When is it time to abandon a sinking ship? (YEC?)

[hithesh]

I was surprised to find this thread in the creationism forum, that list numerous argument supporting YEC,
that were once widely used that need to be retracted in light of new evidence.

I figured YEC science could be summed up best by Kurt Wise: "no matter how much evidence proves evolution
and disproves creationism, I would still be a creationist." I wonder how many YECs would agree with perhaps
the most credible YE creationist around?

"Evidence? Who needs evidence?"

So why then, this continual pursuit, that continues to yield foul fruit, while evidence continues to be
gained that further supports evolution, and evidence continually mounts to place YEC, as perhaps one
of the most preposterous of pseudosciences?

So when is it that you abandon ship?

When is it that you abandon"evidence" and the pursuit of evidence, and admit that "evidence" is irrelevant?
Why waste you're time erecting museums, that leaves the other audience in laughter, and no one a step closer
to the light. Perhaps it's to profit? Or perhaps it's the insecurity of a house built on quicksand?

Why waste your years dumbing down the intelligence of your children?

The last point, is what I find to be the most important.

Dubious reasoning, and gullibility go hand in hand, if you can trick people into seeing that the world was
created in six days, with the amount of evidence we have at hand today, then you can just about deceive
them into believing and doing anything.

Like sheep, they follow the wolves.

 

[laptoppop]

The fact that YEC investigation is becoming more rigorous and is putting aside false arguments is a strength, not a weakness. There are now several different peer reviewed journals in the field -- again, a measure of growing up. The discussions within the YEC community are becoming more focused and specific - again a good thing. The number of YEC investigators continues to grow. Far from a sinking ship - this ship is getting better all the time. Its still a teeeny little rowboat compared to the evolutionary fleet, but its growing up.

 

[vossler]

So why then, this continual pursuit, that continues to yield foul fruit, while evidence continues to be gained that further supports evolution, and evidence continually mounts to place YEC, as perhaps one of the most preposterous of pseudosciences?

So when is it that you abandon ship?

LOL! Trust me, I'm one YEC who's not about to abandon ship.

The evidence continues to bear nothing but good fruit. That's the nature of God, what is true is good. It's only when false interpretation of good evidence is presented that anything fowl is produced. You may see YEC as pseudoscience and preposterous, I see quite differently.

When is it that you abandon "evidence" and the pursuit of evidence, and admit that "evidence" is irrelevant?

If only evolutionists would truly look at the evidence in light of God's Word and His nature. Evidence is always viewed by the preconceived assumptions one brings to bear on it. Evidence is always relevant.

Why waste you're time erecting museums, that leaves the other audience in laughter, and no one a step closer
to the light. Perhaps it's to profit? Or perhaps it's the insecurity of a house built on quicksand?

If the opponents of God wish to laugh at a museum built to honor and draw attention to His creation and Word that's up to them, I certainly don't see anything insecure about that.

Why waste your years dumbing down the intelligence of your children?

Oh how far from the truth this statement is. As someone who has two teenagers, one about to go to college, I couldn't disagree more. If anything I'm continually educating them as to the truth of creation and who God is and what He has said. Trust me, the last thing I ever think is that I'm wasting time dumbing them down.

Dubious reasoning, and gullibility go hand in hand, if you can trick people into seeing that the world was created in six days, with the amount of evidence we have at hand today, then you can just about deceive them into believing and doing anything.

Interesting perspective, but again I would have to say that when I look at the evidence it clearly leads me to believe God and His Word, not man and his ideas. If you wish to see that as being gullible I'm not surprised.

 

[laptoppop]

Hithesh, where are you coming from? Your profile lists yourself as OEC -- how would you describe your beliefs? Typical old earth creationists are gap theorists, with a gap between gen 1:1 and 1:2 -- but still hold to 6 days, global flood, etc. What do you believe?

 

[gluadys]

The last point, is what I find to be the most important.

