Majority

[seebs]

I think it's pretty obvious.

Among this site's primary readership (evangelical and conservative Christians, mostly Americans), YEC is pretty common.

Among people interested enough in the topic to read about it or discuss it, it's less common.

This is not especially surprising.

 

[Vance]

Yes, seebs, this fits in with my viewpoint that the more one knows about the details of the debate, the more likely one is to shift from a YEC to OEC or TE viewpoint. In all of my time on these two forums (especially the creation and evolution forum), I have seen many, many people make this shift very comfortably and with an actual strengthening of faith. You don't see it as often in this specific forum, but I will not give my thoughts as to why.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, seebs, this fits in with my viewpoint that the more one knows about the details of the debate, the more likely one is to shift from a YEC to OEC or TE viewpoint. In all of my time on these two forums (especially the creation and evolution forum), I have seen many, many people make this shift very comfortably and with an actual strengthening of faith. You don't see it as often in this specific forum, but I will not give my thoughts as to why.

I also find that most people who claim to have shifted from TE to YEC had simply taken their basic schooling on evolution for granted without really looking at it deeply. They did shift to YEC, but a key factor was that they didn't have enough scientific knowledge to see the flaws in the scientific sounding YEC arguments.

And that, as they were coming to Christ, they were told YECism was part of the package.

 

[gluadys]

While we're at it, here's one of my favorite polls. http://www.christianforums.com/t85721-would-you-change-your-opinion.html

The most significant thing about this poll, I think, is not the proportion of YEC to TE, but that the vast majority of YECs say they would not change their belief even if confronted with irrefutable evidence, while the vast majority of TEs say they would.

That says all that needs to be said about the respective mind-sets.

 

[Dracil]

The most significant thing about this poll, I think, is not the proportion of YEC to TE, but that the vast majority of YECs say they would not change their belief even if confronted with irrefutable evidence, while the vast majority of TEs say they would.

That says all that needs to be said about the respective mind-sets.

Exactly why it's one of my favorite polls.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I wouldn't say the YECs just accept the theory "without looking at it's faults." All the theories, YEC, OEC, Gap, TE, etc all have faults and counter arguements, or there would be no debate. I in fact know many YECs that study out evolution in depth, yet remain YEC. I myself have a decent background in science, and I find that the majority of evidence supports YEC. Just perspective I suppose

 

[Vance]

I wouldn't say the YECs just accept the theory "without looking at it's faults." All the theories, YEC, OEC, Gap, TE, etc all have faults and counter arguements, or there would be no debate. I in fact know many YECs that study out evolution in depth, yet remain YEC. I myself have a decent background in science, and I find that the majority of evidence supports YEC. Just perspective I suppose

oooh, oooh, oooh, can you present the science which supports it?!

Probably want to start a new thread for it, though.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

oooh, oooh, oooh, can you present the science which supports it?!

Probably want to start a new thread for it, though.

If you're interested, let me know and I will give you some evidences. Don't expect a great debate out of me however, I have seen all the TE arguements and evidence

 

[seebs]

If you're interested, let me know and I will give you some evidences. Don't expect a great debate out of me however, I have seen all the TE arguements and evidence

Not to be picky, but... Given that a lot of the evidence revolves around post-graduate level science work, how is it that you've got a good handle on it already?

I mean, I did college, and I've been keeping a little caught up on science for the 14 years since I finished college, and I'm still massively underqualified to fully understand some of the more complicated and serious issues.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Not to be picky, but... Given that a lot of the evidence revolves around post-graduate level science work, how is it that you've got a good handle on it already?

I mean, I did college, and I've been keeping a little caught up on science for the 14 years since I finished college, and I'm still massively underqualified to fully understand some of the more complicated and serious issues.

When one participates in many YEC/TE debates, he/she will see just about every peice of evidence eventually.

 

[Vance]

But seebs, you are only 1 year old, according to your screen information! :0)

 

[seebs]

When one participates in many YEC/TE debates, he/she will see just about every peice of evidence eventually.

I'm pretty skeptical of this. Most of the evidence can't even be presented in anything but the most cursory fashion here, and a lot of it can't even be discussed without familiarity with the field.

I mean... We have a computer forum here, and we talk about computers, but believe me, there's stuff that I will talk about with other programmers that I wouldn't even consider bringing up in a general discussion, because it could quite literally take months to explain enough of the terminology to even tell someone what I just said!

There's a lot of work in population genetics that, I think, is simply impossible to even describe without getting into at least second-year statistics. I have a pretty good math background (I was maybe two or three courses short of getting a bachelor's degree in it) and can only understand the intro-level cursory overviews of popgen.

