The bottom line is, how well you were indoctrinated.

[Estrid]

Being a Human Being makes no sense to you? We Humans have many sides to most any issue you can name.

Creationism isnt a side of awareness.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism isnt a side of awareness.

That's because we weren't there at the time to see it happen.

 

[Jim Campbell]

How good a creationists you are depends on how well you were indoctrinated,
to believe in creationism requires total abandonment of logic, deduction and thought.

If you think that's not true, please tell me what those three words have to do with creationism.

Because,
creationism is built on words, and the words should not be changed, nothing added, nothing removed,
therefore logic, deduction and thought are not required, just a belief that those words are true.

Or have I got it wrong again?

 

[Jim Campbell]

I see others have some educational background, which could be an interference for your quest. I was raised up agnostic, entered college pursuing forest ecology studies. I was further indoctrinated in evolution. My senior high-school English thesis supported Darwin's "Descent of Man". In the 1960's there were no other ideas noticed in our county public library, so I adopted it. Skipping over some decades, as a Corps of Engineers Forester/Ranger I began of view geological evidences objectively. I led many biological/zoological/botany/geology/etc visiting classes from high schools and colleges at first affirming evolution without really examining my background in such venues. One day a student asked me to explain how a geological exposure of rock layers supposedly explained the geological ages of the many rock strata exposed in a tour cliff. "Where are some metamorphic examples between strata ? Upon examination none of the 30 member class and two professors could find any markers where "should have been" markers of significant evidences of changes between sedimentary layers. They found "soft" changes, indicating a single event forming the single cliff spading a proposed developing of eons of ages. I was reprimanded soon for not adhering to the site plaque supporting long ages. From then on I simply addressed "observe and deduce" protocol. I eventually observed on my one time only "soft", no metamorphic changes, but only layers conductance to catastrophic deposition of fluid deposition of fluid rock deposition.
That led me to study of geology and eventually to realization there was obviously a long-standing opposition to young-earth creation
That led me to listen to fellows who obviously feared some future judgment of sin from an invisible god. I became a child of God on 1/6/67.

THAT is the FEAR that imprisons true science. I was bound up by what I was taught by many spiritual unbelievers. God broke through all that!!!

It will require YOU to seek all real knowledge/wisdom/guidance from all scripture and guidance of Holy Spirit. It isn't about man's "epochal" stances, but what HE shows you. It is all about about 7000 years of age. I totally reject history beyond what evolutionist propose within verified science allows. That includes the allowance of carbon dating limited to 50K years.. Go look it up.

 

[dlamberth]

It will require YOU to seek all real knowledge/wisdom/guidance from all scripture and guidance of Holy Spirit. It isn't about man's "epochal" stances, but what HE shows you. It is all about about 7000 years of age. I totally reject history beyond what evolutionist propose within verified science allows. That includes the allowance of carbon dating limited to 50K years.. Go look it up.

If your relying on Carbon dating, your very much out of touch with the various dating of the Earth processes. I think you need to clear that up first.

But beyond that and for myself, God has shown me a very different picture. What God has shown me through His own Creation, created as God has created it, is that the Earth is roughly 4.5 Billion years old. And also the way He creates new life forms is through the evolutionary process. Further more, God has also shown me that the Earth can not lie about itSelf with such things. The Earth is straight up and honest about itSelf.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Earth is straight up and honest about itSelf.

Then why are such practices as ornithomancy so inaccurate?

 

[Estrid]

I see others have some educational background, which could be an interference for your quest. I was raised up agnostic, entered college pursuing forest ecology studies. I was further indoctrinated in evolution. My senior high-school English thesis supported Darwin's "Descent of Man". In the 1960's there were no other ideas noticed in our county public library, so I adopted it. Skipping over some decades, as a Corps of Engineers Forester/Ranger I began of view geological evidences objectively. I led many biological/zoological/botany/geology/etc visiting classes from high schools and colleges at first affirming evolution without really examining my background in such venues. One day a student asked me to explain how a geological exposure of rock layers supposedly explained the geological ages of the many rock strata exposed in a tour cliff. "Where are some metamorphic examples between strata ? Upon examination none of the 30 member class and two professors could find any markers where "should have been" markers of significant evidences of changes between sedimentary layers. They found "soft" changes, indicating a single event forming the single cliff spading a proposed developing of eons of ages. I was reprimanded soon for not adhering to the site plaque supporting long ages. From then on I simply addressed "observe and deduce" protocol. I eventually observed on my one time only "soft", no metamorphic changes, but only layers conductance to catastrophic deposition of fluid deposition of fluid rock deposition.
That led me to study of geology and eventually to realization there was obviously a long-standing opposition to young-earth creation
That led me to listen to fellows who obviously feared some future judgment of sin from an invisible god. I became a child of God on 1/6/67.

