Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On creationists' beliefs
Guest
Guest


Message 1 of 59 (8793)
04-22-2002 1:45 PM



  
Guest
Guest


Message 1 of 59 (8794)
04-22-2002 1:45 PM



  
Guest
Guest


Message 1 of 59 (8795)
04-22-2002 1:45 PM



  
Guest
Guest


Message 1 of 59 (8796)
04-22-2002 1:45 PM



  
Guest
Guest


Message 1 of 59 (8797)
04-22-2002 1:45 PM



  
Guest
Guest


Message 1 of 59 (8798)
04-22-2002 1:45 PM



  
Guest
Guest


Message 1 of 59 (8799)
04-22-2002 1:45 PM



  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 59 (3789)
02-08-2002 3:18 AM


It seems to me that any creationist who dismisses evolution must hold one of the following two positions:
1) A relatively small group of predominantly right-wing christians, most with no scientific training or education, led by people like Kent Hovind and Duane Gish, know more about biology, genetics, and many other sciences that contribute to evolutionary theory, than do the world's scientists, people who have studied these sciences all their professional lives, or
2) Evolutionary theory is a lie to which the world's scientists knowingly describe in an an effort to supplant/diminish belief in God.
Either of these two positions strikes me as absurd, yet I cannot see how someone who dismisses evolutionary theory cannot hold one or the other.
Am I missing something? Or am I correct, and one of the above two positions ARE held by the majority of creationists? If so, which is the most held belief?

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 59 (3846)
02-08-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by toff
02-08-2002 3:18 AM


"Am I missing something? Or am I correct, and one of the above two positions ARE held by the majority of creationists? If so, which is the most held belief?"
--What your missing, is the willingness to consider a YEC reality, not of ignerance, or biased assertions. My standpoint on Evolution is that it is possible, but not a plausible enough explination, my explination on the other hand, seems much more feasibly correct.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by toff, posted 02-08-2002 3:18 AM toff has not replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 3 of 59 (3867)
02-08-2002 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by toff
02-08-2002 3:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
It seems to me that any creationist who dismisses evolution must hold one of the following two positions:
1) A relatively small group of predominantly right-wing christians, most with no scientific training or education, led by people like Kent Hovind and Duane Gish, know more about biology, genetics, and many other sciences that contribute to evolutionary theory, than do the world's scientists, people who have studied these sciences all their professional lives, or
2) Evolutionary theory is a lie to which the world's scientists knowingly describe in an an effort to supplant/diminish belief in God.
Either of these two positions strikes me as absurd, yet I cannot see how someone who dismisses evolutionary theory cannot hold one or the other.
Am I missing something? Or am I correct, and one of the above two positions ARE held by the majority of creationists? If so, which is the most held belief?

i could make the same generalizations about any evolutionists but i wont because i know its not fair to discriminate people like that. Even if the slim chance that evolution is true it doesnt disprove anything, its a just a way of explain how things happened. The bible doesnt specify things and it might have been dumbed down to make it easier to understand and believe, imagine back then the earth being a sphere probably was never considered and even if you thought that you were probably frowned upon or maybe even killed. Even with all of that the universe didnt just appear and the big bang theory has yet to become fact. A fact that helps proves creation is that we count down to and from the year of christ's birth, i highly doubt that people would just start counting from there and have it become worldwide without enough evidence to convince everyone that God does exist. if you actually had enough evidence to prove evolution and disprove creation, like so many of you claim, then surely we would be in the year whatever starting from mans first existence according to evolution.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by toff, posted 02-08-2002 3:18 AM toff has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 59 (3869)
02-08-2002 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by KingPenguin
02-08-2002 4:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
/B]
Actually its just a convention I am pretty sure you will find that Muslims, Jews, the chineese etc have their own conventions as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by KingPenguin, posted 02-08-2002 4:47 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 59 (3870)
02-08-2002 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by toff
02-08-2002 3:18 AM


Both are basically true but neither are acutually. I do think Gish won a point from your point 1 and with respect to #2 Will Provine seems somewhat guilty at least in my case in that regard. Good insight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by toff, posted 02-08-2002 3:18 AM toff has not replied

Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 59 (3878)
02-08-2002 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 12:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"--What your missing, is the willingness to consider a YEC reality, not of ignerance, or biased assertions.

I suppose what you really mean is
"--What your missing, is the willingness to consider a YEC POSSIBILITY,..."
Anyone with an open mind would be obliged to consider a possibility -IF- (and this is a MASSIVE -IF-) IF there were supporting evidence for this possibility. Of course this is from a naturalistic, mainstream scientific perspective - NOT a theological view.
One should require no evidence for faith-based beliefs and spiritual matters. But the topic here is focused upon "what can science verify?"
and "what can be presented -AS science- to a public school science class".
Conversely, I think what YOU are missing is a willingness to consider the reality of Santa Claus, without the jaded bias associated with growing up into an adult.
Now, have you any compelling reason to consider " the reality of Santa Claus " in my example ?
[b] [QUOTE] My standpoint on Evolution is that it is possible, but not a plausible enough explination, my explination on the other hand, seems much more feasibly correct.
[/b][/QUOTE]
It seems plausibility is rather subjective.
By what standards do you quantify plausibility ?
How is accepting the existence of unknown, undetectable supernatural mechanisms more plausible than seeking insight into tangible, natural mechanisms to explain naturally occurring phenomena ?
What is the explanitory power of unknown, undetected supernatural mechanisms ?
What do they explain, exactly ?
How do unknown, undetectable supernatural mechanisms, seem more feasibly correct than natural mechanisms ?
Kind Regards,
Jeff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 12:44 PM TrueCreation has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 59 (3882)
02-08-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 12:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Am I missing something? Or am I correct, and one of the above two positions ARE held by the majority of creationists? If so, which is the most held belief?"
--What your missing, is the willingness to consider a YEC reality, not of ignerance, or biased assertions. My standpoint on Evolution is that it is possible, but not a plausible enough explination, my explination on the other hand, seems much more feasibly correct.

TC,
Can you provide positive evidence for a 6,000 year old earth?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 12:44 PM TrueCreation has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 59 (3902)
02-09-2002 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mark24
02-08-2002 6:23 PM


"Can you provide positive evidence for a 6,000 year old earth?"
--Hm.. This ones a bit tough to answer in one post because a whole book could be covered on the subject, but I'll list a few. Also, no one is going to be able to show you that the earth is '6,000' years old. They can show you it is younger, but not with that exact number, I say 6000, as contrary to 7000 or 5000, by biblical testimony, and I havent found too much that is conclusive that it can be older than this.
--There being amazingly preserved fossilized of various animals around the world, without evidence of landslide.
--Dinosaur Red Blood Cells with evident hemoglobin
--Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones
--Existance of Comets
--Various arguments on Saturns Rings
--Dendrochronological dating
--Diamonds and Tectonic activity in their creation.
--Stalagtites and Stalagmites
--I think that these are few of many differnet valid arguments for a plausable young earth.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 6:23 PM mark24 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