The Deception of Genesis

Uphill Battle said:

and you're missing my point.

Click to expand...

Expound upon it...

Uphill Battle said:

if ever a YEC chooses to debate on TOE, or vice versa, it is automatically assumed that the YEC is un/less educated. Now, I stated that it would be unlikely for the majority of YEC to choose an education in which they would be ridiculed day in and day out for their beliefs. So, you have your cake and eat it too. they aren't educated in our hallowed halls of evolution, therefore they are uneducated.

on a side note, I rarely see an athiest who refrains from debating their opinion on religious matters, despite their lack of training along those lines.

Click to expand...

But isn't the problem that the average YEC is uneducated in general. It's not they all ran away to Bible College or Seminary it's the fact they tend to be less likely college grads than the other groups. Also I'm not specifically talking biology - but geology, physics, astronomy etc.

Why is it that amongst Christianity the words fundamentalist and scholar are usually considered oxymoronic. The Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox churches have a rich tradition of Theological scholarship, the modern fundamentalist and evangelical groups have people who author the "Left Behind' rubbish or are televangelists. These churches have it seems an anathema to academic pursuits and this is reflected in not only their organisations but their flocks as well.

Uphill Battle said:

that's a pretty broad spectrum analysis of the education levels of a certain "type" of people.

Click to expand...

I accept that it is stereotyping but sterotypes do exist for a reason. There are surveys on this kind of thing. But certainly the YEC community (if it warrants the term) is not versed scientifically. When people still put forth vapour canopy arguments or silly Big Bang objections based upon some silly angular momentum red herring and the like then they aren't going to be accused of holding PhD's in physics are they?

To me YECism is a manipulative and lying leadership with a general body of science illiterates.

Uphill Battle said:

soooo.... do you get offended when the stereotype of TOE beleivers being materialistic? Because for the large part of people who believe in TOE, are not TE, they are athiest. But the outrage that claim sparks...

Click to expand...

No. I'm not even sure that is true anyway. And the vast majority of TOE "believers" are not atheists but theists.

KerrMetric said:

But isn't the problem that the average YEC is uneducated in general.

Click to expand...

KerrMetric said:

To me YECism is a manipulative and lying leadership with a general body of science illiterates.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess I'm an illiterate uneducated YEC then.

Do you really think I believe in a young earth and have not researched it? I've listened to debates, read numerous articles & books, researched others opinions on BOTH sides, and studied such topics in college. After all that, I guess I remained a stupid person, because I'm still a YEC.

We both work off the same evidence...the earth and universe. The only difference is we read it differently. Just because my opinion differs from yours doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make you right. With God all things are possible, if you can accept that, then you're half way to becoming a YEC.

Jig said:

Well, I guess I'm an illiterate uneducated YEC then.

Click to expand...

If you are then I guess you are. Your call not mine.

Do you really think I believe in a young earth and have not researched it? I've listened to debates, read numerous articles & books, researched others opinions on BOTH sides, and studied such topics in college. After all that, I guess I remained a stupid person, because I'm still a YEC.

Click to expand...

Yes I do believe that or that you don't understand the material. The YEC side is abysmal in its science understanding. You may have read but I doubt you understood.

We both work off the same evidence...the earth and universe. The only difference is we read it differently.

Click to expand...

No that is NOT the difference. That is the silly idea there are somehow two valid views arguing over evidence. This is not a democracy. It is the difference between those who do science or at least understand it and those who could not get through a science curriculum or choose to lie about science.

Just because my opinion differs from yours doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make you right. With God all things are possible, if you can accept that, then you're half way to becoming a YEC.

Click to expand...

This is not about opinion. Opinion has nothing to do with this debate. It's a difference on the level of those who say water is wet and those would say it is not wet. The 'not wet' people are just wrong, period.

KerrMetric said:

If you are then I guess you are. Your call not mine.

Click to expand...

I guess you dont fully understand sarcasim.

KerrMetric said:

Yes I do believe that or that you don't understand the material. The YEC side is abysmal in its science understanding. You may have read but I doubt you understood.

Click to expand...

You doubt? This is your admitted opinion. You have no real way of knowing if I understood it. I may have understood it differently then you. This only makes me wrong to you (and others with your same beliefs.)

KerrMetric said:

No that is NOT the difference. That is the silly idea there are somehow two valid views arguing over evidence. This is not a democracy. It is the difference between those who do science or at least understand it and those who could not get through a science curriculum or choose to lie about science.

Click to expand...

It IS the only difference. Do you doubt we use the same evidence? We only came up with a different theory then you did. Is this so hard to believe? Your saying since these thoeries are not the same as yours then they are wrong. Again, only wrong to you (and those with your same beliefs).

KerrMetric said:

This is not about opinion. Opinion has nothing to do with this debate. It's a difference on the level of those who say water is wet and those would say it is not wet. The 'not wet' people are just wrong, period.

Click to expand...

Wow....you are truely lost. Just as it is SOOO clear to you, it is to me as well. Please dont preach to me about how smart you are. It's boring me.

Both YEC ans TE's use science to prove their theories. Just because YEC's get a different answer then you does not mean we did it wrong. Your completely in your own world.

Jig said:

I guess you dont fully understand sarcasim.

Click to expand...

That seemed your gaffe not mine

You doubt? This is your admitted opinion. You have no real way of knowing if I understood it. I may have understood it differently then you. This only makes me wrong to you (and others with your same beliefs.)

Click to expand...

Well the wrong to you is 99.99% of the academic science community. You know, the ones who actually do the science.

