You’re really not going to like it around here, then. The above thread is about par for the course.
Oh no, they know homosexuals are to blame right off the bat.
Yes, the evidence seems to point to a somewhat older earth. And mankind, as a Vedic believer I think a much older mankind. The trouble for me is that Darwinism is the Manchester United of belief systems. Objectively I can see it’s got a lot going for it, all the silverwear speaks for itself and that many fans are unlikely to be wrong, even if most of them live in Surrey, have never heard of Matt Busby and only support Man Utd because the media implies that they should. However if I was to be talking to a Manchester United supported I couldn’t possibly bring myself to give even a single inch to their insufferably smug self-belief, so I would point out their lack of European success compared to, say, Liverpool and of course the recent Leeds result.
So you see, I’m sure YEC IS factually incorrect, but I’m equally sure I’d much prefer it to be right just to prick the pomposity of their enemies.
Hence, I say that the mutability of domesticated species is a terrible argument against YEC. In fact, given the large number of species and the limited size of Noah’s Ark, a high rate of mutation would be required by YEC. Yeah, YEC had no chihuahua/wolfhound problem. And “vestigial” organs are often very useful, as are the appendix and spleen.
And of course man’s sin corrupted the earth and therefore led to the suffering of other animals, and the earth has deep sea volcanic vents for the same reason a tree has roots even though you can’t see them: they aren’t there to look pretty.
I used to lurk here some years ago, so I know what to expect. Even so, I can’t just watch a much maligned belief system take a kicking from the schoolyard bully. Something of a pattern with me, I was nearly evicted from another board I frequent, for arguing against the feminist positions popular there, that was the rigorousintuition board. They’re a tolerant bunch, though, and we agreed to disagree.
I am in fact an anti-feminist, whereas I’m not a young earth creationist. Fairness is more important than belief, though.
The wasp/caterpillar argument strikes me as weak whether it’s advanced by Darwin, David Attenborough, or whoever else. It seems to be an argument from squickedoutedness - the assumption is that the poor caterpillar is suffering dreadfully through being eaten alive from inside out. But who knows whether a caterpillar is even capable of suffering - or even aware that matters could have been otherwise for it?
Of course human beings should not torment caterpillars for sport; but that’s more a reflection of how the willingness to torment reflects upon the perpetrator. If a wasp does what it must to survive, does the caterpillar even know or care?
Pretty much, yes. Some of them have told me that disease comes from demons.
What would you consider fair ? That we give equal credence to young earth shite vs. the theory of evolution ? That we not dispute the mish-mash of nonsense, ad-hoc rationalizations and contradicting assertions that constitutes the creationist position, for lack of a better allowed word outside of the Pit ?
(Unrelated, but it puzzles me : you’ve identified yourself both as a Christian and a Vedic, which if I’m not mistaken is a Hindu notion. What’s up with that ?)
Part of the punishment was that God destroyed all the ham trees and since then animals have had to kill each other.
Maybe this is the creationist view today, but it’s important to note that this view is a reaction to mainstream scientific theories about disease and the origins of pathogens. Creationism did not explain it in these terms until after it was challenged by science.
I guess that kind of adaptive revision should in some ways be applauded, were it grounded in anything more than an attempt to shoehorn observations to continue to fit the dogma.
Science of the Gaps.
By the way, if y’all want to put yourselves out there as neutral parties, you might want to drop creationist terms like “darwinists” and “evolutionists”.
And isn’t “creationist” an evolutionist term?
No.
Interesting. Do they call themselves “creationists”? Are “evolutionists” offended by the term?.
What’s the difference between the terms “creationist” and “evolutionist”?
ETA: No agenda here. I just never thought of “evolutionist” as a creationist term and something to be avoided. Then again, I am normally blind to this kind of sensitivities.
What’s wrong with being called an evolutionist? Better than Darwinist, anyway.
The point isn’t the caterpillar suffering or not. One could certainly name a whole host of mammals that clearly suffer. Nature is red in tooth and claw afterall. But the point is why would the creator make it that way? Remember, this stuff didn’t evolve. A higher intelligence was supposed to poof this stuff into existence.
It’s easy to do this sorta thing with the human body but it’s usually rebuffed as having something to do with the fall and the ribwoman who spoiled everything. Oh, so that’s why our back sucks and a man’s urethra goes through a gland that enlarges? Fair enough. But you can look at so many animals and ask why would the creator do that? e.g. random example #81763 Why are angler fish males basically parasites to the much larger female? Did the angler fish version of Adam really fuck up or what?
IANA Young-Earth Creationist but I can give you their position about pre-Fall carnivours.
Assuming Adam & Eve fell soon after their creation late on the Sixth Day (let’s say on Day 13), all land animals had only existed since early on Day Six and water & air animals since Day Five. They were not carnivorous, but those that became carnivorous turned so after “Day 13/The Fall Day” so any fossil evidence would not necessarily show any non-carnivorous lions.
Btw, I picked Day 13 off the top of my head, but I could make a Biblical case for it!
But I won’t take the time to map it out unless someone is curious enough to ask (i.e. “feed my ego by asking”). G
Yes.
Some at least are offended or irritated. The problem isn’t just the possibility that you’ll offend them; it’s the likelihood that you’ll identify yourself as someone not being worth taken seriously.
The first is what a group of people call themselves; the second is a label imposed on them by others as an attempt to discredit them. Calling scientists who “believe in evolution” “evolutionists” is like calling scientists who “believe in gravity” “gravitationists”. It’s an attempt to pretend that the overwhelming scientific consensus is an ideological faction.
I was raised Young Earth Creationist, & still have some sympathy for Old-Earth Creationism, teleological evolution, & intelligent design. Here’s my take on how a Creationist may see it. (Attitudes will vary.)
We don’t really have to explain disease in our religious mythology. Those that try to come up with a spiritual explanation for disease, like the Christian Science philosophical idealists, look crazy & take foolish risks. We know disease is, because we experience it, the Bible doesn’t have to tell us about it. Religion is for telling us things that science & the evidence of our senses can’t.
Why would we need religion to add any explanation for the existence of disease?
That said, if we take the Garden of Eden story at face value, then it appears that at one time Man was not prone to disease as we know it. How this worked we don’t exactly know. Then the Fall brought death & misery into the world, & life became harder. This could be the point at which pathogens appeared. That is, what we now know as viruses & pernicious bacteria were allowed to mutate into dangerous forms.
Interesting. Ignorance fought then.
Although I do try to avoid calling people *ists because that’s what you use to divide people, I am normally cool with having the label applied when it is the point to clarify where you stand on something.
I don’t think of myself as a Dolphin’s fan, but if the issue at hand is NFL, then that’s what I am. Ditto for this. I don’t think of myself as an evolutionist (I prefer the terms educated and rational) but when the argument is about creationism, I am cool being called an evolutionist. Now I know that might push some people’s buttons.