That YEC poll some of us are curious about.

[Katy]

I heard a theory once that because of the way time expands in space, the universe could be 6,000 years old at the center, and billions of years old out at the edge of the universe where our solar system is.  So in that sense, I think it could be that both are correct.  And in another sense, I think this whole issue is a huge distraction from the salvation issues that actually do matter.

[HS Mom in NC]

Christian (Conservative/ Evangelical)

 

Disagree, but to each their own. 

 

[fruitofthewomb]

I don't see it as arguing (most of the time) when we discuss stuff here. It's a discussion, and it's a way to learn about others' POV from a pretty diverse crowd--I don't have this kind of diversity in my every day. I mean, I have a pretty diverse group of friends, family, and people in my life, but day-to-day I'm hanging out at home, homeschooling and working, and I don't get to have discussions with many different adults at one time, KWIM?

 

I mean, what else are we gonna talk about if we don't disagree? Crockpots and shopping carts? Cupcakes? Oh, wait... :huh:

I love the discussions here! I love hearing others POV-esp about controversial subjects. But Sometimes a discussion turns into an argument. And gets ugly. I don't enjoy that.

[CAMom]

See, I find this fascinating, and not a little alarming. Can you imagine this same dialog in relation to any other matter of facts? Aviation, electricity, open-heart surgery? 

 

"Well son, I don't know if the surgeon will be applying knowledge of physiology or cleaning his chakras while Grandpa's chest is open on the table, and it doesn't really matter. We found his name in the phone book and he believes the earth is young so we know we can trust him."

 

This sounds absurd, doesn't it (It's mean to, I'm being hyperbolic here)? But people tend to give evolution a pass with regard to critical thinking skills. It's chalked up to be a matter of opinion, something that doesn't really have any important ramifications in the long run. I find that problematic coming from an educator. I don't mean to pick on you, CAMom, but to pick on the argument that you shared (not that you made up, I've heard it before and will again, yours is just a convenient post to reply to).

 

Come to your own conclusion about facts.

Facts and opinions are interchangeable.

Facts are relative.

 

In what other context do we shrug our shoulders about this? 

 

Well, let's see....open heart surgery, flying a plane, wiring a house....those are all life and death matters. IMO, the age of the earth is not. :) 

 

I am not giving the age of the earth a pass with regard to critical thinking skills. Quite the opposite, I think. I tell my kids to look at all sides of each argument and use their critical thinking skills to draw their conclusion. 

 

What are the important ramifications in the long run? 

 

I don't find it problematic coming from an educator. My oldest was a science nut when he was a kid. I provided him with tons of materials on this subject. He read them, considered them, studied them and came to the conclusion that he believes in an old earth. He's a Christian. Why is that a problem? I'm willing to consider why it is.

 

I don't believe facts (such as the heart has four chambers) are relative. On the age of the earth, I don't believe the "facts" are completely established on either side and that humans will spend forever studying the subject.

[Katy]

As an aside, have you heard that the big bang theory has been theoretically disproven?  The universe is apparently eternal.  http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

[redsquirrel]

I would looooove to think, "Hey to each his own and if that person wants to stick their head in the sand and believe some whackadoodle thing, it's no skin off my apple."

 

But I can't. Because those whackadoodle believers get themselves elected to Washington DC. And they get themselves in positions of power concerning environmental and scientific and educational issues. And they display their ignorance and embarrass this country by standing on the floor holding a snowball as if that 'proves' global warming doesn't exist.

 

So, if such devoted ignorance stopped with themselves, I would happily ignore it. But, science deniers have put themselves in positions of power over me and my kids, and that won't stand. It is worth arguing about and the future of this country and this planet are worth fighting for.

[Guest]

The main thing that bothers me when it comes to YEC, is when (generally hsers and/or Christians) assume that if you are either or both of those things, surely you believe in a young earth and literal creation. as if you could not possibly be one/the other/both and not believe in that. Makes things very awkward.

[Seeking Squirrels]

(I have not read all the replies)

 

I voted that it does bother me that others believe this. It especially bothers me in the area of education, whether public or home. It bothers me because we need children who grow up scientifically literate. I feel it is doing a disservice to kids to teach them only YEC and they will not have the solid grasp of science that they would otherwise have. If it comes up, I would absolutely say that I don't agree with a child being taught YEC "science". However, I don't volunteer this where my opinion is not asked for. I don't get in anybody's face about it or bring it up to criticize someone's choice. It's not my place.

[albeto.]

Well, let's see....open heart surgery, flying a plane, wiring a house....those are all life and death matters. IMO, the age of the earth is not. :)

 

These are practices developed by utilizing information gathered and researched and validated by using the scientific method. So too was the development of the theory of evolution. Yet only one is discounted, a false dilemma introduced by those who are inspired to promote religious belief, something that is directly threatened by scientific discovery.

 

I am not giving the age of the earth a pass with regard to critical thinking skills. Quite the opposite, I think. I tell my kids to look at all sides of each argument and use their critical thinking skills to draw their conclusion. 

 

There is no argument outside the scope of proponents of YEC. In a generation or two, I suspect this whole thing will be rejected, and these conversations will be whitewashed by Christians in the same way slavery is whitewashed by Christians today.

 

What are the important ramifications in the long run? 

 

Here's a place to start: The Science We Need and the Needs of Science

 

I don't find it problematic coming from an educator. My oldest was a science nut when he was a kid. I provided him with tons of materials on this subject. He read them, considered them, studied them and came to the conclusion that he believes in an old earth. He's a Christian. Why is that a problem? I'm willing to consider why it is.

