|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are creationists returning to their YEC roots? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4944 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
Better fix those reading glasses.
Day one "let there be light". Day 4 described the plants using the developed Earths seasons,sunlight filtering, and other natural Earthbound effects. I have already challenged Bible critics (many endless times here and on other sites) to collect ALL ancient texts,especially Mesopotamian ones(which are claimed to be prototypes of Genesis)and show me that ancients were ignorant of where light came from. Im still waiting. You would think they could at least take a few selective Ancient texts(preferably from 1000s of years BCE) totally out of context,ignoring what else is out there, but they havnt even done that. O well. People simply believe what they want it seems.Facts and documentation be damned.Keep beating the same old busted drum. Nimrod
Either you havnt been listening,or you dont have enough information.Or both. (I also fit the description of the latter) Revi've read AIG's site they don't know a damn thing about science or evolution Then you think Creationism should be taught in schools then? Because AIG does not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Better fix those reading glasses.
umm no it looks like you need to get your glasses fixed, you shouldn't project it on to me Day one "let there be light". Day 4 described the plants using the developed Earths seasons,sunlight filtering, and other natural Earthbound effects.it says plants were created on the THIRD day and the sun on the FOURTH day, which makes no sense as reality, but makes sense for a myth. let there be light could be other sources of light that the people believed in but it wasn't the sun. arguing that genesis makes sense makes everyone who does it look like an idiot I have already challenged Bible critics (many endless times here and on other sites) to collect ALL ancient texts,especially Mesopotamian ones(which are claimed to be prototypes of Genesis)and show me that ancients were ignorant of where light came from.
no you have this wrong, the second myth is decended from mesopotamian myths, i can show you this if you really want to know, they even have a proto-eden myth, but without adam and eve the first is influenced by greek philosophy and mystery religions, like zoronderism, this is why people don't bring up texts like this.now the second one i could show you some since it has more pagan influences You would think they could at least take a few selective Ancient texts(preferably from 1000s of years BCE) totally out of context,ignoring what else is out there, but they havnt even done that.
because you are asking about the wrong myth
People simply believe what they want it seems.Facts and documentation be damned.Keep beating the same old busted drum.
well i could say the same for creationists you know
Then you think Creationism should be taught in schools then? Because AIG does not.
where did i say they did? do i have to repeat myself? they don't know a damn thing about science or evolution, saying "molecules-to-man evolution" shows they don't have a clue about the theory and just have some absurd strawman, the fact that they call their strawman a belief that scientists hold is even more absurd and shows their true lack of honesty.now whether i tihnk they want creationism in schools? no they don't because its an unviable option, too many people don't want it taught in science classes, nor would they teach it the way AIG wants it taught anyway. becides creationism doesn't have anything to back it up so it makes people look foolish why do you insist that i'm saying what you are arguing aganst? i am now, but you were arguing aganst something i wasn't saying
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4944 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
Well a bunch of consecutive "ands".
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Then see what day 3 said after plants were described. " 13And the evening and the morning were the third day." Now,listen closely to day 4. 14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." I think all the "ands" were consecutive grammatical "ands". I forget.Im not too dogmatic on what I consider poetic ellegorical script. But if the day and night were made possible by the Sun and stars then it seems that they were there on day 1. Then. You are saying Genesis 1 is from a Greek source? LOL this should be interesting.I must admit I have no clue what you are refering to. Is the 2nd "myth" refering to Dilmun? Post it on this thread http://EvC Forum: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 -->EvC Forum: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 On the AIG issue, I can assure you that I know you disagree with their scientific views.The issue I was talking about (which you quoted) was refering to their views on what should be taught in public schools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
Okay folks, we are drifting substantially from the topic. Discussions of Genesis, AiG, etc, unless with reference to the OP are off-topic. As a reminder, the key point of discussion in the OP is:
Is it just me, or has there really been an increase in threads discussing YEC viewpoints recently? It almost seems like the ID defeat in Dover has spurred into action YEC creationists, who presumably had been sitting on their hands waiting to see if ID could wedge its way into public education, hopeful that YEC viewpoints could follow close behind. Big tents, philosophical disagreements between the IDists and YECs, even potential for future cooperation are acceptible. Bring it back on target. Any comments please take to the appropriate thread. "Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But if the day and night were made possible by the Sun and stars then it seems that they were there on day 1. But according to the Bible they were NOT there on day one unless God is a liar.
