A big reason for the sustainability of the young earth Christian subculture is that the young earth exegesis is cast by its leaders and adherents as being the only authentic biblical one and irreproachable. Thus, they are easily lured into a self-righteous false nobility of being defenders of the true faith. And that has a certain intrinsic appeal that is difficult to counter.
4 Likes
None of what you say made any sense. Do you know YEC folks? Do you live in North America?
Do you know the numbers of yEC? 99% do not home school. Trust?? oh brother.
Regardless of your unique case the essence of the evolutionist movement was a rejection of historic Christian ideas about origins. This motivated the unscientific acceptance of it in the small circles of āprofessionalsā who study origin issues in biology, geology, cosmology etc.
Your list of seven was no biological scientific evidences. Just after the fact interpretations based on the evolution hypothesis. none , but, none are evidences. they are all comparative.
They would persuade no one. Truly this persuades YOU!
I was taught that God Created everything etc. etc., and up to age 40-something I considered myself Christian (albeit I barely participated). I also fully accepted evolution, and that didnāt bother me at all. In 2005 with the coming release of Expelled I became involved in ID arguments, and as a consequence starting thinking about WHY I believe, and instead of WHAT I believe.
But I digress. The point is that up to age 40, if asked that Gallup poll question about God Creating humanity I would have answered in the affirmative, simply because that is how I was taught to answer. YEC can maintain traction because people tend to respond to questions about religion with an answer acceptable to their social norm, rather than one based on the facts at hand.
YEC does a great job of riling up itās adherents, but I think the numbers tend to over-estimate the reality. We also should make too much of a single uptick in the Gallup poll numbers. Polls fluctuate, and if I had to guess, this uptick has more to do with politics than religious belief.
4 Likes
My case is far from unique.
Most biologistsācertainly all of the ones I have metāare motivated by a desire to develop an understanding of biology that best represents the observational evidence.
Your insistence on tarring everyone who accepts evolution (other than me) with the same atheist brush is quite remarkable. When a forum participant resorts to such ad hominem put-downs, readers get the impression that that the participant is shouting because they have no arguments to stand on.
āIf the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." - Carl Sandburg
And now you have planted your flag in conspiracy theory territory, it seems. Step back and take a look at your language: āSmall circles of professionals,ā motivated by dark desires, who work together to dominate the thoughts of the innocent. Such language certainly has the look and feel of conspiracy theorizing.
Best,
Chris
8 Likes
As a guy I know said, the society has started destigmatizing ignorance, and thatās not good at all.
1 Like
You all missed the answer. Belief in God is sensible. That he authored and gifted a written record of creation is sensible. Wake up. Yours is the replacement model. What is ludicrous is that you have a mountain to scale to prove your ideas, yet you think you have already crested. How can we take you seriously?
Your accusing me like some teenager. I am making a accusation about motivations.
I insist there was a hostile, rejecting, stance in upper classes of europe/America in the previous centuries.
When a idea came along to explain away creationist?christian conclusions about origins THEN they quickly embraced it. I mean they embraced it without scientific investigation worthy before drawing these new conclusions. I donāt mean they were not sincere. They surely were. Yet they wwre motivated by anti religious beliefs and this interfered with normal careful studious reflection on new ideas of such scope.
It was unscientific acceptance. The ones today simply donāt do a good job. its very little about religion to them. however there is in all a knee jerk reply to these things that shows its more then straight science. it has religious underpinnings and overtones. sure it does. I accuse.
Nothing to do with atheism.
Its not biologists but origin biologists by the way. Anyways i was talking about the past.
Everyone is under influences/bias . anti christian ones are very apparent in origin biologists.
Creationists know that. We can assess our opponents motives. you did with me!! (except yours is wrong and too quick)
In other words, you are endorsing and illustrating what is known as the Argument from Negative Consequences/Associations/Motivations Fallacy. It is one of a long list of classic logic fallacies which every undergraduate logic major has to learn by second year or so of the program.
You prefer man-made traditions (recent Young Earth Creationist doctrines) to what God has clearly revealed in his creation.
4 Likes
Hi Robert,
You did not read what I wrote very carefully. I never once addressed your motives.
Go back and re-read what I wrote, and you will see.
Best,
Chris
5 Likes
You missed the answer. The bible is ancient mythology. That the earth provides evidence of its true history is sensible. Wake up.
Not convincing? Then stop wasting our time with arguments that you wouldnāt accept.
We provide evidence. You and your fellows provide only opinion.
2 Likes
You did. You seem to not understand what accusing folks motives MEANS. I donāt care. its fair, i think, in discussions. Everyone does it. I think I do it very, very, little. As a matter of identity and policy.