 

I'm sure if you saw it as problematic, you'd modify your approach. We all do this, regardless of the issue. But consider this, one can enjoy a subject while misunderstanding it. Just because someone enjoys science doesn't mean they understand or are applying the scientific method correctly. The fact that these things don't interfere in your every day goings on are the biggest reason this false dilemma is so easily replicated from person to person. You aren't an open heart surgeon (assuming!), and so you don't worry about the physiology of the heart too much. If you or someone you loved needed open heart surgery, no doubt you'd find the most trustworthy person you could find. You'd likely consider education and practice to be elements of what makes them trustworthy. In other words, you'd defer to their expertise.

 

YEC advocates that profit from convincing you science works the same way are profiting from educational gullibility. They're encouraging homeschoolers just like you around the country and around the world to defer to their expertise. It's understandable, and not hard to do. AiG has all kinds of really approachable articles that simplify complex processes into seemingly understandable points. They make us feel smart for understanding how radiometric dating works, and they reinforce a faith that brings great comfort and hope. The problem is, their information is misleading and ultimately mistaken. They omit important details and misrepresent others. They do this in order to be true to their goal - to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture. This is all easily confirmed online, and I recall a thread not too long ago by Ruth in NZ asking for creationism info, if you've got questions about this. AiG is hardly alone in this, but I'm most familiar with them and so I refer to them. 

 

So it's no big deal to you in your immediate experience, but what if your son, who is being taught to believe facts are relative (biology in general, thus evolution being "debatable"), grows up to support public policy based on such "facts" as stomachs are connected to vaginae, or that cancer is a fungus that can be washed away? Or women shouldn't have affordable access to emergency reproductive health care because a "legitimate rape" inspires the body to "shut the whole thing down"? Do we want as a society to be moving closer to or farther away from higher education that supports research such as homosexuality can be proven wrong by magnets? Or do we as a society want to be moving closer to or farther away from finding alternative energy sources? These things require a sufficient understanding of how nature works, and that requires a sufficient understanding of the scientific method. Enjoying science isn't indicative of understanding how the method works, and why not enjoy it and understand it for what it really is?

 

I don't believe facts (such as the heart has four chambers) are relative. On the age of the earth, I don't believe the "facts" are completely established on either side and that humans will spend forever studying the subject.

 

You don't believe some facts are relative (like the physiology of the heart), but others are (like the age of the earth)? How do you know which facts are relative and which are not? If you don't know which facts are immutable, how do you know whether or not this "debate" is justified?

 

And why wouldn't we be spending "forever" studying the subject? Will we ever get to the point where we know everything, do you think? Is there at point at which we should consider we know enough, that we should put our resources into other things? 

[albeto.]

As an aside, have you heard that the big bang theory has been theoretically disproven?  The universe is apparently eternal.  http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

Models that offer explanations of the observations we make are changed and modified to incorporate new information all the time. That's how science works. 

[EmseB]

 

 

 

There is no argument outside the scope of proponents of YEC. In a generation or two, I suspect this whole thing will be rejected, and these conversations will be whitewashed by Christians in the same way slavery is whitewashed by Christians today.

 

Just for the record, I think broad brush statements like these (stating outright that Christians today whitewash slavery) are the types of things that may make people feel attacked or denigrated (among other things).  Many Christians were and are outspoken about the evils of slavery, many work to combat human trafficking even now, and the inclusion of it in this discussion seems so strange.  First of all, it's not relevant to the discussion, but seems like an opportunity to just take a little sideswipe jab, and then, oh hey, plausible denability, I'm just throwing truth bombs, it's not my problem you don't like them, here's 5 examples and hotlinks of Christians who are pro-slavery.  And if anyone is offended by this statement they must just not deal in reality.

 

There are things I agree with you on, and things I disagree with you on, but I can clearly see why people find your posting style abrasive and feel personally attacked by the things you say.  Then again, I know my posting style is abrasive sometimes too, so I don't think it's a disqualifier for discussion.  I just think the claim that you are O.o when people get offended when you discuss their deeply held and deeply personal beliefs in the way that you do is disingenuous.  Faith is often an integral part of a person's identity.  That's certainly not your problem, but it might be something to keep in mind.

 

[DragonFaerie]

My point exactly. If someone told me the Earth was 6000 years old, I wouldn't say "That's nice, but I politely disagree." No more than I would if someone said brains are made of cotton candy.

 

That would explain so much....

[Tanaqui]

On the age of the earth, I don't believe the "facts" are completely established on either side and that humans will spend forever studying the subject.

 

Which facts are those that you don't believe are established?

 

[hornblower]

Are there any YEC folks who have changed their mind? Not really expecting a reply but I'm curious.

 

[Katy]

Models that offer explanations of the observations we make are changed and modified to incorporate new information all the time. That's how science works. 

 

Of course they are...  Did you mean that to sound as biting and condecending as it did?

[Ipsey]

Are there any YEC folks who have changed their mind? Not really expecting a reply but I'm curious.

 

 

 

Yes, I did.

 

I was once YEC.

[albeto.]

Just for the record, I think broad brush statements like these (stating outright that Christians today whitewash slavery) are the types of things that may make people feel attacked or denigrated (among other things).  Many Christians were and are outspoken about the evils of slavery, many work to combat human trafficking even now, and the inclusion of it in this discussion seems so strange.  First of all, it's not relevant to the discussion, but seems like an opportunity to just take a little sideswipe jab, and then, oh hey, plausible denability, I'm just throwing truth bombs, it's not my problem you don't like them, here's 5 examples and hotlinks of Christians who are pro-slavery.  And if anyone is offended by this statement must just not deal in reality.

 

Thanks for the heads-up. I appreciate the specifics. I chose that example for a reason and while I'm happy to explain it, I'll maybe offer that in private messaging so as not to give the appearance I'm trying to drag down Christians in general by continuing that line of argument. 

