Jump to content


Please Give Some Evidence For Yec


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
55 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_disagree_*

Guest_disagree_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 January 2007 - 11:50 AM

92g,

You were given non-biblical physical evidence that the earth is young.

For those two questions in specific, no I wasn't.

There are many things in your world view that you assume to be true as well. Do they hinder your faith?

How do you know whether I assume things or not? Because, as far as I'm aware, I don't. The word assume goes hand in hand with the next word you use: faith. There is nothing I have "faith" in, faith being belief without evidence. Everything I believe I have considered with scrutiny.

There is no doubt that you cannot accept the bible as being true. If you have negative volition toward God, he will not reveal himself anymore to you than he already has through creation.

Do you want to know God?

If by negative volition you mean disbelief, you are correct, and how could He, in respect to myself, reveal Himself anymore than He has through creation, when the events as to "creation" suggest otherwise?

You make two assumptions in this quote: one being that you purport to know the very mind of the creator, as if an infallible mind may be understood by a fallible mind, and second that he "revealed himself... through creation" when to me he most certainly did not.

And as to whether or not I want to know god, if I thought there was a god, I would certainly want to know him.

If a person writes down the truth about history, bias has nothing to do with it. The truth is the truth, and there are many biases in what you believe. Its a matter of which bias is the best bias to be biased with.

As to whether it has been truth written about history, that is exactly what I claim has not happened, a claim you did not address. And as to your opinion on bias, the only bias I can imagine being good in any way is a bias toward that which is not true (a bias I think I possess).

The quotes you give me from the Bible seeming to relate to current events or past events are either liberally translated, in my opinion, or blatantly false. For instance, the world in a state of decay? I think it is quite the opposite, for despite the condition in third world countries (which can be remedied!), the world is much much much happier than it has ever been, especially throughout Europe and nations like Japan.

I believe what I do not because I have closed my heart to God, as you say, but because I have opened my heart to the truth.

Believe me, I tried. I tried to re-convince myself of God, but I just knew in my heart that it wasn't true. I can no more convince myself of any god than I can convince myself of Santa Claus, or fairies. Anthropology makes it painfully clear how susceptible humankind is to religion and mysticism. I earnestly encourage you, for example, to do some research on 'Cargo Cults', and draw your own conclusions.

Ghostrider1,

So, as I understand you, that layer upon layer of unmolested strata ( I'm talking a thousand feet of the stuff, ya know) means "gap theory"?

Sorry, sir, but that is not the case. It would mean that for all those millions of years . . . NOTHING HAPPENED . . . no rain, no snow, no wind, no sun, nothing.

So, is that your statement, that nothing happened ofr "X" millenia?

I will say two things. First, it may be that something did happen over that time, but we just don't know what yet, or that something we don't yet, or may never, understand prevented what we would have expected from happening.

Second, you are right, despite what I say. I, of course, look at the situation as I will, but your view I think in this instance can be equally valid, if your evidence proves veritable. Get it out there! Rub it in your local university's face, and see how they rebut. But when they rebut, consider their rebuttals objectively. Indeed, if your evidence is veritable (which I personally doubt, but I don't know), it would challenge the accepted age of the world and universe.

How did any science get corrupted? Theories, unproven, became considered to be axioms, then proof was implied, though still unproven, and because of the axiom status of the theory, resulting in people giving blind faith to often illogical theoretical processes.

Oh, dear . . .did I just describe Evolution?

Can you in any way prove this? As I myself believe, and the evidence agrees with me, science was freed from the clutches of fallacious religiosity and mysticism -- thanks be greatly to The Enlightenment -- which birthed an era embracing reason, science and philosophy more so than ever has been previously, when but for no sect, Humanity truckled beneath fascist theocracies. And this enlightening coincided with, be it no surprise at all, the industrial/technological revolution and, for virtually every advanced nation, the beginnings of secularity. Indeed, I may inscribe it as the secular revolution, for Europe, Japan, Canada and I think Australia now host religious demographics of approximately thirty-percent or less. You can see this in the link from my previous posts.

Addressed to all YEC followers, I think you really have to challenge things greater than certain geological anomalies like Ghostrider1's, because right now there are several very cardinal, very difficult to refute fundamental evidences behind the age of the universe. You address them too seldom, and I will provide a link describing them, and I would like to see your take on them. I just think you shouldn't try and poke holes in the Scientist's arguments rather than topple them altogether, which is what you really have to do, lest they accuse you of the gap strategy.

http://www.astro.ucl...wright/age.html

I'll also just post the Wikipedia article for your consideration.
http://en.wikipedia....of_the_universe

#22 Ghostrider1

Ghostrider1

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Interests:Bible studies, classic Cushman motor scooters, my family, vintage automobiles especially Mopar muscle cars, and fishing
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Moab, Utah

Posted 27 January 2007 - 01:44 PM

[quote name='disagree' date='Jan 27 2007, 11:50 AM']
92g,
For those two questions in specific, no I wasn't.

Yes, you were. The evidences are the same for both Creation and Evolution, the _PRESUMTIONS_ based on those evidences are the difference.

Evolutionist presume Z,X and Y happened over Q period of time and not necessarily in the order required for success.

Creationists see X,Y, and Z happening in six days and in the proper order for success.

How do you know whether I assume things or not? Because, as far as I'm aware, I don't. The word assume goes hand in hand with the next word you use: faith. There is nothing I have "faith" in, faith being belief without evidence. Everything I believe I have considered with scrutiny.

And you think that no Christian has? I have. I used to be an evolutionist until too many gaps went unexpalined, the odds went thru the roof _against_ success, and all the "experts kept changing the parameters.

Logic? It went on vacation and never returned.

If by negative volition you mean disbelief, you are correct, and how could He, in respect to myself, reveal Himself anymore than He has through creation, when the events as to "creation" suggest otherwise?

Do they, or is it just the way you see things?

You make two assumptions in this quote: one being that you purport to know the very mind of the creator, as if an infallible mind may be understood by a fallible mind, and second that he "revealed himself... through creation" when to me he most certainly did not.

To fully understand God would be presumptuous of a mere mortal, to understand what is in the Scriptures not so hard, if you are truly seeking.

And as to whether or not I want to know god, if I thought there was a god, I would certainly want to know him.
As to whether it has been truth written about history, that is exactly what I claim has not happened, a claim you did not address. And as to your opinion on bias, the only bias I can imagine being good in any way is a bias toward that which is not true (a bias I think I possess).

Are you saying that a bias in favor of promoting falsehoods is better than promoting truths?

The quotes you give me from the Bible seeming to relate to current events or past events are either liberally translated, in my opinion, or blatantly false.

Are assumtions based on missing evidence more correct?

For instance, the world in a state of decay? I think it is quite the opposite, for despite the condition in third world countries (which can be remedied!), the world is much much much happier than it has ever been, especially throughout Europe and nations like Japan.

Think: Laws of Thermodynamics. The one about "entropy".

I believe what I do not because I have closed my heart to God, as you say, but because I have opened my heart to the truth.

What have you to prove a truth from those sources? An assumption based on what? An opinion? Based on what? A theory based on ???????

The historical accuracy of the Scriptures has been proven, the accuracy of the Scriptures has been proven, so the contents of the Bible are both historically and factually accurate.

Believe me, I tried. I tried to re-convince myself of God, but I just knew in my heart that it wasn't true. I can no more convince myself of any god than I can convince myself of Santa Claus, or fairies. Anthropology makes it painfully clear how susceptible humankind is to religion and mysticism. I earnestly encourage you, for example, to do some research on 'Cargo Cults', and draw your own conclusions.

Don't try to convince yourself, let Creation convince you.

Ghostrider1,

I will say two things. First, it may be that something did happen over that time, but we just don't know what yet, or that something we don't yet, or may never, understand prevented what we would have expected from happening.

Your reasoning is self-defeating.

If the period of time had happened, there would be erosion damage to multiple layers of sediment, which subsequently refilled, eroded, filled, cut elsewhere, filled, ad nauseum. To deny it would have happened just cut the legs from under your position.

