The New Trend

[mhess13]

riiiiiiiiiiite

 

[funyun]

riiiiiiiiiiite

My, what a convincing argument.

 

[Lilandra]

and the ignorance of science to the evidence of God. You conveniently ignore that many of the great scientific achievements were by theists. So having a religious affiliation does not disqualify you as a scientist.

Either you are condescending to Creationists by comparing them to bacteria.
In which case if you are an indication of evos than you guys gotta a major problem with hubris.

or

You are really insecure in your position and don't want to be challenged.


I have seen one thread after another belittling the intelligence of Creationists. You guys really need to let some of the air out of your shirts.

I've noticed a new trend on these boards, one which I hope has not taken flight in the apologetics or Creationism vs. Evolution communities in general, which is that Creationists seem to be learning (gasp!). That's right. It seems that the old PRATT lists have died down (at least temporarily) and have been replaced mainly by ID propaganda (on these forums, led by Wellman-- much, I'm sure, to our collective chagrin).

The Creationists seem to be evolving.

I personally draw quite a parallel between this new Creationist trend and modern bacteria, who have grown to become resistant to antiobiotics, due to our over-infatuation with the latter (Not to get off track, but a phenomenon only possible if evolution is correct). Creationists, using their amazing skills of deductive logic, may have finally realized that the old way of relentless PRATT rambling in an attempt to ware down the enemy, is failing. Thus, they have decided to take another shape, under a different name, employing a different stratagem.

This feeling of mine was brought to a head when in Wellman's Hawking thread Gladiatrix posted a link in which part of the title read "The New Creationism", the subject obviously being Intelligent Design. Aha, I said; I smell a rat. I wouldn't be surprised if this reaches to the highest levels of Creationist organization. I have a feeling pretty soon most of the well-known YEC groups will jump on the bandwagon and adopt their new mantra.

So what's so different about ID anyway? Well, so far, instead of basing all its argumentation on outdated evidence and laughable pseudo-science, ID seems instead to rely on the highly popular Argument From Authority coupled with out-of-context quote-mining (the latter being a technique originally learned and put to good use under IDers' old Creationist guise), whether it be Flew, Hawking, or some "super super smart" Christian evangelist who has "never lost a debate in his life except once, on a semantic technicality". This species is tricky, because though easy to spot, it is convincing enough to sway the minds of, say, 90% of the general population.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong. I hope this is all just in my mind and I'm paranoid and Wellman is an isolated incident. Then again, I have been seeing more and more articles in the newspaper and spots on TV about school boards validating ID, or school boards putting stickers on books saying "evolution is only a theory". Every week, it seems, I hear a new story straight from Alabama about some self-proclaimed scientific expert who only moonlights as a school board member and who "just wants their child to know there's more than one choice". We may see some serious court battles soon in this country.

It's seems to be a growing trend, but I don't know. I'd like feedback to know that I'm not alone, or better yet, that I am. Am I wrong or right? In any case, I wish Hume was still around.

 

[Gracchus]

Jeez, everything I said just flew right over your head didn't it?

Actually, it flew through his head, but there was no interaction at all.

 

[Gracchus]

Which means people like myself and other devout Christians will have to continue to follow behind you and tear down the stumbling blocks to the Cross you have erected, the barriers which prevent the Gospel from being effective. We will have to continue to do the work as Paul did in the face of the judaizers who also created stumbling blocks, even if in our own humble corner. May God bless our work and I pray that as few souls as possible are lost due to the teaching of YEC'ism.

Paul did indeed eliminate some stumbling blocks, inconveniences like dietary restrictions and liturgical complexities, but he replaced them with stumbling blocks composed of faulty reasoning and absurdities.

 

[mjiracek]

To all you evolutionists:

Does it matter? If i could find incontrovertible evidence that God exists and that he made the earth in 6 days would you become a christian? honestly. Im not asking to be rude but would it change your mind? Probably not. The only thing i care about "proving" is that does the Bible say what i think it says. Meaning, when it says "day" it means day. I think it does. Ive looked into it and i believe thats what it means. we can argue about that if you want. But otherwise, nothing i say or show you will change your mind. Right?

Also, does it matter? If we are a bunch of backwards folk who cares? Its our belief let us to them. Dont get so emotional over it if it doesnt really matter.

Oh and FUNYUN, try not to be so arrogant until you graduate high school. No offence intended, but i dont spout off how great i am at history like you do about everything else. This is a board for discussion, not self glorification.

 

[Gracchus]

To all you evolutionists:

Does it matter? If i could find incontrovertible evidence that God exists and that he made the earth in 6 days would you become a christian? honestly.

Well, I might become a Jew. Even given a literal six day creation, Christianity still strikes me as far-fetched nonsense.

Im not asking to be rude but would it change your mind? Probably not. The only thing i care about "proving" is that does the Bible say what i think it says. Meaning, when it says "day" it means day. I think it does. Ive looked into it and i believe thats what it means. we can argue about that if you want. But otherwise, nothing i say or show you will change your mind. Right?

