The number one bugger for creationists: C

[w81minit]

Wow, a small but distinguished list, I see. I do appreciate your frankness, w8!

I find the origin of the universe and the history of the earth fascinating, even if I'm not as astute on the matter as many on this forum. Truth is truth, and when discerning such, I think brother Borg and other evolutionists have a lot of valuable insights. I'm still a creationist at heart, but I'm not going to ignore the other side of the equation just to stay in my comfort zone.

hmmmm....Good info.
I agree that these folks are intelligent and have insight. I think we look at the picture from different angles, but not that they are in cahoots with someone to take over the world.
I listen as much as possible to hear not just what their words mean, but for what there words reveal about where they are coming from. It isn't that I ignore the post, it is my greater task to understand why they view things the way they do. It is the distinction between (us) that they come from a reason/man vantage point, and I come from a faith/God vantage point.
I am not above being wrong. I have been on many occasions. But I understand (as the OT points out in great detail) that men forget where they came from as easily and soon as their belly is full and their beds are warm and safe. I will be stubborn for what I know, that I know, that I know to be truth until Jesus returns, I die, or someone unequivicably proves that I am wrong in my perception.
It is fact that without men such as this - men of conviction and courage to withstand opposition no matter the odds - America would not be what it is today. I take my cue from those men. I truely (respect) God, not man.

 

[aeroz19]

Gosh, don't put me on that list. I don't want to be. I am closed minded, stubborn, and completely immoveable, unless you can prove me wrong.

No offense, but we have, and you didn't get it.

And it must be a thorough proof with gobs of evidence that superceeds pitiful claims that meander through the obvious.

Like I said...

I would never follow a blind scientist so desperate to get published that he grabbed the tail of an Elephant and proclaimed emphatically that he discovered with 99.99% certainty the true nature of an elephant is that it is short and flexible with a wispy portion at one end.

That's nice.

Instead I would trust the creator of said elephant to describe it perfectly. With poetic language or 2 dimensional vantagepoints - it doesn't matter. What matters is the blind scientist is just as much a creation as the Elephant, and in no position to refute the laws the creator established.

Sigh.

Closed Minded Creationists:
W81minit

Anyone see anyone else?

Yes, but there are too many to make a list.

 

[w81minit]

No offense, but we have, and you didn't get it.

Like I said...

That's nice.


Sigh.

Yes, but there are too many to make a list.

Aeroz19,
You haven't proven what I said to be inaccurate in any way. I have never once argued that your understanding of the findings you've posted were inaccurate. Instead I've pointed out (without refutation) that our understanding of our environment is completely predicated on the faulty constructs man has made. Those constructs may yet one day prove demonstrably to be as close to perfect as man can achieve, but it still imperfect nonetheless.
What is the possibility that after another millenia man discovers an understanding of the universe that so radically alters the perception of time and space as we understand it to make it not only conceivable, but a fact to be all places and all times at once?
How does this relate to Evolution? Simple: (assuming man has been around for whatever period E's believe they have) our understanding of the universe in which we live is a mite small. It is a pity we jump to a conclusion about its origin, its diversity, and its accounting so early in the game.
I am not saying there isn't evidence to support evolution, I am saying it doesn't necessarily have to point to what E's believe it points to. Hence it is a Theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Aeroz19,
You haven't proven what I said to be inaccurate in any way. I have never once argued that your understanding of the findings you've posted were inaccurate. Instead I've pointed out (without refutation) that our understanding of our environment is completely predicated on the faulty constructs man has made. Those constructs may yet one day prove demonstrably to be as close to perfect as man can achieve, but it still imperfect nonetheless.

Of course, and this is what science says as well. All scientific theories are held tentatively and could be falsified at any minute. However, if we waited until something was proven beyond ANY doubt then we would know nothing at all. Even you can't be sure, 100%, that your interpretation of the Bible is absolutely accurate.

What is the possibility that after another millenia man discovers an understanding of the universe that so radically alters the perception of time and space as we understand it to make it not only conceivable, but a fact to be all places and all times at once?