Second, you are right, despite what I say. I, of course, look at the situation as I will, but your view I think in this instance can be equally valid, if your evidence proves veritable. Get it out there! Rub it in your local university's face, and see how they rebut. But when they rebut, consider their rebuttals objectively. Indeed, if your evidence is veritable (which I personally doubt, but I don't know), it would challenge the accepted age of the world and universe.

There are sites, like <www.answersingenesis.org> <www.drdino.com> that are actively promoting the Biblical evidence, but they run into anti-Creation media articles that scoff at anything not fitting their viewpoint, and, in all honesty, like you are doing, condemn without fair trial.

Can you in any way prove this? As I myself believe, and the evidence agrees with me, science was freed from the clutches of fallacious religiosity and mysticism -- thanks be greatly to The Enlightenment -- which birthed an era embracing reason, science and philosophy more so than ever has been previously, when but for no sect, Humanity truckled beneath fascist theocracies. And this enlightening coincided with, be it no surprise at all, the industrial/technological revolution and, for virtually every advanced nation, the beginnings of secularity. Indeed, I may inscribe it as the secular revolution, for Europe, Japan, Canada and I think Australia now host religious demographics of approximately thirty-percent or less. You can see this in the link from my previous posts.

All you've stated is your biases _against_ accepting the creation evidence. Your mind is closed. You have condemned the creation story without fair trial.

Addressed to all YEC followers, I think you really have to challenge things greater than certain geological anomalies like Ghostrider1's, because right now there are several very cardinal, very difficult to refute fundamental evidences behind the age of the universe. You address them too seldom, and I will provide a link describing them, and I would like to see your take on them. I just think you shouldn't try and poke holes in the Scientist's arguments rather than topple them altogether, which is what you really have to do, lest they accuse you of the gap strategy.

If only it were a geological anomoly, then your comment about my evidence would be true, but the same anomoly is found all over the world in sedimentary rock layers, and more ecently, in the newly formed sedimentary rocks and fossils at Mount St. Helens.

Just think, rock forming in a quarter century, fossils in the same period, and just outside that innundated area, in the ash zone, no fossils, no new rocks.

cya

Budd


Edit: The forum program is code written for a limit of 10 quotes per post. We cannot change this because it is not a selectable item in the control panel of this program. I tried to use bold in the place of quotes because there is no limit to the bold selection. I hope I bolded it right. If not you can copy and paste the correct bold between what they say, and what you say to me in a pm, and I will correct the post for you

ikester7579

#23 Guest_disagree_*

Guest_disagree_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 January 2007 - 06:07 PM

Ghostrider1,

(Not all quotes done in quote boxes cause of quote limit)

"Yes, you were. The evidences are the same for both Creation and Evolution, the _PRESUMTIONS_ based on those evidences are the difference."

I don't think you understand what happened. I asked Fred Williams two questions; he responded with quotes from the Bible. I asked him to respond in another way; he said he thought Bible quotes were good enough. Then 92g said he did respond differently; I pointed out that to those two questions he clearly did not, and Fred said as much. Now you claim he did. What? This matter is pointless.

Evolutionist presume Z,X and Y happened over Q period of time and not necessarily in the order required for success.

Creationists see X,Y, and Z happening in six days and in the proper order for success.

What exactly are you talking about? And whatever you are talking about, you make the mistake of assuming scientists presume anything. The suffix "sume" does not exist within the realm of science, only theology and fantasy. If something is not supported by observable fact, like has been shown thus far in respect to YEC, it is not science.

And you think that no Christian has [examined their beliefs with scrutiny]? I have. I used to be an evolutionist until too many gaps went unexpalined, the odds went thru the roof _against_ success, and all the "experts kept changing the parameters.


Certainly some have, but I severely doubt many of you young Earth types have, at least honestly. Indeed the only way one can become a YEC follower is if they completely disavow all contemporary science. Every realm of science yields an avalanche of evidence contradicting YEC, and yet you say you have scrutinized your beliefs. Do you really think all the professional thinkers of this world are mistaken?

"Logic? It went on vacation and never returned."
So much is obvious.

"Do they, or is it just the way you see things?"
Is it possible to see with eyes other than one's own?

"Are you saying that a bias in favor of promoting falsehoods is better than promoting truths?"
Of course not.

Think: Laws of Thermodynamics. The one about "entropy".

That was obviously not the context. And no one has yet addressed my liberal happiness observation, just as no one has yet addressed many of my observations and questions from the previous page. What is more moral that alleviating human suffering, and the suffering of other life?

What have you to prove a truth from those sources [my beliefs]? An assumption based on what? An opinion? Based on what? A theory based on ??????

Staggering hypocrisy. I base my beliefs on the scientific consensus which has birthed a world of electricity, internet, happiness, equality, space travel and instant communication, while you base yours on a two-thousand year old religious text that would rather you spend your type sacrificing virgins and slaughtering infidels/h*m*sexuals/opposing religions/people who work on the sabbath*.
*Old Testament

The historical accuracy of the Scriptures has been proven, the accuracy of the Scriptures has been proven, so the contents of the Bible are both historically and factually accurate.

Show me they have been proven, because I've never seen anything objective supporting that claim; and please, tell me, by what contorted form of logic do you deduce that because some biblical revelations resemble reality, depending on how liberal your translation, all biblical claims correspond entirely with reality. Try taking that to court, and it might end up like Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

Don't try to convince yourself, let Creation convince you.

Believe me, I tried all manners of convincing. I really did.

And please all YEC followers, research into 'Cargo Cults' and you'll get an idea as to how susceptible humans really are to religion and mysticism. Though perhaps susceptible implies the wrong meaning, because (I realize just now you won't believe what I'm about to say) religion has to have evolutionary benefits (some aren't hard to imagine: kill rival religions, have many children, don't worry if you're unhappy this life, cause you're going to heaven!). Religion can, despite some of its more abominable byproducts, beget happiness, fulfillment, a communal feeling and other survival based benefits, which is why it's so ubiquitous.

It is obvious from history that religion has its survival-based, and therefore natural-selection based benefits, counting those I just said. I mean, once conscious apes developed the ability to ask the big questions -- Where did Grandpa go when he died? -- religion perhaps became necessary for those early creatures. Very necessary; they may very well have lived an unhappy, and therefore less fruitful (and therefore less likely to be naturally selected) life if not for religion. You may even say religion helped the conscious apes through the really hard part of their evolutionary lifespan.

But not anymore, and that is the point. We no longer need it. We are, most of us, beyond that kind of sentimental fiction, and it does humanity no good to persist in delusion; and thankfully, when looking at Europe and Japan, we are dissolving those archaic delusions at an increasing rate.

Your reasoning is self-defeating

I admit that the reasoning there was weak, which is why my very next paragraph addressed the possibility of your being correct, but it was certainly not self-defeating. Although in the strict logical sense it wasn't self-defeating, it certainly wasn't very strong, which is why I also encouraged you to submit your evidence for review, but to consider scientists' opinions in response objectively.

[The opposition likes to] condemn without fair trial

I disagree, and find that statement hypocritical, for it is the creationists who never fairly address the scientist's arguments, assuming a priori they are wrong (which you do do. YEC followers enter every debate convinced wholly that their position is infallible, that god created the a young earth no matter what the opposition says, which is ascientific).

All you've stated is your biases _against_ accepting the creation evidence. Your mind is closed. You have condemned the creation story without fair trial.

Actually, all I stated was in fact the world's consensus as to history from The Enlightenment to present, but somehow that makes it my mind that is closed, and me who has condemned without fair trial. How do you deduce that, when I am here right now putting you on fair trial, trying to open my mind as to why you believe what you do?

If only it were a geological anomoly, then your comment about my evidence would be true, but the same anomoly is found all over the world in sedimentary rock layers, and more ecently, in the newly formed sedimentary rocks and fossils at Mount St. Helens.

Just think, rock forming in a quarter century, fossils in the same period, and just outside that innundated area, in the ash zone, no fossils, no new rocks.

