Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 11:30 AM
295 online now:
Coyote, jar, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (9 members, 286 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,338 Year: 28,944/21,208 Month: 1,010/1,847 Week: 385/475 Day: 48/102 Hour: 5/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   YECism: sect or cult?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5257
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 16 of 95 (820661)
09-25-2017 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
09-25-2017 4:18 AM


Re: Evidence versus Subjective experience
Phat writes:

If my God exists, it would not matter what you do or do not believe.

Yet if Faith's God exists, I'm definately going to hell in a handcart. Same god, same book, different wishful thinking.

But you didn't answer my question........

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 09-25-2017 4:18 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 09-25-2017 5:03 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 09-25-2017 8:32 AM Tangle has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10240
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 17 of 95 (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 yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26734
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 18 of 95 (820663)
09-25-2017 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tangle
09-24-2017 12:00 PM


Re: Evidence versus Subjective experience
Phat writes:
Some of us have experienced a feeling. Subjectively we had strong confirmation.

I'd say that's almost normal - all you need is the right conditioning and have it reinforced by other. (It should be a clincher that no one ever believes in something that the society they live in has never come across, but of course it isn't somehow.)

Yeah but that's really a fantasy of your own. It may be predominantly the case at least for all those who were actively raised in a culture's religion, but there are those in every culture who end up accepting the religion of another culture. People tell me -- I love how some people are willing to tell other people what's REALLY going on in their heads against everything they say about it themselves, never have to face an unwelcome fact that way -- so, people tell me that I'm a Christian because I was raised in a Christian culture, was even sent to church as a child, utterly discounting thirty years of my life as a professed atheist and the fact that when I did become a Christian in the end I started out believing that all religions worship the same God, expected at first to embrace one of the Eastern religions, then Catholicism, then read my way to Protestantism. Just because I ended up a Protestant is all the evidence needed that I simply ended up embracing my childhood religion.

So, how do you explain two friends of mine who were both raised Protestant and ended up serious Buddhists, one a priestess? All those at EvC for that matter who say they were raised Christian and have given it up. Somehow none of that counts for some reason.

Also, Christian missionaries DO succeed in converting people of other cultures to Christ, it's happened all over the world. Their societies "never came across" the gospel of Christ until the first missionaries showed up. Often it took a long time for them to succeed, but eventually some did come to believe and churches were started. The Church in China was begun by Hudson Taylor and there are now millions of Christians in China even under persecution by the Communists. Millions, yes millions. South Korea is known for the biggest church on the planet IIRC. Christians in India are persecuted by both the Hindus and the Muslims and yet the gospel continues to be preached there.

The West is losing its Christian foundations but other parts of the world are embracing the gospel of Christ. Probably evidence that Christianity thrives under persecution and gets watered down and irrelevant where it is taken for granted.

I believed the entire thing in a really committed way until my early teens. Then suddendly I didn't - it all become utterly preposterous.

Under no influence whatever? Just arrived at that opinion on your own? I too gave it up as a teenager under the influence of atheist friends and the idea that religion is something for children, but I did feel a pang of loss. You didn't? Nevertheless I didn't look back, I went on as a "grown up" for the next thirty years.

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. Seems a tad unfair don't you think?

Well, God isn't stopping you from changing your mind you know. It's still your choice in the end.

But isn't it rather odd that someone who claims none of it is true spends so much time complaining about people who think it is true? Shouldn't you just quietly pity us? I mean you put a lot of emotion into your objection. Maybe you have to completely defeat us in order to be as sure as you want to be that none of it is true?

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? Surely they are just as irrational by your lights, and surely they influence the people around them to their irrational beliefs.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tangle, posted 09-25-2017 6:48 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 8:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5257
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 19 of 95 (820667)
09-25-2017 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
09-25-2017 5:44 AM


Re: Evidence versus Subjective experience
Faith writes:

Yeah but that's really a fantasy of your own.

You're denying reality. Again. The child born in a village in the Atlas mountains is a Muslim. The child born in the UK in 1600 was a Christian. No-one EVER spontaneously believed in a religion he'd no knowledge of.

It may be predominantly the case at least for all those who were actively raised in a culture's religion, but there are those in every culture who end up accepting the religion of another culture.

It IS predominantly the case - overwhelmingly. Of course in modern times races and belief systems mix because travel is now easy. Even so, in almost all cases it's an accident of birth that determines your religion.

So, how do you explain two friends of mine who were both raised Protestant and ended up serious Buddhists, one a priestess? All those at EvC for that matter who say they were raised Christian and have given it up. Somehow none of that counts for some reason.

Very easily, in Western society many people are looking for something to believe in and they can now find in almost anywhere. So a small percentage change or lose their born to faith. The fact that a few do this is no surprise.

Also, Christian missionaries DO succeed in converting people of other cultures to Christ, it's happened all over the world.

Of course they do! It's a disgraceful and digusting practice. All it says is that people have belief systems that are pragmatic and flexible. Christians are converting to Islam in the same way. That's not something that could have happened without exposure to them. Spontaneous belief does not exist, it has to be taught and it's best taught from birth.

Under no influence whatever? Just arrived at that opinion on your own?

Yup, just gradually realised that it was garbage. Took about 6 months from memory.

Well, God isn't stopping you from changing your mind you know. It's still your choice in the end.

Crap - he had me and then let me go. Thank god. The question is why? The answer is that it was just a childish delusion that I grew out of. Exactly like Father Christmas. And I do mean exactly; it felt exactly the same.

