Prevalence of moon landing conspiracy theories

[Leonhard]

Right, same evidence, different interpretation.

Not really. I've yet to see a coherent young-earth creationist explanation for all the evidence that suggest an old earth, or evolution, that makes sense theologically or scientific sense.

I believe the only recourse to young-earth creationists to accept the paradox that all the evidence is against them. They should be the first to say amen to every scientific argument that the Earth is old. They should all call it valid and good argumentation. And then at the end of it they should say that out of respect for the Scriptures and the Church Fathers they will on faith disagree with it, only not on reason.

I've met an old Eastern Orthodox man who had this approach to it and I've always respected it.

[Mountain Man]

Not really. I've yet to see a coherent young-earth creationist explanation for all the evidence that suggest an old earth, or evolution, that makes sense theologically or scientific sense.

I believe the only recourse to young-earth creationists to accept the paradox that all the evidence is against them. They should be the first to say amen to every scientific argument that the Earth is old. They should all call it valid and good argumentation. And then at the end of it they should say that out of respect for the Scriptures and the Church Fathers they will on faith disagree with it, only not on reason.

I've met an old Eastern Orthodox man who had this approach to it and I've always respected it.

That's a very irrational approach and an almost heretical understanding of Biblical faith.

I'm not going to get deep into this, but I've seen lots of "old earth evidence" that is only interpreted that way because the person doing the interpreting assumes an old earth is the only explantion. For instance, they'll post an image of a canyon, and say, "How do you explain this? Huh? Huh?" never seeming to realize that slow erosion over a long period of time is not the only nor necessarily the best explanation.

[Leonhard]

That's a very irrational approach and an almost heretical understanding of Biblical faith.

I don't see what's heretical about it. And I wouldn't call it irrational either, not fully. They accept the logic and evidence from science. They even use it. But they don't believe in it. Its more akin to double-thinking from 1984. Its fideistic, and yet willing to work with the best knowledge we have.

I find this infinitely preferable to the brutalist interpretations I've seen from some people, like Rberman on this forum, who argued that God intentionally made mountains look old, and made it all support and old Earth and evolution, in order to deceive unbelievers so as to make them even more worthy of punishment.

I'm not going into deep into this, but I've seen lots of "old earth" evidence that is only interpreted that way because the person doing the interpreting assumes an old earth. For instance, they'll post an image of a canyon, and say, "How do you explain this? Huh? Huh?" never seeming to realize that slow erosion over a long period of time is not the only nor necessarily the best explanation.

Honestly I'd love to see an alternative explanation of the Grand Canyon. I haven't found any that are credible. They usually involve a lot of arm waving about what water flowing at mach 2 would do to rock, not actually bothering with such details as 'why would water be moving at that speed?', 'where did the water come from?'. So its not a matter of me dismissing out of hand any alternative model. Its that they don't exist.

I remember with John Martin here, who argued for geocentrism, kept postulating that the aether flow kept satellites moving in the sky, and that the neo-tychonian aether modeled perfectly predicted anything. I've seen other geocentrists make a similar claim. Yet when I ask for the mathematical model, they never deliver.

If you know some good resources about the Grand Canyon that aren't Answers in Genesis, I'd love them.

[oxmixmudd]

You have never heard the argument that the baby is just a clump of cells? That a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her own body? Heck, Tassman has been making that argument for years right here on Tweb.

Here is just one example of that argument from a pro-abortionist:

Source: https://www.cwluherstory.org/health/free-abortion-is-every-womans-right

But before 24 weeks the fetus is part of the mother and should not be considered as a separate human being with rights that contradict the desires of the mother.

© Copyright Original Source

You are moving goalposts, Sparko. You were first discussing a general argument, without defining it as applying only to a specific phase of gestation. That is what I replied to. This is a more specific argument that can be debated on both sides. Not all anti-abortionists agree on the precise point when the developing baby moves from a mass of cells to being a 'baby' that should be protected. For some it is fertilization. For others when it is implanted in the womb. For others when the heartbeat begins. For others when brainwave activity begins.

as for your original claim that conservatives are more anti-science than liberals:

===========

Science Denial Across the Political Divide: Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Deny Attitude-Inconsistent Science
Anthony N. Washburn, Linda J. Skitka
First Published September 14, 2017 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731500https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...urnalCode=sppa

That wasn't my actual claim. My actual claim was that there isn't anything on the liberal side of the same scope as anti-AGW and YEC, and that was the reason I was giving the conservatives the prize. I was not making an argument about the potential of any particular group to be anti-science at any given moment.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

I don't see what's heretical about it.

