Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YECism: sect or cult?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 9 of 97 (820559)
09-22-2017 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
09-22-2017 1:29 PM


Re: YEC Beliefs Examined,Part 1
First I will point out that if Faith's objections were truly scientific then starting off with different assumptions would not necessarily matter (and they often do not seem to) - and if they did then explaining them and their relevance - and their justification should be an important part of her arguments - and that is not the case.
So I think we can dismiss that as very likely a rationalisation for the failure of her arguments.
The CARM article is little better. Even aside from their ideas about materialism (which they don't get quite right) it would be more true to say that their philosophical commitments are a problem than those of the scientists. Assuming that materialism is false does nothing to dispel the evidence for evolution. And, of course, there is no rule saying that scientists must restrict themselves to science - and I don't really think they understand the scientists they are criticising.
(And somebody who doesn't understand what a theory is in science really shouldn't be writing a FAQ relating to science)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 09-22-2017 1:29 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 09-22-2017 2:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 97 (820561)
09-22-2017 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
09-22-2017 2:23 PM


Re: YEC Beliefs Examined,Part 1
I think the fundamental point of Materialism was always the refusal to recognise Mind as a separate Substance, leaving minds dependant on physical reality. That doesn't necessarily rule out the supernatural but does impose some limits.
Personally I hold that the supernatural (in general) cannot be adequately tested to the point where it could be science and it is very hard to come up with a case where supernatural causes could be rigorously demonstrated.
I'd add that much of the claimed evidence for the supernatural does not get to the level where I would consider it even to be a reasonable possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 09-22-2017 2:23 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 09-24-2017 10:56 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 97 (820606)
09-24-2017 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
09-24-2017 10:56 AM


Re: Evidence versus Subjective experience
But there is a problem. Subjective experiences in themselves - and even worse, the memories of subjective experiences aren't exactly good evidence, even for those that have them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 09-24-2017 10:56 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 97 (820670)
09-25-2017 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
09-25-2017 5:44 AM


Re: Evidence versus Subjective experience
quote:
And you know what else is odd? Nobody spends much time if any complaining about Buddhism or Hinduism or any other religion on earth but Christianity. Don't you find that odd?
You and people like you spend a lot of time complaining about Islam, for one counter example.
Perhaps you mean that people living in a society where Christianity (in a very broad sense) is the main religion, often raised as Christians, arguing with Christians (in a very broad sense) spend a lot of time criticising Christianity (in a very broad sense). But that isn't odd at all. That is exactly what you should expect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 5:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 97 (820783)
09-27-2017 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coyote
09-27-2017 10:42 AM


Re: Lets Start With Recent History
i would quibble and say that the question is not whether there is contrary evidence, but how well the contrary evidence can be answered. Arbitrarily calling contrary evidence an illusion, for instance is a very bad answer (indeed, without a good justification, such an answer should be rejected out of hand. There is always an answer to any contrary evidence, but there isn't always a good one.
Most YEC answers to the order of the fossil record fail to account for the observed order, as discussed previously. Thus they are not good.
When the contrary evidence is strong and has no good answers and the evidence for the "alternative interpretation" is weak - and even the theological arguments for YEC are not good - then the "alternative interpretation" mat be possible but it certainly isn't reasonable. Which is why only those who insist on Young Earth dogma believe it. It is not a rationally defensible view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2017 10:42 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 30 of 97 (820828)
09-28-2017 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
09-28-2017 3:13 AM


Re: Lets Start With Recent History
quote:
As I perused Ken Hams site, I saw several proofs that showed me how biblical creationism is an all or nothing belief. I even saw some of the same thinking in my own personal belief. I have always believed that Jesus Christ actually existed eternally, exists today (is alive) and shall eternally exist.
Maybe it would be better to discuss the theology than the science ? I'm sure that even talking about "Biblical Creationism" - let alone Christianity - Old Earth Creationists would disagree with Ham's "proofs"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 09-28-2017 3:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 09-28-2017 5:02 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 33 of 97 (820833)
09-28-2017 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Phat
09-28-2017 5:02 AM


Re: Science or Theology
It might be easier to come to an answer which can be strongly supported by the empirical evidence - but we already know that answer. An old Earth, no global Flood, evolution.
YEC is simply not viable as science.
To a sincere YEC the theology is primary - and if they don't have a solid case there, then their whole position becomes far less tenable. We can keep it to a (broad) Christian context - I don't see any point in arguing about the Incarnation for the purpose of the topic. The position of YEC within Christianity is far more important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 09-28-2017 5:02 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 35 of 97 (820852)
09-28-2017 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
09-28-2017 7:37 AM


