CMKeller believes that the universe was created in 144 hours 600 years ago, AND he believes that God deliberately created fake evidence for evolution and for an old earth.
I doubt you will concede the point, though. No doubt you will argue that he is secretly caucasian, or some such.
-Ben
And conprehensibility issues aside, I think that Billy believes so as well.
You have convinced me in your clarifying post that you have a valid question, and I will respond as best as I can. First of all, no answer will represent all 6000 year old creationists. Secondly, by and large, I stand behind DDG’s comments. Thirdly, 6YOCs do not believe that the evolutionary evidence is a deliberate hoax.Scientists have merely misinterpreted the evidence, which they often have and freely admit. They do believe however that to depart from their concept of creation is breaking faith in the word of God,and that unbelievers are blind. They also believe that the theory of evolution is the work of Satan. I also want to add that many fundamentalists believe that one who has had the truth and abandons it will be much worse off than atheists. That is the infidel has more punishment to undergo than the pagan or atheist. Concepts like that make it difficult to let go of preconceived beliefs.
In light of my previous statement, this question becomes irrelevant. BTW, if there are any 6YOCs out there lurking, and you believe I misrepresented you Speak Now!
Is creation taught as a science in public schools in America presently? Does it seem that it ever is likely too? Is this an issue anywhere else in the world? Perhaps catholic South America?
Ben, okay,okay…I have faith in your belief in
CMKeller’s views. Strawman?
[raises tentative hand]
Here…
We have responded in our own defense–many, many times. You’ve only been around since November. I’ve been around a lot longer, and I’ve lost count of the number of conservative Christian vs. atheist GD threads that have deteriorated into mere Fundie-bashing, spawning hosts of ugly Pit threads in their wake. Many of us Fightin’ Fundies now deliberately avoid the religious debates in GD, after having been burned once or twice.
Just because we’re silent doesn’t mean we aren’t present, and listening.
Let’s clarify some things here. The generic term “Fundie” should not, repeat NOT, be automatically taken to mean “people who believe the world was created 6,000 years ago.” There are flavors and degrees of Fundamentalism, the same way there are flavors and degrees of Catholicism, or Buddhism, or Islam. Also, “Fundamentalist” and “Creationist” are not necessarily synonymous, any more than “Moslem” and “Shi’ite self-flagellant” are synonymous. I know lots of Fundamentalists who believe in 4 billion year old moon rocks.
And among the Fundies I hang around with, there are even degrees of Creationism. There’s just plain Creationism, which in general Sunday morning conversation usually means “Nothing happened by chance–God created everything, even if He had to use evolution to do it”. And there’s “Special Creationism”, which usually is taken to mean “God created everything in 144 hours, 6000 years ago, POOF! just like that, and it’s been that way ever since.” It’s the Special Creationists that Coosa wants to talk to, but like I said, they’re keeping a low profile lately, especially after the Left Behind MB/JenkinsFan/Friend of God debacle all last spring and summer. And I have to say that I don’t blame them one bit.
Coosa, if you really wanna know about this stuff, you might try talking to somebody over at the LBMB. They’re not ALL raving lunatics, you know. Some of them can be quite civilized to someone who is genuinely looking for answers. And if they start preachin’ at you, you can always hit the Home button. 
This website is a lot more nitpicky than I am used to, but it’s interesting.
http://www.cityhonors.buffalo.k12.ny.us/city/aca/sci/evolutn/scott/scott.html
So’s this one. For when you’ve got an hour to kill at work…
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/CMBergman.html
grienspace said:
As has already been discussed several times in this very thread, some of them do in fact believe this.
Folks- I do not argue whether or not there are some or even many who actually hold those beliefs on creationism who think they hold. Nor- that there might be a few, or even scads of them thatsometimes or even often post on the SDMB. But- NONE of them are “debating” with you folks. And, taking somebodies views out of context- and then poking them full of holes, or ridiculing them; without them responding- well, that just ain’t the american way.
And- like DDG says- i do not blame them for not being here. You guys use unfair tactics, gang up on them, and demand they answer slews of questions designed to entrap, not educate. Remember that scene in “Animal House”? Well, after a couple times of being invited over to the motel room for some pleasant discourse, and instead being set upon by a bunch of “Dougies neo-nazi pals” (or whatever the line is)- you can’t blame them for not showing up anymore- with or without the roses.
Ben- you ain’t CMKeller. You have no right to state his beleifs. If you must- you could quote a snippet where he said as much, but since you are well known for your “prevarications” about what other posters say- I must assume this is another (not that I doubt CM has very orthodox religious views, but he might like to say it in his own words). Even if it is not- it is not your place. I consider CMKeller to be a freind of mine, and even so- i would not speak for him. Nor should you speak for me- as you have several times. When you post- you should either quote someone, or state your own views- don’t go putting words in someone elses mouth. That is what the “quote” function is for. Whether or not this is against the rules or not- it is simply rude.
Thankyou DITWD and DDG. When I first looked at the SD message board description of great debates including religious debates and witnessing, I was impressed. Visions of family life, uncles and aunts etc. arguing and debating the issues of the day, and because we had agnostics, and fundies, many of the debates centred on religious issues, and everone went home satisfied they had expressed their opinion. Nobody went home mad.
I can’t help but feel however that Christians are invited in so that the lions can have a go. The attention that fundamentalists and creation get is way out of proportion to my every day reality. More often than not the refrain we hear over and over again is “How stupid can these fundies get”. Sometimes I want to react like Peter before Jesus told him about the cock.
I believe in Christ. I believe he is the Saviour of us all. I believe that all things are created by Him.I have no dispute with the scientists. I think anyone who believes that the universe and life as we know it occured without a divine hand is preposterous and presumptuous of their mass of neurons occupying 1400 cc’s or thereabouts.
Both of you and Wildest Bill are my brothers in Christ. I may not agree with you all the time, but we do share our belief in Christ. To all those out there who believe in a creation of 6,000 years ago, I truly admire your courage and faith. Its quite understandable that you remain silent. No one can expect you to be a masochist.
Oh, please, someone stop me…this is just calling out to the 14 yr old in me… 
Yet an even more complex god is possible just because? OK, well, debate over.
To me, this is equivalent to saying “All those who believe the moon is made of green cheese…” Not exactly an admirable position.
OK, ok, so not exactly contributing to the thread, but there you go.
Case closed
So sorry, just some questions I had. I imagine they’ve been gone over time and time again, but if they are introduced by a Christian, I see no harm in reviewing them again.
Apparently, you do. Goodnight.
…<sigh>…and DitWD goes on another “Christians are oh so persecuted here” hijack. However…let’s not bother with that. 'k?
What I’d really like a response to is this:
It seems to be your understanding that if someone doesn’t debate the opposite point of view, a topic can’t be discussed in Great Debates. Interesting. So discussion of Neo-Nazi or Holocaust Deniers would be right out, since (as far as I know) there aren’t any here. What a great way to shut down discussion: don’t respond and DitWD will complain that your detractors aren’t acting like Americans.:rolleyes:
Or would you prefer that, since no Holocaust Deniers post here, comments and questions about them go to MPSIMS?
The theory here seems to be: Weighty topics go to Great Debates. Debate doesn’t refer to the style of argument, it refers to they “debate-worthy-ness” of the topic.
David, Gaudere, could clarify this point? Does a topic have to have people on both sides of an arguement posting for a topic to be appropriate to Great Debates? (If so, interesting point: How does the topic starter know? Does s/he send e-mails out to other dopers: “Hey, I’m going to discuss Holocaust Revisionism. I’m agin’ it. You wanna take the other side?”)
Also DitWD: I also take strong exception to the “…taking somebodies views out of context” crack. I named names and links. Which of my statements were out of context? If not mine, who exactly, in this thread were you writing about? Vague accusations of people engaged in (for Great Debates, especially) the twin reprehensible activities of misquoting and misrepresentation seem pretty un-American to me. I’d appreciate a response where you name names and prove what seem to be wild and offensive accusations. Otherwise, “Let us not assassinate fellow Dopers further, DitWD…Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?”
Fenris
Another christian checking in here.
I believe in God creating the earth. I believe it by Faith, not evidence.
I don’t care how long ago it happened, I believe thats a moot point by now.
