Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 01-20-2002, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
ex-robot,
There is no scientific reason to accept a young earth. Period.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill:
Science itself would not take such a dogmatic stance.
== Bill

No. There is no scientific reason to accept a young earth. Period. This is not an example of dogma but, rather, a simple statement of fact. Similarly, IMO, ...

There is no scientific reason to accept leprechauns.
There is no scientific reason to accept Genesis.
These is no scientific reason to accept a flat earth.
etc.

The scientific method has nothing whatsoever to do with "new age" appeals about being open to all possibilities.

Undercurrent · 01-20-2002, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-robot:


Yes, from "your" point of view and the other posters, there is no scientific evidence. From "his" point of view, there is based on his investigations.

From <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/boghossian/papers/bog_tls.html" target="_blank">What the Sokal Hoax Ought to Teach Us</a>

Quote:

Postmodernists like to respond to this sort of point by saying that both claims can be true because both are true relative to some perspective or other, and there can be no question of truth outside of perspectives. Thus, according to the Zuni perspective, the first humans in the Americas came from a subterranean world; and according to the Western scientific perspective, the first humans came from Asia. Since both are true according to some perspective or other, both are true.

But to say that some claim is true according to some perspective sounds simply like a fancy way of saying that someone, or some group, believes it. The crucial question concerns what we are to say when what I believe -- what's true according to my perspective -- conflicts with what you believe -- with what's true according to your perspective? The one thing not to say, it seems to me, on pain of utter unintelligibility, is that both claims are true.

Sadly, there is a real world, and in it some things happen and some things don't. If you should care to point out some evidence for believing in a young earth, please present it -- this is what this forum is for, but we can not conclude that there is evidence in the real world for a young earth simply on the grounds that someone or some group says there is.

m.

BLoggins02 · 01-20-2002, 01:05 PM

Even though I am saddened by the fact Kurt feels the need to segregate his brain so much, I cannot help but have a much stronger respect for his method of belief. He believes his faith is the most important thing, and in that context he is willing to prefer faith over evidence.

To me, this seems like intellectual suicide, but it is better IMO than the Creationists who distort science to further their views and wish those views imposed upon the rest of the populations.

Somehow I get the feeling that Kurt would object to creationism being taught in a HS biology course.

Just my $.02

ex-robot · 01-20-2002, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael:


Sadly, there is a real world, and in it some things happen and some things don't. If you should care to point out some evidence for believing in a young earth, please present it -- this is what this forum is for, but we can not conclude that there is evidence in the real world for a young earth simply on the grounds that someone or some group says there is.

m.

Huh? I didn't say there was. I didn't say there was any because Kurt Wise says so either. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

I just pointed out that everybody was jumping past his comment on scientific evidence to point out his rejection of evolution is not based soley on religious reasons in "his" mind. He is obviously not a classic "God said it, I believe it" moron.

xr

crocodile deathroll · 01-21-2002, 01:16 PM

You notice whereever there is a creationsist lecturer there is usually a lot of money involved like a large entry fee to their seminars or they are passing the bucket around to encourage people to donate generously.

Either these YECs are extremly dishonest and are just preying on the gullible and ingorant in fear of their mortal souls for financial gain or they are just plain ingnorant themselves.

It is usually the former as there would be far too much to lose financially if they admitted they are wrong. So they just laugh all the way to the bank

Now this is a creationist signiture >$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$

crocodile deathroll

Jayhawker Soule · 01-21-2002, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll:
You notice whereever there is a creationsist lecturer there is usually a lot of money involved like a large entry fee to their seminars or they are passing the bucket around to encourage people to donate generously.

Either these YECs are extremly dishonest and are just preying on the gullible and ingorant in fear of their mortal souls for financial gain or they are just plain ingnorant themselves.

It is usually the former as there would be far too much to lose financially if they admitted they are wrong. So they just laugh all the way to the bank

Now this is a creationist signiture >$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$

crocodile deathroll

IMO, as both an atheist and an agnostic, disparaging comments such as these make absolutely no sense. I view them as an embarassment.

Atheist121 · 01-21-2002, 05:20 PM

This seems to fit the analogy I sometimes make of Creationism. That is, if the Bible said the sky was red, Creationists would believe so. When they went out and looked at the sky and saw that it was blue, they would claim that they were being deceived by Satan, or that they were colorblind, or that we've corrupted what the names of the colors, etc. No amount of evidence will convince someone who denies it all away.

crocodile deathroll · 01-22-2002, 02:12 PM

Some years ago I argued with a creationist about young earth creationism, and I said how can I look up into the sky and see a supernova in the Magellani Clouds when it takes its light about 175,000 years to reach us?
He said did you ever think God had already created the supernova in its already exploded state and that includes the light that travelled out from it as well.

Well I though would this God of placed the dinosaur fossils in the right sediments and the trilobites in theirs just as all a part of his plan as well?

A very deceitful plan I would say. This would surely be the most monstrous act of deceit on God's behalf, because here we would have a universe that in all its indications is much old than the universe he created. It would be like an antique dealer trying to fake a modern piece of furniture by knocking it and rubbing wear marks in it to give the impression that it has had 150 years of wear so he can sell it off as a genuine Georgian article.
It appears to me this God is just as deceitful then as the people who are trying to promote him.

Quote:

Originally posted by Atheist121:
This seems to fit the analogy I sometimes make of Creationism. That is, if the Bible said the sky was red, Creationists would believe so. When they went out and looked at the sky and saw that it was blue, they would claim that they were being deceived by Satan, or that they were colorblind, or that we've corrupted what the names of the colors, etc. No amount of evidence will convince someone who denies it all away.

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

01-20-2002, 01:05 PM	#13
BLoggins02 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: College Station, TX Posts: 254	Even though I am saddened by the fact Kurt feels the need to segregate his brain so much, I cannot help but have a much stronger respect for his method of belief. He believes his faith is the most important thing, and in that context he is willing to prefer faith over evidence. To me, this seems like intellectual suicide, but it is better IMO than the Creationists who distort science to further their views and wish those views imposed upon the rest of the populations. Somehow I get the feeling that Kurt would object to creationism being taught in a HS biology course. Just my $.02

01-21-2002, 01:16 PM	#15
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	You notice whereever there is a creationsist lecturer there is usually a lot of money involved like a large entry fee to their seminars or they are passing the bucket around to encourage people to donate generously. Either these YECs are extremly dishonest and are just preying on the gullible and ingorant in fear of their mortal souls for financial gain or they are just plain ingnorant themselves. It is usually the former as there would be far too much to lose financially if they admitted they are wrong. So they just laugh all the way to the bank Now this is a creationist signiture >$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$ crocodile deathroll

01-21-2002, 05:20 PM	#17
Atheist121 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 292	This seems to fit the analogy I sometimes make of Creationism. That is, if the Bible said the sky was red, Creationists would believe so. When they went out and looked at the sky and saw that it was blue, they would claim that they were being deceived by Satan, or that they were colorblind, or that we've corrupted what the names of the colors, etc. No amount of evidence will convince someone who denies it all away.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.