BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:43 PM

RE: carbon dating. Rocks are not dated by radiocarbon but by other isotopes with longer half-lives. They are also dated by other techniques - the way rocks lie on each other, cut across each other and push into each other. These allow the order of formation to be deduced. Then there is the observation of modern processes. If you have depths of hundreds of feet of a deposit which had to be formed in calm water and at the rate of less than a centimetre a year, times can be well estimated. And then they have to be buried, cemented, and hardened. Some show the signs of having been pressed, and heated at depth. The isotopes are only one strand of the dating processes which all combine to confim each other in establishing great ages. Or, if that must be believed, the appearance of great age.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:22 PM

Pete, I've read that article, and it doesn't help. It wrongly characterises evolution as an entirely bloody business, which it is not. Admittedly some have characterised the survival of the fittest in that way, possibly for political reasons, or because of the way men of the time viewed the competition of males as vital for development of society. Then it places that violent view against the nature of a loving God. But that really ignores the Biblical matter that lies between Genesis and the Gospels, where the loving nature of the deity it portrays is often hard to distinguish.

It's not an effective argument. The premises are weak.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:07 PM

Re: responses to people saying they will pray for others - it rather depends on what they are praying for. If they are praying for the others to recover from some illness or other setback, it's one thing. If they are praying for conversion from a position of perceived superiority, it's quite another, and well worth resenting.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 02:53 PM

Re: the guy who didn't know about tides - did he come from an inland state. people on coasts can see the connection, and the seeing sticks. If you don't listen to science lessons for ideological reasons, or you're just bored, maybe it wouldn't get into the noddle. Not to excuse him for being an ignorant idiot, of course....

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 02:43 PM

Well Ebbie where is noted as the only format/use of to be used on Mudcat, which is not a "paper", but a internet discussion forum? Regardless, I do see where someone could easily interpret it as such. It wasn't intended to be a direct quote, and "that is that". Anyway, it is easy to see this is merely a "red herring" put forward by Steve, as a diversion.

Steamin' Willie,
Indeed is very credible to question people and ideas put forward. But, IMO, it is another thing to "bully and belittle" those who are merely putting their ideas and beliefs forward (BTW, I dont preach any beliefs that I may have or not have, which Steve alleged). My point is Steve's approach has not stimulated open discussion, but has done the opposite. It is just as easy to do it in a respectful way (which I put forward, that Steve does not). There is no loss doing that, and who knows, occasionally it results in someone learning something new. Why can a religious discussion not be civil? I have not detected any of the folks putting their concepts forward as the "nasty people" (careful,that is not a quote) who are trying to impose them on others? So, how does it hurt to be respectful, hear people out and be questioning at the same time?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 01:16 PM

"There is no convention in Mudcat indicating that putting " " before and after words meaning it is a direct quote." Ed T

Ed T, I have no idea what else quotation marks could mean other than a direct quote. I think that is as true on Mudcat as on any paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:58 PM

In defence of Steve, if rational people don't make a stance and tackle religion head on, we will be back in the dark ages before we know it. Do you know there are people who sit in the upper house (Lords) by dint of their pointy hat who want government to reintroduce blasphemy laws?

If that isn't an opportunity to do my "Jesus on a rubber cross" impression when on stage, I don't know what is.

Look, its alright humouring people by debating but when one side has a problem with reality and the other side knows religion is all fairy stories and population control, it does mean that occasionally, just occasionally, some, myself included, wander back to reality and point out that it is all hogwash, dangerous bullshit and there is no such thing as God.

Grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:57 PM

Oh, guys! C'mon....


...never mind... who am I to interfere in a feud fueled by dueling quotations.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:49 PM

Talk about blithering bluster, you sure give a good demonstration. Not used to be taken to task for your schoolyard bullying Steve?

"Filled with inaccuracy and faulty observation"

Where is your "evidence" to that, Steve?

"Your link directly contradicted your own approach",

Where is your "evidence" to that, Steve?

"You and your like-minded allies"
Where is your "evidence" to that Steve?

"Incidentally, if you want to direct quote something I've said, please copy and paste in future, or at least leave out the speech marks: I note you frequently "promote" that you are "a believer in the way of science".