**
“Simple answer: G-d created the universe with consistent physical laws because the predictability of science enables better service of G-d. Therefore, when he created the universe, he created it with evidence consistent with “oldness” in order that we can learn science to aid in our future use of those principles. In the same sort of way, G-d created Adam and Eve as adults rather than as newborn babies; he created an adult universe rather than an infant universe.”
from:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22784&pagenumber=2
**
:rolleyes:
I suppose this is in contrast to your own, well known, out-and-out lies about your own statements, right? Please, DITWD, if you’re going to demand a cite from me about CMKeller and then immediately call the kettle black, you could at least provide an example of my “prevarications.”
-Ben
Ianzin, I don’t know what you are implying. Please explain.
As for creationism and faith, this is a bad faith. One can have faith in humans, or faith in kindness, or faith in reason, and these are all in good faith (healthy to ourselves). But when one imagines that faith should be contrary to nature to be good, well, that is the ultimate religious claim to validate the divine realm–ie, nature is redundant and disposable. This is not good faith, but desperation.
I “believe” that faith against evolution is dangerous in the modern era. It justifies overbreeding, careless regulation of the environment, exploitation, etc. I could care less that someone calls it faith. I call it mind control, or the weak (faith in god or self-will) attempting to control or silence the strong (reason, or faith in reason). Will-to-faith is the most dangerous power to succumb to, and in extreme cases, it legitimizes all abuse and wrongdoing under self-righteousness because all justice is based on logic and reason, or it is injustice by defininiton.
Personally, I don’t know who creationists are pretending Adam and Eve represent. It is obvious to any first year film student (by no means rocket scientists, but that is my point) that Adam and Eve symbolize the end of hunting-gathering and the beginning of ranching-farming (complete with the colonial method, accusing natives of sin, nakedness, whatever, and ordering them to clear their land and be slaves upon it). We all have Adam and Eve in our past and it is an important past to consider, same with Noah’s ark instituting the ownership of animals (by saving them) and the Tower of Babel (a metaphorical ancient observatory) illustrating the discovery of order in heaven, as opposed to chaos on earth with labor strife. These are rare literal metaphors that illustrates historically valid phenomenon in mythical/legendary terms, but they are now published by kings with a royal spin placed upon them.
The problem is, that if one takes Eden literally, as first man and woman, they are left in the quandry of supposing many things that contradict themselves, such as the fact that god is cunning and created evil, or fully employs evil, or made a mistake in his own image and constructs games to tempt his mistakes (humans) against his will. No wonder reason is to be feared in this mindset, God is therefore unjust. If god is testing our will to choose, why would he provide the “answers” or correct choices, then reward those who go against instinct AND reason. In analysis, it is obviously a test in reverse to pick out fools, or it is no actual test at all since it is based on circular references and reasoning, take your pick.
I hold Christianity as an extension of the feudal spin on Adam and Eve. Not just the fall and redemption part, but due to the fact that our afterlife “Paradise” is sought after because we instinctively know we have left one behind when we confronted an agrarian existence. Consider that when our ancestors first settled in villages, they looked out their “windows” and for the first time in human history experienced ANGST. Then they began to wonder what they were doing, afterall. From that point onwards, we have identified with out domesticated animals and questioned our motives for civilization, but AT LEAST we figured we were created for a purpose or reason. But, since our creator was absent or hidden, we figured life to be a test or judgment.
So, we began this religious/civil journey from reasons, and fate or faith had nothing to do with it until feudalism came along and enforced it during the dark ages for the political control it affords. Faith in any dogma that justifies failure, especially a supreme being’s failure, becomes a faith that demands a failure to justify it. In other words, faith opposed to reason is faith in injustice, or faith that human injustice has a hidden REASON to it. This is merely one way that logicians failed to prove the necessity of god. Also, anything that must be taught through language is no longer based on faith, but words, hence a faith in words.
During that time, which I remember all too well, do you think that the aforementioned posters were bashed merely for their beliefs? It seems to me that, aside from the inevitable few who take pot shots regardless of the topic, these posters were taken to task more for their arrogance and debating tactics than for the beliefs they held. Jenkinsfan I remember less clearly, but FriendofGod I do remember very well. He consistently returned to already refuted arguments, promised to get back to an issue which he would drop, and ignored other posters. In short, he debated very dishonestly. A recent example of this type of behavior comes from Wildest Bill. In a lengthy thread devoted to sex education, he was told many times and in detail just what the aims of sex education was, how it was carried out, and the results it got. Then, a couple weeks later he started his “What if the Liberals/Conservatives totally got their way” thread. In the OP he said that if liberals took over they would be “teaching free love and anal sex in school.”
