Jump to content


Photo

What's being rejected by YECs...


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

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 July 2009 - 01:56 PM

Both sides exhibit the exact same strengths and weaknesses because both sides are just people.

View Post

If there is one thing I believe I do is recognize that there are problems on both sides. I have been commended several times (this isn't to boast. I boast in the Lord for the strength to do this) for acknowledging, with painful candor, the problems inside the Church and inside myself. Are you up to do the same?

#22 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 July 2009 - 04:49 PM

Hi Jason,

Again, my purpose wasn't to question the scientific evidence behind YEC beliefs.  My point was that YECs accept far fewer of the consensus views of science than OECs.  Perhaps you can find an OEC with whom to discuss the specifics of your differences.

--Percy

View Post


Hi Percy,

I think the point you just made is "OECs reject the majority of the evidence to form a consensus". :lol:

You said it,not me.You made the list of things that we supposedly reject and when i provided the evidence that we don't,you rejected to hear the evidence just the consensus.

#23 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 July 2009 - 06:25 PM

That's because he's not a believer. :) He's also been hardened by a rather looming group of insipid academics who can't think outside the prescribed paradigm.

View Post


I don't think being a believer is relevant at all.

I like option number three better. Stop giving this perceived 'scientific community' the super human strength and integrity that it does not have. It's kind of like people looking to the government to solve social problems. If the people can't do it, then the government will have to step in and solve the issue!... :huh: Wait a second! Isn't the government made up of people and known for making bigger mistakes on massive scales? Why should we trust the government anymore then the people they represent. Likewise, why should we submit, as we are corralled in our minds, to believe that certain trains of thought are scientific solely based on the idea that it is a broadly accepted belief among scientists? After all, scientists are simply people with the same desires, doubts and fears that everyone else has. I like what philosopher Don Carson has to say about academics and I paraphrase: "Academics (or professors) usually don't have things any better figured out than the students, they are merely confused at a higher level." :lol:

View Post


Actually I think you make a good point here by comparing it to the Government. They're all just people, like you and me (although hopefully with a deeper understanding of the topic). They are prone to making mistakes and shouldn't be held up as being more than human.

However, I don't think either of us would like to do away with either the Government or the scientific body. So the question is, what's the best way to keep them honest?

In Government, we usually have multiple groups (In Australia the predominant ones are Labor and Liberal) and they will quite often take opposing stances for no other reason than to oppose.

The same can be said for the scientific community. Taking things to the vote or elections is the Governmental equivalent of peer reviewing.

I guess the ultimate question here for you would be, if you don't think it's working like it should now, what would you have changed?

I think you're missing the larger point. Yes, there are local mechanisms of criticism but the larger paradigm is not up for evaluation. Why? Well, the debate is over, remember? :D

View Post


If you're questioning things as a local level, isn't that going to effect the overall? The 'larger paradigm' is only made up of the smaller people after all.

You see Arch, it's not good to brush problems off to say that there must already be a solution found by somebody or...
...such-and-such wouldn't be believed by the scientific community!

View Post


I agree with the theory here, I just don't think it's actually happening. The scientific community should be open to questioning and scrutinising, and I think Christian scientists could be the best ones to do it. But as Percy keeps pointing out, this needs to go through the correct processes to get there and not by lobbying school boards.

Today I look back and realize how trivial many of the things were that I had doubts about now that I've found the answer. Do I still have doubts? Sure, but now that I've pressed into my own journey with God and received the answers that I have, I have hope and a hope worth living for.

View Post


And it's for reasons like this I think religion is a good thing. It clearly helped you. I think the only concern I have is that most religions teach that this 'word' is for everyone. I don't think that is the case.

Now let me ask you. How do you intend on growing, as an individual yourself, if there are ideas that should fit in your belief system, that if analyzed a certain way, could generate doubts but the normal reaction is to push the solution off to those that have the PHDs because they must have the answers, right? This isn't just directed at you personally but anyone, atheist to Christian, who looks at a problem and says; "I don't need to think about this because it is the prevailing view, so it must be true."

View Post


I agree Adam, and I wish I had the time/intelligence to cover every scientific endeavour. Sadly this is one thing the 'Time God' isn't going to help me with :P

I also think this may be where some of the difficulty comes into play. There is just no way for a single person to understand all the scientific fields; we just don't have enough time in our life to do so. So instead of understanding one thing in depth people try to understand everything a little bit, and miss many of the important details.

For example I've been following your discussions on star formation in another forum and found it fascinating. I've also noticed you've come to conclusions without understanding all there is to understand. This is very likely to lead you to the wrong conclusion.

The unfortunate truth is, although we would both like to know everything there is to know about our world we never will. So at some point we both put our faith in different things. Yours is God. I put my faith in ordinary, fallible, changeable men.

Regards,

Arch.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users