Good try, Steve. I did not directly state you made that direct quote, as you allege. When I do so, I will say so, Steve. There is no convention in Mudcat indicating that putting " " before and after words meaning it is a direct quote. If there is, please provide the evidence to support your accusations.

Sorry Steve, I don't have time to look through your thousands of BS posts that are mostly, if not exclusively, on religious topics. If you have the time, which you seem to have) cut and paste it here yourself. BTY, do you have any time for anything else but your war against religion? Have you thought of taking up other post retirement exploits? Bowling may help you get some of that excess frustration out of your mind? Just a thought, not a direct suggestion O:>))

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:19 PM

G'day, Ed. More bluster, I see, filled with inaccuracy and faulty observation. I clearly touched a raw nerve pointing out that your link directly contradicted your own approach, something you clearly hadn't noticed, but hey ho. My requests for evidence are not unreasonable. Read what I said to Georgiansilver on the other thread. That sets out my minimum standard, and I think it's exceptionally fair, don't you? Or do you go around gullibly believing every yarn peddled to you by strangers "because they said so?" You think I'm bullying/whining/whatever because I want at least some corroboration? In science, someone's say-so is just one possible starting point for further observation, experimentation and interpretation of evidence, and research must be reliable enough to be repeatable and peer-reviewed. And that's for work done which all falls within the laws of physics. In religion, someone's say-so appear to be an end-point, not the start of further investigation. End of. It must be true because he and his mates all said so. The "evidence" that you and your like-minded allies are inclined to accept consists of claims of miraculous interventions by beings who have never been seen and who break all the laws of physics - yet you set the evidence bar ludicrously low for them! Perhaps it is rather tedious reading to see this constant attack on the gullibility of believers, of their reliance on faith instead of evidence - but it is the whole crux of the matter. It wouldn't be a tenth as important if religion didn't use this as a springboard for ensnaring billions of people into accepting mythology as truth, but that's what happens and that what does the damage.

Incidentally, if you want to direct quote something I've said, please copy and paste in future, or at least leave out the speech marks: I note you frequently "promote" that you are "a believer in the way of science".
Never said those words, Ed. Hey, preserve accuracy and preserve your credibility is my advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:34 AM

Pete, have you read the whole of the historical part of the Old Testament? I can't believe you haven't, but can you honestly claim that the god who commands the extirpation of whole peoples like the Amalekites is decent? Or is in any way likely to be the father of Jesus, who claims that if one has seen Him, one has seen the Father? Or indeed, likely to be the God who inspired Hosea and Amos?

I know you live your life according to the latter. I can imagine you very easily arguing like Abraham did with the angels about sparing people from destruction, and I can't imagine you acceding at all readily to what seemed a divine command to kill anyone. (I look back to merrily singing a children's hymn "Who is on the Lord's side?" with no knowledge of its context in the Levites slaughtering some of their brethren who had offended YHWH, and shudder.)

I appreciate your dislike of the idea of evolution being based on death and disease, but if there were less of that sort of thing in the OT, that argument would be more convincing. Wiping out most of creation in a flood is not so different from things being eaten, is it? Killing all the first born of Egypt, when only the Pharaoh was concerned with decision making? But evolution may not be depend on that as much as is presented, anyway. It is to do with not passing on genes rather than being devoured. In my family, the last two generations have included at least five women who will not be contributing to the future of the human race - we never managed to meet the right man at the right time. None of us, as far as I can make out, were in any way deformed or diseased, and the two who are dead had reached their full span.

I've bookmarked that article and will read it when I have time. But I don't believe that it is an essential foundation for belief in the Gospels to accept the OT as literally true. The essence of the gospels, I believe, is the witness of Jesus and his followers, and the action of the Holy Spirit in them. If that were to fail because of references to a history which cannot be confirmed in the real world, it would be much much weaker than the last 2000 years has shown it to be.

And it would be falling into a trap seen by Augustine of Hippo. He was very concerned by those of his fellow believers who rooted their faith in matters which the pagans around could easily see to be untrue.

The universe has a very convincing appearance of great age. If faith in Christ is to be hung on its reality being much shorter, but being made with that appearance for some reason, such as Gosse's suggestion, which brings into question the creator's desire for the salvation of all, it is going to become impossible to spread that faith.

