HELP!

quote:

---

Suck it in and know that there isn't real conflict between Christianity and Evolutionary development.

---

TC, does this mean you've put YECism behind you, and made the transititon to theistic evolutionist?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-25-2002]

"TC, does this mean you've put YECism behind you, and made the transititon to theistic evolutionist?"
--No, this is not the case. I simply acknowledge that the way by which a person may interpret the exact latency or meaning of a segment of scripture may remain flexible toward ones semantic approbation thereof.Another note which may have some significance in the light of this realization is that YEC's need to quit being anti-evolutionists and start being YEC's.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC, does this mean you've put YECism behind you, and made the transititon to theistic evolutionist?"
--No, this is not the case. I simply acknowledge that the way by which a person may interpret the exact latency or meaning of a segment of scripture may remain flexible toward ones semantic approbation thereof.

​

Another note which may have some significance in the light of this realization is that YEC's need to quit being anti-evolutionists and start being YEC's.

​

---

Well, they have no real choice since they can't very well defend what they believe in any credible manner so they have to tear down Evoltution instead.

The situation of YECism's conflict with science is not so much the Creationism part, as it is the Young Earth part.Even (most of) the evolutionist side does not have a problem with the posiblility of God having had a guiding hand in evolution (biological and non-biological); although finding God's fingerprints is highly problematic.It's the time frame of YECism that is found to be out of contact with any worldly reality.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"The situation of YECism's conflict with science is not so much the Creationism part, as it is the Young Earth part."
--Exactly."Even (most of) the evolutionist side does not have a problem with the posiblility of God having had a guiding hand in evolution (biological and non-biological); although finding God's fingerprints is highly problematic."
--I agree when I take your analogy technically."It's the time frame of YECism that is found to be out of contact with any worldly reality."
--worldly reality, aka(in this context), mainstream study.------------------

"Well, they have no real choice since they can't very well defend what they believe in any credible manner so they have to tear down Evoltution instead."
--You should be more specific, your use of the word 'they' is much too general for its veracity to have much of a weight on the scale.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Well, they have no real choice since they can't very well defend what they believe in any credible manner so they have to tear down Evoltution instead."
--You should be more specific, your use of the word 'they' is much too general for its veracity to have much of a weight on the scale.

​

---

As a rule Creationists don't really have anything to back up what they believe so they resort to trying, and failing, to refute the science in Evolution.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-26-2002]

"As a rule Creationists don't really have anything to back up what they believe so they resort to trying, and failing, to refute the science in Evolution."
--Excuse me? 'As a rule'.. I'm sorry nos, I feel you have developed in me an increasingly excessive lack of hope for any credible future for intelligible discussion with me. I disdain your prejudice and must unfortunately manifest that I do not look forward to your input from its absence of worthful Acquisition.
--If you feel you can carry on a discussion of more average intellect raised a bit further than a middle schooled ignoramus, I have no problem with tarrying.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-26-2002]

TC,Not that I disagree with Nos 482 in general, but ol' TC has shown himself to be a not-so-typical creationist, IMHO. I have seen him adjust his opinion due to the weight of evidence. A trait not usually associated with creationists. I wonder why there, & not here sometimes..... I think, one day, TC will end up accepting there is no evidence for the flood, & that there IS evidence for evolution. TC, I suspect, will give me a verbal thrashing for suggesting such an idea, but I've seen you change TC, & I approve, & it's not such a great projection, after all. There is, IMHO, no intellectual dichotomy of being christian AND accepting evolution. After all, most christians globally manage this. It does mean that the bible can't be taken literally, but there you go...TC, I've locked horns with you so many times in the past, you may think me rude, offensive, etc, & you'd be prolly right. But I've observed you. You accept the requirements of the scientific method, observation, testing, & whatnot. You DO roll your eyes at the snide disinformation that is perpetuated by the major creationist organisations. I think, one day, you'll see your way through it all. It's just a matter of time BTW, how did the geology "paper" come along? Any results?Forgive my projection.Best wishes,Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-26-2002]