Cite evidence. Show me. Show me these theories are irrefutable. And I reiterate what I said:

"... there are several very cardinal, very difficult to refute fundamental evidences behind the age of the universe. You address them too seldom, and I will provide a link describing them, and I would like to see your take on them. I just think you shouldn't try and poke holes in the Scientist's arguments rather than topple them altogether, which is what you really have to do, lest they accuse you of the gap strategy."


Theists like to ask : What if? What if you are wrong, and you will pay for it forever?

But this atheist asks : What if? What if -- just really imagine -- what if this is it? What if the only life you get (not that life is something so apprehensible, a pathetic four-letter English word could embody it's magic) you squander living under fictitious religious dogma, when your biological brains are capable of so much more? So much more beauty? There's always time, and there's no reason to let any barriers withhold your vision of the universe. I came here not to gloat, and I came here not to hurt. There are anthropological reasons as to why religions exist; look at Cargo Cults. I just really hope you'll consider my question with as much conviction as I've considered yours.

#24 Guest_Gorilla J_*

Guest_Gorilla J_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 January 2007 - 07:34 PM

Ack. Ignore.

#25 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 28 January 2007 - 02:50 AM

I don't think I agree with this.  From everything I've seen of science, if someone offers compelling evidence as to a new theory, no matter how absurd it may seem at first, it will be considered, and evaluated.

View Post


That´s not true. As it happened with Australian researchers Barry Marshall and Robin Warren.

History of Helicobacter pylori
In 1982, Australian researchers Barry Marshall and Robin Warren discovered spiral-shaped bacteria in the stomach, later named Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). After closely studying H. pylori's effect on the stomach, they proposed that the bacteria were the underlying cause of gastritis and peptic ulcers.

In their studies, all patients with duodenal ulcers and 80 percent of patients with stomach ulcers had the bacteria. The 20 percent of patients with stomach ulcers who did not have H. pylori were those who had taken NSAIDs (such as aspirin and ibuprofen) which are a common cause of stomach ulcers.

Although the findings seem conclusive, Marshall and Warren's theory was debated and disputed for some time. However, further evidence linking H. pylori to ulcers mounted over the next 10 years as numerous studies from around the world confirmed its presence in most people with ulcers. Researchers from the United States and Europe proved that using antibiotics to eliminate H. pylori healed ulcers and prevented recurrence in about 90 percent of cases.

To further investigate these findings, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established a panel to closely review the link between H. pylori and peptic ulcer disease. At the February 1994 Consensus Development Conference, the panel concluded that H. pylori plays a significant role in the development of ulcers and that antibiotics, with other medications, can successfully treat peptic ulcer disease.

They even had to infect themselves.

The medical community was slow to recognize the role of this bacterium in stomach ulcers and gastritis, believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach. The community began to come around after further studies were done, including one in which Marshall drank a Petri dish of H. pylori, developed gastritis, and the bacteria were recovered from his stomach lining, thereby satisfying three out of the four Koch's postulates. Marshall's gastritis later resolved without treatment. Marshall and Warren went on to show that antibiotics are effective in the treatment of gastritis.

#26 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 28 January 2007 - 02:57 AM

Some questions:
Why is it the only two areas in the world in which there is any doubt over evolution are certain areas of the United States, and certain Islamic controlled states?


That´s not true. I´m brazilian and I´m creationist.In Rio de Janeiro the schools teach both theory.

#27 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 28 January 2007 - 03:07 AM

How do you know whether I assume things or not?  Because, as far as I'm aware, I don't.   The word assume goes hand in hand with the next word you use: faith.  There is nothing I have "faith" in, faith being belief without evidence.  Everything I believe I have considered with scrutiny.


Then Answer me two question.First, do you believe Socrates said what the books say that he said ? Second, how do you know those are true ?

#28 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 28 January 2007 - 09:03 AM

But I don't believe these things.  Their veracity is a thing you assume.  What I ask is, can you answer my questions in another way, with a more reputable piece of evidence than religious text?  I cannot accept the biblical claims in that text as true, unless you can show through evidence it accords with contemporary educated consensus on the matter(s) (like how all people are inherently self-centered).

View Post


First, I need to point out that appealing to an “educated consensus” is itself a logical fallacy (appeal to consensus, and appeal to “authority”). The “consensus” has been wrong about the majority of things it believed throughout history. All one needs to do is visit a science book 20 years ago, then another 20 years ago, and so on.

We both have a worldview, mine is base on the Bible that I happen to believe is true. So it is the authority I appeal to. You are free to disagree with me, but to ask me to appeal to your own sources (your “consensus”, I presume in academia), is like me asking you to make your argument as a non-believer by using Bible references only.

To summarize roughly why I find the Bible not veracious: As I understand, it has undergone countless revisions at the hands of many authors, some anonymous, over the span of about a thousand years(?), and, considering its nature, it can hardly be considered an unbiased representation of historic fact.


You are definitely mistaken on this, see my chapter on Bible Transmission. While you are at it, my entire Bible Evidences online book is a quick read: www.bibleevidences.com. The Bible provides overwhelming evidence it is what it claims to be. It far and away exceeds any other religious text in providing real, tangible evidence to support its claims.

(If you have any questions on the BIble Evidences site, please post to the 'Miscellaneous' section as it would be off topic for this thread.)

Fred

#29 Ghostrider1

Ghostrider1

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Interests:Bible studies, classic Cushman motor scooters, my family, vintage automobiles especially Mopar muscle cars, and fishing
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Moab, Utah

Posted 28 January 2007 - 09:24 AM

Ghostrider1,

(Not all quotes done in quote boxes cause of quote limit)

"Yes, you were. The evidences are the same for both Creation and Evolution, the _PRESUMTIONS_ based on those evidences are the difference."

I don't think you understand what happened.  I asked Fred Williams two questions; he responded with quotes from the Bible.  I asked him to respond in another way; he said he thought Bible quotes were good enough.  Then 92g said he did respond differently; I pointed out that to those two questions he clearly did not, and Fred said as much.  Now you claim he did.  What?  This matter is pointless.
What exactly are you talking about?  And whatever you are talking about, you make the mistake of assuming scientists presume anything.  The suffix "sume" does not exist within the realm of science, only theology and fantasy.  If something is not supported by observable fact, like has been shown thus far in respect to YEC, it is not science.
Certainly some have, but I severely doubt many of you young Earth types have, at least honestly.  Indeed the only way one can become a YEC follower is if they completely disavow all contemporary science.  Every realm of science yields an avalanche of evidence contradicting YEC, and yet you say you have scrutinized your beliefs.  Do you really think all the professional thinkers of this world are mistaken?

"Logic? It went on vacation and never returned."
So much is obvious.

"Do they, or is it just the way you see things?"
Is it possible to see with eyes other than one's own?

"Are you saying that a bias in favor of promoting falsehoods is better than promoting truths?"
Of course not.
That was obviously not the context.  And no one has yet addressed my liberal happiness observation, just as no one has yet addressed many of my observations and questions from the previous page.  What is more moral that alleviating human suffering, and the suffering of other life?
Staggering hypocrisy.  I base my beliefs on the scientific consensus which has birthed a world of electricity, internet, happiness, equality, space travel and instant communication, while you base yours on a two-thousand year old religious text that would rather you spend your type sacrificing virgins and slaughtering infidels/h*m*sexuals/opposing religions/people who work on the sabbath*.
*Old Testament
Show me they have been proven, because I've never seen anything objective supporting that claim; and please, tell me, by what contorted form of logic do you deduce that because some biblical revelations resemble reality, depending on how liberal your translation, all biblical claims correspond entirely with reality.  Try taking that to court, and it might end up like Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
Believe me, I tried all manners of convincing.  I really did.

And please all YEC followers, research into 'Cargo Cults' and you'll get an idea as to how susceptible humans really are to religion and mysticism.  Though perhaps susceptible implies the wrong meaning, because (I realize just now you won't believe what I'm about to say) religion has to have evolutionary benefits (some aren't hard to imagine: kill rival religions, have many children, don't worry if you're unhappy this life, cause you're going to heaven!).  Religion can, despite some of its more abominable byproducts, beget happiness, fulfillment, a communal feeling and other survival based benefits, which is why it's so ubiquitous.

