Why are we so hard on YECs?

[laptoppop]

If I may interject, you seem to be calling out TE's to correct statements by other TE's in a couple of threads. Considering we've been asking Creationists to correct other creationists for a long time, and they never bother, why should we?

I can't count how many times someone on the creationist forum posts some strawman "proof" against evolution, and almost every single creationist cheers in arms at the defeat of the evil evolutionists over something they haven't even bothered to look into. I think busterdog is the only one i've seen actually question some of the nonsense posted by other creationists. No one else does.

Then you haven't read all of my posts.

Since you are silent, I assume you agree with Hithesh?

 

[hithesh]

If I may interject, you seem to calling out TE's to correct statements by other TE's in a couple of threads. Considering we've been asking Creationists to correct other creationists for a long time, and they never bother, why should we?

Well, I don't like to be coddled either, so if I am wrong, feel free to say so, if my logic is flawed go ahead and point it out. We shouldn't excuse bad "ideas" amongst each other, even if YECs do so among themselves

 

[Scotishfury09]

Creation-evolution controversy: Kennedy is a Young Earth Creationist who rejects the theory of evolution and believes that it "led to the death of nine million people in Nazi Germany.... The greatest mass murderers of all time [are] all compliments of evolution." [6] , an idea reflected in Coral Ridge's controversial documentary Darwin's Deadly Legacy in 2006.

Link? (edit: I found it. Thanks)

 

[Jase]

Then you haven't read all of my posts.

Since you are silent, I assume you agree with Hithesh?

I don't know if i'd classify myself as strongly as he does, but I agree that the majority of the bad apples tend to be fundamentalist, YEC types. Kent Hovind, Pat Roberston, Jerry Falwell, and dare I say the Phelps family /cringe all come to mind. And before you see this as an insult, take note that I was a fundamentalist YEC for 3 years, doing apologetics on the largest atheist board on the internet. I have 6 pages of stupid remarks on fundies say the darndest things. Ive been there

 

[Xaero]

I noticed that american YECs tend more towards republicans.

Concerning the OP: This is a spiritual battle and sometimes it is necessary to pull no punches, it must be said what is true, and this sometimes hurts ...

 

[Scotishfury09]

Well, seeing how liberalism is associated with Democrats (although not all of the time, Mark) and liberalism can be defined as "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." Yea, I would expect that to be true.

Truth is welcomed and encouraged. At least to me, and I can honestly say I think to almost all YECs also. The problem lies where we see the truth. One party sees something as truth and the other sees the same thing as deception. We are concerned about insults, however. I see "Every supposed minister of God, who preaches false doctrine, who robs their parishioners have always been YECs, or portray themselves as YECs" as an insult.

 

[Jadis40]

I noticed that american YECs tend more towards republicans.

Concerning the OP: This is a spiritual battle and sometimes it is necessary to pull no punches, it must be said what is true, and this sometimes hurts ...

Well, as far as the Republican or Democrat being YEC or TE, I wonder if I'm somewhat of an odd duck. I'm very conservative when it comes to social matters. (If you want my stance on major issues PM me. This isn't the proper forum for political debate.) Yet, as you can tell, I'm fairly moderate on theological issues, and recently changed my viewpoints after 3 years of reading posts on this board and study on my own to the TE position.

 

[hithesh]

hithesh, I daresay you might have a touch of overzealous convert syndrome.

lol.

I should clarify a few things.

When I speak of YECs, I speak of particular category of YECs.

Most YECs I believe are YECs because it's sort of the default position, it's the way they have been taught to believe, and they see no need to explore the concept any further, or to explore the science of such an idea. Because let's face it, there's nothing wrong with believing in 6 day creation. 6 days or millions of years add far too little relevance to the majority of their lives, that few even venture to explore it further.

