ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Young Earth Creationists(1002 Posts)
I know Young Earth Creationists exist, I've seen them on telly, but never met one in real life, so I'm just wondering if anyone here is one or knows one or whether they are actually just incredibly rare and reserved for extreme tv debating!
Hello. Afraid we can't extend this thread, as threads over 1000 posts long tend to take forever to load/crash MN for those on older devices.
But if you'd like to start a Young Earth Creationists 2 thread in this topic and let us know, we'll twiddle things a bit and find space to post up a link to the new thread from the end of this one.
pretty please with a cherry onna top <bats eyelashes>
Report your post to MNHQ, January - see what they say.
mnhq please can we increase the size limit by a little. The thread is reaching a natural end but its only fair to let best respond to us finding ofut he is missrepresenting us elsewhere.
If you google randy ruggles creationist it comes up with loads of other forums/evolutionist's websites where he has made the same arguments, been given the same answers as here and still flatly refused to accept the facts. The 'no beneficial mutations' argument is one that crops up again and again and he's been given a multitude of great examples. It's a serious case of fingers in ears la la la la-ing. I feel quite sorry for him really.
Randy I dont hate you or want to kill you. You make me sad for humanity. You make me sad for Christianity. People need to be given whole fact so they can assess what they consider to be true. All you do is attempt to manipulate evidence and truth. You also seem to indicate that to be Christian you have to be YEC and the truth is most are not.
If you google randy ruggles creationist it comes up.
could someone provide a facebook linkey. Thank you
we need an eye rolly emoticon
Re 'danger to personal safety' I think Best is doing the classic thing of 'I lost an argument - I'm so persecuted. Now I know how Jesus felt...'
so if you disagree you are 'inherently evil'
Thats a seriously screwed up worldview.
Yes, I have had worst pastings than this for suggesting it is morally grey to wear make up....or to announce loudly that FF is perfectly safe.
I certainly got yelled at and called far worse than anything on this thread, but frankly it never occurred to me to worry for my safety.
People disagreeing online does not in any sense equal a threat to well being.
You're right Icbineg. I really worry for a person whose reaction to a bunch of anonymous internet women pointing out the flaws in his argument is label them "inherently evil" and claiming that his life in danger because women are disagreeing with him. It speaks of a deep insecurity.
Oh dear I shouldn't have looked...I knew I shouldn't.
Gosh that is really very sad. I mean that in the genuine sense not the vernacular sense.
It must be a terrible place to be in, to have to cling and dig and nit pick desperately attack every chink in the evidence for a scrap of hope that your model of the universe may yet prevail.
It is far easier to relax and accept that science, while not yet complete in it's understanding of the universe, will eventually get there....
I find there is a tiny part of me that hopes on their behalf that a benevolent creator DOES just wander up one day, complaining about being really busy and pointing and laughing at the scientists that fell for it's jokes hook line and sinker....
It is certainly a stark reminder of the balance of power in these discussions. I have no emotion invested whatsoever in the current scientific conclusions...show me new data or even old data in a new light and I will happily ditch whatever I thought and be educated.
But we do need to remember that the people on the other end of the line have EVERYTHING invested in their current world model and EVERYTHING to lose in accepting new data that casts it in a worse light than it is already in.
there's a fb page and website. Bet it hasnt admitted 'Randy gets pwned by women'
Good for you, ICBINEG, I'm wondering what MNHQ might think about that too.
Oh no! Now I have to decided whether it is worth finding out if my opinions are being misrepresented on facebook....
Only know this: If I do find out that best has published my words without my permission or out of context in any sense then I will make full use of any law I can find to take it down.
"If you can show my 10 confirmed real-world examples of this being observed either in nature or in the laboratory, and demonstrate how each step of the way was neutral or beneficial, I will likely be convinced that genetic mutations are a viable mechanism to cause macroevolution. Even just one example for now will do. Anxiously awaiting your reply. Thanks."