It is obvious from history that religion has its survival-based, and therefore natural-selection based benefits, counting those I just said.  I mean, once conscious apes developed the ability to ask the big questions -- Where did Grandpa go when he died? -- religion perhaps became necessary for those early creatures.  Very necessary; they may very well have lived an unhappy, and therefore less fruitful (and therefore less likely to be naturally selected) life if not for religion.  You may even say religion helped the conscious apes through the really hard part of their evolutionary lifespan.

But not anymore, and that is the point.  We no longer need it.  We are, most of us,  beyond that kind of sentimental fiction, and it does humanity no good to persist in delusion; and thankfully, when looking at Europe and Japan, we are dissolving those archaic delusions at an increasing rate.
I admit that the reasoning there was weak, which is why my very next paragraph addressed the possibility of your being correct, but it was certainly not self-defeating.  Although in the strict logical sense it wasn't self-defeating, it certainly wasn't very strong, which is why I also encouraged you to submit your evidence for review, but to consider scientists' opinions in response objectively.
I disagree, and find that statement hypocritical, for it is the creationists who never fairly address the scientist's arguments, assuming a priori they are wrong (which you do do.  YEC followers enter every debate convinced wholly that their position is infallible, that god created the a young earth no matter what the opposition says, which is ascientific).
Actually, all I stated was in fact the world's consensus as to history from The Enlightenment to present, but somehow that makes it my mind that is closed, and me who has condemned without fair trial.  How do you deduce that, when I am here right now putting you on fair trial, trying to open my mind as to why you believe what you do?
Cite evidence.  Show me.  Show me these theories are irrefutable.  And I reiterate what I said:

"... there are several very cardinal, very difficult to refute fundamental evidences behind the age of the universe. You address them too seldom, and I will provide a link describing them, and I would like to see your take on them. I just think you shouldn't try and poke holes in the Scientist's arguments rather than topple them altogether, which is what you really have to do, lest they accuse you of the gap strategy."
Theists like to ask : What if?  What if you are wrong, and you will pay for it forever?

But this atheist asks : What if?  What if -- just really imagine -- what if this is it?  What if the only life you get (not that life is something so apprehensible, a pathetic four-letter English word could embody it's magic) you squander living under fictitious religious dogma, when your biological brains are capable of so much more?  So much more beauty?  There's always time, and there's no reason to let any barriers withhold your vision of the universe.  I came here not to gloat, and I came here not to hurt.  There are anthropological reasons as to why religions exist; look at Cargo Cults.  I just really hope you'll consider my question with as much conviction as I've considered yours.

View Post


First, I object to and am insulted that you chose to re-write my postings. I do not do that to yours, why are you doing it to mine? By doing so, you treat my posts as worthless.

Secondly, I have determined that in my opinion, you are seeking not truth, but to just have an argument, I won't do it. You refuse to apply the same judicial standard to Creation you insist that evolution be given, that our viewpoint be considered fairly then judged.

Thirdly, I've noticed that when Biblical facts and evidences are proffered, you reject them out of hand. There are no secular sites that willingly or knowingly advocate or support Christian beliefs or teachings. Occasionally, a secular site reports a finding without evolutionary bias, and it shoots down a common evolutionary belief. I think I listed one or two of them and you rejected them out of hand. No matter, just watching the original Star Wars film last night showed the same type sedimentary layering I mentioned being outside my window only in northern Africa. More evidence of no erosion . . .

Fourthly, I have looked at your "Cargo Cults" info and found it applies to those that are easily manipulated. And you think Christians are the same as they are? You don't know Christianity as well as you think.

And finally, everyone has the same evidences to work with. Creationists and evolutionists presume differently based on how they see those evidences. It matters not if you like the word or not, it is the fact of the matter, the truth.

If you look at a primrose you see an evolved plant. End of story.

I see a flower so delicate it can't be handled roughly, a scent that evokes pleasure, and a design that attracts the insects required for reproduction while nourishing them. . .a plant far too complicated, too precisely made, too prone to total failure to reproduce the next evolutionary stage to have survived your "millions" of years.

I see the brushstrokes of the Master Artist, God.

You see an accident.

I wish you well. I'm out of this discussion.

Budd

#30 Guest_disagree_*

Guest_disagree_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 January 2007 - 02:10 PM

I guess we will have to disagree in peace, Ghostrider. And in no instance did I re-write anything you said; if you refer to my editorial brackets I used for clarification, the reader knows that the words aren't yours because they are in editorial brackets.

My apologies Deadlock. I just mentioned the two big areas I know where that happens.

Then Answer me two question.First, do you believe Socrates said what the books say that he said ? Second, how do you know those are true ?

I'm not familiar with this.

Fred, how can you convince me then? It seems the only way one can come to believe in YEC, especially from my standpoint, is to commit a leap of faith. All I'm saying is, the people who spend their very lives studying, being in awe of the universe, of nature itself, denounce YEC. I absolutely fail to understand how you can think they would stunt the understanding of their passion.

My uncle has a phd in Zoology, and I can tell you firsthand the man is pretty much a freaken genius. He gets off on nothing more than seeing the strange ways life has evolved and telling me and my brothers stories about how some obscure bird evolved some strange habit that's beneficial in some completely unimaginable way. You say it's good design; he disagrees completely, because he has seen the failed designs of those creatures that are now extinct. And not only that, design was proven to be unscientific in court. There isn't some mass conspiracy guys. Scientists are just guys who love learning about the world, trying to grasp the wonder, and when they see people who claim their life work is fraudulent, people trying desperately to shut out the facts, it freaken pisses them off. This is probably why there's so many people standing up nowadays, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

Ghostrider makes the common misunderstanding that there is chance involved in evolution. In respect to life, the only part that chance may have played at all was the origin, and that is something entirely separate from evolution (something still puzzling biologists). It is something very directed toward that which allows life to survive, directed naturally, and that is all. Indeed survival is the only thing evolution is about. Evolution in a nutshell: genes that are better at surviving predominate, and thus are those we see today.


Ok, you guys, I just wanna tell you my whole outtake on this personally,

Evolution, the old earth and universe, these things are blindingly obvious to the students of nature. They really are! Only when you abandon natural phenomena for the supernatural, which is not science, can you convince yourself otherwise. Your theories don't gain scientific traction because of this, as all science really is anyway is the study of what we can learn from nature.

All of you YEC followers were raised Christian. All of you. And if you hadn't been, and hadn't been raised in another faith, you would definitely not believe what you do today, and you would regard religion as I do: an evolutionary phenomenon that is beginning to fade away. Something that undoubtedly had its evolutionary benefits when mankind was more primitive, but something that doesn't anymore.

You were, as many unfortunate children were, indoctrinated. And not the namby-pamby indoctrination you try and accuse schools of doing, but real indoctrination. Your parents and family and everyone impressing upon you their faith from a very young age, and it got so it infected your very way of thinking. Neuroscientists are right now discovering the ways the brain's chemistry can change from things like this. You older YEC followers, if you have children or nephews etc., are no doubt guilty of this act yourselves, even if you consider it impressing the truth instead of indoctrination. Look at the documentary Jesus Camp, and tell me otherwise. That is indoctrination, and an evil hypocrisy.

But it isn't your fault. Religions, the ones that didn't go extinct, are very very good at indoctrination, just as they are good at avoiding science and criticism. You could say they have been naturally-selected, as per meme theory. Especially the ones that have survived this long, so you wouldn't expect their followers to have a weak faith. If you look through the Bible or the Koran, there are very specific passages designed intently to combat criticism, and not by a deity.

I predict that unless something crazy happens, like Islam or Christianity takes over the world (probably won't happen), in five-hundred years, less than ten percent of the earth will possess traditional religious beliefs. If you look at current trends thriving in the advanced nations, it isn't far fetched. Indeed if all nations were like Japan or Sweden, the world would already be that way.

