Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
More flood questions...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mike Elphick" data-source="post: 55486336" data-attributes="member: 250886"><p>First of all AV, I have tried to be honest in my personal description. I explain <em>why</em> I am a friend of Christianity I was brought up that way, and maybe it's because it wasn't thrust down my throat, or expected of me, or maybe because I never believed it, that I did not rebel against it. However, In my opinion YECism is not what I would call Christianity by a long stretch not the sort of Christianity I was brought up with and light years away from the beliefs of my Christian wife and daughter. Christianity is not about dinosaurs, fossils and mutations. And neither is it about being consumed by some ancient common ancestry of guilt, as YECists seem to be.</p><p> </p><p>Despite what they say, YECists don't hate science they actually admire it and are jealous of what it has achieved and the respect science is given. That explains why you get 'Scientific Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' and why YECism makes out it is some sort of 'science' discipline and does its utmost to appear 'scientific'. Otherwise they might just as well ignore science all together and go along with the supernatural. </p><p> </p><p>The problem with YECists lies in their attempts at reconciling science with what they consider absolute biblical authority, which does not discount the supernatural. Their 'science' then turns into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience" target="_blank">pseudoscience</a>. Once you go down that route and a false 'scientific' possibility has been invented, even though highly unlikely, so long as it is <em>possible</em> it becomes accepted and before long, in the YECist mind, it soon becomes a 'probability'. Because, by definition, there are inadequacies in the initial explanation further 'possibilities' have to be sought. These too have their flaws requiring additional embellishments. Eventually, it is not just one piece of false science or a single 'possibility', but a massive web of them that eventually find their way into creationist dogma.</p><p> </p><p>A classical example of this, which is packed with a web of 'possibilities' (and to keep this post on topic), is John Woodmorappe's work <a href="http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/index.htm" target="_blank">Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study</a>, which is now widely accepted by YECists as part of their belief system. One 'possibility' here is the statement that some animals were trained to defecate and urinate into buckets on command!</p><p> </p><p>Having been a scientist for a large part of my life, I find this sort of stuff an insult not just an insult to me personally, but an insult to other scientists and an insult to science in general. What is worrying is their very well financed attack on what they call "philosophical materialism" (Henry Morris) and "scientific materialism" (Wedge Document). In other words, use science where it suits, but throw science out when it doesn't or more specifically, contort real science into lies and deceptions to achieve their aims.</p><p></p><p>Regarding other religions, Hinduism does not use science to support its several creation stories, some of which are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution" target="_blank">compatible with evolution</a>, neither is it an issue for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution" target="_blank">Buddhism</a>. Although Mormons don't generally believe in evolution, many Latter-day Saints recognize the possibility that God could have used evolutionary mechanisms to bring the earth to its present state. The church has no official view on evolution. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Yes, for the reasons given. I'm equally against fundamentalist Islamic creationists like <a href="http://www.harunyahya.com/" target="_blank">Harun Yahya</a>. I don't find other types of creationism nearly so objectionable.</p><p> </p><p>I don't see why any of this should upset you. <img src="http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/confused10.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mike Elphick, post: 55486336, member: 250886"] First of all AV, I have tried to be honest in my personal description. I explain [I]why[/I] I am a friend of Christianity I was brought up that way, and maybe it's because it wasn't thrust down my throat, or expected of me, or maybe because I never believed it, that I did not rebel against it. However, In my opinion YECism is not what I would call Christianity by a long stretch not the sort of Christianity I was brought up with and light years away from the beliefs of my Christian wife and daughter. Christianity is not about dinosaurs, fossils and mutations. And neither is it about being consumed by some ancient common ancestry of guilt, as YECists seem to be. Despite what they say, YECists don't hate science they actually admire it and are jealous of what it has achieved and the respect science is given. That explains why you get 'Scientific Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' and why YECism makes out it is some sort of 'science' discipline and does its utmost to appear 'scientific'. Otherwise they might just as well ignore science all together and go along with the supernatural. The problem with YECists lies in their attempts at reconciling science with what they consider absolute biblical authority, which does not discount the supernatural. Their 'science' then turns into [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience"]pseudoscience[/url]. Once you go down that route and a false 'scientific' possibility has been invented, even though highly unlikely, so long as it is [I]possible[/I] it becomes accepted and before long, in the YECist mind, it soon becomes a 'probability'. Because, by definition, there are inadequacies in the initial explanation further 'possibilities' have to be sought. These too have their flaws requiring additional embellishments. Eventually, it is not just one piece of false science or a single 'possibility', but a massive web of them that eventually find their way into creationist dogma. A classical example of this, which is packed with a web of 'possibilities' (and to keep this post on topic), is John Woodmorappe's work [url="http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/index.htm"]Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study[/url], which is now widely accepted by YECists as part of their belief system. One 'possibility' here is the statement that some animals were trained to defecate and urinate into buckets on command! Having been a scientist for a large part of my life, I find this sort of stuff an insult not just an insult to me personally, but an insult to other scientists and an insult to science in general. What is worrying is their very well financed attack on what they call "philosophical materialism" (Henry Morris) and "scientific materialism" (Wedge Document). In other words, use science where it suits, but throw science out when it doesn't or more specifically, contort real science into lies and deceptions to achieve their aims. Regarding other religions, Hinduism does not use science to support its several creation stories, some of which are [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution"]compatible with evolution[/url], neither is it an issue for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evolution"]Buddhism[/url]. Although Mormons don't generally believe in evolution, many Latter-day Saints recognize the possibility that God could have used evolutionary mechanisms to bring the earth to its present state. The church has no official view on evolution. Yes, for the reasons given. I'm equally against fundamentalist Islamic creationists like [url=http://www.harunyahya.com/]Harun Yahya[/url]. I don't find other types of creationism nearly so objectionable. I don't see why any of this should upset you. [img]http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/confused10.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
More flood questions...
Top
Bottom