Where are the young earthers?

let's stay on the topic here. That is a bit about the choice to argue dates or not. It isn't a place to discuss the details or have the actual arguements.

quote:

---

When I've argued on this basis in science threads, I've been considered in violation of forum rules for believing in the existence of a spiritual dimension in the universe and debating on that basis.

---

I have never seen where you have violated forum rules. However, I can see how people would argue that you are not using a scientifically valid logic while insisting that you are using valid scientific logic. You can believe what you want, but don't expect people to take your explanations based on faith alone as a reliable explanation. Give us a testable, scientific hypothesis and we will play right along. But don't expect us to follow the logic of "once you believe in a young earth, you will see the evidence." This is obviously circular and useless as a theory.

Something missing from this sentence .. perhaps "However, I can see how people would argue that you are not using a scientifically valid logic while you are insisting that you are using valid scientific logic."?

Something like that. Mangling sentences seems to be my MO lately. Rephrased:"Perhaps your idea of a scientifically valid argument does not meet the criteria as accepted within the realm of science."

I beleive that I've pointed out that Buz was violating forum rules on a couple of occasions. But NOT for the reason he claims. IIRC it was typically for violations of 2 and 4, as well as violations of 3 (i.e. when he can't answer the arguments he starts ranting about bias - or simply dismisses the whole lot by calling it "spin" - usually before running away).Maybe he has a genuine incident in mind. But he could still be lying. Again.

I was once confined to the FFA for not being for introducing too much creo in scientific debates and have on occasion been reminded that I must debate certain topics on established scientific terms. This is not to say I didn't need to learn to modify my approach somewhat in order to keep the peace and get along with admin. I appreciate the fact that admin is willing to work things out and allow reasonable recourse to all.

Paul, you need to get over this notion that buz's a liar. What's wrong with the word "mistaken" if you think I'm in error. I was new to the forum back then and pretty much the lone creo in most of the debates I engaged in with a pack of resident evos to deal with. It's been some time and to my recollection, I've given the correct primary reason for the action taken without giving a long off topic detailed dessertation.

I've seen entirely too many examples of you saying things that aren't true - and that you should KNOW aren't true to decide that you aren't a liar just because you say so.I don't doubt that your posts ACTUALLY WERE in violation of the formal rules and that THAT was the primary reason for the complaint.

I have seen the topic but the title appeared, at once, boreing and a trap, Ned.Since the other topics are very boreing at the moment, I decided to read here. Actually, some of it is refreshing.You may have seen my posts in other sections so I write what I have not written there. Especially, since you have designated this a non-evidence thread - which is what makes it boreing. I agree with you that this topic (but not this thread) is foundational and that this is where all the debate should be!The thread appears to be a trap because this creationist (me) knows that defending my reason is harder than defending the position. My position is that the universe is ancient and that the earth was created out of matter from the universe so I can hardly be called a young-earther?And yet, I do believe that the plant-animal-human history is around 6,000 years - which makes me a young-earth-lifer? My reason is that I have a personal, satisfying, daily relationship w/God. The satisfying feeling is a result of the relationship, not a cause of the position - I have to add that or Crashfrog will waste another post telling me that feelings are not evidence.I am fighting for good science and good "religion". I think both have (adherents with) a way to go.Where can we go in this thread - I am interested.Bob, Alice, EveP.S. I have watched your posts and find you to be, after all, fair-minded. I really enjoy that.

Dear BAE,Good science and good religion. I agree.
I have open a thread concerning something like this.http://EvC Forum: "enemy-brothers": no consensus yet? -->EvC Forum: "enemy-brothers": no consensus yet?No many replies. Perhaps because of the bad title?Have a good day.Denesha

Thanks Denesha.Of course, I don't agree with you position but this isn't the place to argue it. I don't really care to right now anyway.This is a trap in a way. I know very well that the young earth position is both foundational to the YEC view of evolution and totally undefendable.It is annoying that the idea of deep time is disparaged with little throw aways here and there in other debates by the YEC'ers. If they think that are making debating points with that when we see that they are not interested in trying to really support what they say then it is a combination of laughable and annoying.The creationist sites lie to their audience to support this since that is all they can do. This too is annoying.I will continue to try to "trap" people who think they know all about something that they, in fact, are totally ignorant of. The fact that the bait isn't taken is some evidence for some people of the quality of their position.