I guess... Without meaning to be offensive, I think it is quite possible that you are suffering from a very common and essentially universal human quality, which is that, when you know only a little about a field, it is very easy to dramatically overestimate your understanding of the material.

There's an article on this in an APA journal:
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Basically, it is hard for me to imagine that anyone who hasn't got at least a decade of fairly specialized study could realistically claim to have a working understanding of even a solid majority of the claims in this field. I certainly don't. I think lucaspa was one of the only people we've ever had at CF who understood more than a fragment or two of the field. RufusAtticus, who's doing population genetics for a career, would never have claimed that level of familiarity with the arguments in general.

 

[seebs]

But seebs, you are only 1 year old, according to your screen information! :0)

Indeed, I am one.

But I only turned one this summer, before that I was 32.

 

[tryptophan]

The most significant thing about this poll, I think, is not the proportion of YEC to TE, but that the vast majority of YECs say they would not change their belief even if confronted with irrefutable evidence, while the vast majority of TEs say they would.

That says all that needs to be said about the respective mind-sets.

Even if they were confronted with irrefutable evidence, they wouldn't convert to TE? That seems like sheer stubborness. And that's considering that irrefutable means that there is no chance that the information can be wrong, right?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Even if they were confronted with irrefutable evidence, they wouldn't convert to TE? That seems like sheer stubborness. And that's considering that irrefutable means that there is no chance that the information can be wrong, right?

Notw that a higher perecetage of TEs would not convert if they were proved wrong. It goes both ways. At least those stats show the YECs seem to care more about evidence.

 

[seebs]

Actually, I have never met a TE who wouldn't adopt a new position in the face of new evidence. The entire point of evolution is that it is the best available explanation of the evidence we have now. Were there to be new evidence, that would change.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Actually, I have never met a TE who wouldn't adopt a new position in the face of new evidence. The entire point of evolution is that it is the best available explanation of the evidence we have now. Were there to be new evidence, that would change.

The best available theory for a portion of the evidence some have now.

 

[Vance]

The best available theory for a portion of the evidence some have now.

What? You lost me somewhere in the middle of that sentence.

 

[seebs]

The best available theory for a portion of the evidence some have now.

Well, the best available theory for all of the evidence I've seen presented.

As noted, most of the real material in this field isn't particularly accessible to those of us (like you and me) who don't have graduate-level educations in the field.

But, hey. Go ahead and start a thread on scientific evidence in favor of YEC. I don't mean attacks on evolution or old earth; I mean specific evidence of a young earth, or that various creatures aren't related.

 

[Micaiah]

I'm pretty skeptical of this. Most of the evidence can't even be presented in anything but the most cursory fashion here, and a lot of it can't even be discussed without familiarity with the field.

I mean... We have a computer forum here, and we talk about computers, but believe me, there's stuff that I will talk about with other programmers that I wouldn't even consider bringing up in a general discussion, because it could quite literally take months to explain enough of the terminology to even tell someone what I just said!

There's a lot of work in population genetics that, I think, is simply impossible to even describe without getting into at least second-year statistics. I have a pretty good math background (I was maybe two or three courses short of getting a bachelor's degree in it) and can only understand the intro-level cursory overviews of popgen.

I guess... Without meaning to be offensive, I think it is quite possible that you are suffering from a very common and essentially universal human quality, which is that, when you know only a little about a field, it is very easy to dramatically overestimate your understanding of the material.

There's an article on this in an APA journal:
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Basically, it is hard for me to imagine that anyone who hasn't got at least a decade of fairly specialized study could realistically claim to have a working understanding of even a solid majority of the claims in this field. I certainly don't. I think lucaspa was one of the only people we've ever had at CF who understood more than a fragment or two of the field. RufusAtticus, who's doing population genetics for a career, would never have claimed that level of familiarity with the arguments in general.

I tend to agree. To fully understand the arguments put forward by evolutionists, you need an advanced science degree which entails a large amount of indoctrination on the topic. You only know what you are talking about if you've had that indoctrination, and agree with what is taught.

Fortunately, God has revealled enough in the almost homely first two chapters of Scripture for us to know that evolution is nonsense. We can trust what God says, because he knows everything about everything, is the Creator and sustainer of the universe, and never makes a mistake, or is in any way deceiptful.

Theories of evolution change by the day. That demonstrates that even the best scientists are fallible humans. It is proper to be sceptical of their claims, especialy when it contradicts what God plainly states.

While the doctor and nodding chimp may have known a bit about evolution, their understanding of the Scriptures left much to be desired.

The evidence is there which destroys the most fundamental assumptions of evolution for those willing to see.