okay who did it.....

[shernren]

Sometimes, it's just better to bite one's tongue.

You can drag a YEC to truth, but you can't make 'em think.

Now I think that was quite unkind.

 

[theIdi0t]

Guys, it's really not nice to discuss certain members behind their back. (Yes, I know she's free to respond in here. You get the point.)

I don't think you can talk behind someone back, without the intention of not having that person know.

I was wondering what someone here did to make here react like that. I assumed someone must have a sent a very mean spirited PM, to elicit such a reaction from somebody.

Secondly, when anyone addresses a grievance to a public forum, the point of doing so is for the sake of discussion, or aid. It would not be correct to say, that "we are talking behind someone's back", but addressing the problem, about what happened and why, and how it relates to our relationships here.

As, you can see this thread, has not been about FallingFlower, but what got us here in the first place.

 

[theFijian]

Our belief, Creationism, is tied a lot more closely to our hearts than that of TEism. For us it's Biblical, it's personal as it effects God, our Father, it's central to how we view the rest of scriptures because we believe in a historic and factually accurate Genesis. TEism is simply evolution with God as the maker of evolution. That's not personal, it's a system.

That's because you incorrectly make Creationism into a doctrine, an article of faith, which it isn't and shouldn't ever be. The doctrine of Creation I think we all agree on.

 

[Melethiel]

I don't think you can talk behind someone back, without the intention of not having that person know.

I was wondering what someone here did to make here react like that. I assumed someone must have a sent a very mean spirited PM, to elicit such a reaction from somebody.

Secondly, when anyone addresses a grievance to a public forum, the point of doing so is for the sake of discussion, or aid. It would not be correct to say, that "we are talking behind someone's back", but addressing the problem, about what happened and why, and how it relates to our relationships here.

As, you can see this thread, has not been about FallingFlower, but what got us here in the first place.

I wasn't referring to the OP, but some of the subsequent comments, some of which were rather un-nice. Sorry for not being clear.

 

[Digit]

From the TE perspective, the YEC position is frowned upon not because it's not popular. I don't frown upon the Phelp's family because they are not popular. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but it is because the YEC position attaches ignorance with the gospel.

From where you are sitting sure it does, not from where I am sitting. From here TEs do the exact same thing, by bending scripture to accommodate man's fallable theories and beliefs, instead of adhering to God's infallable scripture.

The fact that you say it's so, has no more impact on me, than the fact that I say it's so does on you. The only difference, is that I can actually analyse what I find in Genesis, to back up my belief. It doesn't matter if it doesn't seem feasible, or improbable, when it's all that is left, it absolutely must be the truth no matter what.

It hurts me to see Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on youtube talking about the "Atheist's worst nightmare the Banana"

I've seen that. I actually quite liked it the first time around, and it prompted me to ask more questions and dig further, and not accept everything as face value. In fact I think that was my first real exposure to a pure creation theory, whereby God was depicted as directly creating all.

and only after a few million hits do they realize how ignorant their position was, that they drop it from further arguments. Or when those two go on TV, and pull out pictures of frogs with bull horns, to say no transitional forms have been found, touting a sentence that's been circulated in YEC circles, with not a single person understanding what it means.

I don't know what the fallout was for that, perhaps they made a mistake, no more so than those scientists who keep constructing 'evidence' and purposefully mis-matching bones of fossils, or mis-interpreting evidence. It's easy to show someone their own reflection, not so easy to look at yours.

To give you an example of what I am seeing:

A tells B that 1+2= 4, thus God exists, so be gets so excited he doesn't take the time to think about what 1+2 really equals.

Again, you are operating on a presupposition of the 'fact' that you know Creationism is false.

Do you truly think that we are caught up in a sort of creation-frenzy, that we are closed to the truth? See, heres the interesting thing. We all have the same facts. We have fossils, so do you. We have dating methods, in fact the same ones you use. We all have the same stuff. We don't deny that, we don't pretend some things don't exist. What we do know, is that some things are proven, whereas others are assumed, and from our side, it seems like the train has run away with assumptions, because the world rejects God. It will not accept God, and therefore it is required that the world is old, old enough to allow all these theories and systems to have time to take place. Without the time frame, evolution gets shot down. But then, just in case, we have Punctuated Equilibrium, you know, the more I read about these things the more convoluted the spiral gets, that trails all the way from Darwinian Evolution, to the theory commonly accepted today, well, that which I know to be commonly accepted, it seems everyone has his own tailored version though.

You do not listen, you tell the world.

Well I like to think I do listen. Let me put it this way, it takes a fairly strong mind to reject the things of this world, and accept something which initially to you sounds fantastical at best. It's the easiest thing in the world to simply brand scripture as figurative tales, and accept what is placed before you without questioning it.

And everyone laughs, not because you are not popular, but because you have played the fool. You spread faith on a erroneous foundation, only to have time catch up with it, and crush it, mercilessly.

What I meant by popular was a commonly accepted belief. People laugh at TEs just as much as YECs, just as much as Christians with no real worldview defined. The idea of the magic man in the sky to them is not feasible, it's grounded in myth and I listen to work-mates all day all around me talking of our supposed weak minds, our need for a crutch. They don't care what our actual micro-beliefs are, the fact we believe in God makes us unpopular, and laughed at, and mocked. That's me. That's you. That's every God believing person out there.

See, here is the problem.

You just said you believe God created, but you don't believe that God "created things".

Created things? Things as in what? Systems? Mechanics? Stuff like that?

So far I have not run across a single YEC, when inquiring a bit further, who denies that evolution is the cause of the increased present diversity from the time of Noah's ark till today. AiG even goes on to boldly claim that if evolution was just about this, then there would be no debate?

Are you talking about micro and macro evolution?

Ok rather than replying to the rest of this, unless you specifically want me to, let me ask you this. Did you ever read Genesis as historic, and if so, what was it that changed your view of it?

Digit