And as to the issue of Cargo Cults Ghostrider, something I urge all of you to look into by the way, their brains are genetically identical to ours. No difference. If, by some unimaginable miracle, you or I ourselves were born into their environment, we would have turned out the same. Three thousand years ago our ancestors were the same as theirs, and evolution doesn't work quick enough (indeed it may not have worked at all, considering new theories as to how evolution applies to humans) for our brains to be any "smarter" than theirs. We are equally susceptible.

Thank you if you read this.

#31 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 28 January 2007 - 04:03 PM

I guess we will have to disagree in peace, Ghostrider.  And in no instance did I re-write anything you said; if you refer to my editorial brackets I used for clarification, the reader knows that the words aren't yours because they are in editorial brackets.

My apologies Deadlock.  I just mentioned the two big areas I know where that happens.
I'm not familiar with this.

Fred, how can you convince me then?  It seems the only way one can come to believe in YEC, especially from my standpoint, is to commit a leap of faith.  All I'm saying is, the people who spend their very lives studying, being in awe of the universe, of nature itself, denounce YEC.  I absolutely fail to understand how you can think they would stunt the understanding of their passion.

My uncle has a phd in Zoology, and I can tell you firsthand the man is pretty much a freaken genius.  He gets off on nothing more than seeing the strange ways life has evolved and telling me and my brothers stories about how some obscure bird evolved some strange habit that's beneficial in some completely unimaginable way.  You say it's good design; he disagrees completely, because he has seen the failed designs of those creatures that are now extinct.  And not only that, design was proven to be unscientific in court.  There isn't some mass conspiracy guys.  Scientists are just guys who love learning about the world, trying to grasp the wonder, and when they see people who claim their life work is fraudulent, people trying desperately to shut out the facts, it freaken pisses them off.  This is probably why there's so many people standing up nowadays, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

Ghostrider makes the common misunderstanding that there is chance involved in evolution.  In respect to life, the only part that chance may have played at all was the origin, and that is something entirely separate from evolution (something still puzzling biologists).  It is something very directed toward that which allows life to survive, directed naturally, and that is all.  Indeed survival is the only thing evolution is about.  Evolution in a nutshell: genes that are better at surviving predominate, and thus are those we see today.
Ok, you guys, I just wanna tell you my whole outtake on this personally,

Evolution, the old earth and universe, these things are blindingly obvious to the students of nature.  They really are!  Only when you abandon natural phenomena for the supernatural, which is not science, can you convince yourself otherwise.  Your theories don't gain scientific traction because of this, as all science really is anyway is the study of what we can learn from nature.

All of you YEC followers were raised Christian.  All of you.  And if you hadn't been, and hadn't been raised in another faith, you would definitely not believe what you do today, and you would regard religion as I do: an evolutionary phenomenon that is beginning to fade away.  Something that undoubtedly had its evolutionary benefits when mankind was more primitive, but something that doesn't anymore.

You were, as many unfortunate children were, indoctrinated.  And not the namby-pamby indoctrination you try and accuse schools of doing, but real indoctrination.  Your parents and family and everyone impressing upon you their faith from a very young age, and it got so it infected your very way of thinking.  Neuroscientists are right now discovering the ways the brain's chemistry can change from things like this.  You older YEC followers, if you have children or nephews etc., are no doubt guilty of this act yourselves, even if you consider it impressing the truth instead of indoctrination.  Look at the documentary Jesus Camp, and tell me otherwise.  That is indoctrination, and an evil hypocrisy.

But it isn't your fault.  Religions, the ones that didn't go extinct, are very very good at indoctrination, just as they are good at avoiding science and criticism.  You could say they have been naturally-selected, as per meme theory.  Especially the ones that have survived this long, so you wouldn't expect their followers to have a weak faith.  If you look through the Bible or the Koran, there are very specific passages designed intently to combat criticism, and not by a deity.

I predict that unless something crazy happens, like Islam or Christianity takes over the world (probably won't happen), in five-hundred years, less than ten percent of the earth will possess traditional religious beliefs.  If you look at current trends thriving in the advanced nations, it isn't far fetched.  Indeed if all nations were like Japan or Sweden, the world would already be that way.

And as to the issue of Cargo Cults Ghostrider, something I urge all of you to look into by the way, their brains are genetically identical to ours.  No difference.  If, by some unimaginable miracle, you or I ourselves were born into their environment, we would have turned out the same.  Three thousand years ago our ancestors were the same as theirs, and evolution doesn't work quick enough (indeed it may not have worked at all, considering new theories as to how evolution applies to humans) for our brains to be any "smarter" than theirs.  We are equally susceptible.

Thank you if you read this.

View Post


It´s very funny a person who says to follow only scientific evidences but ignores the scientific evidences which are showed to him, refuses to answer two simple questions and the only line of argument he can show is only rhetorical.

The evolution fairytales that you and your uncle share is not proof of anything.Please make some objective and scientific statement about evolution or stop to make us waste our time. I´m beginning to think you are an evobabble.

#32 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 28 January 2007 - 07:14 PM

Fred, how can you convince me then?

View Post


I can’t convince you, it sounds like your mind is made up despite the evidence. You already worship at the alter of your uncle Fester. I could give you plenty of PhD scientists who believe in creation, in fact all the great scientists of the past believed in a Creator, but I wouldn’t expect this to convince you either. Evolution boils down to common sense. We don’t need smart PhD scientists to tell us the truth about origins. Everyone knows the universe, world, and life were all designed. The evidence is powerful and undeniable. To think something as complex as the eye evolved down 40 separate paths via mistakes in the DNA coupled with a blind selection process, that genetic information can somehow arise naturalistically, that you are related to the banana in your fridge, requires an incredible amount of blind faith.

All of you YEC followers were raised Christian.


All? ;) Wrong again! I’d say at least half of the scientists I know who are creationists were raised believing in evolution. I already told you that I came to reject an old earth because of science, not religion. Abotu the age of 30, when I saw both sides of the evidence instead of one side (I was indoctrinated), I realized the earth was very likely less than 50K years old. Soon thereafter I accepted the Biblical timeline of roughly 6K years, due to the accuracy of the Bible on all other matters. The 6K years fit within the 50K time limit. As I have discovered, while the Bible is not a science book, it is always accurate whenever it touches on matters of science.

Then came the mitochondria clock of 6K years, then the Helium clock of 6K years, giving credence to the historical record of 6K years from the Bible.

So where does this leave us? You seem completely disinterested in engaging our arguments. You ignore them and move on to some other mantra. The truth is, the reason you and your uncle and all your academia professors love evolution is because you want no part of a Creator you would be accountable to. You cherish your sins, and don’t want to give them up! We’re all in the same sin-filled boat, the only difference is that Christians have accepted the life jacket that has been tossed to them, in the person of Jesus Christ, who bought us with a price by dying for our sins. We all deserve to go to hell, which is a real place of everlasting torment. You can deny it exists, but if it is real, and if what I tell you is the truth, your denying it will not make it go away. God is most of all love, and he suffers greatly every day because of those he cannot convince to turn to Him. God is also righteous, and just, and those who refuse to turn away from their evil lives will feel the justice part of God who will separate them from his light, into everlasting darkness. Saying you won’t worship a God who sends people to hell: 1) shows you misjudge the righteousness of yourself (which I believe is Satan’s most effective deception), and 2) will not make the reality of hell go away.

Fred

#33 Ghostrider1

Ghostrider1

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Interests:Bible studies, classic Cushman motor scooters, my family, vintage automobiles especially Mopar muscle cars, and fishing
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Moab, Utah

Posted 28 January 2007 - 09:03 PM

I guess we will have to disagree in peace, Ghostrider.  And in no instance did I re-write anything you said; if you refer to my editorial brackets I used for clarification, the reader knows that the words aren't yours because they are in editorial brackets.

Still, the words were mine and what _I_ meant. Would you want me to re-write your words?

My apologies Deadlock.  I just mentioned the two big areas I know where that happens.
I'm not familiar with this.

Fred, how can you convince me then?  It seems the only way one can come to believe in YEC, especially from my standpoint, is to commit a leap of faith.