I'll prove you with an example of what my issue is:

I'm an Economics major, and sometime ago there was a someone on this forum, who had this conspiracy theory circling around, linking Barak Obama, to a conspiracy with some Jewish Bankers, and connected the whole thing to universal healthcare, and welfare support. To make a long story short, he was using really bad economics to connect it all together.

And since, no one on this particular thread had an understanding of Economics, no one challenged him on his assumptions, and he'd continue building his case. People didn't know if they should believe it or deny it.

So, when I saw the thread I addressed the numerous issues with his assumptions, because I understood enough to see the flaws in his logic. After I posted the thread, i received numerous replies from individuals telling me thank you, because they didn't know how to "address this person, and they didn't know what to think of his ideas". Needless to say, the original poster never responded, and the "conspiracy" ended there, but just think if he had a multitude supporters? How much more difficult would it have been to teach the people "sound" economics?

We are all ignorant of certain subjects, like I'm poor in the understanding of Geography, and you could probably dupe me into thinking that China, is the capital of Washington. What I find offensive is when people exploit this ignorance, for their own agendas.

The only way to prevent people from being exploited by those who use bad economics, is to teach them how to understand economics. The only way to prevent people from be exploited by bad science, is to teach them how to understand science.

But what the YECs that I am offended by do, is that in every step taken to teach someone the scientific way of thinking, the YECs find two steps to distort science, so that the covers remains on the eyes.

The best tactics, is to find ways to attach evolution with "Evil", be it nazism, communism, or the columbine shootings,( unaware that unbelievers use the same tactics, in attaching christianity, to Nazism, the Inquistion, witch burnings, slavery, etc....)

Such tactics place believers in a state of "fear", and vulnerability, gullibility, and false assumptions.

If someone wants to prove to me that the world is only 10,000 years old, and that it was created in 6 days, all you have to do is provide me the evidence, that would lead me to this conclusion, I am more than open to it, but if your evidence is that evolution leads to nazism, than I'm going to wag my finger at you.

And even if you use such tactics, with "good" intentions, those who buy into it are placed into a "state", quite welcoming to the wolves.

I don't mean to sound too harsh, and I honestly don't classify the YECs on this forum as "wolves", but I do believe they are unknowingly leading people to them.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Yes, and Thomas had to see the scars didn't he?

 

[Melethiel]

Yes, and Thomas had to see the scars didn't he?

And was shown them.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Did the rest of the disciples need them?

 

[hithesh]

Yes, and Thomas had to see the scars didn't he?

Who are you addressing?

If it's me:

What scars are you referring to, and what are the causes of these scars?

 

[Scotishfury09]

Yes, I'm addressing you. When Jesus had been resurrected Thomas didn't believe it. He had to actually put his finger through the scars from the nails.

You said, "If someone wants to prove to me that the world is only 10,000 years old, and that it was created in 6 days, all you have to do is provide me the evidence, that would lead me to this conclusion, I am more than open to it, but if your evidence is that evolution leads to nazism, than I'm going to wag my finger at you."

 

[gluadys]

That being said, Hithesh -- to imply that all YECs are just intellectual sheep is very insulting. Any TEs gonna stand up against this one?

It would be over the top to say all YECs are just intellectual sheep. But I do have to conclude that this phenomenon is much more prevalent in the YEC/fundamentalist circles than in TE circles, whether conservative or liberal. And the reason is simple. TEs gravitate to theologies that encourage independent, critical judgement, openness to other forms of thinking and interpretation, and trust in the reliability of one's own sense, reasoning and instincts within the limits of fallibility, and a willingness to accept ambiguity as part of life. For that reason, you seldom find a congregation that is, or tries to be, purely liberal. All the so-called "liberal" denominations welcome conservative and even fundamentalist members & clergy, and they all have associations of conservative-minded folk within the larger denomination. In our denominational bookstore, I can find books on all styles of theology--including non-Christian as well as liberal, neo-orthodox, earth-centered, eco-feminist, postmodern AND conservative and evangelical. I can find books on science and faith which encourage acceptance of modern science, AND books on ID and creationism. Heck, we even sold those Left Behind books. And that is about as far from Reformed theology as you can get.