Nothing you are likely to say is likely to sway me, I think. I don't think you have the knowledge, the education, the experience or the intellect to move me a millimeter. Which is not to say I am immovable.

Also, does it matter? If we are a bunch of backwards folk who cares? Its our belief let us to them. Dont get so emotional over it if it doesnt really matter.

It is very likely that the world will little note nor long remember what we say here. But who knows? A properly formulated idea, may like the butterflies wing, have an unpredictable and profound effect on the course of history.

 

[mjiracek]

"Nothing you are likely to say is likely to sway me, I think. I don't think you have the knowledge, the education, the experience or the intellect to move me a millimeter. Which is not to say I am immovable."

Why because im not a scientist? Why do i have to be learned in the WORLD to sway you on my faith. You reject it any ways. IF i had PHD's up the wazoo would that be better? NO becasue im a christian.

I guess the point is that God works on the heart regardless of what science or the worlkd says. He gets the job done no matter what. I cant prove his existence, he's God. Since i cant prove it to you i have no way of being able to convince you by your standards. Its sad but oh well. Im just supposed to witness for God, not prove him.

 

[Lilandra]

and they yelled crucify him. No amount of proof will convince someone whose mind is closed.

Their arrogance proves nothing.

for you:

"Nothing you are likely to say is likely to sway me, I think. I don't think you have the knowledge, the education, the experience or the intellect to move me a millimeter. Which is not to say I am immovable."

Why because im not a scientist? Why do i have to be learned in the WORLD to sway you on my faith. You reject it any ways. IF i had PHD's up the wazoo would that be better? NO becasue im a christian.

I guess the point is that God works on the heart regardless of what science or the worlkd says. He gets the job done no matter what. I cant prove his existence, he's God. Since i cant prove it to you i have no way of being able to convince you by your standards. Its sad but oh well. Im just supposed to witness for God, not prove him.

 

[mjiracek]

I know lily thats my point. I cant "prove anything according to their standards. But i dont have to. Its funny that God has to pass their tests before they allow him to save them. I wish i could say here is the proof you need but i cant. God came once to earth but only a few believed him then even so i cant think of anything more substantial than that but JEsus aint comin a gain for a while

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Also, does it matter? If we are a bunch of backwards folk who cares? Its our belief let us to them. Dont get so emotional over it if it doesnt really matter.

It matters because you backwards folk have voting power which can directly impact science education*. And given that evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern biology and therefore plays a big role in areas like medicine and agriculture, such efforts to thwart science education could very well be slowing down the progress of mankind.

So yeah, it matters.

* Case in point: My own province has slowly removed almost all references to "evolution" simply to avoid controversy. There was an article about it and how a lot of students that go on to study biology don't learn much, if anything about evolution in public school.

 

[Hydra009]

I've noticed a new trend on these boards, one which I hope has not taken flight in the apologetics or Creationism vs. Evolution communities in general, which is that Creationists seem to be learning (gasp!). That's right. It seems that the old PRATT lists have died down (at least temporarily) and have been replaced mainly by ID propaganda (on these forums, led by Wellman-- much, I'm sure, to our collective chagrin).

It's seems to be a growing trend, but I don't know. I'd like feedback to know that I'm not alone, or better yet, that I am. Am I wrong or right? In any case, I wish Hume was still around.

Sorry, but it's true. Creationism has changed, and it seems like a lot of Americans are buying the disguise.

Which means people like myself and other devout Christians will have to continue to follow behind you and tear down the stumbling blocks to the Cross you have erected, the barriers which prevent the Gospel from being effective. We will have to continue to do the work as Paul did in the face of the judaizers who also created stumbling blocks, even if in our own humble corner. May God bless our work and I pray that as few souls as possible are lost due to the teaching of YEC'ism.

Exactly. Christian evolutionists have a lot of work ahead of them. Good luck.

 

[Lilandra]

Miracek may not agree with me but I admire evolutionary theists for trying to bridge the gap.

What about a really intelligent curriculum that doesn't belittle anyone's beliefs that includes evolutionary principles that have been tried and tested?

When people not necessarily you, have a preconceived notion about someone's intelligence than you have already lost the battle on getting someone to change their minds.

What model is better assume most people are dumb and dictate to them using the bully pulpit of the public school system?

or

Explain your position assuming that we are highly evolved primates (joking) and may just be able to figure out the right thing themselves.


I am sorry about your Biology curriculum. What of Evolution is left?

It matters because you backwards folk have voting power which can directly impact science education*. And given that evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern biology and therefore plays a big role in areas like medicine and agriculture, such efforts to thwart science education could very well be slowing down the progress of mankind.

So yeah, it matters.

* Case in point: My own province has slowly removed almost all references to "evolution" simply to avoid controversy. There was an article about it and how a lot of students that go on to study biology don't learn much, if anything about evolution in public school.

 

[mjiracek]

Does it pete? I remember learning in highschool about biology. i didnt need to know evolution to discet the shark.