Re: Science or Theology
quote:
There is nothing religious about YEC, it's all based on the parts of the Bible that are historical,
If we're very generous that might start with Judges, but even that includes legends.
But in fact, YEC is mostly based in parts of the Bible that are myth, not history. Indeed, even the "creation" of "creationism" refers to a miraculous creation.
Taking myth literally seems to be pretty religious to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 7:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 9:07 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 97 (820861)
09-28-2017 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
09-28-2017 9:07 AM


Re: Science or Theology
quote:
Of course the creation of the universe was a miraculous event but what was created follows natural laws.
You're forgetting about the creation of the various "kinds" of life.
quote:
None of it's myth anyway, it's all factually true history.
And the basis of that claim is ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 9:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 42 of 97 (820867)
09-28-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
09-28-2017 9:32 AM


Re: redefinition of cult for this thread
quote:
YEC is based on the parts of the Bible that are factually historical even though there are lots of unbelievers who refuse to accept that fact. We know it's factual, we know the Flood actually occurred in history, and that's because we know God inspired the Bible.
In other words your belief in the historicity of those sections is just a religious belief (and one founded in dubious theology)
You really ought to learn to think things through instead of these knee jerk objections.
quote:
Unbelievers can carry on all they like, we know it's the truth and it's the basis for the scientific thinking of YEC
Or to be more accurate the falsehood of those myths - when taken literally - is the reason for the anti-scientific thinking of YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 9:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 53 of 97 (820936)
09-29-2017 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
09-29-2017 6:56 AM


Re: Science or Theology
quote:
No of course not. The argument I'm calling deceitful is a deceitful argument
Perhaps for the record you could quote the actual argument and give a link to the post. Then we can see what you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:56 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 7:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 56 of 97 (820939)
09-29-2017 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
09-29-2017 7:25 AM


Re: Science or Theology
Certainly I do not try to deceive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 7:25 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 7:39 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 57 of 97 (820940)
09-29-2017 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Phat
09-29-2017 5:58 AM


Re: Science or Theology
I think that this point is telling:
quote:
I found that other quote snippets taken from ICR own website sound suspiciously similar to Faiths arguments.
ICR writes:
The evidence of the reality of these great events, the Creation and the Deluge, is so powerful and clear that it is only "willing ignorance" which is blind to it, according to Scripture!

If the evidence really is powerful and clear you don't need Scripture to tell you that it is - you could just point to the evidence. However the evidence is not "powerful and clear" - science would never have rejected a recent creation and global Flood if that were the case.
So, according to the ICR scripture is making a claim that is clearly false. How do they handle that when they cannot admit to that falsehood ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 5:58 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 60 of 97 (820944)
09-29-2017 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Phat
09-29-2017 7:39 AM


Re: Science or Theology
quote:
Perhaps you were a bit hasty at suggesting she could be a deceiver, even though she implied that no sane mind could fail to see the obvious and by indirect implication, anyone who failed to see the arguments was either deceived or a deceiver.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, however Faith often acts like a deceiver.
quote:
  • Is there more than one point of view regarding the interpretation of evidence?
  • Do you have a preconceived bias that all YEC spokesman are dishonest? If so, are they willfully ignorant? (Can anything be meaningfully discussed between both sides?
  • Should we expect both sides to respond to the questions from the other side?
  • For the first I have already said this Message 24
    For the second I don't assume that anyone is going to be dishonest, but experience tells me to never trust creationist claims. I've been bitten more than once, for instance by trusting Faith to accurately represent her sources.
    For the third, this is a debate site. People who repeatedly run from addressing important points - and who claim victory despite that - are not debating in good faith.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 7:39 AM Phat has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 64 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 12:08 PM PaulK has replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 67 of 97 (820958)
    09-29-2017 12:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 64 by Phat
    09-29-2017 12:08 PM


    Re: Creation Ministries International
    Creation Ministries International is the former Australian branch of Answers in Genesis and you might want to look at the split and what occurred then if you want to consider the question of Ken Ham's integrity.
    That aside, there is a huge leap from the existence of references to the literal truth of the text referred to. Matthew finds meanings in OT passages which simply aren't there in the original text, read in context. Paul's view of the Fall does not agree with a literal reading of the story in Genesis. In the first instance the literal truth is unimportant, in the second it is contrary to the point.
    The inerrantists, in insisting that a (mostly) literal reading of the Bible should be taken as being infallibly true are not - in my view - being truly Biblical.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 64 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 12:08 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024