Have you not done this veryt thing in order to accept what men guess, yes, guess happend so long ago? And even more so when they change the meanings of those guesses regularly?

All I'm saying is, the people who spend their very lives studying, being in awe of the universe, of nature itself, denounce YEC.  I absolutely fail to understand how you can think they would stunt the understanding of their passion.

I am reminded of the verses of a hymn we sang in church this morning: "Oh, Lord, my God, when I stand in awesome wonder and consider all thy hands hath made."

So we never admire the majesty of the Universe? Heck, we sing about it!

My uncle has a phd in Zoology, and I can tell you firsthand the man is pretty much a freaken genius.  He gets off on nothing more than seeing the strange ways life has evolved and telling me and my brothers stories about how some obscure bird evolved some strange habit that's beneficial in some completely unimaginable way.  You say it's good design; he disagrees completely, because he has seen the failed designs of those creatures that are now extinct.

Wouldn't those be the "missing links"??? and why hasn't he gain incredible fame as finding them?

And not only that, design was proven to be unscientific in court.  There isn't some mass conspiracy guys.  Scientists are just guys who love learning about the world, trying to grasp the wonder, and when they see people who claim their life work is fraudulent, people trying desperately to shut out the facts, it freaken pisses them off.  This is probably why there's so many people standing up nowadays, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

I know that Dawkins has delared war on Christianity and seeks to destroy it.

Ghostrider makes the common misunderstanding that there is chance involved in evolution.  In respect to life, the only part that chance may have played at all was the origin, and that is something entirely separate from evolution (something still puzzling biologists).  It is something very directed toward that which allows life to survive, directed naturally, and that is all.  Indeed survival is the only thing evolution is about.  Evolution in a nutshell: genes that are better at surviving predominate, and thus are those we see today.

Your reasoning is flawed.

A) Evolution requires positive mutation and a gain in genetic info and there is none.

;) The chance involved is the mutated creature has to have a compatible mate to reproduce in kind. Ask a gambler what have two identical hands in a game of poker does to the odds.

C) if there is a gain in genetic info, then we should, according to evolutionary schedules, all be ferns, which have the highest number of genes.

D) All genetic code is flawed, plant or animal doesn't matter. Osti, the Iceman of Switzerland, has been checked to see if he is genetically human, but no one has checked to see what percentage of his genes are damaged and then compared that to modern man and the damage in our genes.

Ok, you guys, I just wanna tell you my whole outtake on this personally,

Evolution, the old earth and universe, these things are blindingly obvious to the students of nature.  They really are!  Only when you abandon natural phenomena for the supernatural, which is not science, can you convince yourself otherwise.  Your theories don't gain scientific traction because of this, as all science really is anyway is the study of what we can learn from nature.

Science: noun; knowledge. That's what "science" is.

All of you YEC followers were raised Christian.  All of you.  And if you hadn't been, and hadn't been raised in another faith, you would definitely not believe what you do today, and you would regard religion as I do: an evolutionary phenomenon that is beginning to fade away.  Something that undoubtedly had its evolutionary benefits when mankind was more primitive, but something that doesn't anymore.

And you are wrong.

I wasn't raised as a Christian. I was agnostic as a youth, in the eastern beliefs as a yong adult (the 70's) and an evolutionist as a child until I began to question those pesky missing fossils.

I became a Christian at  age 31, after my second marriage.

You were, as many unfortunate children were, indoctrinated.  And not the namby-pamby indoctrination you try and accuse schools of doing, but real indoctrination.  Your parents and family and everyone impressing upon you their faith from a very young age, and it got so it infected your very way of thinking.  Neuroscientists are right now discovering the ways the brain's chemistry can change from things like this.  You older YEC followers, if you have children or nephews etc., are no doubt guilty of this act yourselves, even if you consider it impressing the truth instead of indoctrination.  Look at the documentary Jesus Camp, and tell me otherwise.  That is indoctrination, and an evil hypocrisy.

You're absolutely right. They took out prayer in schools and then forced the religion of evolution onme and the other kids.

But it isn't your fault.  Religions, the ones that didn't go extinct, are very very good at indoctrination, just as they are good at avoiding science and criticism.  You could say they have been naturally-selected, as per meme theory.  Especially the ones that have survived this long, so you wouldn't expect their followers to have a weak faith.  If you look through the Bible or the Koran, there are very specific passages designed intently to combat criticism, and not by a deity.

What you say about religion parallels what we see in the Evolutionist groups.

I predict that unless something crazy happens, like Islam or Christianity takes over the world (probably won't happen), in five-hundred years, less than ten percent of the earth will possess traditional religious beliefs.  If you look at current trends thriving in the advanced nations, it isn't far fetched.  Indeed if all nations were like Japan or Sweden, the world would already be that way.

And if you give a false prophecy, will you submit to stoning (the Old Testament sentence for false prophecy)?

And as to the issue of Cargo Cults Ghostrider, something I urge all of you to look into by the way, their brains are genetically identical to ours.  No difference.  If, by some unimaginable miracle, you or I ourselves were born into their environment, we would have turned out the same.  Three thousand years ago our ancestors were the same as theirs, and evolution doesn't work quick enough (indeed it may not have worked at all, considering new theories as to how evolution applies to humans) for our brains to be any "smarter" than theirs.  We are equally susceptible.

I never said they were physically different, but like you, the result of your uncle's influence (yes, influence. He set the ground rules for your environment) to indoctrinate a young mind on a one-on-one level, these people are the result of environmental issues and indoctrinations.

Thank you if you read this.

View Post


How odd you can't see the forest of evolutionary indoctrination in the world for the trees of your own indoctrinated mindset.

Budd

#34 Guest_Gorilla J_*

Guest_Gorilla J_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 January 2007 - 10:15 PM

I can’t convince you, it sounds like your mind is made up despite the evidence. You already worship at the alter of your uncle Fester. I could give you plenty of PhD scientists who believe in creation, in fact all the great scientists of the past believed in a Creator, but I wouldn’t expect this to convince you either. Evolution boils down to common sense. We don’t need smart PhD scientists to tell us the truth about origins. Everyone knows the universe, world, and life were all designed. The evidence is powerful and undeniable. To think something as complex as the eye evolved down 40 separate paths via mistakes in the DNA coupled with a blind selection process, that genetic information can somehow arise naturalistically, that you are related to the banana in your fridge, requires an incredible amount of blind faith.
All?  ;) Wrong again! I’d say at least half of the scientists I know who are creationists were raised believing in evolution. I already told you that I came to reject an old earth because of science, not religion. Abotu the age of 30, when I saw both sides of the evidence instead of one side (I was indoctrinated), I realized the earth was very likely less than 50K years old. Soon thereafter I accepted the Biblical timeline of roughly 6K years, due to the accuracy of the Bible on all other matters. The 6K years fit within the 50K time limit. As I have discovered, while the Bible is not a science book, it is always accurate whenever it touches on matters of science.

Then came the mitochondria clock of 6K years, then the Helium clock of 6K years, giving credence to the historical record of 6K years from the Bible.

So where does this leave us? You seem completely disinterested in engaging our arguments. You ignore them and move on to some other mantra. The truth is, the reason you and your uncle and all your academia professors love evolution is because you want no part of a Creator you would be accountable to. You cherish your sins, and don’t want to give them up! We’re all in the same sin-filled boat, the only difference is that Christians have accepted the life jacket that has been tossed to them, in the person of Jesus Christ, who bought us with a price by dying for our sins. We all deserve to go to hell, which is a real place of everlasting torment. You can deny it exists, but if it is real, and if what I tell you is the truth, your denying it will not make it go away. God is most of all love, and he suffers greatly every day because of those he cannot convince to turn to Him. God is also righteous, and just, and those who refuse to turn away from their evil lives will feel the justice part of God who will separate them from his light, into everlasting darkness. Saying you won’t worship a God who sends people to hell: 1) shows you misjudge the righteousness of yourself (which I believe is Satan’s most effective deception), and 2) will not make the reality of hell go away.

