Young Earth Creationists

(1002 Posts)
PedroPonyLikesCrisps Thu 28-Mar-13 18:57:59

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!

thegreatestMadHairDayinhistory Thu 28-Mar-13 19:40:13

I know an awful lot of Christians, but can pretty much hand on heart say I know no young earth creationists, or if I do, I don't know they are iyswim. But that may be the circles I move in wink

OldLadyKnowsNothing Thu 28-Mar-13 19:43:02

My Xtian sister is. And I once met a very Orthodox Jew who also believes the earth is about 6000 years old.

noblegiraffe Thu 28-Mar-13 19:45:13

I used to live with one at Uni.

She told me in all seriousness that the reason that people in the Old Testament lived to such an old age was because before The Flood it never rained and so it was very cloudy and this filtered out the harmful ageing rays of the sun.

She got a first in her degree and was very clever. confused

specialsubject Thu 28-Mar-13 21:18:13

I met one who told me that the dinosaurs were faked. She was a rabbi's wife, although most Jews are not this daft.

she had a lasting effect on me but probably not the one she intended.

I've been around Churches and Christians a very long time and have not met any YEC. There were none at the theological college I attended. I have a suspicion that it is something from the USA.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Fri 29-Mar-13 13:34:48

I suspect there are probably more in the US, but I did see a British one on telly a little while back.

I don't know why I'm so interested, I guess I have a bizarre fascination with people who believe things which are demonstrably incorrect with an abundance of facts and evidence!

specialmagiclady Sat 30-Mar-13 11:59:39

There is a creationist zoo farm near Bristol. Signs say things like " the bible says the following types of duck were on the ark" and they do shows which attempt to disprove evolution.

bootsycollins Sat 30-Mar-13 12:02:37

It's madness innit

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sat 30-Mar-13 12:06:35

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm. Who knew? shock

noblegiraffe Sat 30-Mar-13 12:07:16

The creationist zoo has toned down a lot in recent years, the information posters for each animal used to mention God and Kinds rather than species. They have really ramped up their education centre though and market heavily to schools.

plaingirly Sat 30-Mar-13 12:12:56

Don't Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible is totally true?

specialmagiclady Sat 30-Mar-13 23:38:38

@noble giraffe interesting - I haven't been since kids could talk/read

BullieMama Mon 01-Apr-13 15:12:02

A now ex friend became a born again christian about three years ago and he fully believes the 6000 year thing and told me in all seriousness that dinosaur bones and fossils were put there by Satan/God to test faith??

This was amongst some of the bizarre things he would come out with and unfortunately I laughed in his face because he was so earnest and worried about me not believing and what would happen to my soul.

He was unable to debate as to why he was right just kept saying he was right because God told him, this was when we began to drift apart hmm

He severed all ties when he began to realise that I am Pagan, he'd not actually noticed for 20 years as I don't shove my beliefs in peoples faces unlike him when he found God.

He especially didn't like it when I pointed out that Christianity is simple a hodge podge of every other belief system that has ever existed and has stolen all its core beliefs and celebrations. Deleted and blocked on facebook for that observation grin

EllieArroway Mon 01-Apr-13 15:14:50

My son's Year 5 teacher was a born again YEC. Told the class the world was 6000 years old. Did not go down well with me, as you can imagine wink

Shame because in every other respect he was a really superb teacher.

bootsycollins Mon 01-Apr-13 15:43:02

I suppose God planted all the paedos into society while he was burying all the fake dinosaur bones to 'test us'

VBisme Mon 01-Apr-13 16:00:08

My ex boss was one, and otherwise a very clever man.

Unfortunately his belief and my geology degree were at odds.

I never convinced him that his belief was nonsense, but then I suppose that's what faith is about.

My very religious parents can have sensible discussions about the Old Testament, but this guy just couldn't. He refused to listen to any opinion other than his own.

DioneTheDiabolist Mon 01-Apr-13 16:05:32

I have only ever met 3 creationists. They were quite elderly and members of Fundamental Churches. Of the one who had children, none of his children were creationists and none shared his faith.

