Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

NEWS 674 - 2 Comments
From: RobotSpider Entered on: February 15, 2010 8:50 AM
This reminds me of an internal instant message conversation I had with a co-worker a few days ago...  Here's an excerpt: ~~~~~~~~~~~~ (9:16 AM) Rob: Nothing wrong with believing in Creationism, but you're not one of those "The earth is only 5000 years old" people, are you?  (9:20 AM) Patrick: i don't know how old the earth is. don't necessarily believe it is billions of years old. Bible states that to God a 1000 years is like a day. while I believe the world was created in 6 days - i'm not sure how long a "day" at that time was. 24 hours - maybe, longer than that - maybe. a mystery we won't know until Christ comes again and all that and other things will be made known. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First off, let me say that, despite my 'polite' phrasing above, there is something wrong with believing in Creationism... Your position is "I don't believe the earth is billions of years old, but I KNOW it's more than 5000 years old.  The bible says it's 6000 years old, so that's what I'm going with." Second, factual-integrity-of-the-bible-issues aside, the bible is not a slide-rule.  You can't do human-to-god-years translation with it. I can't even begin to tell you how things like this make my blood off-gas.  It's people like this that are going to get Palin, or similar, elected.  Using 'faith' as an excuse to ignore fact is about as absurtarded as it gets.  You can always tell when a Creationist is done debating something, because they regurgitate one of those tired biblical talking-points. "...won't know until Christ comes again.... all things will be made known." How can you hold any belief based on ONE source of information?  Suppose Jesus Christ himself descended directly into the stands at a Nascar race (probably more likely than we think!)  Since he'd never seen a car, he could safely assume that all cars travel 180mph, despite seeing all the cars in the parking lot, on the highway, etc.  He could still maintain that all cars drive 180mph. I know, I know, we've talked it all over before.  I just think that anyone who sees the Dark Ages as "the good ol' days" needs to be re-formatted.
From: Ross Entered on: February 15, 2010 2:14 PM
Ha, until I read further, I was going to say what you said - "No, there is something wrong with believing in creationism".  I understand saying something like that to a creationist of course, although at this point in my life, I am no longer even that accomodating... Anyway, it's funny - if it weren't for the internet, I'd almost forget that people like that still exist.  In my insulated world of my job and circle of friends, I don't really associate with anyone who is that nutty.  Sure, there are people I work with who are nominally religious, and my intern from last summer was a member of Campus Crusade for Christ (which means that if you're nutty enough to join and org like that, you're probably a YEC), but I don't really encounter people like that much anymore.  The trouble is, Rob, that people for whom creationism holds sway do not use the same standards for evidence, or even put the same emphasis on evidence that you and I do.  Talking to them is largely a waste of time.  I am confident that I have heard every "mainstream" creationist argument, and just as confident that I have at least one ironclad rebuttal to that argument.  However, I have also heard most of these actually used on creationists, and the most satisfying reaction you ever get is that they simply move on to the next absurd claim.  What is more concerning to me (beyond these people being allowed to vote) is that if they hold a position in the workplace where they are being paid to think, then betting on their ability to judge evidence (say, when troubleshooting a problem) are dubious at best (TM).  As you eluded, there are some serious philosophical implications for someone who can view the Bible not only a valid source of historical evidence, but as the only or even the best source of historical evidence.  I don't want to work with anyone like that, even for only the reason that my own biases are likely to show through.