THAT is the FEAR that imprisons true science. I was bound up by what I was taught by many spiritual unbelievers. God broke through all that!!!

It will require YOU to seek all real knowledge/wisdom/guidance from all scripture and guidance of Holy Spirit. It isn't about man's "epochal" stances, but what HE shows you. It is all about about 7000 years of age. I totally reject history beyond what evolutionist propose within verified science allows. That includes the allowance of carbon dating limited to 50K years.. Go look it up.

You sure did not learn much geology.

But thats to your credit as its impossible to be
an intellectually honest yec who is well informed.

A much better informed one than yourself,
a Dr. K. Wise PhD paleontology,,expressed it thus:

"...even if all the evidence in the universe turns against
Yec, I will still be a yec,as that is what the bible seems
to indicate."

The refined essence of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[AV1611VET]

But thats to your credit as its impossible to be an intellectually honest yec who is well informed.

How do you determine intellectual honesty?

Can a person be well-informed of the makeup of the moon, and yet sincerely believe it is made of green cheese?

Information doesn't require acceptance.

 

[Jim Campbell]

You sure did not learn much geology.

But thats to your credit as its impossible to be
an intellectually honest yec who is well informed.

A much better informed one than yourself,
a Dr. K. Wise PhD paleontology,,expressed it thus:

"...even if all the evidence in the universe turns against
Yec, I will still be a yec,as that is what the bible seems
to indicate."

The refined essence of intellectual dishonesty.

My minor courses were geology and mineralogy, having been a mineral collector, but learning later that field doesn't have enough job openings. I was not interested in sounding for oil deposits at the difficulty of 18 hour semesters. I invested a total of 6 years college for a 4-year BS of science in forestry, minor earth science, but really enjoyed the rock part. I have always been an outdoors man. I met Jesus and the word of God a dozen years later. I learned enough godless indoctrination by biologists, geologists, paleontologists, et. al. to recognize truth later by God and simply observing what is revealed to me. When I conducted tours for college classes of geologic sites on federal lands I left all stunned by showing strata that defied their training, such as low strata undamaged fossils supposedly much more "evolved", upsetting their beliefs in geologic ages, challenging them to find metamorphism (etc) to explain how older stratum got folded over younger with no damage to components like fossils, etc.

Truth belongs to YEC. A free online subscription for folks who just think they know about earth and beyond is ICR.org, publishers of many books and a magazine "Acts & Facts". There are other scientific educational like sites offering exceptional YEC evidences, not relying on worn out phrases like "it is believed" with no physical evidence.

 

[Estrid]

My minor courses were geology and mineralogy, having been a mineral collector, but learning later that field doesn't have enough job openings. I was not interested in sounding for oil deposits at the difficulty of 18 hour semesters. I invested a total of 6 years college for a 4-year BS of science in forestry, minor earth science, but really enjoyed the rock part. I have always been an outdoors man. I met Jesus and the word of God a dozen years later. I learned enough godless indoctrination by biologists, geologists, paleontologists, et. al. to recognize truth later by God and simply observing what is revealed to me. When I conducted tours for college classes of geologic sites on federal lands I left all stunned by showing strata that defied their training, such as low strata undamaged fossils supposedly much more "evolved", upsetting their beliefs in geologic ages, challenging them to find metamorphism (etc) to explain how older stratum got folded over younger with no damage to components like fossils, etc.

Truth belongs to YEC. A free online subscription for folks who just think they know about earth and beyond is ICR.org, publishers of many books and a magazine "Acts & Facts". There are other scientific educational like sites offering exceptional YEC evidences, not relying on worn out phrases like "it is believed" with no physical evidence.

Whatever reason you tell yourself is no excuse for
for intellectual dishonesty.
Nor is it remotely respectful to such god as may
exist to reject his work in favour of your silly and
ignorant opinions.

Perhaps one day you will get to explain yourself.