Kent, I don't think you entirely took in my argument about authorship. The writer who includes a back story for a narrative's character is not dealing with the same situation as a deity who creates a backstory for a world, and without any indication that that is what it is, expects people to see that that is what it is, as opposed to the "real" situation. With a book, we select it from the shelves, with a film, we go to the cinema, or put a DVD in the player. There is a framework in which we engage with the author. With life, we do not have any such choice, and only one source to suggest that we are in a work of fiction. The result of failing to accept that is eternity in hell, is it not?

The God who so loved the world that he came down to show us that, and to save us, would He set up a misleading trap? Because that is what YEC's are claiming.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 06:01 AM

It all depends on how you define "God". But what's the use even trying to get people to look at that...? ;-) Everybody just immediately leaps to their own favorite prejudice (their inner notion of what they think other people mean by "God") when it comes to that, and they seem to have no inclination to look beyond it. Too bad about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:24 AM

Just couldn't pass this one ...

QUOTE
Subject: RE: BS: Us elections/lunar orbit/tides
From: katlaughing - PM
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:46 PM

I know this is years later, but it seems to be a good fit for this thread:

How 'bout them tides?!

(Newser) – Apparently, Bill O'Reilly has never heard of the moon. In a debate Tuesday with Dave Silverman, head of the American Atheist group behind this, the Fox host tried to prove the existence of God by citing the unknowable mysteries of the tides. "I'll tell you why [religion is] not a scam, in my opinion," he told Silverman. "Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that. You can't explain why the tide goes in."

Silverman looked stunned. "Tide goes in, tide goes out?" he stuttered.

O'Reilly pressed on. "The water, the tide—it comes in and it goes out. It always goes in, then it goes out. … You can't explain that. You can't explain it."

Of course, Raw Story points out, people who passed high school science might tell you that tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits the earth.

But Silverman had a better response: "Maybe it's Thor up on Mount Olympus who's making the tides go in and out."
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 11:15 PM

Regrettably the apparent influence of the fundagelical right in the USA seems to me to be far more sinister (no pun intended) than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:12 PM

"I still can't get my head round anyone believing that a god made stuff that was millions of years old when he or she made it."

Makes no sense to me either, and I suspect likely not even most folks belonging to, or even regularily attending an organized Christian religion (me not being one of those, so I cant speak fer 'em). If it is proven to be true someday, I will be surprised, and open to correction:)

Like a previous poster speculated, most people who believe in a God (for whatever reason and personal choice) have no difficulty accepting evolution and all that science has proven to be most likely true (most, because there is always some room for new discoveries and updating). But, in most areas there is always a fringe group. Most are harmless (since they are small in number). It just makes life more colourful and interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:58 PM

Did I see above that the Pope has now said that God was there at the big bang?

That would seem to make OEC the view of the religious establishment and so YEC a heresy, wouldn't it?

I still can't get my head round anyone believing that a god made stuff that was millions of years old when he or she made it. The evidence is that the earth is millions of years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:16 PM

Steve, I have no doubt you read it all. But, did you take it all in? Or, only the parts that show you have a superior thinking ability to others?

I note you frequently "promote" that you are "a believer in the way of science". Where is the evidence here? I don't see it?

No credible scientist would broadly (and inaccurately) lump all "people" together like you frequently do, and more recently did with me based on sparse evidence.

Before you make broad generalizations about others, at least pay a bit of attention on the content of what they post. That way, you can claim, at least, accuracy. That way, you would "seem" credible that you at least follow some concepts of scientific or critical reasoning to others, like me.

Please provide evidence that I have been preaching anything in any mudcat post that you say (such as "believing" like the "fellow-travelers" you refer to).

I did not say that your request for evidence (though your constant whine gets a bit tiring) is unreasonable...check it out. What I did say was you did not follow through on the other parts of the article you quoted ... ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads...you don't do that by setting unreasonable conditions for evidence, or blasting others when they give views that you disagree with.

Nowhere did I ever say I believed, nor supported, concepts that break the laws of physics, (religious or otherwise) such as evolution, creationism nor the 6000 old earth theories.... where is your evidence that I did that.

