet? How about Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Rene Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Mendel, and dozens of others...then and now. Even Einstein, though not a Christian, said, ""I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

You made an effort to establish a line of demarcation between science and faith in God, but not only is there considerable evidence to refute that concept in scripture itself, and many competent and valued scientific minds who also believed in God, but it would seem that the scientific community itself is deeply in debt to the Word of God for its initial accurate information, often unique in the world in its description of the universe around us, but also for the many, many great scientific minds who made such significant contributions and discoveries over the centuries, minds themselves that acknowledged and praised God for His Hand in Creation.

Where science struggles, however, is in areas that are as yet unproven, though many are perfectly contented to ride on a belief in information that will never be verified at any point in our lifetime. For example, the methods used to determine the age of rocks, indeed of the earth or the moon or the universe itself. The conclusions are all based on the assumption that things are now as they were billions of years ago with regard to the presence of this isotope or that gas or compound and that it has behaved in a uniform and totally predictable manner since the beginning of time. The only problem with that hypothesis is, nobody was around four billion plus years ago to sign off on our theories and experiments. It's wishful thinking we can never prove in a laboratory...because you would need a lab verifiably as old as the samples you were testing. To say a rock is 4.5 billion or 65 million or one million years old without having a constant, a documented comparison sample, science is using "circular reasoning" to try to document the age of the earth and the universe.

Your narrow and presumptive view of the beliefs and values of those who believe in a younger, created earth seems to lump all believers everywhere in the same pot, and that's clearly not the case. Some Christians, generally those who haven't studied the Word of God thoroughly enough, will cop out and accept or consider seriously the claims of evolutionary thought, because it seems to make sense, even in the absence of adequate evidence. Well, we all make mistakes, and most of us want an easier, softer way of explaining things we can't understand.

I think you'll find that if you honestly and openly seek solid answers to some of the ideas on which you appear to operate, you'll find you had a pretty slanted and incomplete view of just what the Bible says and what Christians, those who are blessed to sit under the teaching of a pastor with decades of experience in the study of scripture, really believe.

It would be fair to say that the vast majority of generalizations I hear from non-believers about what Christians think or believe are not based at all on study, research, discussions, interviews, a large number of believers they know intimately, live with, work with, or often share views with. The descriptions I hear more closely resemble a cartoon or sound byte than the people I know who make every effort to know and understand the truth, and ask God for guidance and and insight in their desire to understand God's efforts in Creation, some of the earliest examples of His love for us.

I wish you the best as you mature, ponder, consider, and ultimately, with God's help I pray, choose. It's the most important decision you will ever make.

If I can be of any assistance, within reason of course, feel free to email me.

Much of what you think non-christians think about christians are what we think about you.

BTW, if I can be of any assistance to you, please feel free send a PM.