Then we would know the truth and the Bible would be put to the test as to it's accuracy as a historical text.

How does this relate to Evolution? Simple: (assuming man has been around for whatever period E's believe they have) our understanding of the universe in which we live is a mite small. It is a pity we jump to a conclusion about its origin, its diversity, and its accounting so early in the game.
I am not saying there isn't evidence to support evolution, I am saying it doesn't necessarily have to point to what E's believe it points to. Hence it is a Theory.

When has anyone said that evolution is anything other than a theory, a theory held tentatively and open to modification or outright falsification? However, until that falsifying evidence comes to light we have to go with what the data tells us now. Man's intepretations of the evidence can be wrong, and that is why it is objectively tested through the scientific method. One person's observations could be wrong which is why science relies on repeatability of a test. We could ultimately be a program run on a galactic computer, but that shouldn't stop us from investigating our reality to the best of our ability and making theories from that investigation.

 

[Dale]

w81minit in post #412:
<< I am closed minded, stubborn, and completely immoveable, unless you can prove me wrong.
. . .
What matters is the blind scientist is just as much a creation as the Elephant, and in no position to refute the laws the creator established.>>
*
So where in the Bible does God command us to be closed minded, stubborn and immovable? Where did God ever say that he likes such people?
"unless you can prove me wrong"--the problem is that there is no evidence that creationists will accept.
You refer to scientists as "blind." The "blind" are the ones who refuse to use the senses that God gave them to look at the evidence.

 

[Dale]

w81minit in post #423:
<< It is a pity we jump to a conclusion about its origin, its diversity, and its accounting so early in the game. >>
Who's jumping to conclusions? Many creationists believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Yet written history alone goes back 6100 years. So where did the 6,000 year figure come from? It isn't in Genesis, or anything else in the Bible. It was added later by unimaginative theologians who had no use for a long past.
*
<< I am not saying there isn't evidence to support evolution, I am saying it doesn't necessarily have to point to what E's believe it points to. Hence it is a Theory. >>
*
The word Theory is often misunderstood. In common usage, a theory is any idea, any notion. In scientific usage, a theory is a response to the evidence. In that sense, it is not clear that Creationism deserves to be called a theory. What physical evidence is Creationism a response to? While cosmologist's views about the universe are a theory, Creationism is only a fixed idea.
*
Are religious doctrines better than theories? The reason that there are dogmas, creeds, doctrines and theologies is that the Bible is not self-explanatory. A religious doctrine, for Bible believing Christians, is a theory about what the Bible says, an understanding about what God is trying to tell us through the Bible. I don't see how a doctrine can claim to be better than a theory.

 

[homewardbound]

hmmmm....Good info.
I agree that these folks are intelligent and have insight. I think we look at the picture from different angles, but not that they are in cahoots with someone to take over the world.
I listen as much as possible to hear not just what their words mean, but for what there words reveal about where they are coming from. It isn't that I ignore the post, it is my greater task to understand why they view things the way they do. It is the distinction between (us) that they come from a reason/man vantage point, and I come from a faith/God vantage point.
I am not above being wrong. I have been on many occasions. But I understand (as the OT points out in great detail) that men forget where they came from as easily and soon as their belly is full and their beds are warm and safe. I will be stubborn for what I know, that I know, that I know to be truth until Jesus returns, I die, or someone unequivicably proves that I am wrong in my perception.
It is fact that without men such as this - men of conviction and courage to withstand opposition no matter the odds - America would not be what it is today. I take my cue from those men. I truely (respect) God, not man.

I applaud the strength of your convictions!

Peace....

 

[USincognito]

Hence it is a Theory.

How many times are you going to need to be told you don't understand the difference between theory meaning "hunch" and a scientific theory and have that difference explained to you before you get it?

 

[StainedClassKing]

What is the greater purpose here?

Areoz, explain to me, when you prove to a weak Christian the the Earth is not 6000 years old...then what? When you prove to them that the Bible can't be trusted then what? When you prove to them that science is the only way to heaven or at least the only way to explain what the Bible apparently leaves to faith, then what?