You probably missed posts where I raised new and evolving research in physics, that don't even make sense to physics experts.

You seem to conveniently miss recent questions I posed to Kent (in this thread), to explain his concepts YEC concepts...and yes, I stated creationism has been debunked and asked for evidence for the 6000 geological concept. But, I believe it is "critical thinking" to actually hear people out, before making broad pronouncements.

You probably missed it all, because, unlike you, I asked in a sprit of respect, to encourage meaningful dialogue.... as noted in the article.

One does not have to be disrespectful elitist, and boorish, just because one has arrived at a different conclusion (right or wrong) than others. You may be right. But, does that give you a license to be disrespectful of others? To get the most out of a discussion, and others participating, why not try a bit of respect?

You say, "All you want is something even vaguely convincing". Well Steve, you likely have to find that for yourself...and it seems that you have (as others have). Why are you still searching? Maybe it's time to admit you have found what you are seeking, or if not, never will? Especially through the approach you have chosen.


I hate to say this, but Steve we have to stop meeting this way. It does not work for me, and I suspect it does not do much for you either. :))

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:25 PM

They can pray for me...can't hurt ME, and they feel better. just don't let them tell me they are going to make the textbooks agree with their view..


goodnight all...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:21 PM

BTW... I have quite a large collection of religious 'literature' and other anti-evolution...etc stuff from those extremists we both decry... I leaf thru it at times and remind myself that there is much to be done to at least keep the extreme views from impinging on my life thru crazy politicians...etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:18 PM

If someone says publicly that they are going to pray for me, I'm very inclined to tell them to sod off and keep their stupidity to themselves. It's arrogant and offensive and they shouldn't do it!

Or maybe I should tell them I'll slit a goat's throat in their honour. No, hang on - that's more potential bodhrans. I retract that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:14 PM

Would we have the secular equivalent of cathedrals & Bach's B Minor Mass without religion?...*shrug*... no way to test that. I can still appreciate the feeling and power of them....and I will NEVER be surprised when someone asserts that such creations must have been 'inspired'. Indeed they WERE inspired..by the very concept they strive to exemplify, whether 'real' or not.

I agree with you that they must indeed have been inspired by the well-rooted religious concepts. I love all that stuff meself and I struggle to contribute to this forum whilst Radio 3 is playing so much of Mozart's religious music, which is sublime (I'm even thinking of having the Ave Verum Corpus played at my solidly-atheistic funeral...) In a theoretical world without religion, there's no doubt in my mind that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven would have composed with just as much energy and given us secular works to "replace" those religious ones. But in no way do I regret that they composed religious stuff. Hey, religion is an unshiftable part of everyone's heritage, believer or atheist or pagan. I lay claim to that just as vigorously as any devout believer would. And all that church architecture too. Pagan tax money is worth exactly the same as believer tax money!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:11 PM

"I detect very little respect from religion for the non-religious stance."... Yes, I know... but I know a number of quite religious people who DO respect my feelings...and several who often post here..(I have been told seriously that I "am being prayed for" and that "God will see that you are honest and 'good' and you'll be fine" )....such a deal! I win either way....

*shrug*.. it's just my approach. You have yours...and you are a 'bit' less confrontational than a couple of others. *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:57 PM

Well, Bill, There is much religion in my own family and I have to learn to understand that, though "respect" is something that, in my view, is a little harder to win. Actually, whilst respect is demanded from us atheists, I detect very little respect from religion for the non-religious stance. Quite a double standard there. In spite of Ed's ludicrous assertions about me being some sort of bully (he's a confused man - I'm just a bit persistent, that's all! ;-)), it's the religious right, who have plenty of representatives on this board, who do nearly all the insulting and the bullying (I got fed up of constantly reproducing that sailor-boy's litany of offensive remarks, for example). The argument is simple (and these are threads which entice people to take one of two sides, unpalatable as that may seem to some). Any notion you wish to promote, in the presence of those who may embrace an opposing view, is either supported by evidence or it is open to ridicule. I have no issue (as I've said many times) with the billions of people who lean on God and quietly get on with their lives. But if such folks come on here with their unsupported assertions they have to be prepared to take the flak. Religion has managed to defend itself from criticism over the centuries by dint of ridiculous blasphemy laws (not to speak of death threats), but times have changed and we now find religion to be very uncomfortable indeed with criticism whilst having no recourse any longer to these repressive methods of shutting up its opponents. That old mindset which assumed that you'd be protected by having those daring to demur burned at the stake has cast rather a long shadow. All that remains for believers of a militant ilk is to demonise their opponents, having realised that there really is no recourse to argument. We see that in these threads all the time. Ed's intemperate and frustrated rant is merely the most recent in a long line of such desperate examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:54 PM

"...there's a lot of good scholarship developed out of that sort of upbringing.."

