Where are the young earthers?

You don't suppose that I waste posts doing that simply because you keep using feelings as evidence, do you?After all, if you're not using them as evidence, why the constant mention of them? When was the last time that you read a scientific paper that included "moreover, we conclude that such-and-such is so because we have such a powerful feeling that it is so"?I submit that not only are your feelings not evidence of creationism, they're not even evidence that you have a relationship with God. For that to be true God would have to exist. Moreover I submit that if you didn't view your feelings as evidence of something, you wouldn't always bring them up.

Hi BAE,Since you seem to be back, I'd appreciate a response to this post where I carry on a discussion of your "necessary and sufficient" statements. Thanks.

This doesn't apply just to YEC's. I'm sure you know some scientists who are very dogmatic as well and declare many things to be "nonsense" and some things you do as well (Lamark use & disuse?)Point is we need to recognize the filter we use and try to see how it affects what articles we download ...

---

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

The problem is that {I \ you \ we} do not know what "truth" is, no one person does. The three people listed are not categories but examples. The actual distribution of people would be a spectrum. You have said this before without presenting any such evidence.This is an example of the filter in action. You obviously believe in a YEC model and filter out all the evidence for an old earth as nonsense. Notice that to do this is to judge not just evolution to be nonsense, but geology and physics as well.Conversely a Christian can say that it is nonsense to take genesis literally rather than as an allegory, still be Christian and still look at the evidence for an old earth as valid. The pope accepts evolution, and last time I checked he was still a Christian.You say you have plenty of evidence. Please present it in this age dating forum. either as a new topic or as part of your discussion of the evidence for a much older earth in Age Dating CorrelationsEnjoy.

---

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

Dear Abby,Yes of course there are a few wobbly scientific theories published.
But our aim is not to demolish them. I don't feel acting the same way that with YEC's. I presume you're joking me. If I choose to download 10 papers concerning Cretaceous anoxic events, I have 100% certainty to have smart readings.Denesha

ahahahaa I was pulling the leg a little, but also poking the stick at the fact that you will not be downloading articles from other areas of science that are outside your interests ...

---

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

I personally stay away from dating debates because I am not knowledgeable enough (to my fault) to argue why I believe what I do. I believe that there is evidence out there that contradicts evolution, but I'm not versed in it, and this isn't the thread for it. Are there any times when there aren't filters in action? YEC's always tend to filter any "evidence" for evolution or an old earth; OEC's filter "evidence" for evolution; and Evos filter "evidence" for creation and a young earth. This type of a "Christian" I believe is a Christian in name only. An old earth completely undermines the salvation work of Christ on the cross. Why this is is covered in another thread, although which one skips my memory right now. (I'll be glad to rehearse it if you like) When was the last time you checked the requirements for being a Christian based on the Bible? If you go through them again, you'll probably end up changing your mind about the pope's status.

funkman, So why do you believe it's there? Completely wrong. Evo's accept the scientific consensus, that is they filter NO evidence. The evidence that supports a 1/ young earth, & 2/ special creation, don't exist, & therefore aren't required to be filtered. If there were evidence of the above then they would be valid scientific theories, no? There is a REASON as to why they are not.This is a common creationist complaint. The fact is that when all the facts are considered the big bang is strongly supported, & so is evolution. It's only when you try to deliberately leave out facts that it superficially looks like creationists have a point. Combine this with the logical fallacies they are so fond of & you have creation "science". This is why creationism is so popular, the preached to masses are utterly unaware that their mentors are committing acts of omission. Once someone hears something they like, it takes time to undo, especially if you have a biblically literal mindset backing it up.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-05-2004]

And you do not put yourself out to learn the knowledge because your filter tells you it is nonsense beforehand. This is a common way to avoid confronting reality: don't learn about it, don't talk about it, don't think about it. I'm betting that you would have a hard time just reading the Age Dating Correlations thread without feeling uncomfortable and upset and engaging in a lot of rejection (filtering). No, there are no times that filters are not in action - if for no other reason than that our perceptions of reality are not the reality but a concept of it. The question is whether there is a high amount of information that gets filtered into "nonsense" versus a low amount of information that gets filtered. The lower the "nonsense quotient" the closer the worldview comes to reality. Last I checked the minimum requirement for being a Christian was one who believed in Christ -- from dictionary.com: A definition that the pope fulfills very well. Now you can reject this definition as incorrect, but that would just be your filter in action.To me anyone who professes otherwise, especially to claim that others are not Christian enough, is biased and basically anti-theistic (and we can go through an exercise on that if you want), scoring below atheists but above agnostics in their intolerance of other faiths. Now if you want to add qualifiers on front (biblical literalist fundamental) Christian, then I would agree that the pope is not that kind of Christian.

---

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

This accusation is totally uncalled for. Just because I do not debate this issue at this time does not in any way mean I'm not putting myself out there to learn the knowledge. Which is why I asked for a definition from the Bible, not from dictionary.com. The Bible teaches that there is no way to get to heaven apart from faith in the salvation work of Christ on the cross. Evolution undermines that. So if the pope believes in evolution, he has undermined the cross of Christ and is not a Christian. He also believes that good works get you into heaven - not taught by the Bible. And if you don't do quite enough good works to get there, you can pay them off in purgatory - also not taught in the Bible. So right there, that's 2 extra ways to get into heavan apart from Jesus. This is why the pope is not a Christian in the biblical sense. And that's not my filter working - that's the Bible's.

Good call. I rather should have said that I have seen evidence contradicting evolution, but am not versed in it well enough to recite it here.I will read up again on it and present it in a later post.

I'm a Christian that finds the idea of a Young Earth to run counter to the available evidence to date. I also firmly believe that we all got here due to evolution. I believe that Christ died on the Cross for my sins and that through him I will obtain salvation. The Genesis account of Creation has no bearing on this and I don't understand how you can say that an evolutionist point of view undermines Christ on the Cross. I have room for God in my opinions of how it all began, I just don't find the Genesis account believable. If that makes me a Christian in name only then I'm joining the Pope, and every priest I know in that category.

Funkman reasons:

quote:

---

The Bible teaches that there is no way to get to heaven apart from faith in the salvation work of Christ on the cross. Evolution undermines that. So if the pope believes in evolution, he has undermined the cross of Christ and is not a Christian.

---

So Abby can't use the Pope to claim that evolution is accepted by Christians. But the only reason you say the Pope is not a Christian is that he accepts evolution, which supposedly undermines Christ's work. You've said a couple of posts back that an old Earth undermines Christ's mission too. Why is it that so many other Christians seem to think Christ's work is too substantial to be undermined by a scientific explanation for biological diversity?regards,
Esteban "Funk Me Sideways" Hambre

Is it an accusation or a statement based on the information you provided ... "because I am not knowledgeable enough" ... when the information is readily available. Any thing I am not well versed enough to debate I have not put myself out to learn either and would freely admit. And yet I am sure that the pope can quote chapter and verse to show you are wrong, or do you think the catholic church is a con game? This really is your filter, hard at work, sorry.Enjoy.

---

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

Or too insubstantial and easily threatened? Christianity survived the loss of geocentrism, it will survive the loss of YEC as easily if not more so.... it is part of the evolutionary process ...

---

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