Dubious reasoning, and gullibility go hand in hand, if you can trick people into seeing that the world was
created in six days, with the amount of evidence we have at hand today, then you can just about deceive
them into believing and doing anything.

Like sheep, they follow the wolves.

This is what what makes YEC not just silly, but in some respects dangerous. Chris Hedges has written a book called American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. I don't particularly like it as I find it a bit on the hysterical side. Kind of a reverse "conspiracy theory". However, I think he makes some valid points.

He identifies a thread in the Christian Right which he calls "dominionist". Basically, a dominionist is a Fascist in Christian dress. In fact, they may be quite sincere in saying they are Christian. Many Fascist leaders of the past have been devout Christians in their own eyes. Dominionists are those American Christians who believe they are called by God to create a dictatorship of Christian believers in the USA as a base for claiming dominion of the whole world for Christ.

Hedges, no more than myself, is saying that all creationists and/or fundamentalists are dominionists. He sees them as a small, but dangerous minority, even within that group.

What he does point to is the exploitation of some common themes in creationist/fundamentalist perspectives by dominionists to achieve authority as leaders of the Christian Right.

Two themes often promoted by YECs are relevant here: 1) that one cannot trust evidence as a guide to the truth, especially about the past, and 2) that one cannot trust the reliability of sound logic to lead to a sound conclusion.

The problem with this is that it applies not only to science. It also applies to everything else. If you cannot trust your own senses and logic to tell you about the natural world God created, you can't trust them to interpret scripture either. You have to get your interpretation of scripture from an authoritative leader. And you can't trust them to tell you when the pastor's sermon has strayed from the gospel. You have no basis on which to question the direction in which you are being led.

So, if your leader is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing, you have no defence against him or her.

In practice, I expect many creationists are not utterly gullible. But it is unwise to tear down the defences against deception. As Galileo said, God did not give us sense and reason and expect us not to use them.

 

[gluadys]

If only evolutionists would truly look at the evidence in light of God's Word and His nature.

That is exactly what I have done, vossler. And, especially in light of God's nature, I believe the evidence science has uncovered is real, and not an illusion. I believe, in the light of scripture that God did not make a world of deceptive appearance, but a real world and therefore that the world is really as old as it appears and evolution is a fact of life and history going back over 3 billion years.

 

[Parmenio]

Vossler, is your child going to a private Christian college or a secular university? Further, is he/she going to pursue a degree in any of the sciences?

If they actually use a science degree in almost any respect post-graduation, it requires a great feat of cognitive dissonance to maintain the belief that the Earth is only 6k years old. I have seen more than a handful of friends and colleagues completely lose their faith because one silly thing they believed turned out to be falsifiable by modern science. Creationism is damaging to faith and intellectual honesty, and is such a silly concept that it defies belief that middle school alumni could still believe it, not to mention the HS and extreme minority of college graduates that buy into it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Vossler, is your child going to a private Christian college or a secular university? Further, is he/she going to pursue a degree in any of the sciences?

If they actually use a science degree in almost any respect post-graduation, it requires a great feat of cognitive dissonance to maintain the belief that the Earth is only 6k years old. I have seen more than a handful of friends and colleagues completely lose their faith because one silly thing they believed turned out to be falsifiable by modern science. Creationism is damaging to faith and intellectual honesty, and is such a silly concept that it defies belief that middle school alumni could still believe it, not to mention the HS and extreme minority of college graduates that buy into it.

Then why did Jesus believe in it?

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible][bible]Mark 13:19[/bible]

Not to mention Paul:

[bible]Romans 1:20[/bible][bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

...and Peter:

[bible]2 Peter 3:4[/bible]

 

[Mallon]

If only evolutionists would truly look at the evidence in light of God's Word and His nature.

This is ironic coming from a minority group of people characterized by a lack of post-secondary education, let alone formal education in the natural sciences. No offense intended, but are you really in a position to tell a majority of degree-holding scientists -- many of whom are Christians themselves -- that they don't understand the evidence?