God never asks us to abandon our reason.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm not going to get deep into this, but I've seen lots of "old earth evidence" that is only interpreted that way because the person doing the interpreting assumes an old earth is the only explaintion. For instance, they'll post an image of a canyon, and say, "How do you explain this? Huh? Huh?" never seeming to realize that slow erosion over a long period of time is not the only nor necessarily the best explanation.

That is a clear indication you simply either aren't aware of what the evidence actually is, or you don't understand the evidence or its scientific implications MM. But you also apparently also don't quite know enough to recognize that is where you are. And this is not at all uncommon for those not well versed in the sciences - I'm honestly not trying to insult you by saying that. But it is a BIG part of the problem communicating on this issue. And a big part of the reason people like Ken Ham can be so successful peddling their ideas.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

God never asks us to abandon our reason.

That would be why YEC isn't really a viable option. A 6000-10000 year old earth is either a reality that can't be discerned using reason and scientific investigation, or it is a fantasy. There is no in-between place.


Jim

[Leonhard]

God never asks us to abandon our reason.

Why not? What I hear most often from young earth creationists is that sin has utterly tainted our reason, that our reason cannot be trusted if it veers from the Scriptures. That's essentially the same.

[Mountain Man]

That is a clear indication you simply either aren't aware of what the evidence actually is, or you don't understand the evidence or its scientific implications MM.

I understand it well enough to know that anybody claiming absolute certainty on the matter -- regardless of which side they're on -- is selling you a bill of goods.

[Mountain Man]

Why not? What I hear most often from young earth creationists is that sin has utterly tainted our reason, that our reason cannot be trusted if it veers from the Scriptures. That's essentially the same.

Well, you'll have to ask a young earth creationist about it. That just looks like nonsense to me.

[rogue06]

Why not? What I hear most often from young earth creationists is that sin has utterly tainted our reason, that our reason cannot be trusted if it veers from the Scriptures. That's essentially the same.

[Sparko]

You are moving goalposts, Sparko. You were first discussing a general argument, without defining it as applying only to a specific phase of gestation. That is what I replied to. This is a more specific argument that can be debated on both sides. Not all anti-abortionists agree on the precise point when the developing baby moves from a mass of cells to being a 'baby' that should be protected. For some it is fertilization. For others when it is implanted in the womb. For others when the heartbeat begins. For others when brainwave activity begins.

I am done after this reply.

YOU are the one moving the goal posts in order to keep from just admitting you are wrong and that liberals actually are antiscience when it suits them. And I never said "ALL" of anyone. Not ALL conservatives are "antiscience" either. sheesh. Nor did I say they were contrasting a clump of cells to a "baby" but to a separate BEING. They claim the clump of cells is not a human being but part of the mother. You just seem to have a hard time admitting you are wrong or that liberals are just as antiscience as anyone else. That is pretty telling from someone who insists they are not a liberal. Why the defensiveness?

That wasn't my actual claim. My actual claim was that there isn't anything on the liberal side of the same scope as anti-AGW and YEC, and that was the reason I was giving the conservatives the prize. I was not making an argument about the potential of any particular group to be anti-science at any given moment.


Jim

Well of course there isn't anything on the same scope when you do your damnedest to handwave away anyone's claims to the contrary.

Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

[rogue06]

Not really. I've yet to see a coherent young-earth creationist explanation for all the evidence that suggest an old earth, or evolution, that makes sense theologically or scientific sense.

I believe the only recourse to young-earth creationists to accept the paradox that all the evidence is against them. They should be the first to say amen to every scientific argument that the Earth is old. They should all call it valid and good argumentation. And then at the end of it they should say that out of respect for the Scriptures and the Church Fathers they will on faith disagree with it, only not on reason.

I've met an old Eastern Orthodox man who had this approach to it and I've always respected it.

Sort of like Kurt Wise, who is the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University, who is on record saying things like

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand

And concerning the "scientific reasons for accepting a young earth."

I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young from scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant

A refreshingly candid and honest approach.

[rogue06]

That's a very irrational approach and an almost heretical understanding of Biblical faith.

I'm not going to get deep into this, but I've seen lots of "old earth evidence" that is only interpreted that way because the person doing the interpreting assumes an old earth is the only explantion. For instance, they'll post an image of a canyon, and say, "How do you explain this? Huh? Huh?" never seeming to realize that slow erosion over a long period of time is not the only nor necessarily the best explanation.

The rapid erosion model presented by "Flood Geologists" has so many insurmountable problems that it really cannot be taken seriously. In the end they are stuck proposing a series of miracles to explain them away.

[lilpixieofterror]

Did you say yes? The blind man can know that he is blind. The man who knows a lot can know that there are many areas about which he does not know anything. Allowing for the possibility that you could have a blind spot is not dependent on having identifying what the blind spot is. You see? (or perhaps that is you blind spot )