By contrast, there are many churches which require their members to accept YE-creationism, or at least to reject evolution, that require accepting a conservative-fundamentalist statement of faith, that teach that only a literalist interpretation of scripture is acceptable. These same churches strive to keep themselve pure by excluding information from "suspect" sources. How many church librairies in such congregations include books or videos that do not promote creationism and/or ID? How many include theological and devotional works by Marcus Borg or Ched Myers or Joan Chittester? How many include a gay-positive study of what the bible has to say about homosexuality? You know that they don't.

Such churches put a fence around the church and its members, especially their young folk, to be sure that unwelcome ideas are never heard, except in a forum that condemns them. In such an environment, what option does the average church member have except to be an intellectual sheep meekly following the only path the church leaders allow them to see? How can the critical faculties so essential to independent thinking be nutured in such a church?

I am a YEC because I believe it is the best explanation for the physical evidence that we have and because it agrees with the explicit revelation of God -- NOT because some leader told me to believe in it.

So, you may be an exception. It's always a possibility. But you have a long way to go with the evidence--especially the evidence which convinces geologists of the falsification of a global flood. I would strongly suggest that instead of trying to amass evidence in favour of a global flood, you concentrate on the evidence said to disconfirm it. And that is not just a matter of sediment, but of all sorts of things that just don't seem to make sense in even a complex flood scenario. Glenn Morton once posted the example of one underground river bed cutting through a still older river bed. Then there are burrows. So many of them. Or you might go to one of the oldest challenges of the flood thesis and check out Galileo's observations on why the fossils of shellfish in the Italian Alps cannot be explained by Noah's flood.

No matter how much evidence is amassed in favour of a global flood, the disconfirming evidence still says "No flood here" unless and until a better explanation of their existence is found. Science does not work on a balance of evidence, but on using falsification to eliminate inadequate theories.

 

[laptoppop]

Actually, I believe we've talked about all of these previously, and why I don't see any problem with them. In summary - there are pre-flood, flood, and post flood deposits. I'd need to know more about the strata above and below the rivers to talk about it more -- but there are several ways that that could happen. Burrows are easily explained in that many YEC scientists believe that there were floating mats of vegetation -- complete with animals and burrows. There are other explanations for particular deposits, but that's the general one. In terms of shellfish - the Scriptures talk about the mountains raising up as well as the waters covering all the mountains. There were also incredible currents during the flood -- any of which can explain the shellfish.

Any other evidence?

 

[Jase]

Actually, I believe we've talked about all of these previously, and why I don't see any problem with them. In summary - there are pre-flood, flood, and post flood deposits. I'd need to know more about the strata above and below the rivers to talk about it more -- but there are several ways that that could happen. Burrows are easily explained in that many YEC scientists believe that there were floating mats of vegetation -- complete with animals and burrows. There are other explanations for particular deposits, but that's the general one. In terms of shellfish - the Scriptures talk about the mountains raising up as well as the waters covering all the mountains. There were also incredible currents during the flood -- any of which can explain the shellfish.

Any other evidence?

Pop, outta curiosity, what's your opinion on extinction level events? Under the YEC framework, there was 1 major extinction level event in Earth's history. But according to science, there were 5 major ones - 2 of which wiped out almost all land and sea life on Earth. The Earth has also been bombarded by asteroids and meteors countless times, not to mention our very own moon is believed to have formed from a massive object colliding with Earth, ripping off a chunk of it. How do you explain so many Earth destroying catastrophic events, that happened not once, but many times. We only have 1 account of an Ark saving humanity and life on Earth. Where are the Arks for all the other events that wiped out all the life on Earth?

 

[vossler]

(TE)'s are quite independent...we are more supportive of the idea "to each it's own".

Now that's a statement I've always felt was applicable to most TEs, it reaffirms my belief that everything is relative to a TE.