Also, if you dont want us to have voting power, then democracy is not the government for you.

Genetic engineering, which i suspect is what you mean by medicne and agriculture do not need evolution to be advanced.

"* Case in point: My own province has slowly removed almost all references to "evolution" simply to avoid controversy. There was an article about it and how a lot of students that go on to study biology don't learn much, if anything about evolution in public school."

They can learn about that in college, when school is no longer mandatory. I did fine in highschool science with out learning evolution

 

[michabo]

My own province has slowly removed almost all references to "evolution" simply to avoid controversy.

Serious? Where do you live? I'd believe it of Surrey, or Bountiful, but a whole province? Disturbing.

 

[michabo]

Also, if you dont want us to have voting power, then democracy is not the government for you.

You think that a vote can affect history?

I did fine in highschool science with out learning evolution

You hide it well.

 

[funyun]

and the ignorance of science to the evidence of God.

You are new at this, aren't you?

You conveniently ignore that many of the great scientific achievements were by theists. So having a religious affiliation does not disqualify you as a scientist.

I never claimed such a thing in this thread or any other, and in fact a few posts ago I spoke of some of the greatest scientists of all time-- Newton, Copernicus, and Galileo-- all of whom were theists, and Creationists at that, at a time when Creationism was a scientifically acceptable possibility. It is you who are making the fallcy in assuming that belief in evolution equals atheism. My OP was addressing the issue of Creationism, not Christianity.

Either you are condescending to Creationists by comparing them to bacteria.
In which case if you are an indication of evos than you guys gotta a major problem with hubris.

That's right, I was being condescending, though the scenario is perfectly analogous. It has nothing to do with hubris, and everyhting to do with the truth. If my post was an indication of hubris, it logically follows that yours is as well, since you are chastising me just as I chastised Creationists. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

or

You are really insecure in your position and don't want to be challenged.

If I was, I wouldn't have posted my opinion in a public forum, now would I? The main point of the post, which seems to have been forgotten by you (or, more likely, not registered at all) was not to poke at Creationists, but speak out about my own perception of the changing face of Creationism. I'm more than prepared to defend any and all of my scientific and philosophical beliefs. Of course, keeping in mind who the opposition is, that in and of itself doesn't really say all that much for my debating skills.

I have seen one thread after another belittling the intelligence of Creationists. You guys really need to let some of the air out of your shirts.

Maybe we do, but respect is earned, not given freely, especially in the scientific community. In order to gain clout you need to put up or shut up, and Creationists do neither.

 

[mjiracek]

Well im a history major so science is just waste of time to us bumpkins.

 

[mjiracek]

You think that a vote can affect history?

.

I dont understand the premise of the question. My one vote? yes i do. I think the vote is the best part of a democracy. The person i was replying to was upset that because i believe in something different than he does .He is afraid my vote will out law evolution i guess. I never said that but thats what he thinks.

But if he wants to live in a democracy he needs to accept me and not get mad. If he is the majority then i wouldnt worry atall about me voting him out.

 

[funyun]

Does it matter? If i could find incontrovertible evidence that God exists and that he made the earth in 6 days would you become a christian? honestly. Im not asking to be rude but would it change your mind? Probably not. The only thing i care about "proving" is that does the Bible say what i think it says. Meaning, when it says "day" it means day. I think it does. Ive looked into it and i believe thats what it means. we can argue about that if you want. But otherwise, nothing i say or show you will change your mind. Right?

No, not right. At least, speaking for myself.

Also, does it matter? If we are a bunch of backwards folk who cares? Its our belief let us to them. Dont get so emotional over it if it doesnt really matter.

No, see the problem is people forcing their beliefs and philosophical leanings on the public sector, most notable, education. I don't care what you believe, no matter how much I disagree with it. In fact, I would fight for your right to believe what you want. But religion has no place in the science classroom, and that's all ID is anyway, beneath that thin veil.

Oh and FUNYUN, try not to be so arrogant until you graduate high school. No offence intended, but i dont spout off how great i am at history like you do about everything else. This is a board for discussion, not self glorification.

When did I ever say I was great at history? I never once did. All I said was that it's amazing the things history can teach us when we learn about it. Why are you people are so quick to mis-characterize and judge?

BTW, does it really matter how old I am? To me, this post is quite telling, and I think you are the one shining through as arrogant, not I.

I know lily thats my point. I cant "prove anything according to their standards. But i dont have to. Its funny that God has to pass their tests before they allow him to save them. I wish i could say here is the proof you need but i cant. God came once to earth but only a few believed him then even so i cant think of anything more substantial than that but JEsus aint comin a gain for a while

You're compleetly missing the point of this thread. First of all you are equating Creationism to Christianity, a terrible fallacy, especially considering how many Christians on these forums might take offense at that. You're also acting like I'm condemning Creationism. No, I'm merely arguing against it as some sort of scientific theory. It isn't, and never will be. You're playing the victim card, plain and simple.

"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson