0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
It depends who you ask.
There’s several different ideas floating around.
- Status
There’s several different ideas floating around.
G
Gingersnaps4
Guest
I’m old earth, but neither for nor against evolution, personally. I would feel better about it if we were finding fossils of creatures in transition between one species and another. We’ve found so many fossils but nothing that I know of that is an obvious example of something in the process of turning into another thing. But then again, like I said, im not against it either. And I’m definitely FOR adaptation, which is different than evolution but still causes change.
E
edwest211
Guest
Go ahead. You know what I’m talking about.
T
TMC
Guest
I am confused by what you mean by this. Are you saying that the data that suggest the earth is old has serious deficiencies? And what dogma are being heavily marketed?
T
TMC
Guest
No it is not fast enough. I think there was actually some backslide on this in the 20th century, and we are moving ahead again in the 21st (to be fair, that is an impression, I have not done the research on it). We are still too far away for my own comfort.
This is what I meant by my comment that some poll takers will give extreme responses they do not actually believe as a form of cultural signaling. Some people may be saying they believe in YEC as a proxy for affirming their belief in God. A well constructed poll can minimize this to some degree, but it is a difficult phenomena to detect and correct.
E
edwest211
Guest
And it should be corrected why? People will forget how to drive? Use their cell phones? What?
P
Pattylt
Guest
One problem in the debate is often the terminology and how each is defining it. All those that believe God was involved in creation might conclude they are a creationist. The problem is that the term creationist tends to mean the smaller subset that is a YEC. That’s why it’s often helpful to ask, “ do you mean theistic creation or YEC creation. Just because someone agrees with the science of evolution doesn’t mean, “without God”.
I can attest to avoiding embarrassment when I was discussing evolution with someone and it took a little back and forth before it became clear that when she said she was a creationist, she did NOT mean she was a YEC. Once that was cleared up, we had a great talk. I learned something important that day!
I can attest to avoiding embarrassment when I was discussing evolution with someone and it took a little back and forth before it became clear that when she said she was a creationist, she did NOT mean she was a YEC. Once that was cleared up, we had a great talk. I learned something important that day!
T
TMC
Guest
Did you not understand my previous explanation? Perhaps I was too vague, so I will be more explicit.
We live in a society in which the public has significant say in the decisions about how to order our society, and how to expend resources. If that public’s understanding of reality becomes disconnected from actual reality, the public will be making those important decisions based on a false understanding of reality. People who have a false understanding of reality tend to make bad decisions. Its like giving a gun to a blindfolded man - maybe it will turn out alright, but why not take the blindfold off?
If the only thing people did was drive their own cars and talk on their own phones then maybe, maybe, it would be OK if a significant portion of society was disconnected from reality. But that is not how our society works.
E
edwest211
Guest
Thank you for that more detailed reply. Your imprecise examples need better examples.
“how to order our society” I would say that most people would either not answer or think that the current order is OK. So, if you don’t mind, two specific examples?
“expend resources” I would say that most people have a very limited say in expending any resources. The only people who would have a significant say are the very wealthy. Since only they have the resources to manage resources properly.
The average person who has a job in the US has little time or interest in things that have been handed off to others for what they hope will be proper management. Informing the public is good. However, the common media does a very bad job. It, as an entity, only cares about attracting people and collecting advertising dollars. Useful information would be going beyond the ‘entertainment’ value of the news, such as it is.
“how to order our society” I would say that most people would either not answer or think that the current order is OK. So, if you don’t mind, two specific examples?
“expend resources” I would say that most people have a very limited say in expending any resources. The only people who would have a significant say are the very wealthy. Since only they have the resources to manage resources properly.
The average person who has a job in the US has little time or interest in things that have been handed off to others for what they hope will be proper management. Informing the public is good. However, the common media does a very bad job. It, as an entity, only cares about attracting people and collecting advertising dollars. Useful information would be going beyond the ‘entertainment’ value of the news, such as it is.
T
TMC
Guest
People do vote, you know. And that gives the public a say in a lot of issues related to the ordering of our society and the use of our resources. Issues like whether to have a space program and how to fund it, whether to research the genetic source of disease, whether and how to act to preserve natural resources, how to react to climate change, even many sociological and human rights issues can be influenced by whether one accepts or rejects empirical reality.
E
edwest211
Guest
That doesn’t help much. Really. People vote, sure. And there is usually a person at the yellow 120 ft. line waiting to hand me fliers. I ignore that. I’m not here to be influenced by some unknown person. I study the issues, look into things that are not clear and ignore the hoopla. When I elect a national leadership, I take the time to see what the candidates stand for.
Space program? I was all in when one was announced in the 1960s. I have no reason to believe current plans will include anything close to the real reasons.
Genetic source of disease. I’m following that. Good progress is being made. But only the very wealthy, who don’t want to die, can fund the research.
Natural resources? Seriously? I’d like to remove the earth-movers and stop the cutting down of trees but wealthy landowners would stop me. There’s no money in cleaning up rivers. Unless some landowner needs it done.
Climate change? The very wealthy don’t want to die or lose beachfront properties. The technology is in place. It’s only a matter of figuring out how to make money from the changeover.
What sociological issues?
What human rights issues?
Space program? I was all in when one was announced in the 1960s. I have no reason to believe current plans will include anything close to the real reasons.
Genetic source of disease. I’m following that. Good progress is being made. But only the very wealthy, who don’t want to die, can fund the research.
Natural resources? Seriously? I’d like to remove the earth-movers and stop the cutting down of trees but wealthy landowners would stop me. There’s no money in cleaning up rivers. Unless some landowner needs it done.
Climate change? The very wealthy don’t want to die or lose beachfront properties. The technology is in place. It’s only a matter of figuring out how to make money from the changeover.
What sociological issues?
What human rights issues?
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
I’m pretty sure OECs exist.
T
TMC
Guest
You know Ed, I like you, but you really like to ask a lot of questions without answering any.
I am sure you are aware that there are myriad sociological and human rights issues that are tied to erroneous scientific views. It was not so long ago that we had public support for treating those of certain heritages differently, as just one example. Some of those views were based on pseudo science and some were supported from what was claimed to be a literal reading of scripture. We don’t need to divert this thread into a debate about those issues to understand that unhinging decision makers from reality leads to bad decisions.
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
I am more fascinated by those who claim to be Flat Earthers.
T
TMC
Guest
Actually growing in numbers (but still small). Interesting, if disturbing, phenomena.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
M
Magnanimity
Guest
They’re not flat-earthers! They just believe in the power of the oblate spheroid, or oblate ellipsoid. 
more like a hamburger than a piece of paper…
more like a hamburger than a piece of paper…
I
IWantGod
Guest
I’m more of a Yuck. A man with undesirable views on genesis.
B
Bradskii
Guest
I don’t get this.edwest211:
It depends who you ask.
There’s several different ideas floating around.
Surely you believe that God controls everything? You know…omnipotent? And evolution is the process he has used to get us where we are today.
Either that or one must believe in creationism. That everything was supernaturally brought instantly into being.
- Status