Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KeithHarwood · 07-18-2002, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:


Details, please/

Yup, it was DaVinci, but I didn't get it from Gould. I got it from the man himself (well, somebody else did the translation) at the exhibition of the Codex Leicester at the Powerhouse Museum a while ago.

Kevin Dorner · 07-18-2002, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KeithHarwood:
Yup, it was DaVinci... the Codex Leicester...

Interesting. I wonder if this analysis by Da Vinci in the Codex Leicester was Bill Gates' motivation to pay $20 million for it and display it prominently in his home.

KeithHarwood · 07-18-2002, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Dorner:


Interesting. I wonder if this analysis by Da Vinci in the Codex Leicester was Bill Gates' motivation to pay $20 million for it and display it prominently in his home.

Dunno. There was plenty of MS software at the exhibition and they were flogging the CD at some ridiculous price, so I don't think he's made much of a loss on the deal.

Bubba · 07-20-2002, 09:08 AM

For me it was teaching Sunday school. My co teacher brought in a YEC video for a class session. I had previously been a Hugh Ross style progressive creationist, and I just realized that YEC was a creative way of distorting information. This got me really interested in reading about evolution.

I guess you could say that I come by my views through AIG, Phil Johnson, Mike Behe and others...in other words, the primary source documents for creationism revealed no evidence so I started seeking evidence about evolution.

The rest is history...

Bubba

GeoTheo · 07-22-2002, 10:05 AM

This is where my post will go once I reject literal Genesis style creation.
TTFN
Theo
(boy, Do these fence posts hurt my butt

)

KnightWhoSaysNi · 07-22-2002, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
This is where my post will go once I reject literal Genesis style creation.
TTFN
Theo
(boy, Do these fence posts hurt my butt

)

You must join the dark side (evilutionists) Luke!

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]

GeoTheo · 07-22-2002, 11:04 AM

Well here's the thing:
I either need to become an evolutionist or devote my life to coming up with better arguements for YEC than any of the YEC organizations have, because frankly I see right trough them.
Some well meaning person at my church leant me a book written in the 90's that totally sucks. It also leaves out a lot. I actually became angry reading it. I was like "Ok, big deal piltdown man was a fraud." Then I turn the page and the section on human evolution is over and the author is on to the next topic. I was like "Whoa ! thats it!?! How would this possibly arm anyone in an origins debate?" It was also writtin in a tone like evolutionists are all idiots.
I think thats why you see all these YEC's come here emboldened by these types of books and then get their butts whooped in a debate before it even starts because they are so uninformed.
So there you have it.

WinAce · 07-22-2002, 11:16 AM

Don't bother doing that. It could make a bit of sense if your belief in God was directly contradicted by science, but it isn't. Only a literal interpretation of the Genesis 1 account is (however, even if written by God it was obviously meant for people who wouldn't understand the real, very complex mechanisms used).

There is absolutely no reason to do what <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html" target="_blank">Kurt Wise</a>, possibly the smartest YEC on the planet, has done and throw away reason just to maintain that belief.

Don't go searching for evidence of a young earth and literal interpretation of Genesis, because you won't be able to find anything convincing and will end up dissapointed and possibly abandoning your faith altogether.

Just do what all good scientists do--accept the caveat that in the unlikely event that the evidence should ever turn to strongly support a young earth and 6-day creation of separate kinds with a global flood explaining all of geology, you'll switch your view. Making conclusions off of current knowledge with the possibility of future correction is the hallmark of science and is what makes it so effective

GeoTheo · 07-22-2002, 11:32 AM

I have already decided against the first choice. I also don't feel that my faith is in danger. That was an interesting article, though, I find you deal with the subject with more grace than Dawkins does and I thank you for that.

Albion · 07-22-2002, 12:13 PM

Richard Dawkins isn't being all that helpful at all. I mean, that was quite a fairly written article, but his continued insistence that the results of science somehow disprove God is very unhelpful. If he really thinks that telling Christians to get over it and tries to force a cjhoice between science and religion, he's (a) behaving just like the worst sort of creationist and (b) in for a surprise at the number of people who, faced with that choice, will choose God.

One of my husband's colleagues is a research astrophysicist who is also a young-Earth creationist. People are very interested in how she manages to combine the two, but she refuses to discuss it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2002, 09:08 AM	#14
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	For me it was teaching Sunday school. My co teacher brought in a YEC video for a class session. I had previously been a Hugh Ross style progressive creationist, and I just realized that YEC was a creative way of distorting information. This got me really interested in reading about evolution. I guess you could say that I come by my views through AIG, Phil Johnson, Mike Behe and others...in other words, the primary source documents for creationism revealed no evidence so I started seeking evidence about evolution. The rest is history... Bubba

07-22-2002, 10:05 AM	#15
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	This is where my post will go once I reject literal Genesis style creation. TTFN Theo (boy, Do these fence posts hurt my butt )

07-22-2002, 11:04 AM	#17
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Well here's the thing: I either need to become an evolutionist or devote my life to coming up with better arguements for YEC than any of the YEC organizations have, because frankly I see right trough them. Some well meaning person at my church leant me a book written in the 90's that totally sucks. It also leaves out a lot. I actually became angry reading it. I was like "Ok, big deal piltdown man was a fraud." Then I turn the page and the section on human evolution is over and the author is on to the next topic. I was like "Whoa ! thats it!?! How would this possibly arm anyone in an origins debate?" It was also writtin in a tone like evolutionists are all idiots. I think thats why you see all these YEC's come here emboldened by these types of books and then get their butts whooped in a debate before it even starts because they are so uninformed. So there you have it.

07-22-2002, 11:16 AM	#18
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	Don't bother doing that. It could make a bit of sense if your belief in God was directly contradicted by science, but it isn't. Only a literal interpretation of the Genesis 1 account is (however, even if written by God it was obviously meant for people who wouldn't understand the real, very complex mechanisms used). There is absolutely no reason to do what <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html" target="_blank">Kurt Wise</a>, possibly the smartest YEC on the planet, has done and throw away reason just to maintain that belief. Don't go searching for evidence of a young earth and literal interpretation of Genesis, because you won't be able to find anything convincing and will end up dissapointed and possibly abandoning your faith altogether. Just do what all good scientists do--accept the caveat that in the unlikely event that the evidence should ever turn to strongly support a young earth and 6-day creation of separate kinds with a global flood explaining all of geology, you'll switch your view. Making conclusions off of current knowledge with the possibility of future correction is the hallmark of science and is what makes it so effective

07-22-2002, 11:32 AM	#19
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	I have already decided against the first choice. I also don't feel that my faith is in danger. That was an interesting article, though, I find you deal with the subject with more grace than Dawkins does and I thank you for that.

07-22-2002, 12:13 PM	#20
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Richard Dawkins isn't being all that helpful at all. I mean, that was quite a fairly written article, but his continued insistence that the results of science somehow disprove God is very unhelpful. If he really thinks that telling Christians to get over it and tries to force a cjhoice between science and religion, he's (a) behaving just like the worst sort of creationist and (b) in for a surprise at the number of people who, faced with that choice, will choose God. One of my husband's colleagues is a research astrophysicist who is also a young-Earth creationist. People are very interested in how she manages to combine the two, but she refuses to discuss it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.