Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down here. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)

The quote in question is this: "My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.” --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)


Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--Roopilots6 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)

QED, Roopilots. Tirades like that do nothing for the kind of people who want to actively discuss their faith. Underscoreb 22:15, 18 February 2008 (EST)
But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--Roopilots6 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced one testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
I'm seeing a lot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--Roopilots6 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)
I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--Roopilots6 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. Bolly 14:02, 22 December 2007

Thanks, I would like to clarify what nice person who posted above me said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)


Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--Roopilots6 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, Universe comes from the old French "univers" which in turn comes from the latin "universum" which is a compound of unus (meaning one) and versum (meaning somthing rolled, changed). Therefore Universe literally means "everything rolled into one." Not single sentence. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 14:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Uni is from the latin unus meaning one, single, and verse comes from the latin versus and means line, verse, as in a verse of words. The meaning may have been liberally twisted by subsequent generations of people but the original latin meaning hasn't changed.--Roopilots6 11:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Consensus says that Uni means one, pretty much anybody who ever learned anything about any Romance Language knows that. The Etymology of Verse says it comes from the Latin vertere, meaning "Turn Around." --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 23:27, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --MakeTomorrow 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Personal remark removed--Roopilots6 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Personal remark removed --MakeTomorrow 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. Ajkgordon 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

We need an article comparing (1) Evolutionism, (2) Old Earth Creationism and (3) Young Earth Creationism. --Ed Poor Talk 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. Ajkgordon 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I just now wrote Evolution and creation. Sorry if you don't like the terms evolutionism and evolutionist. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic theory of evolution. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". --Ed Poor Talk 11:16, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. Ajkgordon 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion? I hope to see you there. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I have left my mark upon it :) Ajkgordon 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

An example of where YEC might detract others from the faith is evidenced in CP's very own discussion on the Theory of Evolution. See here. Two Christians are having a fairly acrimonious discussion over who is right, a Young Earth Creationist or a evolution-believing Roman Catholic. Phrases such as "Your god used millions of years of death and suffering to produce man." and "Hardly the work of a just and benevolent deity." This must be one of the most damaging aspects of YEC. It's dogmatic and fundamentalist, essentially claiming that if you believe in anything older than a young earth, or evolution or the Big Bang, or if you don't read the Bible literally, then you are not a true Christian. That will not only challenge the faithful but make it much harder to convince non-Christians that there's any merit in Christianity at all. Debate is one thing. Dogmatic accusations of heresy are another. Ajkgordon 07:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, when religion tries to intrude upon science, it does so to the detraction of religion. Maestro 22:49, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts

of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn." - St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"

--Gulik5 19:30, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

YEC casts God as either an intentional deceiver or at least a negligent deceiver.... that can not be true, science must guide us to the truth of God!! Pandeism 22:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

That Old Double Standard

This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--Roopilots6 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.
But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.
To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.
And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.
So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. Ajkgordon 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)
The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. That after some evidences have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--Roopilots6 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)
My comment on the majority view was in relation to the majority of people who accept evolution and the Big Bang are also religious, therefore "Evolutionism" cannot be a religion (according to my previous argument of exclusivity).
I don't know what you mean by evolution and the Big Bang being dead. Whatever your views on them they are the scientific consensus in their respective fields. That is not is dispute. Ajkgordon 13:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)
That's my point of being a consensus. Not to everybody. It is based on a faith in it since it still, since 1859, has not been scientifically been proven. Science, and not faith.--Roopilots6 11:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Proof is actually an alien concept in empirical science. Ajkgordon 07:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)
This also leads to another debate, Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?. Thought I should point this out. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 21:57, 7 February 2008 (EST)
So that we have a Scientific Dictatorship through the direction of empirical scientism. Knowledge must first be able to pass through the empirical bookkeeping systems to ensure only one type of methodology is used. In this way total control is applied to which knowledge is disseminated and which is suppressed. If it doesn't agree with certain criteria of the bookkeeper then it is discarded and marginalized. Conspirators of this Scientific Dictatorship are then able to exercise total control of all knowledge deemed acceptable for their followers to worship after. The Empirical misinformation system that is active today can be seen everywhere and at anytime in our society. Eugenics, Social Biology, Evolutionism, with the latest being the man-made global warming scam. The 'means' of the Scientific Dictatorship is knowledge while the 'end' being the total control of the society. This is where we are today.--Roopilots6 12:33, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
ROFL! Ajkgordon 14:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Darn it! You found us out. We pocket protecting, geeky scientists are actually just making up "empirical" evidence in order to manipulate society. We had it going so well until you had to stop the fun. Thanks. No really, Scientists are not trying to start a dictatorship. Alarmists and anti-consumerists are. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 15:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Since this evidently flew over a few heads let me site a recent example of how science gets hijacked. Man-made global warming that is sold as actual scientific fact. When in fact the only thing keeping it alive is the deep pockets of its benefactors. They even tried Nuremberg style rallies in order to gain supporters. Yep, I'm rolling on the floor over that one. The Kyoto Protocols didn't work so instead of it they infused massive funding to create an actual industry to market it with. Only one small problem though. Everyone isn't stupid to believe the marketing hype that doesn't face close scrutiny. No, it isn't the scientists creating the scientific dictatorship but it is rather their employers who control where the funding goes. This technique of using scientists for propaganda purposes isn't a new one. A fact that some people seem to be ignorant of too.--Roopilots6 18:26, 17 April 2008 (EDT)