E
edwest211
Guest
I know I’m under the Bradskii Ban ™
But yes.
But yes.
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
Thanks. I forgot about the tumbleweed.
B
Bradskii
Guest
The problem being denying basic science.
So here’s a solution. We ask someone (you, for example) how old the planet is, and then discuss their reason for believing so.
We can then determine if it’s science they are denying or fundamentalism they are promoting.
In your own time, Ed.
T
Thrstypirate
Guest
B
Bradskii
Guest
Bradskii:
E
edwest211
Guest
“emprical reality” Yes, things that can be tested and retested by others. I’m very familiar with it. I have no problem with that. I’ve seen it in action.
“objective reality” Impartial about facts. I do that all the time. And people can investigate what they like. One hobby of mine concerns history.
“real life issues” are handled well if there is a reason to believe a particular solution actually works. That it is the optimal solution. And once learned, it is worth passing on to others.
In other words, there are no two right answers. However, when data cannot be verified or has serious deficiencies, I do some research. I compare sources and I add whatever other relevant knowledge to what I know/learn.
But there are a few dogmas here that are being heavily marketed.
“objective reality” Impartial about facts. I do that all the time. And people can investigate what they like. One hobby of mine concerns history.
“real life issues” are handled well if there is a reason to believe a particular solution actually works. That it is the optimal solution. And once learned, it is worth passing on to others.
In other words, there are no two right answers. However, when data cannot be verified or has serious deficiencies, I do some research. I compare sources and I add whatever other relevant knowledge to what I know/learn.
But there are a few dogmas here that are being heavily marketed.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
The situation seems to be improving—maybe not fast enough—but it is improving. As I cited above, a more recent Gallup poll has been taken and “The percentage of U.S. adults who believe that God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so – the strict creationist view – has reached a new low. Thirty-eight percent of U.S. adults now accept creationism, while 57% believe in some form of evolution – either God-guided or not – saying man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This is the first time since 1982 – when Gallup began asking this question using this wording – that belief in God’s direct creation of man has not been the outright most-common response.”
I understand that those numbers are still discouraging to some, but if there is a clear trend in the non-science-denial direction, I’m not sure what the problem is. Not fast enough for everyone?
Also, who wouldn’t want to ride a dino? It’s a compelling presentation (YEC)!
And, part of what may be implicit in the Gallup Q&A is that most folks want to affirm that God is directly involved with humanity’s creation, which is hardly a problematic stance. Metaphysically speaking, such a position is undeniable—an implication of any cosmological argument from contingency is that God continually holds in being anything that exists contingently for every moment of its existence. People want to affirm that God specially cares about humans, which is hardly a strange affirmation.
I understand that those numbers are still discouraging to some, but if there is a clear trend in the non-science-denial direction, I’m not sure what the problem is. Not fast enough for everyone?
Also, who wouldn’t want to ride a dino? It’s a compelling presentation (YEC)!
And, part of what may be implicit in the Gallup Q&A is that most folks want to affirm that God is directly involved with humanity’s creation, which is hardly a problematic stance. Metaphysically speaking, such a position is undeniable—an implication of any cosmological argument from contingency is that God continually holds in being anything that exists contingently for every moment of its existence. People want to affirm that God specially cares about humans, which is hardly a strange affirmation.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
While most Americans believe God was involved in the creation of humans, fewer than four in 10 (38%) hold a strict creationist view, the lowest level in 35 years.
news.gallup.com
I read this and it says nothing about either dinosaurs or a 6000 year old earth.
It’s strictly about human evolution.
B
Bradskii
Guest
It’s about creationism:
‘The percentage of U.S. adults who believe that God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so…’
Good luck finding anyone who believes in creationism AND who thinks the world is 4 3/4 billion years old. Could there be any OEC’s?
But my apologies if there are some. I’d be keen to know. We should ask @edwest211.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Ignorance of healthy scripture reading is nowhere near as rife as you think.goout:
Thanks. But knowing that so many people believe this nonsense doesn’t float my boat in any way. It is depressing. Most of what Catholics believe has resulted in my atheism. It doesn’t need the willfull ignorance of YEC to bolster it. That just makes me frustrated at the lack of education in some parts of the world.
Tell me you are not depressed in some way that ignorance is rife.
But if fundamentalism stokes the fires of atheism, go for it.
(Brad, you’ve been here a loooong time)
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
And ewwwww… plus 17 zeroes.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
There really are. :man_facepalming:t2: Old earth creationism is a thing. Hugh Ross was an early advocate, but really aren’t all ID guys OEC’s?
E
edwest211
Guest
Improving? What specifically was wrong with the original results?
E
edwest211
Guest
Define creationist.
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
I read that as Mr Ed
M
Magnanimity
Guest
I’m sure you know the history of creationism. It is a outworking of modernism, closely aligned with protestant approaches to the Scriptures. Prior to the advent of the modern age, no one asked questions about Genesis regarding “historicity.” All of that stuff is recent and completely out of line with the ancient and medieval allegorical approaches to Scripture.
Believe me, I am aware that atheists engage in metaphysics denial all the time. But our answer should not be science denial. Denying either of those things is going to end up somewhere not intellectually satisfying.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Considering ID is more a failed attempt at getting around Edwards v. Aguillard, I doubt there’s much consistency on the age of the earth among its advocates.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
I used to be really into all of this stuff. So I know that for the majority of intelligent design advocates, they say they have no problem whatsoever with what astrophysicists and geologists tell them about the age of anything.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Yes, me.
And most of the people I know.
Why is the belief in a Creator inconsistent with current scientific data?
Honestly, I never knew about this supposed split between science and religion until I was an adult and have always found it baffling.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
My understanding is that “creationist” means somebody who believes that an intelligent Someone caused the universe to be.
That’s most people.
YEC is a person who believes that Earth was created by God about 6000 years ago.
They exist, but firmly in the minority.
- Status