I have replied numerous times to this...on the basis that it is not necessary or likely that every intervening step be neutral or beneficial. There will be no cases of this happening because if you add up enough random mutations some of them will be harmful. That is why I made all the comments about us each carrying millions of harmful mutations and yet having already had children.
I have also replied on the basis that the whole idea of a bit of code that makes an organ is utterly faulty. You can get a totally new organ never seen before simply by changing the cell expression and differentiation pattern while retaining the same DNA code, in all other respects.
You have not responded to any of my posts pointing this out - including the one about duck bills /feathers and human DNA.
You have not responded to my post in which I demonstrated that a mutation can add information immediately to the DNA in one step that may also add new function to a protein.
I have given real actual examples of mutations that add information, that are net beneficial to the organism regardless of environment, and that add new function. I have attempted to explain to you that there is no bit of the code that equals duck bill, each bit of the code makes a protein...how these proteins organise and how each individual cell expresses them varies from cell to cell. Think of a stem cell...each one has the same code but one may become a heart cell and another a bone cell. In a human none of them become a tail cell, even though ALL of the DNA needed for tail cells is encoded in human DNA.
You don't NEED to add new DNA to cross 'kind' barriers (I am assuming that monkeys and humans are different 'kinds'), you can use broadly the same DNA in a different expression pattern....
Please do keep this thread. It is educational and fun too.
Does R-Rug really feel his life is in danger because of this thread? I mean really?
<waves> Yes Dave - come over here. We're great
and only some of us vipers bite
Happy Day everyone.
BestValue I have to quote your whole post because enough time has passed that my reply won't make sense without it
Back, I just saw a post you made two days ago I would like to respond to. I can't copy-and-paste your exact words from where I am right now (using my BlackBerry) but first you said something about "God invented those rules." That's not exactly correct. God's morality is an expression of His character and nature. He did not invent the rules. Otherwise, we would run into the Euthyphro dilemma (Google it) and you might have a valid objection.
You also mention something about God not knowing which child is guilty so He kills all of them. You seem to be confusing God with King Herod who did that after Jesus' birth. Also, to God everyone is guilty so this argument fails. And got has the right to take away life He has given and the power to give it back again. We do not. Finally, a logically-consistent atheist admits that there is no objective morality and no free will. Thus, the concept of morality becomes meaningless and atheists forfeit the right to complain about anyone's morals - especially God's.
I haven't decided about free will yet. I thought I'd make my mind up later.
but yes I said there is no objective morality - none found so far anyway. The only external morality is what some guys said their god said and lots of other guy's gods tell us differently.
I personally wouldn't call this morality, but Evolution has made us inclined to avoid certain things. I mean if you kill everyone on sight how can you pass on your genes and how can you kill the tiger that is eating your children if you can't cooperate with others. We always had a rule of thumb for getting by. The church wrote it down and claimed copyright but it was never theirs.
I said that it was possible to work out a practical morality logically. That in fact this is what we have done and the only holdout really is your god. Now you want to say that your god can do what he wants to anyone and that this is ok and that we shouldn't object because there is no objective morality.
Well firstly your god said there was an objective morality so he at least ought to be sticking to it. Secondly even if the morality developed by the people on earth is relative, we like it and despise your god for breaking it.
As for the children god has killed (none of course because he is imaginary, but we are arguing your reality) I was pointing to several cases. According to your bible god killed the firstborn of eqypt. They wouldn't all be children but some would be and some newly born babies. The good guys had to put blood over their front doors so god wouldn't accidentally kill their kids. He couldn't be expected to know who lived where I guess. This story is considered inspirational and sane. It is neither .
ok back to catching up with later posts
Which fb? I see lots of good ole boys all with the same name?
Oh, I don't do FB . Can someone pleeease tell me whether I have had a mention yet?
Hmmm though, probably not. After all, Randy didn't asnswer my questions re his claims about sarcosuchus or live frogs entombed in ancient rocks. He did accuse me of slander though, when I said he was quote-mining.
Don't think anyone's threatened him though, unless you count pointing and laughing.
And yy to Classics nomination.
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.