Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YECism: sect or cult?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 97 (820552)
09-22-2017 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-23-2017 10:13 AM


YEC Beliefs Examined,Part 1
RAZD writes:
There seems to me to be a fine line between sect and cult, particularly when the beliefs are strongly fundamentalist, insist on having their own facts and interpretations which are at odds with mainstream beliefs and particularly when they are at odds with the reality of the world around us. There certainly are a number of people that can be classified as charismatics (or used car salesmen ... ).
I think that to be fair we need to differentiate between what standard science teaches as opposed to creationist philosophy. For starters, I suggest we don't ridicule and vilify them before hearing their arguments out. I had to do some research and my first premise was that creationist methodology differed from mainstream science. My question was why? My premise was based on my comic which I tried to get Faith to verify or deny---but she refused to comment. All I wanted was confirmation of the truth behind the humor.
So my first question which I asked to form my premise was whether the comic had a grain of truth behind it.
I looked up an apologetics website, CARM and looked at questions about science. Here is a snippet of what was said:
CARM writes:
  • Don't get me wrong. The scientific method works. We have its benefits all around us. But, philosophically, there is a problem. The scientific method presupposes naturalism and/or materialism because it relies on testing and repeatability, things that are necessarily focused only on the material world. Naturalism is the belief that the world can be understood in scientific terms. Materialism is the belief that matter (and energy) is all there is. If these assumptions are held, then by definition God cannot be known and must be excused from the realm of knowledge thus established by the scientific method. If scientists and believers in the sufficiency of the scientific method kept their questions of theology out of the picture, then that would be fine. But they don’t. They promote evolution as the truth of how man got here and often state that belief in God is irrational — because it can’t be tested by the scientific method (...)If the scientific method were restricted to materialistic phenomena, and if it did not comment on God’s existence, then that would not be a problem (except for it philosophical inconsistencies). But increasingly, scientists (Dawkins, Coyne, et. al.) are making proclamations about realms not covered in science. They have adopted the philosophical view that science is the only true means of learning, and that if it can't be tested in a lab, it doesn't exist. This is an unfounded idea with its own pitfalls. Think about it. How does science test and quantify morality, love, mercy, justice, compassion, or the transcendent God who exists outside of the universe, etc., all of which are realities that do not reside in the realm of matter and motion?
  • I also hypothesized that one reason that Faith does not answer many questions was that she had a different set of assumptions about how the world works and worked than science does.
    Faith writes:
    I start from a different set of assumptions than the others here do, and I think it all through from that different set of assumptions. I also do pray about it. Nobody else here has a reason to consider it from my different set of assumptions so they often don't even try to think about it from my point of view, they just keep throwing out the arguments based on their very different set of assumptions. I'm doing what the creationists all do but I do it independently of most of their arguments, think it through on my own.
    We respect Faith as we would any member but we are going to have to find answers apart from her since she won't get involved in a religious discussion while attempting to verify her science or belief (in Gods way of doing science)
    My next creationist to study is Ken Ham. (no snickering in the balcony, please)

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2017 10:13 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2017 1:55 PM Phat has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 10 of 97 (820560)
    09-22-2017 2:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
    09-22-2017 1:55 PM


