Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?

[Speedwell]

No. But neither do I deny Ken Ham, or anyone else, the right to believe such.

He may not believe the two are distinct. Or he may. Either way his belief system is his. He may well believe he has evidence which supports his belief system as he believes it. In most cases that evidence tends to be subjective, but he still has the right to believe it.

No one is challenging his right to hold that belief. The point at issue is the difference between a person like Ken Ham, who asserts that no evidence will cause him to change it, and a person who is willing to change his beliefs in the face of compelling evidence.

 

[46AND2]

Show me a direct quote where he said "my understanding of god's words can't be wrong".

In a response to the question what would change his mind concerning creation and evolution, he said "nothing." So you have two options, as I see it:

1. He was, by implication and necessity, saying that his beliefs about creation and evolution, and therefore his YEC views, cannot change.

or

2. He was evading the question by giving the answer to the question that wasn't asked: "what would change your mind about the divine authorship of the Bible?"

Based on the statement of faith at Answers in Genesis, of which he is the founder, it is quite reasonable to view his answer as being in line with #1. The statement of faith lays out how the Bible is to be interpreted--in literal fashion--and any evidence against such an interpretation are due to man's (but not his, apparently) failures.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Except he never said "my understanding of god's words can't be wrong".

Except that he did.

By answering the question "what would make you change your mind about your beliefs" with "nothing".

 

[DogmaHunter]

In a response to the question what would change his mind concerning creation and evolution, he said "nothing." So you have two options, as I see it:

1. He was, by implication and necessity, saying that his beliefs about creation and evolution, and therefore his YEC views, cannot change.

or

2. He was evading the question by giving the answer to the question that wasn't asked: "what would change your mind about the divine authorship of the Bible?"

Based on the statement of faith at Answers in Genesis, of which he is the founder, it is quite reasonable to view his answer as being in line with #1. The statement of faith lays out how the Bible is to be interpreted--in literal fashion--and any evidence against such an interpretation are due to man's (but not his) failures.

Expect another round of pure denial.

 

[tas8831]

Exactly. No apparent evidence, no perceived evidence, no claimed evidence can legitimately contradict the word of God.

As the bumper sticker said, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

I find it more than a little disturbing that there are people that actually think this way.

 

[46AND2]

I find it more than a little disturbing that there are people that actually think this way.

It's been used to justify a whole lot of heinous philosophy.

 

[tas8831]

It's been used to justify a whole lot of heinous philosophy.

Sad and frightening, but true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sad and frightening, but true.

The thing is though, they are done in spite of the Bible; not with respect to It.

Academians, on the other hand, like to compare the love-thy-neighbor Bible to the convert-or- die Koran; and I've even seen some academians say the Koran is superior.

 

[TCassidy]

I find it more than a little disturbing that there are people that actually think this way.

I am often disturbed by how people think, but it is their right to think as they choose. It keeps me busy trying to clean up all that muddy thinking.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am often disturbed by how people think, but it is their right to think as they choose.

This is the conventional view and we, arguably, get around any undesirable aspects of protecting this right by noting that they do not necessarily have the right to act on those thoughts, or - in some instances - even to express them publicly.

However, these thoughts inform their decisions and their actions; decisions and actions that impact upon friends, family, the local community and, in some instances, have a global reach. If the thoughts are disturbing it seems likely that at least some of the decisions and actions will be disturbing and have, perhaps, undesirable consequences.

Then, from a purely hypothetical point of view, should such thoughts be tolerated? And, of course, how would be prevent such thoughts without infringing on other rights? Even if that difficulty could be overcome, could agreement ever be reached as to what thoughts were beyond the pale? Nevertheless, it may just be that people do not truly have the right to think as they choose. Maybe that's what is intended by Matthew 5: v.27-28.

 

[AV1611VET]

*

Would a one-world government be an academic task worth pursuing?

 

[Ophiolite]

Would a one-world government be an academic task worth pursuing?

Since no governemment to date has done an exemplary job of governing even quite small portions of the planet it seems unlikely things can be improved by attempting to have "one size fit all".
As an academic exercise, by all means, unless such a thought is one of those thoughts that people really shouldn't be having.

 

[tas8831]

I am often disturbed by how people think, but it is their right to think as they choose. It keeps me busy trying to clean up all that muddy thinking.

It is, sadly, very common among anti-science zealots to see them inflate their own sense of relevant knowledge and to imbue themselves with near mystical powers of reasoning that they do not possess.

 

[TCassidy]

It is, sadly, very common among anti-science zealots to see them inflate their own sense of relevant knowledge and to imbue themselves with near mystical powers of reasoning that they do not possess.

The same can be said for the fringe on both sides. It's called "human nature."

 

[tas8831]

On the contrary. I was once an evolutionist, but the science made me change my views, not a belief

Given your writings on science that I have seen, I would say that it is you inability to understand the science that may have been in play.

Isn't it odd, though, how those claiming science drove them from evolution drove right into biblical creation, and not some form of agnosticism, or Hinduism or something. Such a coincidence.

 

[tas8831]

So, which evidence is considered more reliable? Circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony?

Even if it were mere circumstantial evidence, it would win. Eyewitness testimony (who witnessed creation?) is notoriously unreliable...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-eyewitness-testimony-20180508-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c803175dd4c1

 

[tas8831]

The same can be said for the fringe on both sides. It's called "human nature."

The fringes, sure, but we are talking mainstream creationists.

 

[TCassidy]

The fringes, sure, but we are talking mainstream creationists.

We are? I thought we were talking about Ken Ham.

 

[TCassidy]

Eyewitness testimony (who witnessed creation?) is notoriously unreliable.

That is a "Hollywood" fact. Eye witness testimony is much more convincing than circumstantial evidence.

And, who witnessed creation? Uh, God did. He was there. Verse 2 of Genesis 1 says so.

 

[Speedwell]

We are? I thought we were talking about Ken Ham.

Correct. Mainstream creationists like Ken Ham.