Yec/Not Yec? - A "let's keep it short topic"

randman writes: Thinking YEC is a respectable view in light of the Bible is not the same as being a YECer.

Randman made the above statement in message 61 of the "The state of ID/YECism here at EvC", just before Adminnemooseus closed that topic down.

Let us truly focus on the above quoted statement. Can a non-YEC find YECism to be "a respectable view"? My view is, only if you are looking purely at the Bible, without any input from any outside reality.

Kind of like "Thinking that Hobbits exist is a respectable view in light of the writings of JRR Tolkien is not the same as being a believer in the existance of Hobbits".

Moose

This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-23-2005 04:16 PM

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think Escher answered that question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If that is what Randman means then he is adhering to a view which is anathema to many YECs - that the evidence of the Earth should be taken into account when interpreting the Bible. And he is claiming that that evidence is so strongly against YEC that it is slanderous to call someone a YEC if they are not.r

Care to explain that?

If the OP contained my whole quote, you would see my position is that the Bible is not sufficiently specific to rule out theistic evolution, ID, OEC, or YEC.

I myself am not a YECer although I think some of their arguments have merit. As far as the age of the earth, I do think the earth is presently old, but also believe the age of the earth changes. Think of space-time expanding and contracting, and you get the picture. I don't think causes are strictly linear in time.

This message has been edited by randman, 12-23-2005 04:52 PM

According to you YEC is not a respectable position since you regard it as slander to be called a YEC. Moreover my statement is conditional on the idea that you agree with the view expressed in the OP which holds that YEC is only a respectable view if you do not look at evidence outside the Bible. If you do not hold such a view you need to explain why you regard YECs as so disreputable that it is slander to suggest that you are one.

Thus since it is "Biblically respectable" you must rule it out on some other grounds - and you must consider these grounds sufficiently strong that you are insulted by the very idea that you could beleive it.

And of course the obvious grounds are the empirical evidence of the Earth.o

OK, the ENTIRE message was:

Percy, you are well aware you are misrepresenting me. Thinking YEC is a respectable view in light of the Bible is not the same as being a YECer. Why you inisist on resorting to lies I don't know, but I'll ask again. What is secretive about my position, as stated clearly to you on this thread? What don't you get about it? Personally I think you are just upset because you can find no reasonable weakness in my position whereas your's has holes in it.

I see nothing else relevant there.

You are saying that it is valid for you to make use of any source of information you choose, while ignoring any source of information you choose, to support any statement you make. You have no defined position in the creationism/evolution debate.

Either support the statement quoted in message 1 (and "bolded" above) or withdraw it as not actually representing you perspective. It's as simple as that.

And lay of the "idiocy" and such terminology. It reflects mostly on your attitude, not that of the others.

Moose

According to you YEC is not a respectable position since you regard it as slander to be called a YEC.

Wrong. It is your attempt at slander, as I make clear. I have frequently make known I am not a YECer, but you insisted otherwise, purposefully misrepresenting me as something you deride. That's slander.

I pointed that out but with the disclaimer that from the Bible, YEC is a respectable position to make it clear I do not consider YECers something derogatory, as you do.

What's not to understand about my position?

Thus since it is "Biblically respectable" you must rule it out on some other grounds - and you must consider these grounds sufficiently strong that you are insulted by the very idea that you could beleive it.

No, once again I will explain to you my position, now 3 times in one day (but I don't doubt you will continue to misrepresent me continually because it appears part of your nature, but I'd love to be surprised. Imo, the Bible is not specific enough to rule out on it's own YEC, OEC, ID, or theistic evolution.

As far as insulted, I am not insulted with the idea that someone not knowing me could think I was a YECer. I am a little offended, but not much, that someone that has read my posts and my position would seemingly deliberately lie and misrepresent me, but that's what I have come to expect from evos.

You have no defined position in the creationism/evolution debate.

That's a blatantly false statement on your part. Here is what I posted to percy earlier. Did you not read it?

Uh wrong. I have stated my position previously to you that as far as I am concerned the biblical account is consistent with YEC, ID, and evolution because the biblical account is not specific enough to discount any of these models on it's own, except for the random and atheist conclusions of ToE, but you say evolution can be true without atheism. So assuming that, I don't see the biblical record as inconsistent with any of these basic models. My position is that the scientific data, however, is inconsistent with evolutionary models, and so I think an ID model would best explain the evidence. I am not dogmatic about any one particular model. I think that an answer of we don't know yet is preferable to giving a blatantly false answer. Unlike evos it seems, I don't have a psychological need for an explanation, but prefer to go over the data in detail and see what it does and does not state before drawing any conclusions. I don't see the fossil data as supportive of evolutionary models, and for that reason, I think evo models need to be abandoned or seriously revised. There is no secretive aspect to me here at all. The beliefs above have been repeated over and over by me. You are merely slandering me, and imo, for no good reason.

What part of the position stated above is not clear to you? Or is undefined?

Either support the statement quoted in message 1 (and "bolded" above) or withdraw it as not actually representing you perspective.

What a typically asinine comment from an evo! OK, let's look at the statement.

Thinking YEC is a respectable view in light of the Bible is not the same as being a YECer.

What part of this do you not understand? I stated repeatedly that I believe the Bible is insufficiently specific to rule out YEC, ID, or theistic evolution. What don't you understand about that?

Please answer the question. I'll answer you if you get specific enough.

As far as positions, I think there are a great many positions one can hold in life that are respectable. I think UNC is the greatest basketball program in NCAA history. Some others say Kentucky is. I suppose that is a respectable position.

Of course, holding Dook as the greatest program ever, well, that isn't a respectable position.;)

This message has been edited by randman, 12-23-2005 05:18 PM

quote:

---

Wrong. It is your attempt at slander, as I make clear. I have frequently make known I am not a YECer, but you insisted otherwise, purposefully misrepresenting me as something you deride. That's slander.

---

First, since I did not say that you were a YEC it cannopt be "my slander" as you claim. But by calling it slander you indicate that you also regard YEC with derision.

quote:

---

No, once again I will explain to you my position, now 3 times inone day (but I don't doubt you will continue to misrepresent me continually because it appears part of your nature, but I'd love to be surprised. Imo, the Bible is not specific enough to rule out on it'sown YEC, OEC, ID, or theistic evolution.

---

Since I have not contradicted that statement the only misrepresentation here is yours. Also you are indulging in slander by making false accusations of misrepresentation.

But that is YOUR nature.

Y

But by calling it slander you indicate that you also regard YEC with derision.

No, it speaks to the state of mind of the person making the statement, not my opinion of YECers.

OK - Specific straight forward questions to you:

Tapping ALL the information at your disposal, is YECism a reasonable valid view on how the Earth and everything of the earth came to be?

Tapping ALL the information at your disposal, is old Earth theistic evolutionism a reasonable valid view on how the Earth and everything of the earth came to be?

Tapping ALL the information at your disposal, is agnostic (don't know if God was involved or not) old Earth evolutionism a reasonable valid view on how the Earth and everything of the earth came to be?

And drop using "asinine" also.

Moose

Edits: Changed three "everthing"s to "everything".
2nd edit: Added the "old Earth" to the 3rd question.

This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-23-2005 05:36 PM

This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-23-2005 05:39 PM

I, for one, am completely flummoxed by your approach to discussion. Is there any way possible to have a civil and rational discussion with you? If so, please let us know.

--Percy

Perhaps we could make better progress in the chatroom. I'm going to hang out there for a bit. Anyone who joins, please give me a few minutes to notice...thanks!

--Percy

Unless your just talking about chatting Randman's debate style - Then the chatroom is a fine place.

Moose