This place is local to us. We passed it yesterday and my son suggested we go sometime...

creationsd.org/creation-scientists.html

Sunnywithshowers Mon 01-Apr-13 16:34:29

My father has recently been 'born again' and is a YEC, along with his wife and her children. He's very scathing about people who aren't YEC (reason 1 million why we're not close.)

I have a Christian friend who is a YEC. She's lovely, highly intelligent and a good person to be around. We don't talk about evolution. smile

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Mon 01-Apr-13 17:13:44

That's an interesting link spoony, I'm curious about their 800 scientists who disagree with evolution. I reckon I could get me a theology degree and also find a lot of other atheists also with theology degrees and then set up a website with the claim: "800 theologians who don't believe in creationism". It could be a massive hit, then we can set up a museum which claims to demonstrate evidence for evolution and call it the museum of.... ummm....natural..... uhhh... History?

DioneTheDiabolist Mon 01-Apr-13 17:24:37

Pedro going by what some of the posters here, you could probably get a list of 800 theologians who dont believe believe in god, nevermind creationism.grin

Pedro, I think it is handy having a list. That way I know who not to listen to on matters of science. I didn't mean to link to the list, I meant to link to their homepage.

The museum has free days every now and again. I might go one day when I don't have to financially support them.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Mon 01-Apr-13 17:40:43

Perhaps we can get a big party together and go and drop some fossils around their exhibits. Mind you, I'm struggling to understand what their exhibits would be.....

Sunnywithshowers Mon 01-Apr-13 17:43:38

grin Dione

I'm up for that smile Would be fun to have a MN meetup out here. Of course it is a long way for most of you to come just to mess with them.

They have pictures of many of their exhibits on the website.

LizaRose Mon 01-Apr-13 18:19:55

Pedro, there are more than 1200 scientists named Steve who support the theory of evolution

ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

EllieArroway Mon 01-Apr-13 19:08:41

I'm curious about their 800 scientists who disagree with evolution

If I recall correctly, the vast majority of those scientists are engineers & computer scientists. People, in other words, with no more expertise in evolution or BB theory than the average joe in the street.

There are a few (less than a 10th of 1%) of relevant scientists who are creationists, but they tend to support evolution and old Earth generally but just think they can see evidence of "creation" - like Michael Behe and his bacterial flagellum.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Mon 01-Apr-13 19:41:54

If my name were Steve and I had a science degree, I would so be joining Project Steve!

nightlurker Tue 02-Apr-13 03:47:27

If I were a YEC, I probably wouldn't talk about it. I think it's a valid viewpoint if you believe in an all-powerful God, but I wouldn't go out of my way to convince anyone else if it were my POV.

In a religious setting, the important thing to me is why we were created, not how. I generally prefer to leave the "how" to science. I would prefer to discuss more relevant topics in a religious setting, like service, faith, humility, kindness, charity, temperance, repentance, and so on.

FWIW, I consider evolution one of a list of ways God could have created us.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Tue 02-Apr-13 09:42:10

nightlurker why do you consider humility, kindness, charity and temperance to be religious pursuits?

nightlurker Wed 03-Apr-13 03:26:04

They are all commandments of God, and most religions encourage adherents to pursue those things as an integral part of their religious belief.

This isn't to say that they are exclusively religious pursuits or exclusive to religion.

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 00:39:42

I am a 46-year-old young-earth creationist but I was not always one. Up until about 2007, I believed what I was told about evolution and the age of the earth. I was persuaded by the scientific evidence and am still open to changing my mind. I will gladly answer any questions anyone has. But please... serious questions only. And no ad hominem attacks. Logical and rational arguments only.

SingingSands Mon 08-Apr-13 01:02:16

Are you really? What was the deciding factor in converting to YEC thinking?

EllieArroway Mon 08-Apr-13 01:03:14

Not sure where you're coming from, Best. You were persuaded by the scientific evidence that evolution is true, but then changed your mind? Did the creationists present better evidence, in your view?

Would be interested to hear how you arrived at your current position.

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 01:49:45

"Are you really? What was the deciding factor in converting to YEC thinking?"