Sure.. scholarship flourishes when its driving force is rooted in promoting and documenting deeply held and valued cultural values. But as is often said: "scholars differ". We learn about ourselves when we investigate the foundations and development of our ancestors...and of 'theirs'.

Music & architecture all thru history were enhanced by the desire of artists to glorify their god(s). Would we have the secular equivalent of cathedrals & Bach's B Minor Mass without religion?...*shrug*... no way to test that. I can still appreciate the feeling and power of them....and I will NEVER be surprised when someone asserts that such creations must have been 'inspired'. Indeed they WERE inspired..by the very concept they strive to exemplify, whether 'real' or not.

..................................

BTW I did a search on the Lucy/Peanuts post I have reposted, and found this thread on Astrology. I could have saved typing by copying some remarks there and substituting some terms... *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:23 PM

ps Bill, Iwas talking about you're previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:18 PM

Hi Bill. I'd agree with you up to a point, but there's a lot of good scholarship developed out of that sort of upbringing. Bart Ehrman tells in "Whose Word is it?" how his initial acceptance of a literalist interpretation led him to a completely new and much wider understanding of the sources and method of transmission of the texts. In David Kotz's "Words on Fire: the unfinished Story of Yiddish", he makes the case that cycles of Orthodoxy within the Jewish community have created the circumstances that led to Jews being able to contribute to a greater degree to the various non-religious disciplines in succeeding generations. A similar case has been made for the 18th century Scottish Enlightenment being fueled by the Puritanism of the 17th.

Having said that, I've never come across an argument for Creationism which didn't make the case for the accepted theories of evolution etc, then claim that they'd proved creationism with a quite 'elegant' non-sequitur.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:12 PM

Steve... I basically agree with your position...but unlike you, I temper it with my awareness (perhaps from my years in **Kansas**) of how deeply religious beliefs are ingrained in some families, culture, nations...etc.

You cannot just say.. "get over it, you fools. I have better evidence & reasoning." You can explain patiently why you cannot buy into their belief system and you can offer 'divergent views' in a way that may at least invites their attention, instead of putting them off in a way that suggests they have wasted their lives & money going to church. I try to show Kent... and others... why I began IN a church, saw things that made me say...hmmmmmm... and eventually become a skeptic about religion and many other 'metaphysical' concepts.

It's as important as 'being sure you are right' to work out how to be right.... and that goes for BOTH sides.. including the guy who stuck the "pray to Jesus" circular under my car's wiper the other day.

--------------------------------------

(reposted for about the 6th time)
Old Peanuts cartoon:

Lucy, talking to Linus: "Change your mind!"
Linus just looks at her.
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND!!
Linus looks more intimidated...
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!!"

Lucy, walking away, disgruntled and mumbling."Boy, it's hard to get people to change their minds these days!"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:07 PM

One explanation:

Click

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:02 PM

"its mindless, corrosive, dangerous bullshit"

Oh...just like most modern political propaganda and corporate advertising, then? ;-) I'll do my best to avoid it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:45 PM

"The Bible says 'X'...I grew up believing the Bible, so I believe 'X', and no one can show me any 'proof' that 'X' is false, so my belief is as valid as your science.."
That's it in a nutshell. But the belief is not as valid as the science. That's the whole point. It's self-evidently not so. I believe in the science (without accepting it as truth) because science searches for and presents me with evidence. Growing up being made to believe in the Bible instructs you to stop looking for evidence. And no, I won't turn the bloody record over. It's the whole nub of the thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:40 PM

It ain't fun, Saul- its mindless, corrosive, dangerous bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:39 PM

"...so far it looks rather self-referential to me,"

