Any young earth creationists out there?

[Gorgias]

Are there any other threads anywhere on the whole forum where people who show every indication of not understanding the matter at hand are so vocal in denying it?

A few threads on the existence of God come to mind…

 

[Bradskii]

Yoh are at liberty to point them out.

 

[Gorgias]

Yoh are at liberty to point them out.

I’ll just let that sleeping dog lie, thank you very much…!

 

[Glark]

A farmer has a pet mouse, a pet cat, and a pet dog. They all die and are buried on his property. Perhaps one day their remains will be found, and the conclusion will be that the mouse evolved into a dog, with the cat as the transitional fossil.

… especially if the mouse’s remains are found at the deepest level, the cat’s a bit higher up the strata and the dog’s at the shallowest level - then the evidence of evolution will be irrefutable.

Just don’t let anyone find remains of pig teeth on the farm, they will be used to construct a man, perhaps a whole new species of tractor-riding pig man

I think what happened was, the Nebraska Pig evolved into the Nebraska Man.:biking_man:

 

[Gorgias]

especially if the mouse’s remains are found at the deepest level, the cat’s a bit higher up the strata and the dog’s at the shallowest level - then the evidence of evolution will be irrefutable

One hopes that you’re just joking, and that you know a bit more about how rock strata are used to infer age…

 

[buffalo]

… especially if the mouse’s remains are found at the deepest level, the cat’s a bit higher up the strata and the dog’s at the shallowest level - then the evidence of evolution will be irrefutable.

Or if they got jumbled up they will be transitionals.

 

[Gorgias]

Glark:

… especially if the mouse’s remains are found at the deepest level, the cat’s a bit higher up the strata and the dog’s at the shallowest level - then the evidence of evolution will be irrefutable.

Or if they got jumbled up they will be transitionals.

Nah… we’d just understand that this is simply proof that God is trying to trick us.

 

[Onthisrock84]

Nah. The Church is smarter than that. Genesis is not meant to be taken completely literally, the first 11 chapters anyways. Not to mention the Hebrew word for day used could be taken to me an “age”. Actually the newest 20 Answers on Bible Difficulties explains this quite well.

 

[bobperk]

I think what happened was, the Nebraska Pig evolved into the Nebraska Man

All it takes is a tooth and a few nearby skull fragments to come up with whole species of men. Teilhard and his motley crew were jet-setting here and there, patching bones and teeth together into all sorts of this- and that-men. Quite a frenzy!

 

[bobperk]

It is a permissible interpretation but not one that is required to be held by the faithful.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

One hopes that you’re just joking, and that you know a bit more about how rock strata are used to infer age…

Nearly all Creationists are well aware that scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that any literal interpretation of Genesis is no longer tenable. Their faith is ideological, not rational. In order to reconcile the dichotomy to themselves they have to come up with a variety of coping strategies. One of these is the frank acceptance of two wholly contradictory opinions simultaneously (which is quite a common mental construct), and another is to try to lessen the credibility of the least preferred option by making jokes about it. Others are: to deny that the evidence is there at all, to create preposterous interpretations of it, to ignore the evidence itself and grab quotes from books about it which seem to deny it, and to assert the authority of an authority from a time before most of the contradictory evidence had been discovered. All of these strategies are apparent in this thread. There may be others.

A very few are honest enough to declare that the scientific evidence is all misinterpreted, and that the word of Genesis is entirely correct. These are the literal six-day-created, four-thousand-years-old-earth Creationists, who all have my deepest respect. A few passing visitors fall into this category, but none of the most frequent Creationist commenters. They have to have my respect for other reasons.

 

[Aloysium]

God is trying to trick us

I’m not going to let you get away with that. We trick ourselves departing from the Truth. In that state of ignorance, we piece together the remnants of the past, organizing them into a picture that reflects our basic understandings of our existence in the world. The standard theory of evolution is clearly incompatable with a faith that sees God, who is Love, bringing all creation into existence. Any randomness has to do with allowing the various forms of being to act in accordance with their nature, once they have been created, be they atomic interactions or free will. Plants, animals and human beings are different forms of being, existing as themselves and parts of bigger systems. They have had to be created. Almost all the diversity we see was designed to happen as organisms in their environment flowered. And, natural selection is the least important of a number of factors involved in the blossoming of life on earth once the creation of different kinds of being was made to happen, including epigenetics, the search for beauty and ultimately the bringing of creation into communion with its Creator. The data can be framed in any number of ways, some more comprehensive and explanatory than others. Being theory dependent, the data itself can support a theory which is less valid and often times what is required is a revolution in our way of thinking. God isn’t trying to trick us into thinking that the sun rises in the east and travels across the sky; it’s what we may see and understand from our limited perspective. Although around us all we may see is a fallen world, we can and will do much better than the “science” of evolution.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not going to let you get away with that.