It IS the only difference. Do you doubt we use the same evidence? We only came up with a different theory then you did. Is this so hard to believe? Your saying since these thoeries are not the same as yours then they are wrong. Again, only wrong to you (and those with your same beliefs).

Click to expand...

Apart from a tendency for the YEC community to pick and choose the evidence then I agree. The YEC side by definition do not produce a theory.

Again you are pitting a bunch of amateurs against 99.99% of the professional community.

Wow....you are truely lost. Just as it is SOOO clear to you, it is to me as well. Please dont preach to me about how smart you are. It's boring me.

Click to expand...

Again don't tell me that a bunch of insurance salesman, pastors and a sprinkling of MD's know science against pretty much the entire worlds academic science community.

Both YEC ans TE's use science to prove their theories. Just because YEC's get a different answer then you does not mean we did it wrong. Your completely in your own world.

Click to expand...

No the YEC's don't. They pick and choose evidence and butcher it with inadequate scientific training more at home in cartoon books than text books.

My world is the one of the academic science community, the industrial science community and the community that gets 99.999% of the worlds funding from both government and private sources.

Take a look at this board. Tell me honestly, which side is better versed in science? One side has problems figuring what's abiogenesis, what's evolution, and what the definition of science is, the other side doesn't have that problem, or if it shows up, they'll be corrected on their side.

What is the opposite of evolution? Extinction. Go to a zoo and look at the signs. Does any of them say: NEW SPECIES. NO! Zoos, reports, magazines and medias only report how endangered animals are, not how animals evolved to another species. Tell that to your teacher, see how he or she responds.

Click to expand...

Guess which side posted this and guess how many other people on the same side corrected this post. How can one side's argument even be well built if no one on the same side ever correct a false statement? How can one side seem valid when a large majority of the post contain scientific errors about definitions?

random_guy said:

Take a look at this board. Tell me honestly, which side is better versed in science? One side has problems figuring what's abiogenesis, what's evolution, and what the definition of science is, the other side doesn't have that problem, or if it shows up, they'll be corrected on their side.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And we aren't even really talking science. We are talking about science. Why is it the amateurs argue against scientists but wouldn't dream of arguing woodwork with a master carpenter?

Guess which side posted this and guess how many other people on the same side corrected this post. How can one side's argument even be well built if no one on the same side ever correct a false statement? How can one side seem valid when a large majority of the post contain scientific errors about definitions?

Click to expand...

Again true. I cannot take seriously anyones science argument when the basic definitions are butchered and introductory physics cast asunder.

Uphill Battle said:

and you claim that those who are proposing TOE are "master carpenters". laughable.

Click to expand...

I am claiming the academic community of biologists, geneticists, microbiologists, virologists (my girlfriend is one of these) are. In fact their training is a little more rigorous than carpentry.

Uphill Battle said:

sorry, what is funny is that "Master Carpenter" is a term often given to God. "master builder," etc.. It struck me as funny. In releation to him, they are babies in Harvard.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have used a different analogy though I have never heard anyone use those terms describing the Lord. As somebody once pointed out, Jesus was probably a poor woodworker since he ministered so much his lathing technique suffered as a result.

artybloke said:

There would be no problem if God just went "abracadabara" and the world was there, shiny and new, 6000 years ago. But the problem is that the earth appears to be from all the available evidence, aprox. 4.5 billion years old. Not only that, but there is evidence of traumatic events in the prehistory of the earth dating back to then: such as the crater left behind 69 million years ago that led to the death of the dinosaurs. It's rather like God creating Adam not only to look thirty but to have an appendix scar and memories of being five years and scraping his knee in the shoolyard. It looks, and feels, like a deception.

Now why would God create a world that looks like and bears all the scars of being 4.5 billion years old, when it's only 6000 years old? Isn't that not the tiniest bit sneaky? Because I don't believe in a sneaky God, I don't believe in creationism.

Click to expand...

It is plain from Scripture that the writer of the Creation story in Genesis intended his writings to be understood as describing real people and real events. Subsequent authors of Scripture understood the writings in this way, as did Christ Himself. If the writings were intended as mere myth then we could justifiably accuse God of deception.

TE theology has its roots in liberal theology. It is hard to pin down at times exactly what liberal theologeons believe. Typically they elevate the word of man on the same level or above above the Word of God. It follows naturally that if most scientists accept that we evolved, then that is what they accept as the truth even if it contradicts what Scripture plainly asserts. The next step is to either twist the intent of Scripture so that it matches the findings of man, or dismiss a straightforward interpretation of the Scripture and claim it was myth, poetry etc etc.

Isn't it amusing to hear TE's then accuse God of deception if the universe we now see is some 6000 years old. Adam was obviously not a baby when created on day 6. He was not conceived naturally, so the normal course of conception was not used or required when he was created. That is okay, God is God and can create natural laws or break them. YEC's believe that God can and did create things in a state of development and maturity that suited His purposes.

This doesn't mean that everything we see that doesn't fit into the evolutionists time scale was created in this way. That is a strawman created by TE's and serves to highlight their own ignorance.For example, the layers seen in rocks could have been created by a supernatural act of God. However YEC's typically believe that these were created through natural processes. TE's assume these natural processes took many millions of years. YEC's say in some cases the layers were formed by natural processes that occured during a world wide flood as described in Genesis and this meant that things occured at a much faster rate than assumed by evolutionists.

Again it is a question of who do you trust. God is the only Person who has the credentials to make absolute statements of fact about how the world was created and He has. This supersedes any of the musings and speculation of scientists. As Scripture says "let God be true and every man a liar".