Fred

View Post


What Christians have accepted is a view of the world based off blind faith in an old and outdated book. God is neither righteous nor just; the only way to view him as either is to claim that all the cruel and unfair things he did were part of his master plan, and that they must've been righteous and just because he did them. Hell is an infinite punishment inflicted on beings who can only commit a finite amount of sin, and that alone makes it neither just nor righteous - it is not punishment, because after a point you would have paid for the crimes you did commit. I have read nothing in the Bible to suggest that God lifts people from Hell, and so I can only conclude that it goes on and on forever. It is an unfair and cruel end, and no kind or loving God would hurt his children like that.

Fred, you seem to have the belief that all those who reject God do so because they want to live amoral lives and engage in sin to their heart's content, and not have to answer to anyone. That is so incredibly absurd that it's laughable. The vast majority of atheists live peaceful lives, and do not on a regular basis abuse children and hunt down the God-lovers to set them ablaze. Please dispel the notion that we are evil and in denial.

Regarding failed evolutionary paths, no, they would not be "missing links". Plenty of animals that existed long ago are now extinct, and that is due to failure to adapt. A creature dying out does not make it inherently anything more than a creature that, well, died out. What would commonly be considered "missing links" are things like this: http://en.wikipedia....itional_fossils

#35 Guest_disagree_*

Guest_disagree_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 January 2007 - 10:54 PM

Fred, either you have failed to understand my posts, or you are being malicious.

I can’t convince you, it sounds like your mind is made up despite the evidence.


Despite the evidence... WHAT evidence? I'm the one whose beliefs are supported by every legitimate scientific body in every first world country! The onus is yours. Please, as I have asked since my arrival, give some evidence. All that has been provided by yourself and other posters that can be examined I have.

I don't see how you can believe the people who study science understand it worse than those who don't. In the heading post of this thread, I gave a link soundly trumping the claim that YEC has traction in the science community, showing that scientists named Steve (or variations thereof) denouncing YEC outnumbered those supporting, of any name (as per a link provided by one of your own poster's), by a margin of approximately ten to one.

And the whole "people deny god because they enjoy sins" argument is ridiculous. Supplementary to the fact my uncle and friends are arguably the most moral and studious people I know, there is an extreme logical fallacy. Why would anyone deny a god for "sinful pleasure" -- not that I can think of any myself, my friends or my uncle partake in -- for a lifetime, when they could experience unimaginable pleasure forever, as well as avoid eternal torment! This fallacy glares. If the Christian hell was any more deserving of merit than the Grecian Tartarus, which it isn't, you would find a lot more Christians about the educated populace, myself being one of them.

You already worship at the alter of your uncle Fester.

Here we have it. Pure hypocrisy. Insulting a man, a very great and accomplished man, whom you have never met. You are an immoral hypocrite, and the way you and many Christians purport to be moral even as you demonstrate your bigotry, such as you just have, is disgusting. Try telling the people whose jobs he helped save thanks to the role he played combating dutch elm disease. You demonstrate the true YEC character with this comment.

"Evolution boils down to common sense."
I could not agree more.

We don’t need smart PhD scientists to tell us the truth about origins. Everyone knows the universe, world, and life were all designed. The evidence is powerful and undeniable.

About scientists -- if you choose to denounce them, then you are the same as the zealots who denounced Galileo. About everyone knowing what they know -- they only believe that where you live (in addition to Islamic nations), and probably not as many as you think. As I already demonstrated; Europe, Japan, China, Russia and Canada most certainly do not believe all life was designed, and apparently neither to your courts, considering the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case (or at least that design is not science). And the fact that life appears designed is explicated in Darwin's origin of species document, if you would read it.

And as for evidence, I ask again, provide some. You keep saying the evidence is undeniable, but you abstain from giving any. I have given questions (though I didn't come to interrogate, but to shear your say), such as:

Why not refute the cardinal evidences behind the old Earth, such as those here?

I reiterate Cargo Cults. This is genuine, solid anthropological evidence as to humankind's susceptibility to religion.

Why is there more religions than one?

"in fact all the great scientists of the past believed in a Creator"
Whatever convinced you of this? I know of not a single reputable theistic scientist.

To think something as complex as the eye evolved down 40 separate paths via mistakes in the DNA coupled with a blind selection process, that genetic information can somehow arise naturalistically, that you are related to the banana in your fridge, requires an incredible amount of blind faith.

To someone who does not believe or understand evolution, the eye's existence may very well seem fantastical, but feeling the same about the banana being related to us? That is simple testable genetics, and has nothing to do with evolution. I can understand barely how someone can doubt evolution, considering its difficulty to test and its contradictions with your faith, but the banana to man relation has been tested and proven in laboratories! Saying anything against it is absurd.

Again you accuse scientists of possessing the theistic trait "faith", even going so far as to describe theirs as "blind". What do scientists have faith in exactly, and how is it blind? I find this accusation amazingly hypocritical.

All? Wrong again! I’d say at least half of the scientists I know who are creationists were raised believing in evolution. I already told you that I came to reject an old earth because of science, not religion. Abotu the age of 30, when I saw both sides of the evidence instead of one side (I was indoctrinated).

Certainly 95% at least, and I frankly doubt your sincerity on the matter. I have seen how religions indoctrinate, and trying to convince me otherwise would be like trying to convince me red is purple. I know of no YEC people at all from my school or community, and I expect if they exist in Saskatchewan, they were raised that way. As I said, watch the documentary Jesus Camp, and see what real indoctrination is.

"Then came the mitochondria clock of 6K years, then the Helium clock of 6K years, giving credence to the historical record of 6K years from the Bible."
Please show me links so I can evaluate as I can. Just saying it doesn't help me.

You seem completely disinterested in engaging our arguments. You ignore them and move on to some other mantra.

Remember I don't necessarily come to argue, but to see your side. However, I don't know of any issues I have tried to dodge. Please give examples.

The truth is, the reason you and your uncle and all your academia professors love evolution is because you want no part of a Creator you would be accountable to.

That is frankly not the truth, because, at least in respect to myself, I am not convinced there is a creator. Accountability? Such an archaic imprisoning way to live and think! It's not that I don't want to be held accountable for supposed "sins" -- real sins, mind you, like causing other life to suffer -- it's that I believe there is no creator to hold me accountable. Indeed no one but myself, and my own moral judgment and conscience. It is up to us to be moral, not surrender the idea of what true morality is to the fantastical. You are a fundamentalist, I take it. Do you really consider stoning people who work on the sabbath moral?

You cherish your sins, and don’t want to give them up!

Arrogance. You presume not only that I do "sin", but that I cherish and refuse to give up these sins. What exactly are my sins, since you seem to know so much about me?

We all deserve to go to hell

Be true to yourself; this hurts you, as it does all Christians. This false notion of perpetual imperfection! There's no such thing as perfect or imperfect. Why live an unhappy life when it may very well be your only life?

You mention, in other words but the same concept, Pascal's Wager. You ask, what if there is a hell? But I ask you, what if there isn't? What if this is it? Maybe this life isn't "it", but part of something we cannot imagine. Nonetheless, you may never be who you are again; you may very well become nothing at all, so decide your life carefully! As to how I answer Pascal's Wager: Which god shall I pray to, when there are so many?

God is most of all love, and he suffers greatly every day because of those he cannot convince to turn to Him. God is also righteous, and just, and those who refuse to turn away from their evil lives will feel the justice part of God who will separate them from his light, into everlasting darkness. Saying you won’t worship a God who sends people to hell: 1) shows you misjudge the righteousness of yourself (which I believe is Satan’s most effective deception), and 2) will not make the reality of hell go away.

I cannot believe this. If your God is so loving and powerful, why would he create suffering at all? The idea of something like hell is beyond the most unbelievable of cruelties, and I will humour no belief in such a thing as a loving god who fosters that. Did he not mandate what is sinful and what is not, and if so, why make anything sinful, if it could lead to his children suffering forever? You say Jesus died for our sins. Why? If God can do anything, why not just forgive us? There are literally countless logical and moral objections to the God of Christianity. If I had any faith at all, it would be Buddhism. Rather a life of peace and love than perpetual imperfection and sin.