    Re: YEC Beliefs Examined,Part 1
    PaulK writes:
    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.
    CARM expounds upon their definition of materialism:
    CARM,on Materialism writes:
    Materialism is the position that only material things exist and that all other things can be explained in terms of matter and the physical properties of matter. It would deny the existence of anything immaterial, such as the mind. Contrast with physicalism.
    There is no real difference between materialism and physicalism since both posit that the universe is all that there is and that everything in it (gravity, light, thoughts, beauty, etc.,) are dependent upon the physical realm.
    CARM,on Naturalism writes:
    Naturalism is the position that nature is all there is and there is no supernatural realm. It says that all of human experience can be described and understood through natural laws, science, and human reason. It asserts that biological evolution is true and that there are no supernatural realities.
    Of course, we have discussed this here before, and I believe we concluded that a belief need not be as logical as a theory, and given that the supernatural could never be tested, it could not be legitimately be hypothesized. I had problems with this for a long time for I felt I needed to prove my belief. Now, I simply declare that I believe and, like jar also says, I may be wrong.(Though I believe that I am right--there most definitely is a supernatural.) Another neat fact I dug up was polling on what percentage of people believe what.
    quote:
    In 2005, when the Harris Poll asked people Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not, 38% agreed that humans did develop from early species, but in the same survey, 49% agreed with evolution when asked: Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not? So explicitly mentioning human evolution led to 11% of people switching from pro-evolution to anti-evolution. In a 2009 survey, Harris asked a Gallup-like question, in which only 29% agreed that Human beings evolved from earlier species, but in a separate question from the same poll, 53% said that they believe Charles Darwin’s theory which states that plants, animals and human beings have evolved over time. Placing the issue in a scientific context, with no overt religious context, yields higher support for evolution.
    The National Science Board’s biennial report on Science and Engineering Indicators includes a survey on science literacy which, since the early 1980s, has asked if people agree that Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. About 46% of the American public consistently agree with that option, about the same number who back the middle option in Gallup’s surveys.
    Clearly, people respond to these subtle shifts in how the question is framed, taking a harder stance toward human evolution than to the idea that animals and plants evolve, and stepping away from evolution if it is pitched in opposition to religion. Pollster George Bishop surveyed the diversity of survey responses in 2006 and concluded: All of this goes to show how easily what Americans appear to believe about human origins can be readily manipulated by how the question is asked.
    Anyway, I am about to dig into the beliefs of Ken Ham and AiG. For the record, I never claimed myself to be a YEC, though Ham always said that a belief in a literal Genesis was the foundation of biblical belief. Stay tuned...

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2017 1:55 PM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2017 2:34 PM Phat has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 12 of 97 (820605)
    09-24-2017 10:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
    09-22-2017 2:34 PM


    Evidence versus Subjective experience
    PaulK writes:
    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.
    There is no evidence, in the strict definition of the word. Some of us have experienced a feeling. Subjectively we had strong confirmation. Granted we are biased towards accepting the possibility, whereas someone such as yourself---who has never had such an experience...would be quite logically biased towards evidence as the only standard.
    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2017 2:34 PM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by PaulK, posted 09-24-2017 11:21 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
     Message 14 by Tangle, posted 09-24-2017 12:00 PM Phat has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 15 of 97 (820659)
    09-25-2017 4:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Tangle
    09-24-2017 12:00 PM


    Re: Evidence versus Subjective experience
    Tangle writes:
    I believed the entire thing in a really committed way until my early teens. Then suddendly I didn't - it all become utterly preposterous.
    Now if your god actually does exist why would he do that? One minute I'm saved the next I'm going to hell for all eternity.
    If my God exists, it would not matter what you do or do not believe. Your only commitment should be to your fellow humans. If you ever were saved, you will never lose that.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Tangle, posted 09-24-2017 12:00 PM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Tangle, posted 09-25-2017 4:49 AM Phat has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 17 of 97 (820662)
    09-25-2017 5:03 AM
    Reply to: Message 16 by Tangle
    09-25-2017 4:49 AM


    Re: Evidence versus Subjective experience
    I can only speculate.
    Tangle writes:
    Now if your god actually does exist why would he do that?
    We could probably come up with more than one scenario.
    And I agree with you...it does seem unfair.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 16 by Tangle, posted 09-25-2017 4:49 AM Tangle has not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 21 of 97 (820672)
    09-25-2017 8:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 16 by Tangle
    09-25-2017 4:49 AM


