Why YEC can seem plausible

[MrsFoundit]

That's the power of brainwashing. Show me one who becomes convinced after already being a chess champion.

Do you figure Jonathan Sarfati was brainwashed during his active years in FIDE chess and whilst acquiring a Ph.D. in chemistry ?

"Although tied with Rey Casse for first place in the Australian Junior Championship of 1981, he was not eligible to share the title as he was a resident of New Zealand at the time.[18]"
Jonathan Sarfati - Wikipedia

"Dr Sarfati has been a Christian since 1984" Dr Jonathan D Sarfati - creation.com

Chess career spans cited date of his conversion, 1976 - 2008 The chess games of Jonathan D Sarfati

"He attended Wellington College in New Zealand, later graduating from Victoria University of Wellington with a B.Sc. (Hons.) in chemistry, and a Ph.D. in the same subject for a thesis entitled "A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules". He co-authored a paper on high-temperature superconductors that was published in Nature in 1987 ("Letters to Nature"),[3] and from 1988 to 1995, had several papers on spectroscopy of condensed matter samples published in other peer-reviewed scientific journals.[4] " (from wikipedia, link above).

 

[MrsFoundit]

This is a story about an atheist that became a YEC:
Creation Conversion: From Atheist to Creationist

But he is a medical doctor, not a chess champion. Okay, perhaps medical doctors are usually regarded as intelligent, and capable of understanding some science. It is just that the request was extremely specific, it was restricted down to "chess champion".

 

[MrsFoundit]

Seems conveniently goalpost shifting to let so called "Christians" defend or dismiss claims they think don't fit with what they think Christianity means

Do you want to debate Christianity without a definition? Or debate anything without definitions or a rule structure? You would need to be elsewhere, CF requires more sense.

 

[muichimotsu]

Do you want to debate Christianity without a definition? Or debate anything without definitions or a rule structure? You would need to be elsewhere, CF requires more sense.

Christianity isn't something I'd debate, I'd discuss in the academic sense of variations that exist within it, as a sociological phenomenon. You have these fringe people that will use Christian scripture to justify something that most Christians that are remotely mainstream would regard as cherry picking, yet those mainstream Christians will still, ironically, find a way to crowbar God into the scientific perspective per God of the gaps when science reaches a point they can't sufficiently explain.

It speaks as much to the bizarre overlap and conflicts that can result between science and religion as much as people can try to make them compatible in some sense

My point is, the rule seems to allow a bit too much ochlocratic management rather than considering Christianity differently in particular forums where the point is apologetics, a dialectical exchange and not rooted in one particular orthodoxy

 

[MrsFoundit]

where the point is apologetics, a dialectical exchange and not rooted in one particular orthodoxy

Layers Of Apologetics - see definition of apologetics.

Or you could read the required Statement of Purpose.

No, I do not believe atheists should be expected to defend Deism or Polytheism either, even if a quirky bunch of people on some web site somewhere say they are "Deistic Atheist Psychics" or "Polytheistic Materialists".

 

[Nihilist Virus]

With respect, in case you have forgotten...

"Only Christian members (see our faith groups list) may answer questions about the Christian faith or defend the Christian faith against arguments and opposing viewpoints from non-Christian members."
MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose

Touché. I withdraw then.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Touché. I withdraw then.

Thank you.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is a story about an atheist that became a YEC:
Creation Conversion: From Atheist to Creationist

Well... I'm extremely skeptical of his claims. He is alleged to have a PhD (in what?) and to have taught various subjects of biology (according to a casual Google search), and yet he doesn't understand what a vestigial organ is (that's where I stopped reading).

Further, I'm a graduate school dropout, so I have over a half-decade of university exposure. I attended a community college, then UCR, then CSUSM. I've absolutely never seen an atheist agenda being pushed. I was an atheist and I argued with everyone because everyone was Christian. But I was not advancing any kind of agenda.

However, you did put the ball through the goalposts so the burden is on me to find counter-facts. I'm not inclined to do so. Thus, you've won.

Also I have to drop out of our current discussion because as an atheist I'm not allowed to comment on what Christians believe.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Do you figure Jonathan Sarfati was brainwashed during his active years in FIDE chess and whilst acquiring a Ph.D. in chemistry ?

"Although tied with Rey Casse for first place in the Australian Junior Championship of 1981, he was not eligible to share the title as he was a resident of New Zealand at the time.[18]"
Jonathan Sarfati - Wikipedia

"Dr Sarfati has been a Christian since 1984" Dr Jonathan D Sarfati - creation.com

Chess career spans cited date of his conversion, 1976 - 2008 The chess games of Jonathan D Sarfati

"He attended Wellington College in New Zealand, later graduating from Victoria University of Wellington with a B.Sc. (Hons.) in chemistry, and a Ph.D. in the same subject for a thesis entitled "A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules". He co-authored a paper on high-temperature superconductors that was published in Nature in 1987 ("Letters to Nature"),[3] and from 1988 to 1995, had several papers on spectroscopy of condensed matter samples published in other peer-reviewed scientific journals.[4] " (from wikipedia, link above).