 

[vossler]

This is ironic coming from a minority group of people characterized by a lack of post-secondary education, let alone formal education in the natural sciences. No offense intended, but are you really in a position to tell a majority of degree-holding scientists -- many of whom are Christians themselves -- that they don't understand the evidence?

You might find this hard to believe but...yes! BTW, no offense taken, nor given.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is ironic coming from a minority group of people characterized by a lack of post-secondary education, let alone formal education in the natural sciences. No offense intended, but are you really in a position to tell a majority of degree-holding scientists -- many of whom are Christians themselves -- that they don't understand the evidence?

I'm dying to answer this --- but I'll keep my mouth shut.

 

[vossler]

Vossler, is your child going to a private Christian college or a secular university? Further, is he/she going to pursue a degree in any of the sciences?

Yes my daughter will be going to a private secular college in the northeast. No she will not be pursuing a degree in science.

If they actually use a science degree in almost any respect post-graduation, it requires a great feat of cognitive dissonance to maintain the belief that the Earth is only 6k years old. I have seen more than a handful of friends and colleagues completely lose their faith because one silly thing they believed turned out to be falsifiable by modern science. Creationism is damaging to faith and intellectual honesty, and is such a silly concept that it defies belief that middle school alumni could still believe it, not to mention the HS and extreme minority of college graduates that buy into it.

You know I keep hearing this, primarily here at CF, but I've yet to see it play out in any real sense where I live. For example, I've spoken with two biology teachers and neither in any way shape or form are firm believers in evolution. I find it interesting that those who are supposed to know better aren't even convinced, don't you?

 

[Mallon]

I'm dying to answer this --- but I'll keep my mouth shut.

I welcome your answer. Do YOU have a degree in the natural sciences? Are YOU in a better position to challenge the nested, synapomorphy-supported clades derived by trained natural scientists?

 

[hithesh]

LOL! Trust me, I'm one YEC who's not about to abandon ship.

Evidence is always viewed by the preconceived assumptions one brings to bear on it. Evidence is always relevant.

Evidence can speak for itself. I will once again use my "Holocaust" example, the evidence that the holocaust occurred
speaks for itself, if someone were to view the evidence with the preconceived assumption that it did not occur, and
retain this position afterwards, we would clearly see that his reasoning is shot (perhaps borderline delusional).

The preconceived assumption you're referring to is a bias, and it should be noted that I don't deny 6 day creation,
I deny that the evidence points to it. Perhaps God, did choose to create the world in a literal play-by-play of the
Genesis account, and if I were to take this position than I would have to say that the evidence does not matter,
and I will believe in 6 day creation anyway.

There are other places, where I know the evidence leads to improbability, such as the resurrection of our Lord and Savior,
and even though the occurrence is quite improbable, I undoubtedly agree that it occurred, but you would be hard pressed
to find me presenting evidence, to prove that the resurrection is scientifically possible. I admit that I believe in improbability,
but trying to pass off the improbable as probable, is an attempt to deceive one's self, and to lead others into darkness.

If evidence is irrelevant to your belief, then don't come here, and deceive us by making it seem like it is relevant.
I respect the YECs, such as Kurt Wise who can admit to this, but I find something terribly wrong, and quite harmful in
those who try to pass off snakes as stones.

I have no bias in favor of evolution over six day creationism; if anything I am more inclined to favor the latter than the former,
but the evidence my friend speaks for itself, I do not need to give it my voice.

In this forum, I have seen numerous attempts to uncover the science of YEC, and all I have found are men, who hide under the covers.

I look at the evidence it clearly leads me to believe God and His Word, not man and his ideas. If you wish to see that as being gullible I'm not surprised.

It's strange what we consider to be the "ideas of man", when long before science discredited the creation account you have Augustine and Philo of Alexanderia, as well as numerous other Christians and Jews who saw the Genesis account as allegorical.

There are perhaps even parts of the bible that you view as figurative, and that I believe to be literal,
such as the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps another believes that Jesus will return with a medal sword protruding out of his mouth,
while you may believe this sword reference to Christ in Revelation is allegorical.