 

Just for the record, I think broad brush statements like these (stating outright that Christians today whitewash slavery) are the types of things that may make people feel attacked or denigrated (among other things).  Many Christians were and are outspoken about the evils of slavery, many work to combat human trafficking even now, and the inclusion of it in this discussion seems so strange.  First of all, it's not relevant to the discussion, but seems like an opportunity to just take a little sideswipe jab, and then, oh hey, plausible denability, I'm just throwing truth bombs, it's not my problem you don't like them, here's 5 examples and hotlinks of Christians who are pro-slavery.  And if anyone is offended by this statement must just not deal in reality.

 

The 0.o sentiment comes from reading my posts incorrectly and assuming that I'm trying to make a passive aggressive statement against an entire group (I know you didn't imply that yourself, you're predicting this thought you had is not likely to be unique here). Like I say, there's a specific point to my having brought that in, but I'll not speak any more about it publicly because it tends to get misconstrued even more, then people assume even more, and it gets to be a real mess. [ETA] It would seem to suggest that there exists a greater value on diplomacy than on validating facts, as one could ask me about what I mean, rather than assume I'm trying to be sly (not clever enough for that, I promise). 

[albeto.]

Of course they are...  Did you mean that to sound as biting and condecending as it did?

 

Not at all. Your comment about the Big Bang being theoretically disproven suggests to me the same kind of misunderstanding about how science works as has been illustrated upthread. 

[Guest]

Are there any YEC folks who have changed their mind? Not really expecting a reply but I'm curious.

 

 

Do you mean became YEC after believing otherwise?

 

Because i did change the other way as I said in one of the other threads.

[Lady Florida.]

I would looooove to think, "Hey to each his own and if that person wants to stick their head in the sand and believe some whackadoodle thing, it's no skin off my apple."

 

But I can't. Because those whackadoodle believers get themselves elected to Washington DC. And they get themselves in positions of power concerning environmental and scientific and educational issues. And they display their ignorance and embarrass this country by standing on the floor holding a snowball as if that 'proves' global warming doesn't exist.

 

So, if such devoted ignorance stopped with themselves, I would happily ignore it. But, science deniers have put themselves in positions of power over me and my kids, and that won't stand. It is worth arguing about and the future of this country and this planet are worth fighting for.

 

:hurray:

 

Because I couldn't have said it better and just liking the post wasn't enough.

[Katy]

Not at all. Your comment about the Big Bang being theoretically disproven suggests to me the same kind of misunderstanding about how science works as has been illustrated upthread. 

 

I have no misunderstanding of science.  I simply thought it was interesting, although tangential to the topic at hand. Someone upthread also mentioned the Big Bang Theory.

[CAMom]

There is no argument outside the scope of proponents of YEC. In a generation or two, I suspect this whole thing will be rejected, and these conversations will be whitewashed by Christians in the same way slavery is whitewashed by Christians today.

 

 

OK...JodiSue expressed my thoughts on this. This broadbrushing is not at all profitable. All Christians, most Christians do not whitewash slavery.  Would you like to modify this to "some Christians of some persuasions?"

 

 

 

Here's a place to start: The Science We Need and the Needs of Science

 

I'll look later.

 

 

 

I'm sure if you saw it as problematic, you'd modify your approach. We all do this, regardless of the issue. But consider this, one can enjoy a subject while misunderstanding it. Just because someone enjoys science doesn't mean they understand or are applying the scientific method correctly. The fact that these things don't interfere in your every day goings on are the biggest reason this false dilemma is so easily replicated from person to person. You aren't an open heart surgeon (assuming!), and so you don't worry about the physiology of the heart too much. If you or someone you loved needed open heart surgery, no doubt you'd find the most trustworthy person you could find. You'd likely consider education and practice to be elements of what makes them trustworthy. In other words, you'd defer to their expertise.

 

No. I'm not an open heart surgeon. I probably have a better than average understanding of heart physiology since I had a daughter who died from a congenital heart defect and I spent every waking hour studying during her short life but I'm not an expert. When dealing with our heart surgeon, it didn't even cross my mind to consider what he believed the age of the earth to be. That would not affect his ability to operate on my daughter's tiny little heart.

 

 

 

YEC advocates that profit from convincing you science works the same way are profiting from educational gullibility. They're encouraging homeschoolers just like you around the country and around the world to defer to their expertise. It's understandable, and not hard to do. AiG has all kinds of really approachable articles that simplify complex processes into seemingly understandable points. They make us feel smart for understanding how radiometric dating works, and they reinforce a faith that brings great comfort and hope. The problem is, their information is misleading and ultimately mistaken. They omit important details and misrepresent others. They do this in order to be true to their goal - to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture. This is all easily confirmed online, and I recall a thread not too long ago by Ruth in NZ asking for creationism info, if you've got questions about this. AiG is hardly alone in this, but I'm most familiar with them and so I refer to them.

 

Homeschoolers just like me? I'm pretty sure you just called me educationally gullible. I don't know how to go on with a conversation when that's the label I've been assigned. Anything I would say from here on out could just be chalked up to my educational gullibility. For the record. I am not an AiG fan at all. I don't own or use any of their materials and don't agree with their approach.

 

 

 

So it's no big deal to you in your immediate experience, but what if your son, who is being taught to believe facts are relative (biology in general, thus evolution being "debatable"), grows up to support public policy based on such "facts" as stomachs are connected to vaginae, or that cancer is a fungus that can be washed away? Or women shouldn't have affordable access to emergency reproductive health care because a "legitimate rape" inspires the body to "shut the whole thing down"? Do we want as a society to be moving closer to or farther away from higher education that supports research such as homosexuality can be proven wrong by magnets? Or do we as a society want to be moving closer to or farther away from finding alternative energy sources? These things require a sufficient understanding of how nature works, and that requires a sufficient understanding of the scientific method. Enjoying science isn't indicative of understanding how the method works, and why not enjoy it and understand it for what it really is?