Remember, it wasn't literal interpretations that came up with evolution...it was the absense of the will to have faith that did that. Siding with people that seek to invalidate the Bible is a risky business, since the Bible does command you not to cause another brother to fall. Tread lightly, God is a righteous God and is not mocked.

Actually, It has been my experience that YEC is much greater stumbling block than 'theistic evolution.' I was brought up on a steady diet of YECism and was taught that was inseperable from Christianity. When doubt was casted on YECism, doubt was also casted upon my faith. The truth is that YECism just cannot stand up to skeptical scrutiney. When it is ingrained into someone's head that YEC is inseperable from Christianity, they will likely, and one point another, be confronted with the actual evidence for evolution, they are left with the choice to either re-examine their faith or retreat into a fantasy world. The third option, that their interpretation of the bible might be in error, is their but they have been already conditioned not to take that option.

If I had been brought up with theistic evolution instead of YECism, I would most likely still be a Christian.

 

[Polycarp1]

Actually, It has been my experience that YEC is much greater stumbling block than 'theistic evolution.' I was brought up on a steady diet of YECism and was taught that was inseperable from Christianity. When doubt was casted on YECism, doubt was also casted upon my faith. The truth is that YECism just cannot stand up to skeptical scrutiney. When it is ingrained into someone's head that YEC is inseperable from Christianity, they will likely, and one point another, be confronted with the actual evidence for evolution, they are left with the choice to either re-examine their faith or retreat into a fantasy world. The third option, that their interpretation of the bible might be in error, is their but they have been already conditioned not to take that option.

If I had been brought up with theistic evolution instead of YECism, I would most likely still be a Christian.

A beautiful point. I was brought up in a family that was TE insofar as we discussed the issue at all. But I want to endorse the point you're making here to folks arguing the YEC viewpoint -- with the idea that making your brother stumble is always a sin.

As for you, Jeremy, may I ask why, now that you've seen TE presented sensibly, you feel that atheism rather than Christianity or at least agnostic seeker status is appropriate for you? I'm not looking to flame but to understand your position.

 

[Cantuar]

I have never once argued that your understanding of the findings you've posted were inaccurate. Instead I've pointed out (without refutation) that our understanding of our environment is completely predicated on the faulty constructs man has made. Those constructs may yet one day prove demonstrably to be as close to perfect as man can achieve, but it still imperfect nonetheless.

And therefore we can, at this stage, just reject the bits of it we don't like (because they conflict with our theology) by saying that they're the result of sinful man's imperfect understanding of a fallen world while keeping the bits we happen to find useful and don't conflict with our theology, even though both are based on the same principles and method, is that what you're saying?

What is the possibility that after another millenia man discovers an understanding of the universe that so radically alters the perception of time and space as we understand it to make it not only conceivable, but a fact to be all places and all times at once?

One way and another, we've had a few raical alterations already. One thing that doesn't tend to happen, however, is that an explanation that was discarded in the past as being incapable of covering all the evidence, is resurrected in light of new evidence. The problem is that the old evidence, which it didn't explain, is still there. Young earth creationism is an explanation that was discarded 200 years ago because it failed to explain many observations of physical geology.

How does this relate to Evolution? Simple: (assuming man has been around for whatever period E's believe they have) our understanding of the universe in which we live is a mite small. It is a pity we jump to a conclusion about its origin, its diversity, and its accounting so early in the game.

That's just an excuse. It's a way to weasel out of something you don't like. Unless you're prepared to apply that reasoning to the scientific method across the board, you're being less than honest.

I am not saying there isn't evidence to support evolution, I am saying it doesn't necessarily have to point to what E's believe it points to. Hence it is a Theory.

All scientific explanations are theories. However, theories exist because there are facts that need explaining. The theory of evolution (variation and selection) explains the fact of evolution (descent with modification). All the hand-waving in the world about why it's OK to ignore evolution only applies to the current explanation, not the fact. Evolution happens. If you don't like the current theory, it would help to have a specific scientific reason. Otherwise the suspicion of and reluctance to accept the theories that conflict with your theology, while being perfectly happy about the ones that don't, starts to look hypocritical.

