Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2017 2:04 PM
353 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile, Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,855 Year: 25,461/21,208 Month: 1,088/2,338 Week: 209/450 Day: 29/52 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   YECism: sect or cult?
jar
Member
Posts: 29438
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 46 of 95 (820879)
09-28-2017 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phat
09-28-2017 12:16 PM


YEC is not even honest theology.
Phat writes:

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?

Great questions Phat.

In addition, if it were factual or historical why does all of the actual physical evidence show that neither of the two mutually exclusive creation myths found in the Bible stories, and neither of the two mutually exclusive and contradictory flood myth ever happened and that the Earth and Universe are not young but rather very, very old.

YEC is not Christian, not reality, not actually based on any honest reading of the Bible or any external evidence; it is simply a Cult of Willful Ignorance and Dishonesty.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 09-28-2017 12:16 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 47 of 95 (820880)
09-28-2017 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phat
09-28-2017 12:16 PM


Re: Science or Theology
What are the sticking points that prevent mainstream science from accepting creation science?

First, creation "science" is actually 180 degrees away from real science in its methods.

Second, its conclusions (actually beliefs) are not supported by evidence.

Finally, many creationists are anti-science, and some are actively trying to destroy those parts of science which disagree with their beliefs.


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 45 by Phat, posted 09-28-2017 12:16 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 5:58 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9891
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 48 of 95 (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 century…the 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 acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:46 AM Phat has responded
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 7:38 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26448
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 49 of 95 (820931)
09-29-2017 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Phat
09-29-2017 5:58 AM


Re: Science or Theology
I don't follow any creationist ministry.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 5:58 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 6:51 AM Faith has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9891
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 50 of 95 (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 responded

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

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26448
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 51 of 95 (820933)
09-29-2017 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phat
09-29-2017 6:51 AM


Re: Science or Theology
Does a scientist need to be a believer in order to properly be an honest scientist?

No of course not. The argument I'm calling deceitful is a deceitful argument.

Must science and belief be intertwined?

I don't even know what that could possibly mean.

Are there two basic camps? Believers and those who are deceived by the fallible wisdom of this fallen world?

Even believers can be deceived by their own fallen minds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 6:51 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 7:07 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 7:23 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 09-29-2017 7:23 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9891
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 52 of 95 (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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 09-29-2017 12:02 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 53 of 95 (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 yet responded

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

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9891
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 54 of 95 (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 yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9891
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 55 of 95 (820938)
09-29-2017 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
09-29-2017 7:23 AM


Re: Science or Theology
Are you knowingly or unknowingly being deceitful? When discussing science, does the issue of deceit even normally enter anyone's mind or is it all just shop talk?

I hope to get input from both you and Faith regarding your discussion over at "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")

Dont rehash that topic here. I want this topic to address the primary question regarding YEC philosophy and whether it is scientific. Also whether there is deception within the scientific debate and whether there should be deception and bias...is it unavoidable?

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 53 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 7:23 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 7:33 AM Phat has responded
 Message 59 by jar, posted 09-29-2017 7:42 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 56 of 95 (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 responded

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

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 57 of 95 (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 acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9891
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 58 of 95 (820941)
09-29-2017 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
09-29-2017 7:33 AM


Re: Science or Theology
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.

My goal is to try and separate the science from the personal attacks. We do have some disagreement at this forum, however.

So allow me to ask you a few questions:

  • 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?

    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 56 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 7:33 AM PaulK has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 60 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2017 8:14 AM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 61 by Taq, posted 09-29-2017 11:49 AM Phat has responded

      
  • jar
    Member
    Posts: 29438
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 59 of 95 (820942)
    09-29-2017 7:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
    09-29-2017 7:25 AM


    Re: Science or Theology
    Phat writes:

    I want this topic to address the primary question regarding YEC philosophy and whether it is scientific.

    When you begin with a known conclusion it can never be science.


    My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

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

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 13228
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 60 of 95 (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 yet responded

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

        
    Prev123
    4
    567Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017