It **is** basically self-referential... "The Bible says 'X'...I grew up believing the Bible, so I believe 'X', and no one can show me any 'proof' that 'X' is false, so my belief is as valid as your science.." --some version of that. And, it is the case that no one CAN 'prove' it false....all we can do is appeal to the intellect to recognize the circular reasoning and make the effort to integrate religious beliefs with scientific evidence...like the Pope just did. I have my issues with the Catholic church, but they are slowly responding to modern times better than many Protestant groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:31 PM

I read it all, Ed. Unfortunately, you either didn't read or didn't heed the bit I quoted, which is totally at odds with what you and your believer fellow-travellers have been preaching. My requests for evidence are eminently reasonable, in view of the fact that we're expected to believe in a supernatural being who is in breach of all the laws of physics, who is ludicrously more complicated and inexplicable than the things he's supposed to be the explanation for, and who has so far deigned never to put in any sort of appearance, and no amount of your bluster (as a result of your being sussed) can cover up for that. All I want is something even vaguely convincing. Not even proof! But you never get anywhere near. You're confused about this, Ed. Join the rational and ask for evidence!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: saulgoldie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:15 PM

Creationism is curious as a concept. But it is a "belief" rather than a "fact" supported by science. As such, we should, as thinking people, keep it in its place as fun (if it IS fun) parlor chat (maybe three or four beers into chat) rather than base any curriculum or public policy on it.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:46 PM

I'm still waiting to hear Kent's promised explanation of Creationism. All we've had so far is a sparse description, albeit couched in somewhat patronising allegory. A more comprehensive description can be found at creationist.com, but again no actual explanation; so far it looks rather self-referential to me, not to mention unsure of its ground, judging by Kent's reluctance to address any of the questions raised in response to what he has said, other than by claiming persecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:34 PM

Kent,

My thoughts on your explanations below:

"Here is what Young Earth Creationists believe: God exists. He is uncreated, eternal, and omnipotent. He made the universe. Being omnipotent, He could have made it any way He choose and, being eternal as well, he could have made it in 767 quintillion years, or in 30 billion years, or in six days, or in 0.04 milliseconds.    He could have made it 17 octillion years ago or 7,000 years ago or this afternoon."

Logic suggests that the creator must have been created (if so, who created the creator's creator?) ... Oh, I see you only have to declare that the creator is uncreated! But how do you know that?

Creation requires stocks of material, tools, computing power etc. Where, exactly were all those things stored before creation occurred? Where's the super-dooper, mega-computer that runs it all?

If I, and the rest of creation, were created "six days or 0.04 milliseconds" ago, does that mean that all of my memories of a previous life are just illusions and I'm really just sort of 'frozen in time'?   

"God knows how long He took to create the universe and He knows when He created it. He could have chosen to keep this information from us, or He could have chosen to reveal this information to us. He chose to reveal it to us. If He did not reveal it, we could never figure it out, because it is impossible, in principle, to deduce, from WITHIN a work of art, when the work began UNLESS somehow "outside" information gets in."

But he didn't reveal this to everyone, did he? Eskimos, American Indians, Tibetans, Papuan New Guineans, Australian Aborigines, the Chinese etc. seem to have been left 'out of the loop'.

To be frank, all of this seems to be an extreme example of a common human failing i.e. start from the conclusion and work backwards, ignoring any inconvenient information that doesn't fit. The creator might have been omnipotent but his creations are certainly not perfect, are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:29 PM

Bill said:"NON-critical thinkers will simply define their thoughts as being in compliance and inform us that they DO analyze all sides fairly & reasonably before settling on a rigid position. You just can't win when someone has mastered circular reasoning."

Steve Said:"We are thinking critically when we...require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads...

Why, Ed, whenever I've proposed precisely this as the only way to think about God you have consistently opposed me and supported the irrational viewpoint! Good to see you onside at last"


Steve,
Unfortunately, I expected you to be the first to demonstrate just what Bill predicted earlier.

I suggest you read the entire article, rather than pick out what is convenient, and reinforce your approach to discussion on religion, (which you seem to mostly limit your BS thread participation to).

While you surely have asked for evidence a multitude of times, IMO, you have done it in a manner to stifle debate, rather than encourage it.

