Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6504 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 12 of 161 (236706)
08-25-2005 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by CK
08-25-2005 6:39 AM


quote:
I'm pretty much convinced of this as well - many of the "converted" never actually seem to have much of a clue about TOE.
many? I can hardly think of any examples of people who were well versed in evolution (or science in general) who converted. On this board the "converted" show no familiarity with the TOE at all. It becomes sadly comical when molecular evolution is discussed. The only instances where I have encountered creationists with any knowledge of evolution have been Peter Borger, Tranquility Base, salty (John Davidson), and Stephen ben Yeshua. However, Borger and Base were creo's who had Ph.D.s in non evolution fields and did not convert as they were creo's to begin. They just happened to be better read than 99.9% of the rest..Michael Behe falls into this category. Though Borger and Base were a lot of fun to debate with relative to the run of the mill science ignorant creo. Salty was just plain insane and attacked everybody creo or evo..it is not clear what his position really is other than everyone is stupid except for him and Anne Coulter. Stephen ben Yeshua was a well known ecologist who dropped off the face of the planet in the early 70's, until he showed up on this board with such wonderful concepts as using Baysian statistics to give probability scores to any ridiculous thing you could come up with and that farts were evidence for demons...so he may have "converted"..but I am not sure into what. The bottom line, I have yet to see a "converted" person who before said "conversion" had any clue about science in the first place. They may exist, but it is exceedingly rare...probably because most evolutionary biologists hold religious beliefs so converting would mean becoming a biblical literlist rather than finding religion..it would also require turning ones back on evidence, logic, and reason...but that is another issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 08-25-2005 6:39 AM CK 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