I'd prefer clarification on that quote from creation.com, but well done - you've found one!

 

[MrsFoundit]

Also I have to drop out of our current discussion because as an atheist I'm not allowed to comment on what Christians believe.

You are allowed to criticise what Christians believe, you are not allowed to defend Christianity. For CF purposes "what Christians believe" is defined here CF Statement of Faith | Christian Forums, and it is not anything anyone anywhere says is Christian.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are allowed to criticise what Christians believe, you are not allowed to defend it. For CF purposes "what Christians believe" is defined here CF Statement of Faith | Christian Forums, and it is not anything anyone anywhere says is Christian.

Yes, that's what I meant. I see I didn't phrase it well.

Also, to my knowledge, I'm allowed to say, "According to your beliefs, x, y, and z." Which is basically what I was doing. I was arguing according to the definition of "begat". But I hardly care about the conversation so I don't mind dropping out of that part.

 

[MrsFoundit]

If God's throne was above the UK (by "above" I don't mean north), I think it is reasonable to say it isn't "above" Australia.... it is below it. People in the UK pointing to the throne would point to the sky. In Australia they would point to the ground (if they were being accurate).

There is no throne in the sky up here.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I think the flat earth seems Biblical but like I've said before I think much of the Bible isn't literally true - it is part of a test.

A test of what? Does the test have a purpose?

 

[JohnClay]

.....he doesn't understand what a vestigial organ is (that's where I stopped reading).

Well at least he thinks he does, based on the arguments he is exposed to....

....I've absolutely never seen an atheist agenda being pushed. I was an atheist and I argued with everyone because everyone was Christian. But I was not advancing any kind of agenda...

Well there's this:
https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/bra...-responsible-for-the-creationist-menace/48081
And this:
Evolution and Creation Science, The Bible Taught It First

 

[JohnClay]

I think the flat earth seems Biblical but like I've said before I think much of the Bible isn't literally true - it is part of a test.

A test of what? Does the test have a purpose?

1 Corinthians has many verses that talk about God's wisdom vs human/worldly wisdom....
BibleGateway - Keyword Search: wisdom

Christian flat earthers would believe that the verses that suggest a flat earth are God's wisdom. Arguments against a flat earth rely on human wisdom rather than Bible verses.

I find it interesting that people in modern times with space travel can disagree about such a seemingly obvious thing (according to worldly wisdom) - it is a test of faith...

I don't think there being so many verses about God's vs worldly wisdom is an accident...

This test is related to people's primary purpose in life... (their relationship with God, etc) and about whether there is actually a huge conspiracy involving NASA, etc. It makes for an interesting plot in their life.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well at least he thinks he does, based on the arguments he is exposed to....

Great. He'd be wrong then.

Well there's this:
https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/bra...-responsible-for-the-creationist-menace/48081

Relevance?

And this:
Evolution and Creation Science, The Bible Taught It First

Again... what is the relevance?

 

[JohnClay]

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/bra...-responsible-for-the-creationist-menace/48081

Relevance?

You wrote "I've absolutely never seen an atheist agenda being pushed"

Evolution and Creation Science, The Bible Taught It First

Again... what is the relevance?

This implies that this situation ("one year later" - an atheist attacking Christianity) has happened, and I know of at least one facebook friend that this happened to.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You wrote "I've absolutely never seen an atheist agenda being pushed"

Right. And your source was irrelevant to that.

This implies that this situation ("one year later" - an atheist attacking Christianity) has happened, and I know of at least one facebook friend that this happened to.

It's a cartoon. But even if we assume it is documenting something that actually happened, it doesn't follow that there is an atheist agenda. This is the age-old "is vs ought." The "is" of this historical document does not imply an "ought."

 

[JohnClay]

Right. And your source was irrelevant to that.

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/bra...-responsible-for-the-creationist-menace/48081
"[The New Atheists] started proselytizing, ridiculing the faithful, and talking as if religion was an inherently pernicious thing"

It's a cartoon. But even if we assume it is documenting something that actually happened, it doesn't follow that there is an atheist agenda.

I'm saying individual atheists who were YECs are trying to fight Christianity. I know a guy on Facebook who does that - ridiculing Christians.

This is the age-old "is vs ought." The "is" of this historical document does not imply an "ought."

Ok

 

[MrsFoundit]

This test is related to people's primary purpose in life... (their relationship with God, etc) and about whether there is actually a huge conspiracy involving NASA, etc. It makes for an interesting plot in their life.

Ok, so, we are in a simulation to test something about our primary purpose, and that is our relationship with God. Where does opinion on origins come in? If unguided evolution, theistic evolution, and (presumably most variations) on Creationism all have intelligent adherents because all were designed to look plausible, are we all passing the test?