Including to all the genrrations of your ancestors whose
struggles and sacrifices enabled you to live, and whose very existence youd have to deny to their faces.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever reason you tell yourself is no excuse for for intellectual dishonesty.

Perhaps you'd like to supply him with one?

 

[Astrophile]

One day a student asked me to explain how a geological exposure of rock layers supposedly explained the geological ages of the many rock strata exposed in a tour cliff. "Where are some metamorphic examples between strata ? Upon examination none of the 30 member class and two professors could find any markers where "should have been" markers of significant evidences of changes between sedimentary layers. They found "soft" changes, indicating a single event forming the single cliff spading a proposed developing of eons of ages. I was reprimanded soon for not adhering to the site plaque supporting long ages. From then on I simply addressed "observe and deduce" protocol. I eventually observed on my one time only "soft", no metamorphic changes, but only layers conductance to catastrophic deposition of fluid deposition of fluid rock deposition.

Do you remember where this geological outcrop was, or what geological periods were supposed to have been represented by the rocks? Did you make a record of your observations at the time, or look for a description of the outcrop in a book?

There should have been unconformities, not metamorphic rocks, between the sedimentary layers.

 

[Astrophile]

That led me to listen to fellows who obviously feared some future judgment of sin from an invisible god. I became a child of God on 1/6/67.

Was this 6th January 1967 or 1st June 1967?

 

[Estrid]

Do you remember where this geological outcrop was, or what geological periods were supposed to have been represented by the rocks? Did you make a record of your observations at the time, or look for a description of the outcrop in a book?

There should have been unconformities, not metamorphic rocks, between the sedimentary layers.

If our frirnd really knows of such impossible anomalies
it wpuld be wise to bring this to light and overthrow
false so called " science" for the glory of god and salvation of souls.

Failure in fact, to do this would be an unconsienable act
of negligence of the most horrendous and unforgivsble
proportions.

No excuses like " they would just explain it away".

 

[Estrid]

My minor courses were geology and mineralogy, having been a mineral collector, but learning later that field doesn't have enough job openings. I was not interested in sounding for oil deposits at the difficulty of 18 hour semesters. I invested a total of 6 years college for a 4-year BS of science in forestry, minor earth science, but really enjoyed the rock part. I have always been an outdoors man. I met Jesus and the word of God a dozen years later. I learned enough godless indoctrination by biologists, geologists, paleontologists, et. al. to recognize truth later by God and simply observing what is revealed to me. When I conducted tours for college classes of geologic sites on federal lands I left all stunned by showing strata that defied their training, such as low strata undamaged fossils supposedly much more "evolved", upsetting their beliefs in geologic ages, challenging them to find metamorphism (etc) to explain how older stratum got folded over younger with no damage to components like fossils, etc.

Truth belongs to YEC. A free online subscription for folks who just think they know about earth and beyond is ICR.org, publishers of many books and a magazine "Acts & Facts". There are other scientific educational like sites offering exceptional YEC evidences, not relying on worn out phrases like "it is believed" with no physical evidence.

IF you have found structures that
disprove the theories of deep time
and demonstrate yec, then youve a
peofound moral obligation to bring this to
the worlds attention.

That youd have the Nobel of Nobels
and world wide fame for the greatest
discovery of all time is but incidental
compared the the vast spiritual effects!

When will you get started??

 

[AV1611VET]

If our friend really knows of such impossible anomalies it would be wise to bring this to light and overthrow false so called "science" for the glory of god and salvation of souls.

Are you saying that science hinders souls from coming to Christ?

And I like how you worded that:

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[AV1611VET]

IF you have found structures that disprove the theories of deep time and demonstrate yec, then you've a profound moral obligation to bring this to the world's attention.

So they can chisel it down and turn it into a PRATT?

Like they did to the ocean salination, the weakening magnetosphere, and the depth of the moondust?

 

[Roderick Spode]

From what I've observed, creationists tend to base their interpretation of the Bible on what they were told by an authority figure. That certainly paves the way for indoctrination, especially when the authority figure teaches that when reality disagrees with the interpretation, reality is at fault.

On the other hand, scientists (including evolutionists) are taught how to use tools such as the scientific method. Learning how to use these tools is no more indoctrination than learning how to operate a car.

Perhaps creationists (and more Christians in general) should to get better at studying the history of the Bible and Christianity, get a good Hebrew/Greek concordance, etc. This would give them some tools so they wouldn't blindly accept everything at face value.