 

Again, my son is "being taught that facts are relative" leaves no room for discussion. You've already decided that. It's a straw man you've built and then easily knocked over with the ridiculous notion that my poor scientifically illiterate son might grow up to support outrageous claims. Where do I go from there?

 

 

 

You don't believe some facts are relative (like the physiology of the heart), but others are (like the age of the earth)? How do you know which facts are relative and which are not? If you don't know which facts are immutable, how do you know whether or not this "debate" is justified?

 

I don't believe the age of the earth is a fact so I don't believe that fact is relative. I come to my conclusions of "which facts are relative and which are not" the same way you do-by study and critical thinking. I'm sure you don't just read something or hear something that someone declares "fact" and just accept it at face value, right? You engage  the subject and verify the "fact" to the best of your ability.

 

 

 

And why wouldn't we be spending "forever" studying the subject? Will we ever get to the point where we know everything, do you think? Is there at point at which we should consider we know enough, that we should put our resources into other things?

 

Of course we will spend forever-or as long as humankind exists-studying the subject. There are some things that are so vast that it seems impossible to know everything about them. Some facts are simple and won't change-2+2=4. Some things are modified over time as humans develop their knowledge about them. For example, Pluto being downgraded from a planet. That was a fact when I was a kid. No so anymore. Does that mean that when I believed Pluto was a planet that facts were relative to me? I don't think so.

[EmseB]

And just because I jumped in here, I'll say I'm a Christian, probably considered very conservative by most people, I believe in a literal 6 day creation as written about in the Bible, original sin and all that "whackadoodle" "cotton candy brain" stuff.  But I don't think the exact age of the earth is really that important, I don't think biblical genealogies can give us an exact age of the earth, I find the various creation science organizations to be more than just a little annoying and at best irrelevant, but I don't I think it's impossible for God to have created a vast universe with stars that are 13 billion light years away.  I don't often discuss all of this with people other than those I'm really close to (like DH, for instance) because I think my views are probably a minority among just about everyone.  So I have trouble answering the poll.

 

All that being said, this thread seems to be an excuse to call people names who believe in YEC (see: cotton candy for brains, whackadoodle and others), whether the OP intended it or not.

[Excelsior! Academy]

And just because I jumped in here, I'll say I'm a Christian, probably considered very conservative by most people, I believe in a literal 6 day creation as written about in the Bible, original sin and all that "whackadoodle" "cotton candy brain" stuff.  But I don't think the exact age of the earth is really that important, I don't think biblical genealogies can give us an exact age of the earth, I find the various creation science organizations to be more than just a little annoying and at best irrelevant, but I don't I think it's impossible for God to have created a vast universe with stars that are 13 billion light years away.  I don't often discuss all of this with people other than those I'm really close to (like DH, for instance) because I think my views are probably a minority among just about everyone.  So I have trouble answering the poll.

 

All that being said, this thread seems to be an excuse to call people names who believe in YEC (see: cotton candy for brains, whackadoodle and others), whether the OP intended it or not.

 

Agree 100%.

[EmseB]

Thanks for the heads-up. I appreciate the specifics. I chose that example for a reason and while I'm happy to explain it, I'll maybe offer that in private messaging so as not to give the appearance I'm trying to drag down Christians in general by continuing that line of argument. 

 

 

The 0.o sentiment comes from reading my posts incorrectly and assuming that I'm trying to make a passive aggressive statement against an entire group (I know you didn't imply that yourself, you're predicting this thought you had is not likely to be unique here). Like I say, there's a specific point to my having brought that in, but I'll not speak any more about it publicly because it tends to get misconstrued even more, then people assume even more, and it gets to be a real mess. [ETA] It would seem to suggest that there exists a greater value on diplomacy than on validating facts, as one could ask me about what I mean, rather than assume I'm trying to be sly (not clever enough for that, I promise). 

 

The problem comes because you did post it publicly.  I mean, you said it "out loud" to everyone.  It's great that you want to explain to me via PM, but I'm really not asking.  My point was exactly that it does get to be a real mess.  I'm not even talking about being diplomatic, but you've brought in an entire other subject which is horribly contentious into a thread that's already sort of testy, it probably doesn't apply to most Christians here, and looks exactly like pot stirring just for the sake of it.  And then you don't want to discuss it on the thread anymore because you acknowledge how easily your point might be misconstrued.

 

To say that Christians today whitewash slavery and then say you don't want to give the appearance that you're trying to drag down Christians in general with that line of argument so you'll tell me privately what you meant has me O.o.  

 

This all seems strange to me at best, but I'm in a postpartum haze still so that's likely part of it.

[Professormom]

Are there any YEC folks who have changed their mind? Not really expecting a reply but I'm curious.

 

 

I did.

Growing up, I never really heard YE or OE, it was God made the world in 7 days, but that was never really couched in the world of science. The times were just different in that science and religion weren't quite as volatile when they interacted. Or maybe it was just because we didn't have the Internet, so everything wasn't out there for all to see and discuss. I don't know, it just wasn't an issue.

 

Anyway, it wasn't until I started homeschooling that it was even on my radar. I heard about Ken Ham through the hs world. I started thinking about how the fall happened and how the Christian faith relies on young earth to explain the fall, which is really integral to why Jesus came, why we need salvation, etc. Ham's books were interesting. They came at things through a different lens.

 

So, I camped there for awhile, but I am a firm believer in reading about what the other side believes... As written by THEM before making up my mind. This means that when I want to hear about atheism, Islam, Christianity, etc. I read from the perspective of those who practice it before I look at the folks who are writing more critical commentary. (i.e, you need to learn about REAL Christianity from a Christian - or at least get that intimate perspective - not from an atheist or a Muslim. Those people can give critical commentary later in my research, but they will not typically be able to give an accurate reading of the topic. They may have good insights, but the real, "live and breathe" it piece will be missing. Almost like a caricature, iUKWIM.