 

[StainedClassKing]

As for you, Jeremy, may I ask why, now that you've seen TE presented sensibly, you feel that atheism rather than Christianity or at least agnostic seeker status is appropriate for you? I'm not looking to flame but to understand your position.

I'm not taking this as a flame. In light of what I wrote, it's a good question.

I do not think that there is any evidence for the existence of god at all. I believe that the universe we live in has precisely all the qualities we'd expect to find in a universe that was not designed, had no purpose, was not created but just existed for no reason at all; it just was.

Learning that YECism is a lie is not what brought me to this point. The C question is what started me on the YEC question and that started me on the road to deconversion. Once I figured out that YEC was a lie, I started what else I had I been mislead about and so re-examined everything I had been taught. It involved a lot of studying and re-evaluating and eventually I came to the conclusion that nothing that I believed in had any supporting evidence.

BTW, I never actually reached a point where I decided not to believe. YOu can't actually choose to believe something you think is false and you can't actually choose to disbelieve something that you really think is true. If you don't believe me, try believing that the sky is red and grass is purple.

Instead of choosing to reject belief in god, what actually happened is that I just realized I was no longer a Christian and no longer believed it. I couldn't change my mind even though I tried to reconvert. It didn't work.

Had it not been for the c question, doubt might not have ever tooken root in my mind and lead me down this road. I'm actually happier now, but that's probably due as much to age and greater maturity as to lack of belief. Deconverting was still painful and confusing though.

 

[Jet Black]

I applaud the strength of your convictions!

Peace....

however if the strength of his convictions were applied to denial of the Jewish Holocaust, no doubt you would be criticising him for the strength of his convictions.

 

[pthalomarie]

If I had been brought up with theistic evolution instead of YECism, I would most likely still be a Christian.

This struck me as a bit of an odd statement. I don't understand why atheists will, on one hand, argue passionately that YEC's read scripture incorrectly, and yet on the other hand, base their entire judgement of scripture on that same incorrect YEC interpretation.

It's like saying that George W Bush read the evidence for starting the Iraq war incorrectly, and then continuing to argue against the war as if Bush's views were the only option for agreeing with it.

Learning that YECism is a lie is not what brought me to this point. The C question is what started me on the YEC question and that started me on the road to deconversion.

Although I'm a Theistic Evolutionist, one point of evidence in favor of creationists is the recent evidence that the speed of light may not have been constant.

BTW, I never actually reached a point where I decided not to believe. YOu can't actually choose to believe something you think is false and you can't actually choose to disbelieve something that you really think is true. If you don't believe me, try believing that the sky is red and grass is purple.

What about doubt?

People aren't always certain of their beliefs. Plenty of people have moments of doubt, without actually rejecting their beliefs.

As for the sky and grass, what evidence is there that they aren't really red and purple? All we have to go by are our eyes. Theorietically, we can't be sure that our brains process color with complete accuracy.

Instead of choosing to reject belief in god, what actually happened is that I just realized I was no longer a Christian and no longer believed it. I couldn't change my mind even though I tried to reconvert. It didn't work.

The solution to your dilemma is in your earlier post, yet you still seem to approach scripture as though there is only one way to read it.

 

[Remnant]

I could say that the God who is omnipotent does not have to conform to whatever philosophical debate (along with science) and just does as He pleases contrary to what you or I see.

It has always amazed me in forum discussions like this that scientist and creationist alike try to put a temporal anecdote on a physical attribute like physics with such a limited amount of information at their disposal; with scientists arguing that due to our enormous leaps in knowledge we can explain the unexplainable, thus the scientific community (with scorn) tells the creationist how backwards and archaic their beliefs are.

History has shown us that is how it’s always been, with science ever changing its view of the physical because of advances; but creationists have pretty much stuck to their core beliefs and with a few exceptions have used faith as the ‘scientific method’.

Who is correct?

Both are….