Over the course of several posts, this:
Then this:
8 Likes
āReplacement modelā is not a good name, because there isnāt anyone trying to replace belief in God with anything else. Atheists might want to do away with such belief, but atheism is no sort of replacement (a bit of a problem for the atheists, IMO).
2 Likes
Question: If someone believes that all āevidenceā comes from scientific inquiry that must rely on subjectively assumed materialism (no God, no supernatural)and that āsomeoneā is only a product of such mindless materialism, then how in world do they trust that they are even capable of making accurate conclusions from the āevidence?ā Deep. So it seems that the conclusions you come to from such āevidenceā are also just an opinion, and possibly a very misguided opinion because you are just mindless matter going with the flow from which you belong and were derived.
I on the other hand believe that I am created by God with value and dignity and purpose and the ability to think logically. When i recognize that the universe had a beginning and bodies of mass energy that are running down but still producing other forms is contradictory and illogical, i then also recognize the likelihood of the existence of God! Then when i observe my inadequacies as a puny human dot relative to what must be the awesome transcendence of the One who created all of the universe, then i must conclude that science can deliver some sense of our reality, but most likely not all and especially not in regards to the history of how we came into existence.
So you start from this false assumption about those who disagree with you and then concoct a ludicrous justification for your blind rejection of what God has clearly revealed in his creation. This is no new disclosure. Weāve heard it from you countless times.
No. That is the very opposite of mere subjective opinion. Putting quotation marks around the word āevidenceā does nothing to erase the fact that God has filled his creation with details of its history and processes.
And all of the Christ-followers here who affirm the evolutionary processes God has clearly revealed in his creation hold the very same view of personal value, dignity, purpose, and ability to reason.
Your failure to grasp the evidence and the implications for Godās creation does not make the realities of the universe at all contradictory or illogical. You have fallen into the classic Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy. Because you donāt grasp (or refuse to even examine) the evidence that constitutes the physical realities of the world, you insist that everyone else affirm your position of blindness.
And yet you proudly defy what God has so clearly revealed in his creation and insist that everyone else adopt your defiant opinion or else they are allegedly at war with God. You confuse your Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacies with divine revelation. Are you a prophet who speaks for God?
Yes! You must conclude that fact (that science can deliver sound information about our reality) because science is the study of what God has created. It is based on reality. (Meanwhile, science in no way requires a rejection of God.)
In other words (i.e., āmost likelyā), you have simply and arbitrarily decided that you lean towards the opinion that science is unable to tell us anything about our history because you find it unsettling and confusing to your personal assumptions about what you want to be true. You have chosen to be totally incapable of analyzing the evidence which God has given us in his creation and questioning whether your man-made presuppositions about Godās revelations. Are you driven by fear? I donāt know. Only you can examine and fully ascertain your own motivations.
7 Likes
God. Pre-existent with no beginning. Everlasting with no end. Permanently alive with no threat of demise. Ever-sentient. Self-sustaining. Source of light with no shadow. Undiminished in unchanging character. Perfect in emotion and motive. In nature, unbroken goodness. Source of knowledge. Source of power. Supreme in authority with no appeal . Swearing by his own name. Deciding and acting unilaterally. Speaking and bringing forth at will for his own pleasure.
Reaches into nothing and draws out a material universe. Chooses a planet. Calls forth a plethora of bizarre animal kinds. Personally fashions and creates Man in his own Image.
That is the only truly working āmodelā. Yours canāt even get started. No abiogenesis in sight. There really is no other reasonable alternative or replacement.
(By the way, go ahead employ your clever reverse argument on the above. We would all like to see it.)
Then name the processes that truly attribute to a mainstream semi if not fully naturalistic universal common descent evolutionary worldview which runs contrary to early Genesis. You say all animals evolved from a single source by time and the natural over 100s of millions of years. I say all animals micro evolved or adapted from animal kinds created by God as per design in short order as caused by God who is powerful, everywhere, knows everything and exists outside of time. You are agreeable with atheistic materialism which is bordering intellectual suicide. I am agreeable with a theistic creationism which explains how our universe had a beginning. One cannot scientifically prove one or the other, nor can science truly reveal the intentions and creation methods and designs and actions of God. Yet you seem hellbent to be disagreeable to the Biblical text, principle and command about and from God at every turn. The question is why?
If you claimed to be an atheist, and you admit this to me, then of course i understand these sentiments even though i would hope to share with you about the love of Jesus and about Him through whom all things were created. But you claim to be a Christian. You are in house. You are digging in to sway the churches Biblical creationist stance and according to the apostles assigned by Jesus, this is a whole different thing that should be marked with danger.
Out of everyone here, you by far confuse me the most. Agreeing with atheistic models and calling onself a theist. They cancel each other out leaving one in lala land. Is there some incentive you have that would help us connect the dots? I just dont know what to say to you anymore. Is it even worth our time to engage in any more discourse w each other?