ad-hoc hyper-evolution arguments regarding "the fall"

Really ,understanidng isn't important to them. Creationists are frequently inconsistent, they rarely consider the implications of their statements, they often jump on the first idea they can come up with without critically examining it. And then they'll stubbornly defend all sorts of ideas rather than admit that they could be wrong. They almost never bother to read up on science from scientific sources.Most of them have problems in READING because they're more interested in forcing the text to fit in with what they want than in what the author is trying to communicate. And that includes the Bible. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

All true except the first sentence. They wouldn't be bothering to post here if they had no interest in understanding.

The phrase "whistling in the dark" comes to mind.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Does trying to understand include the possibility that your conclusions might change?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You have a point. And "de Nile" is not just a river in Egypt.
But I would still give the benefit of the doubt. It seems like a lot of trouble and the inevitable rebuttals are hardly going to instil confidence in a false sense of security. One could also ask the question, "Why are WE here?" I have thought about that and I think it is mostly for entertainment but who knows? Maybe I am a closet YECer and just haven't admitted it yet. Or maybe I am a Darwinist evangelist and I just can't help myself. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

That is the definition of being a student/scholar, yes. Attitude or behaviorial change. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

If you approach the discussion with the attitude that your conclusion will not change, is that seeking understanding?If it is not seeking understanding, how would you characterize it? Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No but sometimes people may have that attitude consciously but subconsciously they may actually be more flexible. Dogmatic posturing. But even people who are dogmatic sometimes surprise themselves. I did. I was a creationist up to my sophmore year in college. I was determined that my understanding was correct and that no one was going to change it. But some guy (another student) utterly flattened me on the feasibility of the Flood late in my freshman year and that got me thinking about Genesis in a new way. It was a huge relief to give up the notion that the Genesis account did not have to be taken literally. It actually probably saved my faith, contrary to all of the dire warnings of the YECers. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

While someone else my hold that position the person themseleves would not be aware of their sub-concious motivations, would they? I would have framed it differently then that, but that's a possibility. I would have said that instead of seeking understanding their goal was to impart what they know.So attempting a summing up, and to head back towards the topic, would you say that there are people here who conciously or subconciously came to learn, and then there are those who KNOW and their only purpose is to tell others what they know?Taking that back towards the topic, ad-hoc hyper-evolution arguments regarding "the fall", there are people here who have said that the Fall happened.Is it then reasonable, for those who are seeking understanding, to ask questions relating to:

• when the Fall happened
• what exactly changed
• what the evidence of that change is
• why the existing evidence does not support such a scenario

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes these are good questions to ask. I might only add a request for a definition of the Fall. The reason I say this is that I actually believe in the Fall but I believe it to be the adoption of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. But that question should be the subject for another thread as this one is more appropriately about hyperevolution thought by some creationists to be required to verify the Genesis account of the Fall. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

i doubt that. i think you will find that certain attitudes are common among most of our creationist population: they know the truth, which has been told to them personally by god himself, and they consider it their compassionate duty to spread the good news to all. when that fails, they get frustrated, and fight tooth and nail to maintain their truth.it's hard for the less-fundamentalist-inclined folks here to understand, but it's evangelism. not a quest for understanding. that would, afterall, be the difference between religion and science. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

---

Well I think some people (maybe most) motivated by religion are in a quest for understanding. If you modify religion with "evangelical fundamentalist" I would agree. Remember also that the YEC position is mostly an American evangelical phenomenom, most churches, including the Roman Catholics, accept evolution and thus reject the YEC stance. Edited by deerbreh, : edit quote box codesEdited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

well, yes. i am, for one.that's why i included "less-fundamentalist-inclined folks" above. being something of a former fundie myself, i can understand the position. sorry to imply that it was all religion that is at odds with science or understanding in general. it's not. but there are differences between the two that are quite influential in this debate. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

---

While not quite a lion and a lamb, it's close enough, IMO. Cat Nurses SquirrelSorry, this may be off-topic or not applicable to the topic as interpreted and debated to this point. Just thought it was interesting.Edited by AdminAsgara, : Fixed URL - The Queen

This is not a discussion about Creationists. Please keep to the topic.

​

Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.

​

Thank you