The bottom line is, how well you were indoctrinated.

[Estrid]

Not sure what point you want to make.
We all know that " creationism", like
many words, is open to much equivocation.

We also all know the word " creationist"
usually refers to yec.

The same definition for creationism applies to the word creationist. Just because a number of people apply it's meaning to one particular group doesn't justify it's misuse.

As to objecivity in science, its a highest value.
Theres nothing "political" about that.

It's a highest value to some, sure. More on an individual basis. But collectively, there's politics. Like the Dover Trial which entailed questionable acts of dishonesty. Also reaction to Nobel Prize winner James Watson by the science community for remarks deemed racist. I personally believe all men are created equal. I believe the bible makes this clear for one. No one has told me this. From my own personal study, evaluation, and personal life experiences, I've come to the conclusion that the bible is the Word of God. No need for anyone to tell me this.

However, if I were say, an atheist, I would have to look at the situation from an entirely human stand point. If scientific evidence did in fact point to any given ethnic group being less intelligent, there wouldn't be any room for political correctness. And the fact that Watson's claims have been proven wrong is irrelevant. We can't really look over the possibility that his claims are objective from his standpoint, and not racist, even if he most likely were to be. But the science community has to bend to the demands of the public. So if we can't trust the science community on every matter, how can we trust them in every issue that may be taken to court?

Ive not seen any form of creatiinism
where its not the opposite.

I'm not clear on what you mean here.


Its "believe what authority tells you - regardless
of evidence or else ".

It mandates and glorifies intellectual
dishonesty.

As I stated, there are people in the Christian religion that tell people what to think. I don't happen to be one of them. I don't tell people what to think, nor does anyone tell me. Or if they do, they're wasting their time.

And what exactly is the "or else"?


Whether some students are dolts with
" base" instincts is immaterial.

I'm not so sure this is an isolated group as you seem to suggest. I think we all have a bit of that base nature. Don't you?

I said "cretionist" GENERALLY etc.
I did not misuse it

A highest value in science is objectivity.
And that simply isnt "politcal".

Your "science community has to bend to the will of the
public" is a grotesque misrepresentation.

Religions like Christianity are faith based.
Faith. Authority.
A highedt virtue is to hold fast the faith
no matter what.
The opposite of objectivity.


The " or else" is, in general, "eternity in hell".
As you know.

Everything i said is accurate.

You did not / cannot demonstrate otherwise.


Oh, and while the Bible might be the word of
God, the chance youve the one True out of
the countless versions is, you surely know,
next to zero.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any dictionary definition of creationism will state that the term is broad, including creation references from religions other than Christianity, and non-religious beliefs like Deism. Why is that significant? Because there are occasions where individuals, including Christians use the term with a broad definition.

I use "creationism" in the sense of a literal six-day creation week.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've not seen any form of creationism where it's not the opposite.

I don't know what you're saying here.

You have a triple negative in one sentence.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I use "creationism" in the sense of a literal six-day creation week.

I'm a creationist, but I don't have a strong opinion of either young earth, or old earth. I'm not 100% sure the Hebrew language doesn't somehow translate into an old earth. I haven't really studied it much as of yet. Not that I shouldn't.

But I have absolutely no problem whatsoever of a literal six-day creation. Just the idea of creating the universe in the first place is so astounding, I don't see how any believer can really dispute it as the creation itself opens up many possibilities.

Another reason I have no problem with it (aside from what it is stated in Genesis), is I see evidence of God (for lack of a better term) altering time in the Bible. I believe the passage concerning Joshua's longest day was a manipulation of time so to speak, that personally I think may have only affected the area or region the battle took place. The rest of the world may not have experienced the sun and moon stopping. In fact it seems Joshua aimed his prayer on their particular location. So who knows what time alteration (wish I could think of a better word) per our perspective may have taken place in God's act of creation?

It's interesting how some atheists respond to the massive improbability of our existence.....without of course considering a creator. They say that in spite of the tremendous odds against it, we're so there has to be an explanation. And then they move forward to try and find out how. So in that respect, I applaud YEC scientists like Ken Ham who I believe have had a revelation of the existence of Jesus our creator, and based on the fact of His existence, sets to find out how Earth may have been created in 6 days.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I said "cretionist" GENERALLY etc.
I did not misuse it

A highest value in science is objectivity.
And that simply isnt "politcal".

Your "science community has to bend to the will of the
public" is a grotesque misrepresentation.

Religions like Christianity are faith based.
Faith. Authority.
A highedt virtue is to hold fast the faith
no matter what.
The opposite of objectivity.

The "" or else is, in general, "eternity in hell".
As you know.

As you know.

Everything i said is accurate.

You did not / cannot demonstrate otherwise.


Oh, and while the Bible might be the word of
God, the chance youve the one True out of
the countless versions is, you surely know,
next to zero.