Originally posted by TrueCreation:---Excuse me? 'As a rule'.. I'm sorry nos, I feel you have developed in me an increasingly excessive lack of hope for any credible future for intelligible discussion with me. I disdain your prejudice and must unfortunately manifest that I do not look forward to your input from its absence of worthful Acquisition.There was no worry about that, you offer nothing but fantasy and delusion to begin with. In other words you get the level you give.--If you feel you can carry on a discussion of more average intellect raised a bit further than a middle schooled ignoramus, I have no problem with tarrying.I wouldn't say that you were middle school, you're more like a high school one. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-26-2002]

"There was no worry about that, you offer nothing but fantasy and delusion to begin with. In other words you get the level you give."
--I have read a decent multitude of your posts and again I am sorry, you haven't much at all of a clue as to my beliefs, my research or at all of what I would be to regurgitate all over your evading lap. I sustain, you are prejudiced and your continued nonsensical misaccusations do not in the least increase the merit of your unproductive arguments to fly any higher."I wouldn't say that you were middle school, you're more like a high school one. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself."
--Despite the fact that I am a high school student, it must be quite an odd observation when you have yielded your nescient attitude and predilection.
--Go back and read again...you have lost my interest and an opportunity to expand your evidently narrow mind. As long as this continues, you may observe my disputations from the side-lines.------------------

--Nice to see you again Mark . I have and expect to continue enjoying your input in this forum. In taking you literally for your comment that I 'will end up accepting there is no evidence for the flood, & that there IS evidence for evolution', it would be more accurate to say: 'will end up accepting that the evidence does not add up to a global flood, & that the evidence is diagnostic for global common ancestry by Evolutionary development'. This of course is possible, however I am scientifically unable to say that the inverse may not be true. My passion for education and such inquiry will constitute an answer in the future. Until then, my initiative is just that. If the veracity of my general model of Flood mechanics were judged by how much it hasn't changed from when I first constructed underlying dynamics, I would be in a great predicament indeed. I have no problem with, and encourage adaptation to reality within any scenario and scientific methodology complements this line of action.
--A respect your locking of horns with me in many instances and take all which is considerable into consideration. Some of which may even have required a bit of a flame to throw, at least when they are thrown with concern."BTW, how did the geology "paper" come along? Any results?"
--Ah yes, , it continues to come along quite nicely. It has yet to be due, though I have much to research. I'll most likely continue its production until around the time of February or early March. A section on an alternative hypothesis for the solar systems origin and/or development is what I am currently delving into.------------------

I may have diverted this topic in a different direction than what was intended, but I think that TC is a valuable example of a hard core YEC having come to some greater appreciation and understanding of science in general, and the science of evolution in particular. Is the originator of the topic still around, is now the question.Moose

Originally posted by TrueCreation:--I have read a decent multitude of your posts and again I am sorry, you haven't much at all of a clue as to my beliefs, my research or at all of what I would be to regurgitate all over your evading lap. I sustain, you are prejudiced and your continued nonsensical misaccusations do not in the least increase the merit of your unproductive arguments to fly any higher.Research? Bible: God did it. Done.--Despite the fact that I am a high school student, it must be quite an odd observation when you have yielded your nescient attitude and predilection.Owww, you have access to a dictionary. Prove to me that the so-called "supernatural" actually exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Nice to see you again Mark . I have and expect to continue enjoying your input in this forum. In taking you literally for your comment that I 'will end up accepting there is no evidence for the flood, & that there IS evidence for evolution', it would be more accurate to say: 'will end up accepting that the evidence does not add up to a global flood, & that the evidence is diagnostic for global common ancestry by Evolutionary development'. This of course is possible, however I am scientifically unable to say that the inverse may not be true.

---

Fair comment,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.