Hi Arphy -- welcome back. Things here had become rather too tame in your absence, IMHO.
Thanks for the link to the printed debate. I think it's an ample demonstration of everything that dwise1 laid out in such painstaking detail: we see the YEC propensity to
- misrepresent the assertions of theory, the facts of evidence, and the very nature of scientific inquiry;
- repeat tiresome arguments against an old earth and an older universe, in spite of repeated and detailed refutations that have gone unanswered; and
- most remarkably, declare both a willingness to "adjust their models ... to accommodate new data" and a stubborn insistence that their singular interpretation of scripture must be TRUE (i.e. cannot be false, is unfalsifiable by mandate) while failing to acknowledge (or comprehend) this obvious self-contradiction.
Arphy writes:
As for christians who have lied. Yes, it most certainly happens, but doing so is in conflict with their belief (while it isn't a conflict of beliefs for an atheist, as far as i know, feel free to convince me otherwise)
The Christian notion of belief plays no role in an atheist's decisions for day-to-day behavior. There is a very different notion of "belief" used by atheists, which is really more of a "working hypothesis" based on incomplete information: previous experience, common sense, and a set of reasonable assumptions about how other people behave, will lead a person to choose whether or not to be honest in a given interaction -- "based on what I know/expect/can figure out, it'll be better to (not) lie right now." Actually, I'm inclined to think that this pretty well describes what everybody does, regardless of the theist/atheist divide, and regardless of the particular religion held by a theist.
But there is an important difference, which has to do with personal intention and motivation.
For a scientist (whether theistic or atheistic), the primary intent is "I want to understand how this works / how it came about / how it will be in the future." Some part of the endeavor will always depend on the "atheist notion of belief" -- the working hypothesis -- which will sometimes be wrong but will always be amended when mistakes are noted. In this case there's no incentive for dishonesty. When it's a matter of understanding disease, earthquakes, dangerous weather systems, etc, the consequences make dishonesty entirely self-defeating and pathetically stupid.
For a YEC, the intent is "I want to get other people to have the same faith I have, believe what I believe, and accept my Bible as the ultimate authority or sole basis for establishing truth in all matters." This is a requisite property of the YEC's "Christian notion of belief" -- the dogma -- which can only be wrong in the eyes of an unbeliever. Well, the inescapable result in this case is that all views contradicting this one must be denied, even when that denial is dishonest. The victims of such dishonesty will, in the worst case, opt for a religious schism; the only positive result, in my view, is when they opt for agnosticism.
It is a curious paradox that the YEC advocate, professing to be a Christian who believes that lying is a sin against God, must nonetheless lie in order to profess the YEC belief.
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.