 

So, I decided to look at the old earth perspective more thoroughly. And honestly, it gave me more reason to believe in God than young earth did. And it wasn't the geological arguments that did it, so much as the biochemical discoveries. That stuff is FASCINATING.

 

I won't ever be able to prove God exists to any person, including myself (but I do hope I can reflect him to others). But, I see God in the deepest, most complex pieces of life - biochemistry, neurology, genetics. He knows we are scientists at heart and has made it so that we constantly have more to explore (and discuss). To me, that is just cool. And I know there is cr@p in me and I am thankful that he not only sent his son to rid me of that cr@p, but that he CONSTANTLY challenges me to stop being self-righteous and start reflecting him to others. That is way harder than figuring out the science.

 

Anyway, back on topic. I also really don't appreciate Ken Ham's insinuation that if you don't believe in a YE, that you are somehow not a "true" Christian. A lot of what he does doesn't show me someone reflecting Christ, and that doesn't line up with the spirit of scripture, in my view.

 

At the time, I felt very responsible, knowing I had these doubts, for what I was going to teach my kids. So, I read and read and read. Everything I could get my mitts on for years. And I have concluded that the science is just the science, and fighting it doesn't make it untrue. As a matter of fact, I think it holds God back so to speak. I think the age of the earth is established and there is a whole pile of evidence for evolution and it is complicated. And I think he gave it to us that way. To get a big picture, you really do need to educate yourself in astronomy, geology, neuroscience, genetics, biochemistry and anthropology. Which is hard. Really hard. And I really wish ministers would start learning this stuff so they can spend their time analyzing Hebrew and such to mine the Bible for more information on what God was trying to tell us with Genesis. Because I think our paradigm needs to shift, not because there is a problem with scripture, but because there is a problem with our understanding. We see this repeatedly in history, it doesn't mean God or Jesus is flawed, it means we aren't always as smart as we think we are:-) He lets us go deep, but the message, "love the way I love" is also breathtakingly simple.

 

But I see no evidence of a great conspiracy, which the exception of a few outliers (Richard Dawkins, etc.) and the Christian side has its outliers as well. I also think anyone who says that science "disproves God" doesn't understand the definition of faith. It doesn't work that way.

 

So that is my story. Probably too long, and I don't often share it in hs'ing circles because I either get the Christian look that says, "oh, you are one of those", or the non-believer looks that says, "oh, you must be small-minded because you believe." I only share it now because it seemed to be a question asked in sincerity and respect:-)

[*Lulu*]

Ummmm.......

 

Christian here, of the recovering evangelical sort.

 

Christians absolutely do whitewash slavery when it comes to the role the church played in the maintaining of the "peculiar institution". I've seen it in threads here as recently as the last six months. Does every Christian do this? No, just like every Christian doesn't believe in YEC, literal hell, women as ministers, weekly communion, the sinner's prayer, instruments in service, insurance, ect., ect., ect.

[Tanaqui]

I don't I think it's impossible for God to have created a vast universe with stars that are 13 billion light years away.

 

No, as illustrated by Heinlein in Job: A Comedy of Justice there is no reason an omnipotent being couldn't create a universe 10,000 years ago (or 100 years ago, or 10 minutes ago, for that matter) that looks billions of years old.

 

But that just answers one question by raising a dozen more, starting with "why?" and "no, really, why?" (Gonna white-out the rest of the paragraph, highlight if you're bound and determined to read it.) Of what possible benefit would there be for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator to deceive people about their origins (because of course people will look to the evidence) when, even if this doesn't determine ones placement in an afterlife (and if there's any justice, a belief that doesn't affect morality has no bearing on such a thing - and if it DOES, then the system is fundamentally unjust and the creator of such a system can be assumed not to be omnibenevolent at all) it does cause great suffering in THIS life?

 

No, the simplest answer is most likely the correct one. The simplest explanation backed up by the evidence is that the universe in which we live is billions of years old.

 

When you come across the scene of a bloody murder, you don't throw up your hands, say "there were no witnesses and no camera, so the gods must have done it!", no, you carefully study the crime scene and gather up all the forensic evidence you can to find the perpetrator. When a doctor has a patient with a stomach pain they don't go "Oh, nobody is in your stomach, I guess that's God!", they prescribe tests and find out the root cause of the disease. When we want to know the age of the earth, we use the evidence available to us - radiometric dating, the speed of light and position of stars, the fossil record, and so on.

[Slartibartfast]

:iagree:  What bothers me is when science is treated as the ultimate "religion".  In other words, science trumps all or the "science is settled" mantra.  Science in many things is far from settled.  That's the nature of science -- we are constantly discovering more and new aspects about things.  Science, just by definition, is in a constant flux of change.

 

For instance:  Climate Change (which used to be called Global Warming but was changed to make it more convincing) - Everyone knows that the earth operates on natural cyclical climate changes.  That can be documented through the ages.  However, this notion that humans are the primary instigators of dramatically speeding up the changes is unsubstantiated.  Here's where the philosophy of science (not real science) creeps in:

• 40 years ago scientists were in a panic about the upcoming ice age.  It never happened.  So now they're in an uproar about catastrophic global warming.
• 1970s: Science experts claimed the world was overpopulated and running out of food, water, and minerals the results of which were the imminent danger of global famine and poverty.  It's been 45 years and we're still here.  Are there areas of famine, poverty, and water shortages?  Yes, but then there always have been.
• 1980s: The Global 2000 Report to the President - A document where a group of scientists warned the president that by the year 2000, the world will have exhausted all oil, gas, farmland, etc. resources.  Well, it's 2015 and we still have gas, oil, and farmland.
• Recently: Climategate Scandal - Climate change researchers manufactured evidence and suppressed data to bolster their claims.
• As of 2010, there were 1,000 international scientists who doubted global warming science.  Are they all wrong?