    Re: Evidence versus Subjective experience
    Tangle writes:
    ...Yet if Faith's God exists, I'm definitely going to hell in a handcart. Same god, same book, different wishful thinking.
    This whole idea that we each create God...started by jar....makes sense and yet does not make sense. It irritates me a bit. I suppose I believe that there is only One God regardless of religions, beliefs, and perceptions. I will agree, however, that as jar suggests, there is GOD(The One Who Is) there is God(perceived differently by us as individuals) and I dunno exactly what he means by god(the third definition).
    Getting back to my analysis of YEC Beliefs, I looked up Ken Ham. His life was indicative of your point about people imitating the culture they were raised in.
    Wiki writes:
    Kenneth Alfred Ham (born 20 October 1951) is an Australian Christian fundamentalist and young Earth creationist living in the United States. He is president of Answers in Genesis (AiG), a Creationist apologetics organization that operates the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter.
    Ham advocates Biblical literalism, believing that the Book of Genesis is historical fact and the universe is approximately 6,000 years old.[n 1] Scientific evidence shows the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe about 13.8 billion years old.
    We all remember his debate/discussion with Bill Nye (The Science Guy) which was used by AiG as a propaganda recruiting tool. Given Hams upbringing, however, one would expect him to be as he is.
    Wiki writes:
    His father, Mervyn, was a Christian educator who served as a school principal in several schools throughout Queensland.[5][6] According to Ham, he was inspired by his father, also a young Earth creationist, to interpret the Book of Genesis as "literal history" and first rejected what he termed "molecules-to-man evolution" during high school.[5]
    Ham earned a Bachelor of Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology at Queensland Institute of Technology and a diploma in education from the University of Queensland.[7] While in college, he was influenced by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris's 1961 book The Genesis Flood.
    I have never cared as much about YEC beliefs nor the necessity for a word for word literal Bible, as ham advocates...and of course I never really saw the AiG alternative science as persuasive to me. I did remember that they had a few people who were smarter than average---in my mind. One of them was Dr.Jonathan Sarfati. Still, I never really believed in YEC largely because of reading many of the contrasting arguments here at EvC. (So if you guys misled me, we all may end up in hell! ) Quite frankly, I respect the evidential arguments and scientific methodology that is employed. I stick with the wisdom from my comic. Start with an observation, rather than a conclusion. I will add, however, that I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is alive in my heart and mind, though I often shove Him to the side when I get selfish or greedy.
    Does anyone have any synopsis of the arguments from AiG or Morris? As I learn their arguments, I will offer my perspective.
    Remember---we are going to examine the arguments as they stand and not make character judgments on who is and is not daft!
    Edited by Phat, : changed premise to observation
    Edited by Phat, : corrected for politeness

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 16 by Tangle, posted 09-25-2017 4:49 AM Tangle has seen this message but not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 22 of 97 (820775)
    09-27-2017 9:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
    08-23-2017 10:13 AM


    Lets Start With Recent History
    Ken Ham and AiG are an interesting read. Critics would say that Ham is a hoax...a fraud and a Christian Con-man, but for the sake of this topic, I am going to only report what he teaches, without judging him or his ministry as good, bad, or ugly.
    RAZD writes:
    There seems to me to be a fine line between sect and cult, particularly when the beliefs are strongly fundamentalist, insist on having their own facts and interpretations which are at odds with mainstream beliefs and particularly when they are at odds with the reality of the world around us.(...)My position is that YECism is a cult that uses convenient lies, comfortable misinformation, and selective half truths mixed with fantasy, and it relies on general uneducated ignorance to push a set of beliefs that are at odds with reality (the earth is not young, there was no flood).
    Lets examine the more popular YEC proponants and see if we can make sense of any of it. My intention is to present only what has been publicly said rather than making any judgements on the integrity or lack of integrity of either side.
    Lets review some History .
    Wiki writes:
    In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist, wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great Flood on the shape of the Earth. Although not an accredited geologist, Price's writings, which were based on reading geological texts and documents rather than field or laboratory work,[42] provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology.
    The book attracted a small following...mainly Pastors of Seventh Day Adventism.
    Wiki writes:
    Price's work was subsequently adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year, reviving pre-uniformitarian arguments. Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"
    This idea of the record of the rocks would seem to demand uniform evidence, but one has to look further into the world view and/or philosophy of these YEC proponants to find whether or not they believe that evidence is the same as the rest of mainstream science has adapted.
    Wiki writes:
    In 1954, Bernard Ramm, an evangelical apologist and theologian closely associated with the ASA, published The Christian View of Science and Scripture, which attacked the notion that "biblical inspiration implied that the Bible was a reliable source of scientific data." Ramm ridiculed both flood geology and the gap theory, and one ASA member credited Ramm with providing a way for a majority of Christian biologists to accept evolution.
    As I research this stuff, I find that Henry Morris seemingly persuaded people such as Ken Ham and Evc member and internet blogger Faith.
    One major question that must be answered is whether the idea that there is more than one way to interpret evidence and science is a valid and logical idea.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2017 10:13 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 23 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2017 10:42 AM Phat has replied
     Message 25 by Stile, posted 09-27-2017 1:58 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 27 of 97 (820817)
    09-27-2017 6:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 23 by Coyote
    09-27-2017 10:42 AM


