View Single Post
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 28-September-2007, 06:23 PM
George's Avatar
George George is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio, Tx.
Posts: 8,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesabrown View Post
My transition came in several steps. First, I was shown that my belief in a young earth was incorrect due to reason and the scientific method while I was in college. I finally admitted that I was opposed to evolution for no other reason than because my teachers and parents had told me so. At that point I became an Old-earth creationist, believing that God created all life and that he used evolution as his primary tool.
Yes, your willingness to learn allowed college to educate you and "lift the fog".


Thanks for sharing and I see no rule violation by doing so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof Mayhem
Creationists, by and large, do not give a rat's *** in hell about scientific inquiry, evidence, or even objective reality.

They simply do not care.
Yes, as long as they don't look silly from their point of view. AIG and others present superficial and misleading explanations that allow the fog to remain.

Quote:
They have a predetermined conclusion, and their are no depths of outright dishonesty that they will not sink to in order to continue undermining anything that runs contradictory to said conclusion.

In short, creationists lie often, they lie consistently, and they lie 10 times more fervently when you call them on it.

I suspect this is true for a few of them, but the YEC friends I have believe they honestly have a truthful view of creation and, therefore, are not spreading lies, but errors. A lie requires an intent to deceive, [but] most "creationists" do not have this intent; they believe they are telling you the truth. Most scientists know the definition of a lie and it troubles me when they ignore it for apparent vilification purposes.

The heart of the problem is the interpretation of scripture. Creationists believe that the Bible is the "word of God". This is a belief that is unshakeable and science can not trump it. It never will. However, science can produce enough evidence to allow enlightenment as to the true context necessary for a proper interpretation. The Galileo example is a famous one, of course. Eventually, this is what will happen. I'd gladly bet an ice cream on it, if I live so long.
__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The mean of five measures each of which is not worth a dang (sinc), has a maximum value of only five dangs (sinc)". Heber Curtis

"(sinc)" - spelling is not correct (in its orginal form) :)

Last edited by George; 28-September-2007 at 06:44 PM.. Reason: grammar