Now,listen closely to day 4. 14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." God does not make the Sun and Moon until the 4th. day. This also proves that the people of the time did not understand where light came from since they claim the moon provides light. The issue in this thread though is whether or not creationists (and I assume what is meant is Biblical Creationists) are returning to their YEC roots. It appears based on listening to the propaganda spouted by Christian Televangelists that they are, and that is both comforting and sad. It is comforting because lots of people will look at what they say, hear them talk about a young earth or th 6day creation or the flood as fact and realize the televangelists are simply lying. It is sad because so many people don't realize that the leaders of the Christian Evangelical and Fundamentalist movements are simply lying to them. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
But if the day and night were made possible by the Sun and stars then it seems that they were there on day 1.
yes which goes to show they didn't have a clue about anything, and the sun and starts are made on the fourth day which would make plants die. as the admin haw reminded us, this is OT, but from this vein i would say that the reasons people are returning to YEC is because they find it conforting and more spiritually sound, because its a lot easier to ignore most everything that contridicts your beliefs, simply by saying "goddidit"
On the AIG issue, I can assure you that I know you disagree with their scientific views.The issue I was talking about (which you quoted) was refering to their views on what should be taught in public schools.
wouldn't you disagree if someone made up a false belief that you didn't claim to even hold?
You are saying Genesis 1 is from a Greek source? LOL this should be interesting.I must admit I have no clue what you are refering to.
no, i'm saying other monothiestic ideas influenced them, like the greeks and the persians during the exile. being that genesis 1 is a later story than genesis 2, shows this. genesis two is like other semetic creation stories, genesis 1 shows things that hebrews never would have came up with, they believed in a personal immenent god not a transendent one, as they did later anyway this is OT, i wanted to clarify
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Suggesting the possibility that God is a liar, while guaranteed to catch people's attention, probably isn't conducive to keeping discussion on an even keel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I disagree. Computers are far better than we of passing along information. Yet they appear unable to learn. Considering we were discussing things within the framework of evolution your statement does not apply. Unless of course you want to include computers within the realm of the evolutionary process. Perhaps to be considered in another topic.
Maybe try some of the writings of Piaget. An interesting look at the "mechanics" of thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Admin/Percy. To avoid straying from topic on the Faith/EvC thread I will respond here to your message http://EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC -->EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC
Admin writes: One other thing we have to keep in mind is the democratization of the Internet with regard to technical and/or scientific savvy. Ten to fifteen years ago, creationists who participated in on-line debate tended to be of a technical bent. That's no longer the case. We're getting increasing numbers of contributors who, if we're honest with ourselves but hopefully don't give voice to this, cause us to think, "Can anyone truly be this stupid or ignorant or blind?"The answer, unfortunately, is yes. EvC Forum is not going to successfully educate waves of the uneducatable. The best we can do is shield ourselves from those unwilling or unable to intelligently discuss and/or explore a topic by enforcing the Forum Guidelines. Sadly this will exclude some truly nice people, but it can't be helped. I don't see any IDist science as ever being acceptable to your standards, Admin/Percy. How can any argument which is IDist be acceptable to you as true science when in fact any argument based on IDist premise requires a supernatural higher intelligence in lieu of some aspects of origins pertaining what is observed in the universe? For example, if one is to present an IDist scientific hypothesis on how the first animals came to be, one must present a reason for rejecting mainstream dating tech relative to fossils. My argument would be that uniformitarianism is not proven so nobody knows how much of this or that element was in the atmosphere and in living things tens of thousands to millions of years ago. Neither, imo, has science really proven how much the surrounding inorganic burial environs in which fossils are embeded affect the fossil's date reading when in fact the burial site elements would show an older age. I know that argument is unacceptable but I'm not convinced and evidently neither is any IDist young life scientist for whatever reason. This likely will not fly IYO and thus there is no acceptable debate with IDist creos in the science forums at EvC. Isn't that the case, or where've I gone wrong here? If I'm not mistaken in the above, then are here pretending to debate Evo vs creo if all IDist creos are to be excluded from the science debate? As per your apparant standards, even Robert Morris himself of ICR and Mr. Gish would be out of line in your science debate forums. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why not start a thread stating your argument re isotopes and fossils, and see if the moderators will let you debate it? They will; and I shall be happy to correct your more egregious mistakes.
There is nothing in Percy's post from beginning to end to suggest that no-one should debate in favor of ID; though the argument you're presenting, I should point out, is not in fact an argument for ID, but against geology. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
I have difficulty in rejecting all the evidence my geoscience (along with other fields) professors presented for an old Earth back in the days when I overattended The New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. I would be very interested in how the invisible creation science research trumps everyone associated, and indeed, the entire reason for existance of this university.