    Re: Lets Start With Recent History
    Coyote writes:
    To support the YEC model requires ignoring or hand-waving away a huge amount of contradictory evidence. Likewise, the YEC model does a very poor job of organizing and explaining real-world evidence.
    In our debates here, Faith is our lone creationist who even attempts to provide an argument. She does ignore requests for clarification unless it is on her terms and in her model. Let's look at the other creationists. What do they say?
    Henry Morris coauthored a book called The Genesis Flood which became a YEC handbook.
    wiki writes:
    Several dozen Christian magazines reviewed the book and generally praised its defense of the scriptural account of the Flood, although few seemed to understand that accepting Whitcomb and Morris meant rejecting the day-age and gap theories. Christianity Today, the most important evangelical magazine of the period published a tepid review that did not address issues raised by the book but instead criticized the authors for using secondary sources and taking arguments out of context.[24] The American Scientific Affiliation featured two hostile reviews, and in 1969, the ASA Journal published a highly critical commentary by J. R. van der Fliert, a Dutch Reformed geologist at the Free University of Amsterdam, who called Whitcomb and Morris "pseudo-scientific" pretenders.
    There does seem to be a pattern of accusation that YEC takes arguments out of context, but how do the YEC respond?
    wiki writes:
    Whitcomb and Morris "attributed the impasse between themselves and their critics to competing cosmologies"[32] and argued that the term science could refer only to "present and reproducible phenomena", not to observations made about past events.
    YEC advocates insist that their science has nothing to do with religion. The impact of The Genesis Flood book is arguably culturally relevant, as it polarized science and religion.
    Historian of Science Michael D. Gordin has called The Genesis Flood "one of postwar America's most culturally significant works about the natural world. It was read by hundreds of thousands, spawned its own research institutes, and remains absolutely rejected by every mainstream biologist and geologist."[34] The Genesis Flood also "became a best-seller in the Fundamentalist world and polarized Evangelical opinion.
    RAZD believes that YEC is a cult. It seems that we would have to almost include all of Biblical word-for-word literalism in this group, however. My conservative Christian friends nearly all believe in a literal word for word Bible. One reason I question it is because of arguments I've studied here. We can discuss this later or in another topic. I have to leave for work now, so I will continue this in the next post.
    Edited by Phat, : clarification

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 23 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2017 10:42 AM Coyote has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2017 8:24 PM Phat has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 29 of 97 (820826)
    09-28-2017 3:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 28 by Coyote
    09-27-2017 8:24 PM