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? Surely they are just as irrational by your lights, and surely they influence the people around them to their irrational beliefs.

Your kidding??? They're as bonkers as you. If you were a Hindu I'd be saying exactly the same things. The only reason you're not a Hindu is because you were not born into that culture.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13369
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 20 of 95 (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 yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10240
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 21 of 95 (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 acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10240
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 22 of 95 (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 acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2017 10:42 AM Phat has responded
 Message 25 by Stile, posted 09-27-2017 1:58 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


(3)
Message 23 of 95 (820781)
09-27-2017 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phat
09-27-2017 9:32 AM


Re: Lets Start With Recent History
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.

There are of course multiple ways of interpreting evidence, but with competing models or hypotheses, not all are of equal value.

The differences will lie in their ability to organize and explain relevant evidence, without being contradicted by relevant evidence. The more evidence that can be explained successfully by a model or hypothesis, the more useful it will be. If there are many lines of contradictory evidence, it is almost certain that the model or hypothesis is wrong.

This is where the YEC model runs into problems. For both the age of the earth and a global flood during historic times, there is a huge amount of contradictory evidence and virtually no supporting evidence. It is clear that the YEC model is a religious belief which is adhered to strictly for religious reasons.

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.

That is the sign of a failed model or hypothesis.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 09-27-2017 9:32 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2017 12:26 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 09-27-2017 6:31 PM Coyote has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13369
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 24 of 95 (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 acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(6)
Message 25 of 95 (820787)
09-27-2017 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phat
09-27-2017 9:32 AM


Interpreting vs. Wishful thinking
Phat writes:

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.

You know that saying, don't you? "Every good lie contains some truth."

Think of Bob's car in the driveway with his keys sitting on a table.

You could say this is evidence that Bob left his keys at home and is on a walk.
You could say this is evidence that Bob is at home.

Two ways to interpret the evidence, but only 1 or none can be correct. They can't both be right.

The issue is that this is how YECs tend to abuse the word evidence.

A scientist would say that this is evidence that the vehicle's ignition is not started.
A scientist wouldn't use such information as "evidence" that Bob left his keys at home and is on a walk, because this information doesn't point in that direction. You would need more information to make that conclusion.
A scientist wouldn't use such information as "evidence" that Bob is at home, because this information doesn't point in that direction. You would need more information to make that conclusion.

There is a difference between "pointing in the direction of" and "not contradicting."

Once you have more information... say, searching the house and not finding Bob...

You can say that this is evidence that Bob left his keys at home and is on a walk.

But a scientist still wouldn't say such a thing.
A scientist would say that this is evidence that Bob isn't home and he is elsewhere... without his car.

Maybe Bob got picked up by a friend.
Maybe Bob has a dirt bike he also likes to ride.

When a scientist talks about conclusions based on evidence... those conclusions are specific-enough to be derived by the evidence, but also general-enough to not go beyond the reach of the evidence. More speculation can lead to more hypotheses and more testing... which can produce more evidence to make more conclusions.

Moral of the rambling: When someone talks about "multiple ways to interpret evidence" just look for the "conclusions" they're drawing that are not actually supported by the evidence but merely not-contradicted by the evidence. This is where you'll find the wishful thinking as opposed to interpreting the evidence correctly.

Edited by Stile, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 09-27-2017 9:32 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 2:40 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(5)
Message 26 of 95 (820789)
09-27-2017 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Stile
09-27-2017 1:58 PM


Re: Interpreting vs. Wishful thinking
Stile writes:

When a scientist talks about conclusions based on evidence... those conclusions are specific-enough to be derived by the evidence, but also general-enough to not go beyond the reach of the evidence. More speculation can lead to more hypotheses and more testing... which can produce more evidence to make more conclusions.

When scientists talk about conclusions it is couched in the language of hypothesis testing which includes a null hypothesis, the conditions under which the hypothesis is rejected. This is what creationism lacks and why their claims can't be considered an interpretation in the same way science interprets evidence.

Science is the practice of trying to prove yourself wrong. Creationism is the practice of trying to not prove yourself wrong. That is where they part ways.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Stile, posted 09-27-2017 1:58 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10240
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 27 of 95 (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 responded

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

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 28 of 95 (820819)
09-27-2017 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
09-27-2017 6:31 PM


Re: Lets Start With Recent History
Creationists ignore contradictory evidence. They have to, because they have no way of countering that evidence, and that evidence disproves their religious beliefs.

This is where creation "science" comes in--it is designed to fool people into thinking that creationists are doing science when in fact they are doing the exact opposite.

To wit: science seeks evidence and follows it where it leads, organizing and explaining it with hypothesis and theory. Creationists only care about supporting their beliefs and scripture and ignore or misrepresent any evidence to the contrary.

Whitcomb and Morris "... argued that the term science could refer only to "present and reproducible phenomena", not to observations made about past events.

Nice work if you can get it. Again a dishonest attempt by creationists to have it both ways, ignoring the evidence which disproves their beliefs and scripture while pretending to accept science and the scientific method.

Preachers are always complaining that “scientists are playing God,” but all too often, their confusion is the result of preachers playing scientist--The Sensuous Curmudgeon.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 09-27-2017 6:31 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 09-28-2017 3:13 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10240
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 29 of 95 (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 acknowledged this reply

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13369
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 30 of 95 (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 responded

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

    
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017