Hey, it’s not my assertion – it comes from the YEC camp! That’s one of the theories out there: in order to explain what would otherwise be a reasonable interpretation of how fossils got there, some resort to the theory that God put them there like that, in order to give the impression that the fossil record is real (putatively, in order to test our faith in the Bible.)

It’s not a matter of letting me get away with it…!

The standard theory of evolution is clearly incompatable with a faith that sees God, who is Love, bringing all creation into existence.

It all depends on what you’re railing against as a “standard theory of evolution”, right?

Any randomness has to do with allowing the various forms of being to act in accordance with their nature, once they have been created, be they atomic interactions or free will. Plants, animals and human beings are different forms of being, existing as themselves and parts of bigger systems. They have had to be created.

Aah… so it’s the notion of abiogenesis that’s got your goat, then, eh?

 

[Bradskii]

Glark:

I think what happened was, the Nebraska Pig evolved into the Nebraska Man

All it takes is a tooth and a few nearby skull fragments to come up with whole species of men.

Maybe you could be so kind as to tell us where you get this information from. Or are you exagerating for effect? We get that a lot in these type of threads.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The standard theory of evolution is clearly incompatable with a faith that sees God, who is Love, bringing all creation into existence.

Well, no, obviously. Supposing (for the sake of argument) that our understanding of the ‘standard theory of evolution’ is the same, then our understanding of the character of God clearly isn’t, as I see his loving creative imagination much more clearly in evolution than in simultaneous spontaneous creation. However, if it is our understanding of the ‘standard theory of creation’ that differs, then I suspect it is you who misunderstand it rather than myself.

Plants, animals and human beings are different forms of being, existing as themselves and parts of bigger systems. They have had to be created.

If you mean this in a philosophical sense, then I can agree, but do not think that such a sense makes a loving God and evolution ‘incompatible’. If you mean it in the sense that living things are not descended from previous living things, then I disagree with your premise.

And, natural selection is the least important of a number of factors involved in the blossoming of life on earth once the creation of different kinds of being was made to happen, including epigenetics, the search for beauty and ultimately the bringing of creation into communion with its Creator.

No. Epigenetics is one of the ways in which Natural Selection exerts itself. The stuff about the search for beauty and communion with the creator is pretty poetry, but is not a refutation of evolution.

Although around us all we may see is a fallen world, we can and will do much better than the “science” of evolution.

I do not see a fallen world at all. Inflicting the moral degeneracy of humans onto the glories of the natural world is hubris.

 

[bobperk]

The Piltdown Man hoax is very well known! http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...piltdown-man-one-science-s-most-famous-hoaxes

 

[Bradskii]

Ah, so it was sarcasm. So difficult to tell in these threads. One can never be sure if someone posting nonsense actually believes it or is just having a laugh.

 

[bobperk]

Sarcasm to a degree. Those past hoaxes were clear frauds meant to deceive. But admittedly I do not agree with all theories and interpretations of modern evolution science.

 

[Bradskii]

There’s a line really. It’s sarcasm or not sarcasm. And you were referring to a past hoax (singular) that happened quite a few years ago. In fact over a century ago.

And you don’t agree with ALL theories and interpretations of evolutionary theory.

Just clarifying the situation. I like to know what one’s position is. Up front as it were.

 

[Aloysium]

Aah… so it’s the notion of abiogenesis that’s got your goat, then, eh?

Not really. It’s bad science, materialistic metaphysics posing as science and people’s lack of self-reflection that otherwise would have led to a realization they’ve been indoctrinated into believing nontruths that gets my goat. The notion of abiogenesis is nonsense and in itself evokes a neutral emotional response.