    Re: Lets Start With Recent History
    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.
    My critics would ask me what that even meant which was frustrating...as it was something I never felt needed explaining apart from the obviousness of what I stated. One difference between Faith and myself is that I never thought that a literal word for word Bible was logical nor believable ...unless one wished to totally upend a secular scientific common sense worldview.
    Granted, I saw Jesus and the death, burial, and resurrection as necessary and literal, but I never extended my belief into a literal Genesis...it just seemed too fairy-tale-ish and mind-boggling if it were true. Thanks to Percy, jar, Stile, ringo, Taq, and the rest of you, I was exposed to logic from many people with higher education who had actually done Geology. Thus a further consequence of accepting YEC belief was in denying that you fine people had any wisdom whatsoever.
    I also watched Faith struggle to make a case. She had such certainty yet was unable or unwilling to make a case as to why she was so certain.
    Back to AiG. They have a statement of Faith which overlaps into their approach to science.
    quote:
    Section 1: Priorities
    The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
    The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    Section 2: Basics
    The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
    The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
    The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
    The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
    The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect. *
    The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
    Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.
    jar and Faith used to habitually go at it here at EvC, and to be fair both can be rather irritating at times. jar, however, had better scientific arguments. Here is one sample:
    jar writes:
    We are now over 600 posts in this thread and still without any evidence of The Science in Creationism but with posts by Dawn and Faith proving what they are doing is NOT science and cannot be science.
    Faith writes:
    I've done a LOT of reading in geology and evolutionary theory online already, lots and lots. I have books on both subjects, both creationist, and noncreationist. I've selected the information that contributes to the arguments I want to make and set aside information that isn't relevant to them.
    My choice.
    Sorry Faith but that process would get any scientist fired immediately and is 100% the wrong way to determine truth or reality.
    You have no model that explains the details seen in fossils.
    You have no model that explains the details seen in the aeolian sand dunes.
    You have no model that explains the White Cliffs of Dover.
    There is no science in Creationism or Flood Geology which is why both have been abandoned by all scientists for several hundred years.
    In the layers with dinosaurs, not ONE human ever got killed. In the layers with humans, not ONE dinosaur got killed.
    Until you present the model, method, process, procedure that shows how a flood can do that you got diddly squat.
    And that is the evidence that led ALL of geology to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that neither of the Biblical Flood stories ever happened.
    And in addition, you still have presented no evidence of The Science in Creationism and have admitted several times that what you do is not science and that you will refuse to actually do research unless it is research that agrees with your interpretation of the Bible.
    I can readily understand if Faith is fighting to protect her belief, but I cannot understand such a fight pertaining to matters of science and evidence. This has nothing to do with the personality of either jar or Faith. They both can be a pill at times. It has strictly to do with their ongoing and oft-repeated arguments and the content thereof.
    My conclusion is that creationism lacks the evidence that is needed to convince mainstream science. Whether or not this stuff happened Biblically or not, only time will tell...but I cant in good conscience accept creationist arguments as they now stand. Perhaps someone can give me the best thought out argument.
    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 28 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2017 8:24 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2017 3:29 AM Phat has replied
     Message 31 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2017 3:58 AM Phat has not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 32 of 97 (820830)
    09-28-2017 5:02 AM
    Reply to: Message 30 by PaulK
    09-28-2017 3:29 AM


    Science or Theology
    I think that in this topic we should stick to the replicable evidence. A Global Flood or the absence thereof is easier to prove/disprove than God in human flesh. The latter has no objective evidence. In addition, YEC purports to be scientific...though you have a point that the origins are in fact religious.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 30 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2017 3:29 AM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 33 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2017 5:33 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
     Message 34 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 7:37 AM Phat has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    (3)
    Message 45 of 97 (820878)
    09-28-2017 12:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
    09-28-2017 7:37 AM


    Re: Science or Theology
    Faith writes:
    There is nothing religious about YEC, it's all based on the parts of the Bible that are historical, there is no religion there, just history and the facts described include information about the physical world that can be used in scientific thinking.
    I disagree for two reasons. First, I have yet to see evidence that the Bible has a valid historical account. Do we have evidence for historical validity or is there a disagreement regarding that?
    Also if YEC is not religious, why is there a disagreement concerning the interpretation of evidence? If evidence was so scientifically cut and dried, why does science disagree with creation science?
    Faith writes:
    Of course the creation of the universe was a miraculous event but what was created follows natural laws. None of it's myth anyway, it's all factually true history.
    If it is factually true history, why is there not a consensus? What are the sticking points that prevent mainstream science from accepting creation science?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 34 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 7:37 AM Faith has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 46 by jar, posted 09-28-2017 12:30 PM Phat has not replied
     Message 47 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2017 12:36 PM Phat has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 48 of 97 (820928)
    09-29-2017 5:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 47 by Coyote
    09-28-2017 12:36 PM