Yet despite all the above, global climate change perpetuated by humans is still a driving agenda in science and touted as "settled science".  Just take a look at the scathing article in National Geographic's latest cover story and how they ridicule anyone who doesn't subscribe to their "settled" science.

 

Then there's the medical field chock full of scientists who have repeatedly told us how bad fats and eggs are for us.  That changes almost yearly.  They're good; they're bad; they're good; they're bad.  My conclusion from all this is they really don't know and anything in moderation is fine. The science is far from settled.

 

So, facts are facts in science, but in certain things for which we can never directly observe or test--such as the age of the earth, or how life began, or whether all organisms evolved from a single common ancestor or were created--the worldview of the scientist colors their interpretation of how those facts manifested, resulting in philosophical science.  This goes for secular scientists as well as religious scientists.  Again, we cannot observe when or how these things really happened, whether they happened 14 trillion years ago or 10,000 years ago.  Up to a certain point it's all speculative, thereby subject to the interpretation of each individual scientist, and far from settled.

 

And science should never be settled or suppressed .  It should always be questioned and investigated. Otherwise, how will we ever learn anything new?

 

Anyway, that's how I feel about things. I don't expect everyone to share my views; that's fine with me.  It makes the world a much more interesting, yet sometimes hostile, place.

 

Do you not recall that laws were passed regarding CFCs? Problems did not magically go away, they passed laws to prevent a catastrophe.

 

http://www.theozonehole.com/cfc.htm

 

They didn't change it from Global Warming to Climate Change to make it more convincing, they changed it because people didn't understand it and constantly said stupid things like, "Look at all the snow! Global Warming must be fake!" I think it is a good thing when  more correct terms are used, it leads to less confusion. 

 

There may be 1000 international scientists (that is actually a very small number to be using as a statistic, what sort of scientists are they anyways?) who don't believe in climate change but 97% of Climate Scientists DO. I would say that the 1000 scientists are wrong. They could be mathematicians for all I know.

 

Not to mention, how many of them are receiving money from Big Oil?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/

 

 

Politifact and Factcheck.org ruled that the "Climategate" story was false.

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/13/dana-perino/fox-news-host-climate-scientists-fabricated-temper/

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

 

 

In the US 87% of Scientists believe Climate Change is human driven. 

 

 

 

The bad news: On controversial topics such as climate change, a significant number of Americans do not use science to inform their views. Instead, they use political orientation and ideology, which are reflected in their level of education, to decide whether humans are driving planetary warming.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/

 

The US Senate has ruled that Climate Change is real and not a hoax

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/21/senate-climate-change-votes/22120041/

 

There is no debate that Climate Change is real. It is a *fact* and frankly, it has NOTHING to do with YEC or religion. 

[albeto.]

The problem comes because you did post it publicly.  I mean, you said it "out loud" to everyone.  It's great that you want to explain to me via PM, but I'm really not asking.  My point was exactly that it does get to be a real mess.  I'm not even talking about being diplomatic, but you've brought in an entire other subject which is horribly contentious into a thread that's already sort of testy, it probably doesn't apply to most Christians here, and looks exactly like pot stirring just for the sake of it.  And then you don't want to discuss it on the thread anymore because you acknowledge how easily your point might be misconstrued.

 

To say that Christians today whitewash slavery and then say you don't want to give the appearance that you're trying to drag down Christians in general with that line of argument so you'll tell me privately what you meant has me O.o.  

 

This all seems strange to me at best, but I'm in a postpartum haze still so that's likely part of it.

 

So this leaves me in a bit of a hot spot. If I explain myself, the likelihood of someone eventually taking this as my personal attack on someone increases, the mod comes in and tells me to stop making this personal. If I keep quiet, I look like I'm throwing out troll-bait. I really don't want to give the impression I'm throwing out troll-bait. That really bothers me. But I don't want to get banned again, either, lol! 

 

I guess ultimately all I can do is keep quiet and suck it up and let people think I'm a big meaning. Then when I have a point to make, I have to make sure no comment might inadvertently offend more sensitive posters. While I can understand the point of this rule, and while I think minding certain manners here is good and appropriate, I'm a bit frustrated with what seems to be the direction of this thread, especially since it was asking what posters genuinely thought. That feels a bit like an ambush here.

[EmseB]

When you come across the scene of a bloody murder, you don't throw up your hands, say "there were no witnesses and no camera, so the gods must have done it!", no, you carefully study the crime scene and gather up all the forensic evidence you can to find the perpetrator. When a doctor has a patient with a stomach pain they don't go "Oh, nobody is in your stomach, I guess that's God!", they prescribe tests and find out the root cause of the disease. When we want to know the age of the earth, we use the evidence available to us - radiometric dating, the speed of light and position of stars, the fossil record, and so on.

 

I suppose I think that the origins and age of the universe are a slightly different animal of research than an ailment in the human body or a crime that we definitively know was committed by someone.  And I'm fine if people don't see the distinction there, as obviously many disagree that there is a distinction to be made.  I think as far as star light goes, we'll probably find the universe to look older and older the longer we start into space and make new discoveries.  As for our house, we study astronomy, we study the human body, we study botany, and chemistry and physics.  We just do so with the foundational belief that it was all made.  But the fact that I think it was made does not preclude the study of it, or understanding of it.  In fact the more I study and the more I see the universe to be both infinitely small and infinitely large and infinitely more complex than we as humans can probably ever conceive of, even over generations of study.

 

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.  But your assumptions about how I and others must go about study or science or research because I believe in a creator are totally wrong.  And since I travel in those circles, I have to say that I know absolutely zero people that comport with your examples above, despite believing in a creator.  I'm sure there are some that act that way, I just can honestly say that among my particular denomination I've met none of them.  To reduce people to caricatures that derp about nobody being in my stomach doesn't help anyone.