.....is that it seems the YECs know how weak their position is with regards to the age of the Earth, but they're still willing to hang onto this idea in the face of evidence that they actually understand. If they were holding their opinion WITHOUT knowing how powerful the evidence is for an old Earth then I could sort of see where they're coming from, but to KNOWINGLY ignore evidence because it goes against your belief does not bode well for the YECs ideas.At the same time, it is very honest for a YEC to say that they don't want to debate the subject as they know the evidence is stacked against them, but they want to hold on to their belief. It just seems peculiar that some YECs in this position try to expound their theory, knowing it is weak, yet ignoring that fact and trying to convert others to the same belief. They avoid the Dating forum etc, but populate others - the best example being Arkathon refusing to debate the age of the Earth, preferring cosmological flights of fantasy. That way there's no need to get into the nitty-gritty of solid geological evidence.

Everyone of us walks around with a bubble filter that allows some information in while blocking other information.The incoming information is compared against the worldview of the person and if it passes the filter test is allowed in unscathed, while information that causes problems for the worldview is degraded into one or more "nonsense" categories and safely ignored. This is called cognitive consonance.To me there is a way to measure the {reality \ validity} of the worldview with what I call the "nonsense quotient" -- the ratio of nonsense information to the total information, with the higher ratios being more out of touch with reality. None of us can truly trust our perceptions to be based on reality as they can quickly and easily become subjectivized.And nobody has a zero nonsense quotient -- compare:

• the atheist who filters {all religious faith and belief} into nonsense but accepts most scientific information.
• to the religious person who filters {all religious faith and belief except one} into nonsense and still accepts most scientific information.
• to the literal believer who filters {all religious faith and belief except one plus whole areas of science} into nonsense and accepts at most very restricted scientific information.

The atheist will score a little higher than the first religious person but both will be lower than the second.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Dear Abby,I appreciate your analogy with a filter. Unfortunately I can't test your theory in the real world here for two reasons.1 - YEC's have a patchy distribution and are very rare here. Honestly, I have never seen one at my University where half of the students are Christian, Muslim or others.2 - My speech is conditioned by the fact that I have been engaged at young age in the scientific "team". This specific education taught me and convinced me to filter the information flow. This is a smooth brainwash anyway because I invoke the "filter" by reflex. Is that objectivity? Out of this thread.Ned, I don't really feel myself trapped by the liar-based YEC system as far as my favorite downloads are now only PDF files from peer-reviewed journals (another efficient Abby's filter attribute).Denesha

Hi AbbyLever, Trixie, and NoseyNed,AbbyLever, I enjoyed your "filters" statement. I did not understand the scoreing part but I agree in general. I hope you can include a fourth category - those who (attempt to) filter error from truth.Trixie, I truly understand your "worry" and my only help to your understanding may be to say that my personal, satisfying, daily relationship with God outweighs all other "evidence". I know that the issue will be resolved. When it is resolved, we (God's children) will be pleased with the result.NoseyNed and Trixie, there is scientific evidence of a young-earth-life; it seem to be ignored by most evolutionists. I do not need that evidence to know that I am created by God and in His image (because of the personal relationship noted above). I do not want to leave the impression that I am not aware of the pro-young-earth-life evidence. Incidentally, most creationism-ists seem to ignore the evidence, also. I guess they get caught up in the flood - of words.NoseyNed, I could not tell if you ment to address Denesha instead of me in your post. If you addressed me then I can respond to any comments you made which I did not cover in this post (if you think there are any).Very best wishes,
Bob, Alice, and Eve