IMO, you have consistently dismissed or ignored those who have posted viewpoints counters to your (lack of) a god belief.

IMO, you have not made any attempt to follow where it leads, or encourage others to do so (the rest of the article, Steve).

Rather than be receptive, IMO you have belittled (and, IMO, bullied) others who have openly attempted to state their views on their belief and dismissed their points in a non-productive manner.

Yes, you have indeed given your opinion on how others should think about God. In fact, your approach, IMO, has contributed to folks not giving their views, rather than encouraging dialogue.

I don't recall having many discussions with you, opposing any such thing, as you state. But, unlike you, I will not ask you to "provide evidence" to back up the statement.

I have in a couple of occasions taken you to task when I felt you were disrespectful to others. However, since it only seemed to stimulate retaliation on your part, and seemed pointless, I have mostly avoided discussing anything with you directly.( I was also given wise PM advise from a number of other objective Mudcaters to avoid such discourse with you).

Hopefully, you will objectively read the entire article I linked to, rather than select snippets. It is never too late to brush up on ways to make a meaningful contribution to discussions.

And, in closing...it really does not matter to me what people believe in a god or not. IMO, it is their choice, using whatever criteria they wish. What does matter to me, is how they treat and respect others.

Adios

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:20 PM

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:12 PM

Why don't you give us your opinions, Dave, instead of the pointless and vacuous one-liners? Does your brain work?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:59 PM

"you have consistently opposed me and supported the irrational viewpoint!"

This from the man who believes that Atheists don't have to think logically.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:46 PM

Quote from Ed's link:

We are thinking critically when we...require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads...

Why, Ed, whenever I've proposed precisely this as the only way to think about God you have consistently opposed me and supported the irrational viewpoint! Good to see you onside at last...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:34 PM

As Mr Fluids knows but chooses to ignore, the term "association football" distinguishes that endeavour from "rugby football" - and indeed from Australian Rules football. It is the correct designation. The prevalence of an error does not make it other than an error.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:15 PM

Ahah!

Now... if I pray for divine intervention for Sheffield Wednesday to win the FA Cup this year, Jack does the same for Villa and Steve prays for Liverpool...

Every football fan knows, you cannot accomodate more than one faith. So somebody (any non Owls fan) is barking up the wrong tree.

There's a point to this somewhere but to be honest, thinking about winning the FA Cup has distracted my thought train somewhat. I'd settle for winning the next home game if truth be known and after the nail biting match at Huddersfield the other day.

Oh, and so M'unlearned friend can join in the debate, that's association football. (His phrase to describe what the rest of the world (except our friends across the pond) call football.)

Creationism is something Chris Waddle and David Hirst were doing in the box almost twenty years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:33 AM

A Liverpool fan? Luxury! The season the Villa are having is making me wish for divine intervention.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:24 AM

It's a fine synopsis, Ed... sadly, NON-critical thinkers will simply define their thoughts as being in compliance and inform us that they DO analyze all sides fairly & reasonably before settling on a rigid position. You just can't win when someone has mastered circular reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:56 AM

I know information on "critical thinking" on the site below is elementary. But, it could give a guide (to anyone interested) to avoid some pitfalls in obtaining knowedge from discussions (and separating the non-meaningful from meaningful dialogue) I assume considering other viewpoints and obtaining knowledge is at least one reason for participating in Mudcat threads? But, I could be wrong:)

Anyway, its fairly short, so, look it over if you wish. Or, ignore it if you prefer. I hope it contributes in some small way to discussions, and a reduction of discourse. But, I will not be dissapointed if it does not:))

Short guide to critical thinking

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:45 AM

It's okay, folks...we can quit debating... the Pope has weighed in. "God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident:"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:38 AM

I would but don't you have to have at least one conviction for handling stolen goods before you are a scouser?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:21 AM

Try being a Liverpool fan, Willie. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:53 AM

To clarify further: why something is believed is quite a different thing to whether it is true. Lots of things are believed when their truthfulness is unknown or unproven. Equally 'denial' is a shorthand for the common human behaviour when things that are true are not believed. To me if you 'explaining a viewpoint' could easily include why it is *believed*, but need not go as far as whether it is *true*.