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

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

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? 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.

That's a blatantly false statement on your part. Here is what I posted to percy earlier. Did you not read it? What part of the position stated above is not clear to you? Or is undefined? What a typically asinine comment from an evo! OK, let's look at the statement. 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

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

Moose, I have made my position abundantly clear that I am not YECer, nor a theistic evolutionist. If I thought the evidence supported either view, I would be a YECer or an evolutionist. Since I don't think the data fully supports either of these 2 models, I don't ascribe to them.Is that not clear to you?Reasonableness is a poorly defined and subjective term. So you have my position stated more concretely above. As far as "asinine", well, quit acting asinine and I will quit mentioning asinine posts.

Whatever PaulK, I've been totally up-front posting pages upon pages of my views. I think it's pretty clear what I beleive. Some evos like percy have chosen to misrepresent me and the tone of their misrepresentation is derogatory. The fact I think YECism has as much to offer as evolutionism does not change the fact some have chosen to misrepresent me for some reason despite my posting specifics of what I believe.

Percy, try looking at this from the other side for a bit. You guys misrepresent and say the most outlandish and childish things about your critics, and then if you barely begin to act decently and engage the discussion honestly, you expect to be rewarded as if you bend over backwards.Be honest. Understand what someone else is saying before you bash their claims.Is that so hard to do? Should not the evo posters here do that?

At times it has been difficult as I have been the only anti-evo on many threads though it has improved a little of late. Not wanting to appear biased and moderate my own thread, it made it a little more difficult to moderate. I also told you I would be gone for stretches, and coincidentally I have been gone for days at a time when others like Faith have posted a lot on the forum.The thing about civility is it works both ways, and or after awhile does not work. PaulK started off very inflammatory, putting intent and words into what I said that any intelligent person could see was not my intent at all. Any intelligent person would have known from my lengthy statements, reposted here in quotes, exactly what my position was, unless they were predisposed to refuse to accept that someone rejects evolution based on their understanding of the facts instead of on their reading of the Bible.

I've stated my position frequently. What don't you get?

what do you want to know? I think the scientific evidence does not support evolutionary models. So my best guess is ID. I think YECers do some interestign research, but I am not convinced that the earth is young. Of course, I am not convinced the age of the earth stays the same, nor that there is one static past. In fact, I strongly suspect this is not the case, and we need to view the universe as space-time which can lengthen and contract. I don't believe in only linear causation with respect to time, and think evolutionary models are outdated by modern physics.

You have a question, ask it. If not, what the heck are you asking for position statements for?

Not sure I follow your points here.This message has been edited by randman, 12-26-2005 01:00 AM

Percy, I repeatedly state my beliefs, position, whatever, and you guus just stand there and basically seem to be saying you don't believe me.What gives?I don't know as much about YECism as evolution. So I don't have as strong positions on YECism. I am unconvinced the earth is as young as they say, but some of their dating arguments are interesting such as the idea that erosion would have made all the hills flat if the earth was millions of years old; that catatstrophic events can be overlooked to explain some features of the earth; that polonium halos indicate instant creation of granite; etc,....But I don't argue YECism because I don't know enough about these arguments. I was never taught YECism, just ToE, as most Americans. So I never had some solid material taught to me that I could then look into for myself. I looked into what was taught for ToE and found an appalling level of misrepresentation, and you know that's how I feel about the way evos generally treat data when the discussion is the evidence for evolution.So that's what I talk about.I talk about aspects of ID because some arguments made by ID had occurred to me prior to ever reading about them, and because I think QM involvles the potential for creating ID mechanisms; in other words that we ourselves can learn to directly engineer aspects of reality, maybe even producing artificial consciousness via quantum computers. I don't see ID as involving a God of the gaps as you guys claim, but to be firmly based on evidence whereas ToE is based on misinformation and imagination.I think that any theory as to the past is somewhat speculative in nature from a scientific perspective, and that there are basic assumptions we make in order to assess data, but that these basic assumptions may be incorrect. I don't think for instance that the past is static, and so as we assume that when we find something telling us about the past, that it was always so or will always be so in the future, that may be incorrect.Those are a lot of specific beliefs. I have no idea how you guys could claim I am secretive in the slightest here.

I stated I think the age of the earth is old, right now. I don't particularly believe it stays the same. For example, the universe may have been 2 billion years old 1000 years ago, and could be 20 billion 1000 years from now, or maybe space-time contracts, and the universe becomes only 4 billion years old or some such.I don't think we can get into here too much, but if there are causal events, much smaller, that occur from the present towards the past, then the longer more time passes, the more the past will change, which is something I believe.

Moose, I stated repeatedly and frequently here for months that I am not a YECer. That doesn't mean I think they are wrong on everything, and I would not consider it derogatory to be a YECer if I was one, but I am not convinced yet of a young earth argument.Geesh!As far as the exact age, I really don't know, but I can accept a very ancient age, and have never really examined all the the arguments within mainstream science for the 4.5 billion years.I do think however that we are on the threshold of discovering time expands not just linearly forward, but all the wayu around.