Jump to content

EcoErin

Members
  • Content count

    493
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About EcoErin

  • Rank
    Accomplished Poster

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Additional Information

  • Location
    a small town in Texas
  • Interests
    reading, praying, getting 2 know God better, learning to love, being out in nature, kayaking, swing dancing, having good conversation, and singing
  1. Welcome back!

  2. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    Wow - have I stumbled upon the Evo debate? Seems more like the philosophy club! I like it! A civil exchange of ideas? How novel! I am reading Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, and wanted to include a relevant excerpt. How can we know whether Intelligent Design/Creationism are real science? Pseudoscience differs from erroneous science. Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn all the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are framed so they are capable of being disproved. A succession of alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation. Science gropes and staggers toward improved understanding. Proprietary feelings are of course offended when a scientific hypothesis is disproved, but such disproofs are recognized as central to the scientific enterprise. Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated. Practitioners are defensive and wary. Skeptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it are deduced. Sound familiar? Especially the conspiracy part ('Expelled'). Also, science starts with observations and draws conclusions, while pseudoscience starts with conclusions and tries to make facts and observations fit. So hopefully we can help educate others about what science is and is not. That may help us protect every American's 1st amendment right not to have one religious interpretation instituted by the state.
  3. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    When a group of people get used to studying only one book and trying to make most of their philosophical and natural speculations based on it, then speculation and imagination become the norm, and standards for evidence are low or ignored entirely. It becomes a matter of how everything can be squeezed to fit into an interpretation--- and problem-solving can get pretty creative.
  4. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    Wow! I've never thought of it so concisely before. This is a great way to put it - we can speculate all we want, but all speculations require evidence to back them up if they're to be taken seriously. And speculations based on interpretations of a translation of an ancient text aren't evidence... at least not in this thread.To those who have responded to my post pages ago, I'll spend more time on it soon.
  5. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    HIMelody, Yes, but just about everyone else in this very debate grew up with the bible, and we don't take Genesis 1&2 literally. Some of us read it with an open mind and saw contradictions! What I'm pointing out is that someone helped you believe parts of Genesis were literal truth.Please, do some of that bible study you said you like to do and answer these questions: a. When did Noah and his family get into the ark? b. How many animals did God ask Noah to take on the ark? c. In which Egyptian plague were the cattle killed? d. How many Gadarene/Gerasene demoniacs did Jesus cure? e. Who was at the foot of the cross? f. What were Jesus' last words? g. Who saw what on the day of the resurrection? And what about tradition gives something credibility? Great! So you are comfortable with the idea that just because all of Genesis isn't literal, it doesn't mean the rest of your theology crumbles. I'm not sure what line you mean, but yes, the bible is written by people. So is a magazine. The subjects are usually different, though. So do you consider 'followers' of atomic theory and cell theory to be following religions? How many religions do you follow, if you accept that all matter is made of atoms, and all living beings on earth are made of cells? And that there is a force pulling you toward the center of the earth? Anna, 4.5 Billion years, and here's a Christian physicist who explains that. It's not just rocks, but starlight and many other factors that add to our information. ("Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html )Asgb, Actually, humans are a kind of great ape. In the last few million years, there have been several kinds of great apes which developed tools and societies: homo erectus, homo neanderthal, and us. But yes, we human apes branched off from a common ancestor with chimpanzees between 4 and 6 million years ago.
  6. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    HIMelody, And like Zme asked, why is that? From where did your acceptance of creationism come? Why do you tend to believe it? And also, what are the consequences if you discover that Genesis might not be literal? How does that affect the rest of your theology? And that's where the irony comes in. The interpretations of creationists, and the interpretations you've heard and accepted, are all "by man," too. Evolution is definitely not a religion, since it has no bishops, scripture, followers, etc. It's a scientific understanding. But yes, it's a little harder to grasp than reading a magazine... but the basics of it are more simple!1. Animals and plants produce lots of offspring. 2. There are limited resources for the offspring. 3. Therefore the offspring have to compete for resources. 4. Therefore offspring which are better suited to the competition (the environment) survive better. 5. Therefore they produce more offspring, and pass on their own genes. 6. As the cycles continue, drastic changes in species can occur as successful genes spread through the population (Edit: and unsuccessful genes are weeded out!) But what if you researched parts of the bible and found they do contradict?a. Like when did Noah and his family get into the ark? b. How many animals did God ask Noah to take on the ark? c. In which Egyptian plague were the cattle killed? d. How many Gadarene/Gerasene demoniacs did Jesus cure? e. Who was at the foot of the cross? f. What were Jesus' last words? g. Who saw what on the day of the resurrection? Stargirl, I find your ideas really interesting. (I have to interject that I don't think a lot of literalists would like the illustrations that go with your idea! Imagine Adam and Eve as Australopithecus afarensis! But I think it sounds cool) It sounds to me like you are attached to the idea of the first man and woman being part of the biblical account of Adam and Eve (Genesis2). But you also accept the evidence that humans have changed a lot since they've evolved onto the scene. Interesting!Comparison of a. afarensis and homo erectus (not 'us'; we're homo sapiens sapiens) And for the record, I think everyone (including myself) should always take Zme's advice:
  7. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    Fjs93, I am sure we come across as harsh sometimes, and I hope you're not too offended. The thing is, there's a different culture in a debate thread: we expect reasoned answers and explanations. I appreciate your source, and I did look into it. I'd love to read the book (but for conscience reasons I won't give AIG money, so I'll have to find a copy another way). I'd love to go over the points with you. You know, you could help us do that since you have access to the book and we don't. We're not out to shatter people's faith - speaking for myself, I'm here to help people see exactly what Seriyan said. Being Christian doesn't require taking every word of the bible literally. Do you believe that Satan regularly visits with God and gets permission to wreak havoc on people? (Job.) I have read a lot of the AIG site. Most of their arguments are about irreducible complexity, which is not a good argument. I understand that feeling. Wrong. I don't hate AIG; I dislike the principles of the creators of it. And you are FAR wrong if you think everyone in here "hates anything else Bible-based." It just makes it obvious you haven't been paying attention to what many people in this thread say. For me, it's not about winning or losing; it's about sharing ideas. You came in expecting to share your idea, but without expecting to learn anything about our ideas. That's a pity, and that attitude will only impoverish your life. I hope you're more open in other discussions.- - - - - - That it definitely is. The word choices and writing style are incredibly different. It's almost like there were two different authors. In fact, that's most likely the case. Hebrew tribes were separated while in captivity for a long time, and when they came back together they had different versions of the flood story, the origin story, Moses' story, etc. That's where people pick up on differences between the stories. That's a very honest answer. It shows a slight confirmation bias: if there is any contradiction, it's somewhat easy for you to gloss over it because you already believe, and want to believe, that there is no contradiction. Thank you for your open-mindedness. What seems impractical and religiously jaded to you? I'd like to focus on #1. Do you mean you haven't read any contradictions in the bible? I'm going to assume, since you pointed out several yourself, just in the first 2 chapters, that that's not what you mean. Do you mean that evolution doesn't contradict Genesis?By #2, do you mean that your theology, your understanding of god, doesn't contradict your understanding of the world around you? #3 is understandable - you've heard these stories from people you've trusted for a long time, probably. It's not evidence, but it explains where you're coming from psychologically and emotionally. Thanks for your candid answers.
  8. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    If you arbitrarily choose one chapter over the other, your views are already skewed. You seem to have chosen that chapter just because you're more familiar with it, but I'm not sure because you haven't made it clear why you prefer that chapter. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that you accept evolution, but you're trying to fit it in with your understanding of biblical stories about the origin of life? Or that in order to accept evolution, it would have to fit with your understanding of the bible stories? Looking at them isn't enough, because that's all most people do. I reiterate my challenge for you to make a timeline for each chapter and post it here. If you use the bible as your starting point and use it to defend your brain against scientific theories, then you must at least learn what the bible actually says. I hope this doesn't come across as patronizing; I would just like to understand what you are using to defend your beliefs, and how you came to them in the first place.
  9. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    - - - - - - Found it. http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStor...e,4583,224.aspx Uh oh... stop right there. The man may be equipped to give some biblical answers, but he hasn't established himself as a reputable source for science. And... wait for it.... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I'm not quite sure why it's so important to these people that the 'gospel message' must be accompanied by literalist beliefs. What's at stake???
  10. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    You can't expect to step into a reasonable debate and make a pronouncement like that and get no reply. What is this book? What is the evidence it gives for why "Evolution is false"? And what does the book have to say about educated Christians who understand and teach evolutionary theory? If I have to make a guess, I'd say this book is an argument regarding the results of teaching science, not about whether the science is right.
  11. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    It's exactly your interpretation that we are trying to point out. You have an interpretation different from many other young earth creationists, based on your interest in Genesis 1 over Genesis 2. Your interpretation is also different from those who take the two chapters seriously but not directly literally, as Zme seems to be pointing out. It's all interpretation. While interpretations of the bible are interesting, they are not evidence. When I asked you to create timelines based on the two chapters, that's asking you to really study, and study hard. But you seem to be dodging the challenge.
  12. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    And Genesis2 disagrees. So, just for clarity:You think the bible is evidence for a young earth, yet you disregard the order of a chapter about the creation of the earth. Right?
  13. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't trying to avoid my very specific challenge. Here it is again, in simpler form: According to Genesis, Did man or plants come first? Did animals or man come first? Did birds or beasts come first?
  14. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    So, if I'm understanding you correctly, it seems you don't take the stories entirely, strictly literally. At least, there's some flex in how you interpret the timeline. And it does seem that it's because of the bible narrative that you're reluctant to consider evolution. Let me be very specific, so I'm not misunderstood: 1. Will you please read Genesis 1, 2. make a timeline for the order of creation listed in that chapter, 3. read Genesis 2, 4. make a timeline for the order of creation listed in that chapter, 5. and then post both timelines here? I'd love to understand how you view those timelines, and how you think they compare.
  15. EcoErin

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    HIMelody, please tell us what you think of the timelines in Genesis 1&2; specifically, your thoughts on how they correspond and differ.
×