There are certainly some “evangelical evolutionists” on the board, and “evangelical atheists” as well. However, there are plenty of Christians of that stripe as well. The ones that present their viewpoints intelligently and argue honestly are never pilloried so far as I recall. The only posters I remember that were really jumped on were the ones that were issuing sweeping condemnations, or using dishonest debate tactics.
DITWD:
You said that, “[Atheists] use unfair tactics, gang up on them, and demand they answer slews of questions designed to entrap, not educate.”
Firstly, there is no way to control who responds to a post, and there is no tacit or implied agreement between anyone on this board to gang up on anyone. When somebody posts something that a bunch of folks disagree with, then it gets a lot of responses. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a Christian posting “Homosexuality is a sin” or Stoidela posting “Prostitution is an unfairly demonized profession.” To think that there is some sort of widespread anti-Cristian agenda is pure paranoia.
Secondly, asking someone pointed questions that poke holes in their arguments is not a “trap.” If your arguments stand up to the questions then they may be valid. If they do not, you have a problem. If you post an assertion, you should be able to back it up. Despite your well-known feud with Ben, about which I will not comment, you seem to feel you are often put upon. Just because someone denies your point of view or capsizes your argument, that does not mean they are either anti-Christian or anti-DITWD.
grienspace:
You said:
**
It is my experience that the head-shaking exasperation over the “stupid fundies” stems directly from such “explanatory” mechanisms as the vapor canopy, or ignorant questions about missing links. Trying to bolster their brand of creationism with science earns them the label. When C M Keller posts, nobody jumps down his throat and calls him a stupid fundie. They may argue with him, and tell him how wrong he is, but he commands respect because he debates fairly.
Right! You are perfectly justified in saying, “I think anyone who believes that the universe and life as we know it occured without a divine hand is preposterous and presumptuous of their mass of neurons occupying 1400 cc’s or thereabouts.” Yet super-head isn’t justified when he compares believing in a 6,000 year old earth to believing that the moon is made of green cheese. So how exactly does this double standard of yours work?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ptahlis *
**
And, to take it a step further, Christians aren’t always being “invited in”; rather, they start threads proclaiming the literal truth of Biblical Creation (usually combined with a stubborn refusal to even debate the issue), or calling nonCreationists idiots for not recognizing the truth of Biblical Creation.
Fenris wrote:
Yeah! How come I haven’t seen any other folks come out in favor of ritual cannibalism? Darn it, if I can’t feast on my enemies, what fun is it?
If you feel offended by my one time only referral to a non divine belief in the origin of the world as preposterous and presumptuous, then how should someone feel when their belief is repeatedly compared to a moon made of cheese, and green cheese at that. Superhead does not respect a person who believes in creation. I respect the views of others however no matter how preposterous and presumptuous I may find those views to be.
Note that CMkellers post did not mention the word “fake”. There is a huge difference in connotation between “creating an old earth”- and "created fake evidence’. Which is why you need to let folks speak for themselves & not speak for them- the context & connotations can be as important as the actual words. There is also a difference between calling some one an out & out liar, as you just did, - and saying that some of your statements are prevarications- as I did. I would ask you to back up the bit about lies- but since every “lie” of mine exists only in your imagination- why bother? Your tactics are consistantly cheap, infantile & egregious.
Fenris- i never said YOU took things out of context. And read back- I said clearly: that starting this thread in an ATTEMPT to get someone to debate the other side was OK- except that the issue has been done so many times. But after nobody showed up for the “pro” side- having you folks list what you THOUGHT their aguements MIGHT be (and doing so rather badly, which is hardly fair), and then shooting the straw men full of holes was specious & rather childish.
And, let us not compare folks who beleive in the Creation to Holocaust deniers. Altho I just castigated ben for this- my guess is that CM keller & his other Orthodox assoc would REALLY not appreciate this.