[EmseB]

The US Senate has ruled that Climate Change is real and not a hoax

 

 

Wait, are we allowed to appeal to the US Senate for scientific authority now?  And journalists?  Because I've got some doozies, if so.

[Tanaqui]

I suppose I think that the origins and age of the universe are a slightly different animal of research than an ailment in the human body or a crime that we definitively know was committed by someone.  And I'm fine if people don't see the distinction there, as obviously many disagree that there is a distinction to be made.  I think as far as star light goes, we'll probably find the universe to look older and older the longer we start into space and make new discoveries.  As for our house, we study astronomy, we study the human body, we study botany, and chemistry and physics.  We just do so with the foundational belief that it was all made.  But the fact that I think it was made does not preclude the study of it, or understanding of it.  In fact the more I study and the more I see the universe to be both infinitely small and infinitely large and infinitely more complex than we as humans can probably ever conceive of, even over generations of study.

 

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.  But your assumptions about how I and others must go about study or science or research because I believe in a creator are totally wrong.  And since I travel in those circles, I have to say that I know absolutely zero people that comport with your examples above, despite believing in a creator.  I'm sure there are some that act that way, I just can honestly say that among my particular denomination I've met none of them.  To reduce people to caricatures that derp about nobody being in my stomach doesn't help anyone.

 

You missed the point entirely, didn't you?

 

The point is that the SAME logic that we use for SOME science (like biology) aspects works on ALL - or it doesn't work on any.

 

I know a lot of people are fond of compartmentalizing, and pretending that using science to determine the age of the earth is somehow "different" than using science to determine who killed JR. But it's not. Either the same fundamental principles - that we can establish reality by using facts, that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is most likely to be correct, that a correct theory can predict the results of studies and experiments - apply to both, or they never apply at all.

 

The person who rejects all science is at least not guilty of being inconsistent.

 

[fraidycat]

Of course they are... Did you mean that to sound as biting and condecending as it did?

Sound? This is the written word. A straight to the point factual statement. Any "sound" or tone attributed to it is yours and yours alone.

[CAMom]

So this leaves me in a bit of a hot spot. If I explain myself, the likelihood of someone eventually taking this as my personal attack on someone increases, the mod comes in and tells me to stop making this personal. If I keep quiet, I look like I'm throwing out troll-bait. I really don't want to give the impression I'm throwing out troll-bait. That really bothers me. But I don't want to get banned again, either, lol! 

 

I guess ultimately all I can do is keep quiet and suck it up and let people think I'm a big meaning. Then when I have a point to make, I have to make sure no comment might inadvertently offend more sensitive posters. While I can understand the point of this rule, and while I think minding certain manners here is good and appropriate, I'm a bit frustrated with what seems to be the direction of this thread, especially since it was asking what posters genuinely thought. That feels a bit like an ambush here.

 

 

:confused1: I don't get it. I really don't. I came into the discussion and did express what I genuinely thought. You responded to me and I responded back to you. Then you responded with the post that included Christians whitewashing slavery and homeschoolers like me being educationally gullible.

 

I'm confused at what you are frustrated with? What direction is the thread taking? Do you mean you feel like you are being ambushed?  :confused1:

[Guest]

When I was growing up, there were branches of science that were very much glossed over; I do think this was intentional from the YEC authority figures (parents included) because either a little understanding could lead to further investigation and the whole shaky house would come down; or, there was an extreme dearth of information to scientifically explain all these branches of science while staying within 6,000 years.

[EmseB]

So this leaves me in a bit of a hot spot. If I explain myself, the likelihood of someone eventually taking this as my personal attack on someone increases, the mod comes in and tells me to stop making this personal. If I keep quiet, I look like I'm throwing out troll-bait. I really don't want to give the impression I'm throwing out troll-bait. That really bothers me. But I don't want to get banned again, either, lol! 

 

I guess ultimately all I can do is keep quiet and suck it up and let people think I'm a big meaning. Then when I have a point to make, I have to make sure no comment might inadvertently offend more sensitive posters. While I can understand the point of this rule, and while I think minding certain manners here is good and appropriate, I'm a bit frustrated with what seems to be the direction of this thread, especially since it was asking what posters genuinely thought. That feels a bit like an ambush here.

 

I can say that my solution would to be not to throw out what look like non-sequiturs that generalize about a large contingent of the population of the board in a discussion that's about something else entirely.  But you keep saying that was not what you meant to do, so it's hard for me to say that would actually be a solution.

 

I don't think an ambush was intended, but again, to use previous examples, what happens when people imply that YECs have cotton candy for brains or calls them wackadoodles, stupid, crazy, ignorant, etc?  I realize this was not you, but how is that supposed to really go down on a board like this?  In general, I think in most situations it's not a good idea to invite people to say "what they really think" about another group of people that also have a large representation on the same discussion board.  And then it's all, "Oh, I'm not saying this out loud, I'm just telling you what I think in my head about you.  If I really said it where people could hear me, it would be socially inappropriate." 

[EmseB]

You missed the point entirely, didn't you?

 

Nope, but I do disagree with you.  :)

[BrookValley.]

Wait, are we allowed to appeal to the US Senate for scientific authority now? And journalists? Because I've got some doozies, if so.

Did you read the rest of slart's post, or you just want to pick out the convenient bits to build your straw man?

[Slartibartfast]

Wait, are we allowed to appeal to the US Senate for scientific authority now?  And journalists?  Because I've got some doozies, if so.

 

Is that the only thing in my post that you feel is worth arguing?

 

I did actually post other content regarding the issue, you only want to talk about the Senate?

 

Did you post to have an actual discussion or just make Senate jokes? I agree that our Legislative branch  is usually pretty funny but I don't think it is germane to the topic. I did just throw that in at the end since usually the Legislative branch has lobbyists arms so far up their butt that any sort of consensus is impossible. I am happy to make congress jokes but I think some of them are offensive. (by this I mean that my Congress jokes are offensive)

 

Journalists write stories, sometimes they are news stories and sometimes they are opinion. If you have doozies that are factual and pertinent feel free to share but otherwise I don't understand why you would.