While a YEC way of thinking cannot exist without dependency, and "group thinking", because to distort evidence and get away with it, you need the coddling of a community.

I like being coddled by my wife but I'm not very interested in anyone else doing so.

You also need to depend on leaders such as Falwell, and Bakker to finance and propagate YEC science. (Also if you believe that there can be only "one" understanding of the word of God, then you have to give the power to a "few" to provide that "one" understanding.)

I wasn't aware of that need existing, it's good to know that others are so cognizant of my needs. Thanks!

 

[hithesh]

Yes, I'm addressing you. When Jesus had been resurrected Thomas didn't believe it. He had to actually put his finger through the scars from the nails.

Well, Jesus sure did provide the evidence to Thomas now, didn't he?

You said, "If someone wants to prove to me that the world is only 10,000 years old, and that it was created in 6 days, all you have to do is provide me the evidence, that would lead me to this conclusion, I am more than open to it, but if your evidence is that evolution leads to nazism, than I'm going to wag my finger at you."

Either the physical evidence points to this or the physical evidence doesn't? Which is it?

If you believe the physical evidence does not point to 6 day creation, or a 10,000 year old earth, but you believe in the Genesis account regardless, then we are not in a dispute, my argument is with those who claim it does, and are hesitant in showing us the evidence.

If it does point to it, then why are you unwilling to show me the scars when you are more than capable of doing so?

 

[gluadys]

Actually, I believe we've talked about all of these previously, and why I don't see any problem with them. In summary - there are pre-flood, flood, and post flood deposits. I'd need to know more about the strata above and below the rivers to talk about it more -- but there are several ways that that could happen.

Send an e-mail to Glenn Morton. I am sure he will be glad to provide the relevant details.

Burrows are easily explained in that many YEC scientists believe that there were floating mats of vegetation -- complete with animals and burrows.

As Mallon would say: the devil's in the details. I don't think a one-size fits all answer will suffice. Many of the burrows are made by benthic marine animals. How would they get onto floating vegetation mats in the first place? How would they survive there until the mats sank again? And wouldn't sinking the mats defeat the purpose of saving animals which would otherwise drown?

the Scriptures talk about the mountains raising up as well as the waters covering all the mountains.

Are you sure about that? Or are you reading it into the text because you need to make it fit with your hypothesis?

There were also incredible currents during the flood -- any of which can explain the shellfish.

Well, we would need to see some figures on that.

 

[Jadis40]

Pop, outta curiosity, what's your opinion on extinction level events? Under the YEC framework, there was 1 major extinction level event in Earth's history. But according to science, there were 5 major ones - 2 of which wiped out almost all land and sea life on Earth. The Earth has also been bombarded by asteroids and meteors countless times, not to mention our very own moon is believed to have formed from a massive object colliding with Earth, ripping off a chunk of it. How do you explain so many Earth destroying catastrophic events, that happened not once, but many times. We only have 1 account of an Ark saving humanity and life on Earth. Where are the Arks for all the other events that wiped out all the life on Earth?

The question of the meteor bombardment is a question I've also raised. The moon, venus, mars and mercury along with other solar system bodies, are literally covered with hundreds of meteor impact craters, yet no where in the Bible does it mention this event. For a real scientific discussion of this, I'd refer you to this page on the Late Heavy Bombardment.

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=LHB

Two points in this article really stood out:

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The significance of this conclusion is that the bombardment was so severe that it destroyed older rocks on Earth. Which, Kring says, is the reason why the oldest rocks found are less than 3.9 billion years (Ga) old.
[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Additionally, they argue, impact-generated hydrothermal systems would have been excellent incubators for pre-biotic chemistry and the early evolution of life, consistent with previous work that shows life originated in hot water systems around or slightly before 3.85 Ga ago.
[/FONT]

Also in that article it points out that the earth has 22,000 craters formed during that event or afterwards. For a listing of some of these, I'll refer you to this webpage:


http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/index.html