Please feel free to post in the appropriate thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Dr A writes: There is nothing in Percy's post from beginning to end to suggest that no-one should debate in favor of ID; though the argument you're presenting, I should point out, is not in fact an argument for ID, but against geology. Couple the two of Admin's messages, the one below being from the OP of this thread and go figure. 1. "...ID isn't science......"2. "...Biblical literalism....." unacceptable. 3. Does Discovery Institute speak for the majority of IDist creos? I don't know. I'm asking. Ninety percent of serious and active contenders of Evolution in the evo/creo debate arena are IDists and Biblical fudamentalists/literalists who's arguments are unacceptable as science in EvC's science forums. Herein lies the problem of ever having a balance in active IDist creo membership and real bolts and nuts real life evo/creo debate. The great majority of creos are fundamentalist evangelicals who are excluded from debating their science as they understand and believe it is. Biblical premised science factors in the evidence of intelligence existing in the universe of a different level than that of humans, evidence which we believe exists and which secularists catagorically deny. We believe that to be a scientific aspect of our hypotheses. The viable possibility of it's existence renders it a legitimate factor in the science hypothetical debate in our view and to exclude it from debate in science is to deny us what we consider our fair share/role in the evo/creo controversy. Our professional scientists know that so why should they bother to come here to be insulted, restricted and abused? Perhaps the solution would be to have an alternative science forum for what is considered by mainstream as pseudoscience or something of that nature to accomodate what I consider to be the [i]real evc/creo debate going on out there in real life among the laity/ bourgois. I suppose it all depends on how elite Admin wants this site to be.
Admin OP Statement writes: As much as ID isn't science, I don't see this as its biggest problem. At least as promoted by the Discovery Institute, the biggest problem for ID is its willingness to forgo any connection to Biblical literalism. ID accepts most findings of modern science and rejects little. Indeed, its primary criticism of science is that it is insufficiently inclusive because it ignores evidence for design and is wedded to methodological naturalism. Were ID to find itself comfortably ensconced in educational programs, it's greatest foe would quickly become Biblical literalists. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi Buzsaw,
This thread raises the question of whether creationists are abandoning ID in favor of their YEC roots. Unless you think those roots include ignorance and stupidity, which is what I was talking about, then this probably isn't the proper thread for that discussion. My post was not a veiled reference to ID and YEC views. It was a reply to CK's Message 281 in the Faith's Participation in EvC thread where he briefly described the difficulty of scientific discussion with people whose primary contributions seem to be accusations of bias, lying and atheism. I was adding ignorance and stupidity to the list of their contributions, and I was noting that increasingly widespread availability of computers means it will only get worse. So I don't think this is the right thread for what I was talking about, which is okay since your response doesn't address those points, but neither does it seem to be on-topic for this thread. Dr. Adequate's suggestion to propose a new thread is probably a good one. In addition, I was posting as Admin, and I try to avoid involving myself in discussions as Admin outside the moderation threads. But I will briefly note my belief that the reason the level of scientific sophistication is so dramatically different between the two sides is because one side comes here out of a passion for and familiarity with science, and the other side comes here out of a religious certainty that science is wrong. In other words, creationists come here not because they've studied the science and found it lacking. They come here, poor ignorant slobs all fired up with false arguments from ICR and AIG websites, because of devotion to their religious beliefs. Creationist views will only take on a valid scientific form when they begin developing out of a passion for science instead of for religion. And there is no reason why any person cannot be passionate about both. I know I am. AbE: Now, it might be asked why, if I'm so passionate about both science and religion, that I spend all my time discussing science and none discussing religion. The answer is simple. It isn't my religious beliefs that are under attack, so they need no defending. I believe it is important that public schools accurately teach current scientific understandings of our universe, this is what is under attack, and so this is what must be defended if our understanding of our universe is to continue to grow. And as an aside, I can't think of a better way to show appreciation of God than to study his creation in the greatest detail possible. Edited by Admin, : Add another concluding comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Perhaps the solution would be to have an alternative science forum for what is considered by mainstream as pseudoscience or something of that nature to accomodate what I consider to be the real evc/creo debate going on out there in real life among the laity/ bourgois. I suppose it all depends on how elite Admin wants this site to be. The following forums try to cover this: The first one has been co-opted for the purposes of discussing science issues with the potential premise of an inerrant holy text or revelation. If you have any suggestions for other fora, I'm interested to hear them - post a thread/reply at the suggestions forum. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
As per this thread my message 162 pertained mostly to the OP of this thread part of which was quoted. (I should have quoted you as Percy and not Admin. My apologies for that.) In your OP of this thead you repeat that ID is not science. I see that as a major problem if we can have fair and balanced debate in science. I believe you are falsely alleging that there are no ID scientists who research science et al. Is the implication here what you really mean to say?
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024