I see this is an old post....but...

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. The Dover Trial would be a good example where certain Christians even stated what they meant using the term, resulting in this strange obsession with others insisting they meant the most common narrow version of the term: Biblical-Christianity. Why some folk feel they can dictate what another person means when using the term is a mystery.

Yes, there are churches that indoctrinate. There are atheists that refer to a church they grew up in where they were told what to think. And then the atheist unfortunately assumes this happens in every church even though their experience derived from not just one denomination, but just one isolated church out of thousands. So yes, that person may have been better off if they studied the history of the Bible (although I imagine you may have a particular idea in mind concerning the outcome of such an endeavor), and a good Hebrew/Greek concordance. Christianity is (should be) all about thinking for one's self.

While there are no doubt evolutionists that are objective, unbiased, etc., there are politics involved with the secular science community at large. There is a form of indoctrination through our educational system, and media. The movie on the Scopes Monkey Trial used the "High Noon" technique at the beginning. The PBS documentary on the Dover Trial used a number of dramatic marketing techniques to sway the audience. They would start out by showing interviews with the average biblical creationist to exploit the idea of religious agenda. They would show an interview with a college professor from Berkeley stating "creationism makes you dumb". Who wants to be considered dumb? They used a sometimes method to add drama in reality shows by showing a reenactment where the judge glances over at someone, giving that self-controlled astonished look when being shown a pictograph of a tree representing evolution. Sort of the opposite of the wide open mouthed astonished look used by judges on televised reality shows.

And this works great for college students who don't have to worry about being considered dumb just by not entertaining any ideas of any type of creationism. It's ironic that some claim our earliest alleged primitive ancestors created gods to answer questions they couldn't intellectually. The problem is that the closer to the animal kingdom they would supposedly be, the less likely they would ponder such an existence. The animal only cares about their basest needs (food, sex, etc.). Why employ the idea of a creator that may require self-control and morality? And many college students are primarily interested in frat parties, and all it's alleged benefits. And they can hide behind the words of those who tell them what to think, especially since it won't interfere with their basest desires.

 

[Estrid]

I see this is an old post....but...

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. The Dover Trial would be a good example where certain Christians even stated what they meant using the term, resulting in this strange obsession with others insisting they meant the most common narrow version of the term: Biblical-Christianity. Why some folk feel they can dictate what another person means when using the term is a mystery.

Yes, there are churches that indoctrinate. There are atheists that refer to a church they grew up in where they were told what to think. And then the atheist unfortunately assumes this happens in every church even though their experience derived from not just one denomination, but just one isolated church out of thousands. So yes, that person may have been better off if they studied the history of the Bible (although I imagine you may have a particular idea in mind concerning the outcome of such an endeavor), and a good Hebrew/Greek concordance. Christianity is (should be) all about thinking for one's self.

While there are no doubt evolutionists that are objective, unbiased, etc., there are politics involved with the secular science community at large. There is a form of indoctrination through our educational system, and media. The movie on the Scopes Monkey Trial used the "High Noon" technique at the beginning. The PBS documentary on the Dover Trial used a number of dramatic marketing techniques to sway the audience. They would start out by showing interviews with the average biblical creationist to exploit the idea of religious agenda. They would show an interview with a college professor from Berkeley stating "creationism makes you dumb". Who wants to be considered dumb? They used a sometimes method to add drama in reality shows by showing a reenactment where the judge glances over at someone, giving that self-controlled astonished look when being shown a pictograph of a tree representing evolution. Sort of the opposite of the wide open mouthed astonished look used by judges on televised reality shows.

And this works great for college students who don't have to worry about being considered dumb just by not entertaining any ideas of any type of creationism. It's ironic that some claim our earliest alleged primitive ancestors created gods to answer questions they couldn't intellectually. The problem is that the closer to the animal kingdom they would supposedly be, the less likely they would ponder such an existence. The animal only cares about their basest needs (food, sex, etc.). Why employ the idea of a creator that may require self-control and morality? And many college students are primarily interested in frat parties, and all it's alleged benefits. And they can hide behind the words of those who tell them what to think, especially since it won't interfere with their basest desires.

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.

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

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

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

It mandates and glorifies intellectual
dishonesty.

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

 

[Roderick Spode]

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.

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

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

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

It mandates and glorifies intellectual
dishonesty.

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

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?