What one believes is allegorical, and what is literal is nothing, what one finds relevant is everything.

Most YECs that I meet, have little or no understandings of science at all, and they don't pretend to,
either because they have no interest in understanding science, or because they have little care in Genesis being literal or figurative.
Perhaps their position is one of ignorance, but it's not one of deception.

A deceiver is one who contorts reality, perhaps he does so without knowing he's doing so--innocent wolves we may call them.
The blind leading the blind. Where they end up, is what worries me: in the den of harlots, and thieves, of warmongers, and vipers.

 

[AV1611VET]

I welcome your answer. Do YOU have a degree in the natural sciences? Are YOU in a better position to challenge the nested, synapomorphy-supported clades derived by trained natural scientists?

You don't know me very well, Mallon --- I'll cut you some slack.

I eat "scientists" for lunch.

 

[vossler]

If evidence is irrelevant to your belief, then don't come here, and deceive us by making it seem like it is relevant.

I said the complete opposite.

I respect the YECs, such as Kurt Wise who can admit to this, but I find something terribly wrong, and quite harmful in those who try to pass off snakes as stones.

So tell us who is passing off a snake as a stone?

It's strange what we consider to be the "ideas of man", when long before science discredited the creation account you have Augustine and Philo of Alexanderia, as well as numerous other Christians and Jews who saw the Genesis account as allegorical.

Are you saying their ideas were not the thoughts of men?

Most YECs that I meet, have little or no understandings of science at all, and they don't pretend to, either because they have no interest in understanding science, or because they have little care in Genesis being literal or figurative.
Perhaps their position is one of ignorance, but it's not one of deception.

I don't argue science because I'm not trained or educated sufficiently in it to do so. However I am able to discern when something is being presented as fact when there is little or no evidence to support it.

 

[Mallon]

You don't know me very well, Mallon --- I'll cut you some slack.

I eat "scientists" for lunch.

Do they know it?

 

[hithesh]

Then why did Jesus believe in it?

lol, if you're a Theistic Evolutionist, by definition you believe "God created."

So, I am confused at what you are getting at with these verses?

You don't know me very well, Mallon --- I'll cut you some slack.

I eat "scientists" for lunch.

Well I hope they taste good, Mr. Lecter.

 

[Jase]

Do they know it?

Perhaps I can enlighten you on AV, since I've had numerous encounters with him in the Crevo debate forum. AV is about as fundamentalist as you get when it comes to the Evo debate, although he doesn't call himself a YEC, he made up some other name so it looks like it doesn't fit into that "silly" crowd of normal YECs. He takes the 1611 King James Bible as the only authorative source of scripture, and even claims it's more accurate and trustworthy than the original Hebrew ( I believe he's stated in the past, if the Hebrew disagrees with the KJV, it's wrong).

He uses random Bible verses to support the ridiculous notion that scientific concepts such as electricity and strong forces were well known in the Bible. In fact I believe his signature used to say something about Jesus being the bind that holds nuclear forces together, or something like that.

He even went so far as to suggest at one time, that in order to re-enact the global flood, we should fill a baby swimming pool up with dirt, throw in a bunch of ants, drown the pool with water, and then ask the ants what the end result was. Needless to say this got laughs for weeks to come.

In short, you can't win with AV - evidence means absolutely nothing to him, and he's always right.

BTW, Hi AV - glad you decided to come up to the OT forum

 

[Parmenio]

Are you saying their ideas were not the thoughts of men?

You can't deviate from that. Every thought is a thought of man. Even when you believe your thought originated with God you are still interpreting it in some way, making it "a thought of man".

When you interpret the Bible, you are putting it into your own thoughts and your own mental framework. Whatever views you base on what you've read are still your views and your thoughts. You cannot escape that. So demonizing someone by saying that they are the "thoughts of men" is simple mud slinging and little more. Your 6 day interpretation is a "thought of man".