But with major problems with those who believe in the faith of science.
Science tries to INTERPRET what it sees: Find the solution through observation and experimentation then using the results to further knowledge for whatever reason that they deem important at the time (for this discussion we will say to further the argument of being ‘progressive’ and showing that Christianity is outmoded).

But there is a bias when searching for knowledge….how can you be searching for truth when you eliminate search parameters? In fact, if you look at progressives closely, they use science as a tool to disprove the existence of a God, and cling to the notion of ‘accidental creation of intelligence’.

Creationists use science to FIND God: tries to INTERPRET His creation. They use the method of observation and experimentation to give glory to Him, instead of themselves. There is no bias…. they KNOW that the ONE who has made things the way they are for the express purpose of showing His wisdom and truth, but looks at all observations and tries with experimentation to put Him into the equation; even when dealing with ‘old verses young’ theories.

Now I know there would be argument on the bias subject because creationists look at evolution as a result, while evolutionists look at it as a means.
But if you look at it philosophically, who subtracts or removes theory from the science?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I could say that the God who is omnipotent wills things (like creation) does not have to conform to whatever philosophical debate (along with science) to do as He pleases.

It has always amazed me in forum discussions like this that scientist and creationist alike try to put a temporal anecdote on a physical attribute like physics with such a limited amount of information at their disposal; with scientists arguing that due to our enormous leaps in knowledge we can explain the unexplainable, thus the scientific community (with scorn) tells the creationist how backwards and archaic their beliefs are.

how much more amazing is it to put temoral anecdotes on metaphysical attributes like God with no amount of information at their disposal.

History has shown us that is how it’s always been, with science ever changing its view of the physical because of advances; but creationists have pretty much stuck to their core beliefs and with a few exceptions have used faith as the ‘scientific method’.

Faith is not a 'scientific method' by any definition. the scientific method is a way of finding answers; faith is a justification for answers already believed to be found.

Who is correct?

Both are….

But with major problems with those who believe in the faith of science.
Science tries to INTERPRET what it sees: Find the solution through observation and experimentation then using the results to further knowledge for whatever reason that they deem important at the time (for this discussion we will say to further the argument of being ‘progressive’ and showing that Christianity is outmoded). There is a bias when searching for knowledge….how can you be searching for truth when you eliminate search parameters? In fact, if you look at progressives closely, they use science as a tool to disprove the existence of a God, and cling to the notion of ‘accidental creation of intelligence’.

Creationists use science to FIND God: tries to INTERPRET His creation. They use the method of observation and experimentation to give glory to Him, instead of themselves. There is no bias…. they KNOW that the ONE who has made things the way they are for the express purpose of showing His wisdom and truth, but looks at all observations and tries with experimentation to put Him into the equation; even when dealing with ‘old verses young’ theories.

1: then there is a bias... as they seek, they already assume that there will find.

There's always the possibility of looking for a god who is not there.

2: If creationists KNOW this already, where does the faith come in?

Now I know there would be argument on the bias subject because creationists look at evolution as a result, while evolutionists look at it as a means.

Actually, many creationists look at evolution as a nonentity, a delusion, and/or a conspiracy.

But if you look at it philosophically, who subtracts or removes theory from the science?

Those who replace experimentation with dogma.

 

[Remnant]

You just proved my point....you are bias with no proof of the existence of God (to YOU anyway), and try to remove scientific method.

Have to leave for a bit...but will go over point by point.

 

[Arikay]

How did he prove your point?


Creationist groups are definatly biased, most have a statement of faith that all members must sign. this statement basically says that they must ignore any evidence that contradicts creationism.

 

[homewardbound]

however if the strength of his convictions were applied to denial of the Jewish Holocaust, no doubt you would be criticising him for the strength of his convictions.

Granted, but we're talking here about belief in creationism vs evolution, not the admission or denial of a specific historical fact.

 

[Arikay]

Well, actually we are talking about the denial of facts and evidence, when we talk about creationism.

Granted, but we're talking here about belief in creationism vs evolution, not the admission or denial of a specific historical fact.