I agree with Mallon that the partisan bickering is silly, and I am coming to regret my thread
title. Nevertheless, my
point remains. YECs shouldn't think they are being called to a lower standard of accountability simply because they are posting in a forum where the other side will not be allowed to question their views (if indeed this is still the case).
Wow Shernren - I thought only YECs were supposed to do quote mining
Well, they're the only ones who are good at it. Did you actually read what I quoted?
laptoppop said:
More and more I have come to realize how much of evolution, conventional geology, liberal theology, higher criticism, etc. is a lie. I am not saying that the evolutionists or geologists are liars (unlike what TEs routinely accuse creationists of), but rather that they are deceived. I believe that the father of lies has specifically crafted the lies to mislead people by providing plausible explanations that appeal to humanistic vanity and intellectual hubris -- specifically designed to weaken the authority of Scripture. Instead of investigating the fossil record in terms of a global flood, they look at it through the interpretation scheme already established. Think of how much research could be done with a different viewpoint! If 1/1000 of the scientists focused on how things fit into a different paradigm (YEC) then the research would be fantastic. Instead, we have unconformities which blend into paraconformities and everyone smiles and ignores the ramifications.
I could have quoted
this, but instead I quoted this. (Watch the colors, if you didn't already get it.) Now think about it. Did I quote your strong attacks on my ways of thinking? Hardly. You claim that I have swallowed a whole cocktail of lies hook, line, and sinker, and I barely bat my eyelids. If I was really out to show that YECs are terrible hatemongering trolls, wouldn't I have quoted that and said that laptoppop does nothing but say evolution is a lie without proof?
The reason I didn't quote that bit and ask for evidence, of course, is because you are perfectly entitled to believe that evolution etc. are all deadly lies of the devil. I too can believe that heliocentrism is a deadly lie of the devil and even if heliocentrism is scientifically true, there isn't one bit of scientific or historical evidence that will show that I am right or that I am wrong. (Nuclear holocaust is evil, no matter how scientifically plausible it is.)
But I have seen many evolutionists, from the geological greats of Cuvier and Agassiz to many members of the forum posting right now, investigate the fossil record from the point of view of a global flood, showing precisely that it just doesn't work. I have also seen and shown that many evolutionists show precisely how they detect unconformities based on chemical differences between rocks on either side of the boundary instead of arbitrarily tossing out whatever doesn't fit their theories - again, this is hardly "smiling and ignoring the ramifications".
I couldn't care less how much you, or any other creationist, hate me or any other evolutionist (not that I am suggesting you do). I am suggesting that blanket statements about the general incompetence of evolutionists should be dragged for examination and refuted if untrue. A statement like this:
In terms of unconformities and paraconformities -- when you look at unconformities (erosional surfaces) and follow them, they virtually always blend into paraconformities (no visible erosional surface, assumed to be of different ages because of previous interpretational viewpoint) I see this as strong evidence that they were laid down relatively contemporaneously as opposed to the conventional viewpoint.
which doesn't attach even a single example of "an unconformity which blends into a paraconformity with no visible erosional surface and only assumed to be of different ages" really isn't going to convince anyone. An atheist can (now, apparently) run in and say "Christians are all liars", but without any examples I'm quite sure he wouldn't be very convincing either.
Again:
laptoppop said:
... a historical Old Testament coming from an omniscient God is not consistent with TE....
I fail to see where any TEs have claimed that it is logically impossible for a God who uses evolution to write a historical Old Testament and be omniscient - perhaps He hasn't, but He certainly could if He wanted hard enough to. Can I not ask you to explain yourself?
And:
laptoppop said:
I don't think the post breaks any rules either -- but its good to be sensitive to these things. I don't want to "win the argument" and offend the person such that they can't hear what I say.
There have been many times in these forums where I've responded to flaming criticisms of YECs and ended up having reasonable discussions. I think we always need to be careful when we talk about the characteristics of an entire group. For example, AFAIK, most TEs are liberal in their theology -- but not all. In fact, I have some of the most hope for folks that hold to conservative theology but also try to hold TE. The illogic of that position creates a tension that can be helpful to help someone change their viewpoint. Of course, the best thing is to pray for the folks -- even the obnoxious ones.
(emphasis added by laptoppop) But I never said that you were "talking about the characteristics of an entire group" - never mind that you said "a historical Old Testament ... is not consistent with TE" about a group running the gamut from believing a historical Adam and Eve to believing a semi-historical David! And I never said that you were wrong to say that - that is precisely why I didn't quote it as something you should defend.
I
do think you should defend your statement that folks who try to hold to conservative theology and TE experience tension stemming from an illogical position. I certainly have experienced some tension, although the more I learn the less I worry. But then there's theFijian who is convinced both of evolution and of the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy - I haven't seen any tension from him in a while, have you? There was rmwilliamsll who was probably one of the most (theologically) conservative people I knew here, he too had no problem with evolution and no strain in accepting both. There are liberal theologians here but I think that if pushed, most of us would really just say that it doesn't really matter one way or the other.
... of course I was quote-mining. I saw many derogatory statements made about TEs and evolutionary science which had no basis in fact, and I called them for that, not bothering about what else had been said in the thread, good or ugly. I trust that removing context has changed nothing about the meaning of the quotes. They are as indefensible in context as they are being pulled out for public display; I pulled them out precisely because I do not believe that every word coming from the mouth of a creationist is terribly flawed and illogical.
Now, creationists are supremely logical and intellectual people, and I am sure that you have counterarguments for what I presented above and numerous examples to show that, in fact, no skeptics take flood geology seriously or try it before rejecting it, all geologists grit their teeth and ignore the ramifications of unconformities, no TEs can believe that God is omnipotent and wrote historical facts in the OT, and that conservative Christians who accept evolution are illogical and will experience discomfort for it. I am also sure that mark kennedy will be able to demonstrate that most TEs think that the whole Bible should never be interpreted literally, and that archie will be able to demonstrate that TEs lack truth and hate God - and that Project86 will be able to show that TEs mostly use poor arguments and utter nonsense, in the latest post in that thread.
But until then, I have every right to wonder if walling off the Creationist forum does you creationists any good.
