At 09:45 AM 11/8/98 -0800, sanjer at televar.com wrote:
>Mark Egger wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> is rather a fairly typical example of creationist drivel, employing a
>> combination of distorted half-truths, quotations out of context, and
>> extremely twisted reasoning in an attemt to support a position that is
>> scientifically and logically untenable.

>Why is it, that when the creationist suggest a different view, it is
>responded to with infamatory remarks?

Because "scientific creationism" IS a combination of distorted half-truths,
quotations out of context, and extremely twisted reaoning which does
support a scientifically untenable position. Stating this fact is not
an "inflammatory remark" (which is what I presume you meant to say).

Nothing in modern science requires abandonment of the notion that the
universe has a creator (though there is nothing in science the suggests
one exists, either). It does require abandonment of one creation theory
that declares that the event happend just a few years ago, and all of
the current crop of life's species with it.

>God does not know the meaning of effort, in the sense of Him exercising
>His
>will. It required NO effort to create the whole universe and make it
>appear as old as he wanted it to be.

How about motive? Why does God lie to us by making the earth appear
to be old? Why would one want to believe in a God that lies, anyway?

>This is what I mean--it is perfectly all right for a evolutionist to
>post
>information on tweeters about evolution, but it appears that the
>creationist is
>supposed to keep quiet.

If you want to post about your personal faith, while I fail to see its
relevance to the group I doubt that others will attack you for that
faith.

So-called scientific creationists are attacked by scientists for the simple
reason that they lie about doing science. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
wasn't Jesus at least vaguely opposed to the telling of lies in order to
bolster faith in God? I don't recall Jesus intentionally lying in order
to win folks over.

However, scientific creationists DO intentionally lie in order to try
and trick those who aren't technically trained into believing that the
physical evidence supports the fact that the universe is only a few
thousand years old and that species were created, not evolved.

>From your own post, it sounds as though you believe that God perhaps DID
create the earth to look old when it really isn't. From the point of
view of the scientific creationsists you wish us to respect, this makes
you a heretic, subject to the intellectual equivalent of being burned at
the stake. For the mainstream scientific creationist line is that God
didn't fake an old-looking earth, but rather they argue that the evidence
is being misinterpreted and actually proves the universe and earth is
young - not old.

>Based on the very negative responses I have recieved just for suggesting
>some books to read, (which is no different then Tom Cotners post) makes
>me wonder what would happen if I would have went into any of the details
>of creation.

I'm game. I don't think you're likely to enjoy the experience of having
your head handed to you on a platter, though. There are posters here who
know a LOT of science, and the scientific creationist drivel is really
quite easy to shoot down, as it has been over and over again.

Many Christians seem to assume that attacks on the pseudo-science used
by the liars of the ICR and the like is an attack on Christianity,
Christian faith, or on those who hold those faiths.

Such attacks aren't anti-Christian, indeed the most vehement attackers
of ICR I've ever note are Christian scientists who abhor the notion
that lying in the name of God is a good thing. Read talk.origins over
on Usenet for awhile and you'll see what I mean. Lying in the name
of God and to bolster Christian faith is a most un-Christian, hypocritical
technique.

If your Christian faith can't stand truth, then it's a very weak faith
indeed, I'm afraid.

My sister, an assistant pastor in the FourSquare Church whose faith is
unshakeable understands this, and understands that arguments that the
earth is only a few thousand years old are, well, wrong (I have a less
polite phrase in mind but won't use it here).


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net