    Re: Science or Theology
    One of the hallmarks of creationist thinking seems to me to be asserting what they claim as evidence as "obvious". The implication seems to be that if you have an open mind, are "sane" or "rational" and have no preconceptions as to what you may expect to find you may just finally get it!
    Despite the claim that YEC is not religious yet entirely scientific, it appears that beliefs are woven into the science and that the two cannot be separated.
    The YEC counterargue that secular science also has beliefs.
    ICR Website writes:
    In his final book, Some Call It Science (2006), Dr. Morris revealed the religion behind the so-called science of the evolutionary establishment. He wrote:
    During the past centurythe gospel of new life in Christ has been replaced by the Darwinian "gospel of death," the belief that millions of years of struggle and death has changed pond scum into people and that evolutionary progress will continue inexorably toward heaven on earth.7
    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!
    Compare with:
    Faith,in another thread writes:
    The degree of flatness is clear to any sane person. The strata olf the Stratigraphic Column could not have been formed from motley sediments falling off a mountain onto a plain like the one in the picture, and to say it could just makes you one of the deceivers.
    By the way, Faith...I am not taking sides on this. I am only reporting what I read. Looking at what you say, I see a lot of thinking that mimics what Morris says at ICR.
    Does this support what RAZD claims? One man's cult is, after all, another mans truth. Additionally, I too could be accused of offering simplistic explanations regarding Jesus, God, and the Christian World View that mimic what I have been taught. jar always tells me to not believe what I have been told and to question everything. In this thread, I am questioning YEC beliefs and the origin of them.
    If I shared the belief that the Bible is the foundation that leads to all human wisdom, I would not question anything. My personal belief, however, is that God (not necessarily the Bible) is truth and let every man be a liar. Critics would go even further and claim that human wisdom and the attempts to understand and articulate knowledge, facts, and information are all that we as a species have to work with.
    Thus, my beef is this idea that religion and science are necessarily bound together.
    Critics would say to me that I too am being deceived and that one reason is that I do not take the whole Bible literally and without question and am falling into the trap of listening to the deceiving spirits of this fallen world.
    The question now is this: In a science thread, with a science argument, why would either side seek to deceive?
    Edited by Phat, : clarification

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2017 12:36 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 49 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:46 AM Phat has replied
     Message 57 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 7:38 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 50 of 97 (820932)
    09-29-2017 6:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
    09-29-2017 6:46 AM


    Re: Science or Theology
    Does a scientist need to be a believer in order to properly be an honest scientist?
    Must science and belief be intertwined?
    Are there two basic camps? Believers and those who are deceived by the fallible wisdom of this fallen world?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:46 AM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 51 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:56 AM Phat has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 52 of 97 (820934)
    09-29-2017 7:07 AM
    Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
    09-29-2017 6:56 AM


    Re: Science or Theology
    I am glad that you answered me. As A YEC your input into this thread is important.
    I guess my argument needs to delve into this whole concept of deception.
    From a Faith & Belief perspective, I am well versed in deception. We all lie at times. Everyone. In debates such as the ones here at EvC, terms get thrown around often. Here are some terms that are used here and the online definitions
    of them, which may be worth a comment or two from our loyal peanut gallery.
    Websters writes:
    Definition of deception
    1 a :the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid :the act of deceiving resorting to falsehood and deception used deception to leak the classified information
    b :the fact or condition of being deceived the deception of his audience
    2 :something that deceives :trick fooled by a scam artist's clever deception
    Does anyone have anything to add? My ongoing question is why is deception employed by humans, and what are the motives behind the deception?
    Rational Wiki writes:
    Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one's inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias.
    Willful ignorance differs from ordinary ignorance when someone is simply unaware of something in that willfully ignorant people are fully aware of facts, resources and sources, but refuse to acknowledge them.
    In my research on this thread, I have noticed that both ICR and EvC claim that the opposing view employs willful ignorance. Again, if true, the question is why?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    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 62 by ringo, posted 09-29-2017 12:02 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 54 of 97 (820937)
    09-29-2017 7:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
    09-29-2017 6:56 AM


    Core Questions From Ongoing Debate
    I watched your argument with PaulK over in the other thread. It seems as if PaulK is attempting to patiently address your assertions, even though his motive is to attempt to refute them, given the knowledge he has. Do you believe that he is not grasping at some obvious truth, either willingly or unknowingly?
    PaulK believes that creation science is not science. He charges creation science with deceit. You counter and question his integrity. This debate tactic by all parties is ongoing here at EvC.
    Again, my questions all still stand.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:56 AM Faith has 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