[BrookValley.]

And no one called YEC folks "cotton candy brains." Red herring.

[BrookValley.]

Also, the witch hunt for albeto is really getting tiresome. Seriously. Of course everyone won't agree with her. I don't always agree with her, either. But I can't believe the lengths to which some will go to attribute meaning to her posts that isn't there. Argue with her on details; it's really not personal. She's seriously one of the most caring and respectful people I know. Stop it.

[fraidycat]

Also, the witch hunt for albeto is really getting tiresome. Seriously. Of course everyone won't agree with her. I don't always agree with her, either. But I can't believe the lengths to which some will go to attribute meaning to her posts that isn't there. Argue with her on details; it's really not personal. She's seriously one of the most caring and respectful people I know. Stop it.

Absolutely! She is the One poster that I've never seen get emotional. 100% stick to the facts, repeat ad nauseum, include copious relevant supporting links of information, and explain that her main goal is EDUCATION for all.

 

It gets really old seeing her accused of nefarious actions.

[hornblower]

Do you mean became YEC after believing otherwise?

 

Because i did change the other way as I said in one of the other threads.

 

I meant people who stopped believing in YEC. Sorry was unclear ;)

 

wasn't sure people would want to talk about it since it seems to me that it is by definition a matter of faith so it seems to require a profound shift in faith & I didn't necessarily expect people to talk about that.

 

hey, another question I've been wondering about - are there any YEC people who are not religious?

[CAMom]

Absolutely! She is the One poster that I've never seen get emotional. 100% stick to the facts, repeat ad nauseum, include copious relevant supporting links of information, and explain that her main goal is EDUCATION for all.

 

It gets really old seeing her accused of nefarious actions.

 

 

 

Also, the witch hunt for albeto is really getting tiresome. Seriously. Of course everyone won't agree with her. I don't always agree with her, either. But I can't believe the lengths to which some will go to attribute meaning to her posts that isn't there. Argue with her on details; it's really not personal. She's seriously one of the most caring and respectful people I know. Stop it.

 

Again, I'm so confused. Are these posts directed at me since I had interaction with her in this thread?  :confused1:

 

What witch hunt? :confused1:

 

Did albeto not say that "Christians whitewash slavery?" Did she say that I "believe facts are relative" and that I am teaching my son the same? Did she say that YEC capitalize on educational gullibility and then add that they are able to encourage homeschoolers just like me of their position? 

 

All I did was respond to those things.

 

I would really love to be enlightened as I try not to bring my own emotion into the debate and I would never want to give the impression that I am on a witch hunt. :confused1:

[fraidycat]

Again, I'm so confused. Are these posts directed at me since I had interaction with her in this thread? :confused1:

 

What witch hunt? :confused1:

 

Did albeto not say that "Christians whitewash slavery?" Did she say that I "believe facts are relative" and that I am teaching my son the same? Did she say that YEC capitalize on educational gullibility and then add that they are able to encourage homeschoolers just like me of their position?

 

All I did was respond to those things.

 

I would really love to be enlightened as I try not to bring my own emotion into the debate and I would never want to give the impression that I am on a witch hunt. :confused1:

Not you. You engaged directly. Many do not. Not just this thread. It's a simmering topic around here, just under the surface, subtly (and not so subtly) mentioned every few days about "a certain poster" or "she who shall not be named".

 

.....

[BrookValley.]

I'm speaking to a general trend.

[Slartibartfast]

While we are discussing "white washing history"

 

http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1380&Tab=0

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-unflattering-history-lesson/2015/02/19/3be9cb0c-b878-11e4-a200-c008a01a6692_story.html

 

 

"There seems to be a very clear leaning in the new framework to communicate that America is just not a good place. We're exploiters. We're abusers. We put down the poor. The rich rule. All those kinds of things," said Fisher, a pastor from El Reno. "No one's questioning that America doesn't have blemishes, and I don't even have a problem with those being taught ... but I do have a problem with those being taught almost to the exclusion of what America has done right."

 

The Bill was written by a member of

 

http://www.blackrobereg.org/

 

 

[Mergath]

As an aside, have you heard that the big bang theory has been theoretically disproven?  The universe is apparently eternal.  http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

What you have to understand about physics is that there are quite a few models that could, theoretically, explain the origins of the universe.  We don't have enough data yet to say which one is correct, however.  Someone coming up with a new model doesn't disprove the others.  It's just one more idea that will possibly be ruled out at some point when we know more.

 

And believe me, if the day comes that physicists know for absolute certain that there was no Big Bang, it will be at the top of every news website out there. ;)

 

Also, the universe being eternal and the Big Bang theory aren't mutually exclusive.  Some models show that there could be an eternal universe with endless Big Bangs happening over and over.

 

Fascinating stuff. :)

[*Lulu*]

Again, I'm so confused. Are these posts directed at me since I had interaction with her in this thread? :confused1:

 

What witch hunt? :confused1:

 

Did albeto not say that "Christians whitewash slavery?" Did she say that I "believe facts are relative" and that I am teaching my son the same? Did she say that YEC capitalize on educational gullibility and then add that they are able to encourage homeschoolers just like me of their position?

 

All I did was respond to those things.

 

I would really love to be enlightened as I try not to bring my own emotion into the debate and I would never want to give the impression that I am on a witch hunt. :confused1:

I did not take your pp that way. There is a trend that has developed in being offended by anything Albeto posts that even touches the fringe of a religious discussion and I believe that is what is being commented upon.

 

Personally, I don't agree with plenty that Albeto posts about faith and God. I do agree with much of what she posts about cultural Christianity/religion and the ways it can impact (for good or ill) society.