I said "cretionist" GENERALLY etc.
I did not misuse it

I'm not really claiming you did. I'm just saying that throwing the term out without proper identification can not only create confusion, but lead to dishonest claims. The OP didn't specifically identify the term as meaning YEC. His claims of being indoctrinated, avoiding facts, etc. can also be aimed at OEC's in that they may still believe in a man raised from the dead after 3 days, a parting of a large sea, punishment for sin, etc.


A highest value in science is objectivity.
And that simply isnt "politcal".


I'm not denying that. It's various individuals with political clout I'd be concerned with. A judge's highest value should be justice. But it's not always the case.

Religions like Christianity are faith based.
Faith. Authority.
A highedt virtue is to hold fast the fait
no matter what.

The opposite of objectivity.

Christianity is not blind faith. The higher authority is the creator of all of us. The chances of the creator being unjust is extremely small.

The "" or else is, in general, "eternity in hell".
As you know.

Some people may use "hell" as a means to unjustly scare people to do what they want. Someone also might say to another, if they don't mow their lawn, a grizzly bear will show up at their door. It's not that grizzlies don't exist, just that they were misused in a scare tactic.

Everything i said is accurate.

You did not / cannot demonstrate otherwise.

I have no doubt that you believe everything you said was accurate. I wouldn't want to try to demonstrate otherwise.

Oh, and while the Bible might be the word of
God, the chance youve the one True out of
the countless versions is, you surely know,
next to zero.

By versions I assume you mean translations.

Wouldn't that be kind of like saying "which movie is the right one? The one with, or the one without English subtitles?"

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm a creationist, but I don't have a strong opinion of either young earth, or old earth. I'm not 100% sure the Hebrew language doesn't somehow translate into an old earth. I haven't really studied it much as of yet. Not that I shouldn't.

But I have absolutely no problem whatsoever of a literal six-day creation. Just the idea of creating the universe in the first place is so astounding, I don't see how any believer can really dispute it as the creation itself opens up many possibilities.

I believe God created the universe with age embedded into it.

In other words, maturity without history.

The earth is as old as God willed it to be, but it has only been in existence for some 6200 years.

I like to use Bishop Usher's dating method as a reference point and say the earth was created in 4004 BC.

 

[Estrid]

I said "cretionist" GENERALLY etc.
I did not misuse it

I'm not really claiming you did. I'm just saying that throwing the term out without proper identification can not only create confusion, but lead to dishonest claims. The OP didn't specifically identify the term as meaning YEC. His claims of being indoctrinated, avoiding facts, etc. can also be aimed at OEC's in that they may still believe in a man raised from the dead after 3 days, a parting of a large sea, punishment for sin, etc.


A highest value in science is objectivity.
And that simply isnt "politcal".


I'm not denying that. It's various individuals with political clout I'd be concerned with. A judge's highest value should be justice. But it's not always the case.

Religions like Christianity are faith based.
Faith. Authority.
A highedt virtue is to hold fast the fait
no matter what.

The opposite of objectivity.

Christianity is not blind faith. The higher authority is the creator of all of us. The chances of the creator being unjust is extremely small.

The "" or else is, in general, "eternity in hell".
As you know.

Some people may use "hell" as a means to unjustly scare people to do what they want. Someone also might say to another, if they don't mow their lawn, a grizzly bear will show up at their door. It's not that grizzlies don't exist, just that they were misused in a scare tactic.

Everything i said is accurate.

You did not / cannot demonstrate otherwise.

I have no doubt that you believe everything you said was accurate. I wouldn't want to try to demonstrate otherwise.

Oh, and while the Bible might be the word of
God, the chance youve the one True out of
the countless versions is, you surely know,
next to zero.

By versions I assume you mean translations.

Wouldn't that be kind of like saying "which movie is the right one? The one with, or the one without English subtitles?"

I didnt say anything about blind faith, but now i
wll.

It takes something far more insidious than mere
blind faith to believe Ken Ham is a scientist.

I wish you well.

 

[AV1611VET]

It takes something far more insidious than mere blind faith to believe Ken Ham is a scientist.

Or that Bill Nye -- The Science Guy -- is a mechanical engineer?

 

[Roderick Spode]

I believe God created the universe with age embedded into it.

In other words, maturity without history.

The earth is as old as God willed it to be, but it has only been in existence for some 6200 years.

I like to use Bishop Usher's dating method as a reference point and say the earth was created in 4004 BC.

I looked up Bishop Usher's dating method. It has inspired me to look further into the subject.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I didnt say anything about blind faith, but now i
wll.

It takes something far more insidious than mere
blind faith to believe Ken Ham is a scientist.

I wish you well.

Thank you!

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

REALLY?!? Bumping up a thread from 2007?

Closed for review to see if it is in line with the current Statement of Purpose. ​

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Due to multiple rule violations:

MOD HAT OFF​