Comments on: Herd Mentality

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 12:21:47 +0000

Very perceptive. The basic assumption has become the “common sense.” And I’ve seen a few mentions of the occultic influences revived during the Renaissance. Interesting.

By: Mark Sunwall

Mark Sunwall — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:38:19 +0000

Now the circular mechanism is so well embeded that it runs more or less “on automatic.” For the creationist the question of “origins” is really the question of how the assumption of infinite time and space was first institutionalized as the dominant world view in the context of Western civilization. I think it has been fairly well substantiated that a gnostic notion of infinity was deliberately institutionalized by certain Renaissance occultists, much in the way that American tastes for salty and sugary food is propagated by Madison Avenue. But now this prejudice has be “fossilized” in the “old earth” of civilizational consciousness…so the workings of the orignial propagators is no longer necessary.

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:09:12 +0000

Hi Kelby

Then how do you evaluate the claims on TalkOrigins? I did spent a fair bit of time reading that site, and found all their objections answered on TrueOrigin and Creation.com Also, the internet propagandists are a little less honest about the big holes in their paradigm than the hands-on guys. They are defending their religion.

Also, the debate over Genesis is not about science, it’s about history. Genesis 1-3 totally conflicts with both old earth and evolution. And I have a post around here about what the Bible really means concerning flat earth. And there’s one about distant starlight as well:

http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/03/13/the-earth-is-flat/
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/04/08/a-simple-answer-to-the-problem-of-distant-starlight/

Not sure what you are referring to when you mention the last 50 years of scientific progress. Molecular biology totally put nails in evolution’s coffin. And the recent discovery that junk DNA is not junk at all means these brilliant fools are just fumbling around in the dark because of their false paradigm. No disrespect, but the got-it-all-sewn-up front they present is just bluster.

Kind regards,
Mike

By: Krby Carlson

Krby Carlson — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:48:14 +0000

I have looked at some of it; I’m not a scientist, so I can’t really evaluate the claims on that sight. However, for a frip sight of the issue, you should check out An Index to Creationist Claims at TalkOrigins. They sen to cover a lot, form the other side. Let me know what you think.

It’s not so much that I don’t take Genesis 1 and 2 to be history; but, if evolution is true, the ancients would not have known about it. Even if it is false, the biblical writers were not, I believe, concerned with matters of science.

I’d still be intrested in how YECs manage to get around that, without at least an old earth, we have to ditch at least the last 50 years of scientific progress and–if Genesis 1 is taken literally–we might as well settle for a flat earth too. (Also–how exactly do YECs explain supernovas? Just thought of it yesterday).

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:39:43 +0000

Hi Kelby

I think Humphreys’ point is that the bulk of the evidence is actually, ironically, on the side of the YEC’s, which would mean trustworthy people like Collins would be discounting any evidence that does not support their basic assumptions. Check out Humphreys’ stuff.
Regarding evidence for evolution, from what I can see, most, if not all, of the stuff that gets masqueraded as evidence actually proves the opposite, ie. variation is due to a rearrangement or loss of genetic information, never a gain of new information. The more we learn, the worse it gets for evolution, and the more hard hearted and high-handed these scientists become.
Regarding an old earth, one again it boils down to one’s assumptions. Are the rings in ice cores annual? Then, old earth. But what if they are not?
I have found more-than-plausible answers to all this stuff at http://www.creation.com If you haven’t already, I recommend reading the material on the site. The cover everything.
Also, taking Genesis 1 and 2 as non-history actually pulls the rug out from under the rest of the Bible, and divorces it from history altogether. Plenty of articles on this blog concerning this.
Thanks for your comment.

Cheers,
Mike

By: Kelby Carlson

Kelby Carlson — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:15:17 +0000

Also, i am much inclined to trust someone like Francis Collins, who headed the Human Genome Project and is convinced the DNA evidence alone is sufficient grounds for accepting evolution. Science cannot always answer every single question immediately–it is a long, arduous process. Scripture was written for a purpose: the Revelation of God to man. It is primarily pre-scientific in many ways, and if we’re going to take Genesis 1 and 2 “literally” we run into quite a host of issues. Are you prepared to reject the last 500 years of scientific advancement? Are you prepared to reject things like the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity (and yes, it is /only/ a theory), or the Copernican solar system?

By: Kelby Carlson

Kelby Carlson — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:11:38 +0000

I think the fundamental misconception creationists have about evolution is that it must necessarily be proven. i believe it is a misperception of the way science works: apart from deductive logic (which I’m convinced only rests on the ultimate ground of being) there is no way to “prove” something like evolution. It is also not true that scientists don’t question the theory (or theories, as the age of the earth and evolution are really entirely separate components.) There are always going to be questions–but if a creationist is going to prove the case for a young earth, he needs to have a convincing explanation for the already provided evidence. Einstein’s THeory of Relativity not only disproved Newton, it explained why all the evidence seemed to support Newton–the closest any ID or creationist has ever come is basically saying “God did it”. But then we run into a whole new set of quanderies, like why God would make a young universe look so old if he didn’t need to–and I don’t buy the pat explanation that it is to “test our faith”.