Thank you if you read this, and please do not insult my family.

#36 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 29 January 2007 - 02:42 AM

Fred, either you have failed to understand my posts, or you are being malicious.
Despite the evidence...  WHAT evidence?  I'm the one whose beliefs are supported by every legitimate scientific body in every first world country!  The onus is yours.  Please, as I have asked since my arrival, give some evidence.  All that has been provided by yourself and other posters that can be examined I have.

I don't see how you can believe the people who study science understand it worse than those who don't.  In the heading post of this thread, I gave a link soundly trumping the claim that YEC has traction in the science community, showing that scientists named Steve (or variations thereof) denouncing YEC outnumbered those supporting, of any name (as per a link provided by one of your own poster's), by a margin of approximately ten to one.

View Post


Now I´m convinced that you are an evobabble. Fred Posted 2 evidences:

1) Carbon 14 in coal, diamonds, natural gas (C14 has a half life of 5600y, so it should long have decayed into N14; yet we virtually always find C14 in stuff that is supposed to be millions of years old). See thread.
2) Helium in zircons (as previsouly mentioned). See thread. I’ve just re-opened it

You said those don´t help you ? What do you want ? online teaching ? You came to a forum to discuss about a matter you don´t have any background.

The matter here is about origin, about scientific evidences, not about philosophy or theology.We are not discussing about if Christian God is good or bad, fair or unfair.You don´t need to believe in Christian God to see that evolution is flawed and there are overhelming evidences of Inteligent Design in nature.


View Post



#37 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 January 2007 - 02:46 AM

What Christians have accepted is a view of the world based off blind faith in an old and outdated book.  God is neither righteous nor just; the only way to view him as either is to claim that all the cruel and unfair things he did were part of his master plan, and that they must've been righteous and just because he did them.  Hell is an infinite punishment inflicted on beings who can only commit a finite amount of sin, and that alone makes it neither just nor righteous - it is not punishment, because after a point you would have paid for the crimes you did commit.  I have read nothing in the Bible to suggest that God lifts people from Hell, and so I can only conclude that it goes on and on forever.  It is an unfair and cruel end, and no kind or loving God would hurt his children like that.


So what would your ideal god do? Allow a heaven that is no different from what we have here on earth? Would you call it heaven if you got there and found murderers, rapists, child molesters in there with you? And would you consider it heaven when they turn around and commit those same sins up there?

So tell us:

1) What would be your definition of God?
2) Who should he let into heaven?
3) Who should he send to hell?
4) What would you consider rightous judgement?
5) And what would you consider rightous punishment?

Fred, you seem to have the belief that all those who reject God do so because they want to live amoral lives and engage in sin to their heart's content, and not have to answer to anyone.


So what is your moral standard? And who would you say you answer to? Because I have yet to see a written moral code that "all" atheists say they abide by. And I have yet to see anyone named they all say they will answer to. So when you make your own rules for life, what role do you play? You know what role it is, and is the reason you like it.

Do you actually think that Christians do not deal with sin everyday? It's a constant battle wage to resist temptation, and to try and do better than the norm of society. Because if society dictates your morales, and becomes the ones you answer to. Then you are not a free thinker. You are one who allows the peer pressure of others to control your life.

That is so incredibly absurd that it's laughable.  The vast majority of atheists live peaceful lives, and do not on a regular basis abuse children and hunt down the God-lovers to set them ablaze.  Please dispel the notion that we are evil and in denial.


But they do put up websites and forums pushing a hate so extreme that it promotes the killing of Christians on one level or another. To catagorize them as second class citizens with mental problems just because they will not concede to the same conclusions. So your whine about this falls on death ears. Because as long as these sites exist, and not one atheist will protest them. It means they are accepted, supported, and condoned by every sector of the atheist world view.

Unless you would like to provide us with a list of atheist websites where atheists are speaking out against these sites that promote such hate against Christians. Can't find any? Neither can I.

On my site, I speak out against those who would try and promote such hate. Even those who speak it that are considered YEC. We have even kicked a few Christians off this forum for expressing such hate for a non-believer. For a bad representation of Christ by a believer is much worse than a bad act caused by a non-believer.

#38 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 29 January 2007 - 11:50 AM

Now I´m convinced that you are an evobabble. Fred Posted 2 evidences:

1) Carbon 14 in coal, diamonds, natural gas (C14 has a half life of 5600y, so it should long have decayed into N14; yet we virtually always find C14 in stuff that is supposed to be millions of years old). See thread.
2) Helium in zircons (as previsouly mentioned). See thread. I’ve just re-opened it

You said those don´t help you ? What do you want  ? online teaching ? You came to a forum to discuss about a matter you don´t have any background.

The matter here is about origin, about scientific evidences, not about philosophy or theology.We are not discussing about if Christian God is good or bad, fair or unfair.You don´t need to believe in Christian God to see that evolution is flawed and there are overhelming evidences of Inteligent Design in nature.

View Post

View Post


Deadlock is absolutely correct that you were given evidences, you just chose to ignore them.

Supplementary to the fact my uncle and friends are arguably the most moral and studious people I know, there is an extreme logical fallacy. Why would anyone deny a god for "sinful pleasure" -- not that I can think of any myself, my friends or my uncle partake in


I expected this would get your attention. :D Now are you prepared to answer the following honestly? Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything, even the most trivial of things? Have you ever used God’s name in vain? Have you ever looked at another woman with lust (Christ says it’s the same thing as adultery)?

About scientists -- if you choose to denounce them, then you are the same as the zealots who denounced Galileo.


Ironically, it is you who is the zealot like in Galileo’s day. The majority in the scientific community rejected Galileo, and some (not all) in the church chose wrongly and sided with the majority view, just as you are doing now. Unfortunately many have been brainwashed in the public schools to think that Galileo was only opposed by the church, when he was mostly opposed by the scientific community and the scientific elite within the church.

"in fact all the great scientists of the past believed in a Creator"
Whatever convinced you of this? I know of not a single reputable theistic scientist.


My goodness, you need to get out of the matrix. Virtually every scientist of the past were Creationists– here’s a short list: Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Galileo, Pascal (someone *you* mentioned), Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Werner Von Braun, Copernicus, Maxwell, etc…… All the major branches of science have at their foundation a Bible believing, Creation scientist.

you may very well become nothing at all, so decide your life carefully!


LOL! If I become nothing at all, why should I care about how I decide my life?! Paul said it best: if the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" - 1 Cor 15:32

I cannot believe this. If your God is so loving and powerful, why would he create suffering at all?


God did not create suffering, we did. We are the reason there is death, disease, suffering, etc. We try to blame god, when we should be looking in the mirror.

Without free will, love cannot exist. God hates death, its an enemy to Him and grieves Him (see 1 Cor 15:26, and John 11:35).

Finally, you need to calm down and take a deep breath. The reference to your uncle was a joke (you are probably too young to remember the Adams Family).

Fred

#39 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 29 January 2007 - 12:03 PM

Fred, you seem to have the belief that all those who reject God do so because they want to live amoral lives and engage in sin to their heart's content, and not have to answer to anyone.  That is so incredibly absurd that it's laughable.  The vast majority of atheists live peaceful lives, and do not on a regular basis abuse children and hunt down the God-lovers to set them ablaze.  Please dispel the notion that we are evil and in denial.

View Post


Feel free to answer the same questions posed to 'disagree':

Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything, even the most trivial of things? Have you ever used God’s name in vain? Have you ever looked at another woman with lust (Christ says it’s the same thing as adultery)?

The problem is that atheists fool themselves into thinking they are "good", when by God's standards, none of us even come close. I've long said that Satan's most effective deception isn't evolution, it's the lie that being "good" gets you to heaven.

"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matt 7:13-14

Fred

#40 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 January 2007 - 02:00 PM

<snip> Hell is an infinite punishment inflicted on beings who can only commit a finite amount of sin <snip>

What an interesting turn of phrase, have you read that description somewhere, is it someone’s quote or an original by yourself?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users