SingingSands, it was not just one factor, it was many. Let me first say, before I say anything else, that to understand my position, you must accept three primary assumptions:

1. God exists.
2. He has revealed information to us about His creation in the Bible.
3. The Bible can be understood through a plain reading of the text.

These sound like huge assumptions but they are not without evidentiary support. The point is that if you don't even believe God exists, you're never going to understand where I'm coming from and you'll never question evolution. If God does no exist, something like evolution just has to be true.

As a theistic evolutionist I was able to examine the evidence with a critical eye. I am free to accept that God used evolution or to reject it completely. I reject it solely based on the scientific evidence. Once my "faith" in evolution was eroded and I did not require long ages of time, that freed me to first understand what the Bible truly said about the matter and second to interpret the scientific evidence in light of a young-earth view.

My claim is a radical one. It is not that we must reject science in favour of blind faith but rather that the young-earth position has not only more scientific evidence to support it but also has far more explanatory and predictive power.

I come across science journals almost daily that have findings which don't match researchers evolutionary predictions. Yet they are invariably exactly what I would predict based on a young earth model. Here are a few recent examples:

1. the non-existence of junk DNA
2. the complexity of the cell
3. the interbreeding of neanderthals with modern humans
4. the ability of many different "species" to hybridize
(eg. wolves, coyotes, dingoes, foxes, jackals, domestic dogs can all interbreed. Same with dolphins and whales. Same with alpacas, llamas and camels. Same with lions, tigers, jaguars, cheetahs, bobcats and domestic cats. And on and on.
5. the finding of soft-tissue, red blood cells and possibly now even DNA inside dozens of dinosaur fossils
5. the lack of evidence for life on other planets
6. the similarity of the early earth's atmosphere to today's

I could go on but that gives you a brief idea of where I'm coming from. In my arguments, I only use logic, reason and scientific evidence. You won't see me ever appealing to faith or emotional arguments.

I look forward to answering your questions and hope this thread leads to greater understanding. :^)

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 01:55:21

"Not sure where you're coming from, Best. You were persuaded by the scientific evidence that evolution is true, but then changed your mind? Did the creationists present better evidence, in your view?"

EllieArroway, it was not so much that I was persuaded by the evidence for evolution. It was more that I never thought about it much and accepted on faith what I was told by people who I thought were smarter than me.

When I actually looked at the evidence from their perspective and understood it the way they do, I realized the many flaws in evolutionary theory. Like any valid scientific theory, my view is falsifiable. I know exactly what it would take for me to change my mind. I'm just waiting for the data to come in. I also know exactly what it would take to make me an atheist but perhaps I'll save that for later. :^)

I've met 4, all clever people. One was doing biology A-level and another two did biology degrees confused

Best why does lions and tigers interbreeding make you question evolution?

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 03:27:04

"Best why does lions and tigers interbreeding make you question evolution?"

Good question, Ria. It's not that this caused me to question evolution. It's that this was a prediction and a requirement of the young earth model. See, the Bible does not use the word "species" but "kinds." Species has a very plastic and flexible definition. Wolves and domestic dogs are classified as separate species but they really shouldn't be since they can interbred and bring forth viable offspring.

The biblical term kind is much more precise although it is wider in scope. Because I believe there was a global Flood and that all of today's species are descended from those aboard Noah's Ark a mere 4,400 years ago, I would have to explain how just a few thousand animals aboard the Ark (by some estimates 16,000) could diversify into the millions of species we see today in just over 4,000 years. Thus I would predict that many of those different species are not really different species at all but are the same kind. (Interestingly, paleontologists have recently down-graded their estimate of over 1,000 species of dinosaurs to fewer than 500 - another prediction that fits with my worldview.)

I would also predict rapid speciation - which has been observed in the field. Everything that we've been taught to believe takes millions of years to form can actually form very quickly. Coal, oil, diamonds - all can be made in weeks or months under the right laboratory conditions. Stalactites and stalagmites like those in Carlsbad Cavern can form in a few years. We're told that Grand Canyon formed over millions of years. But Mount St Helen's taught us that a canyon 1/40th the scale of Grand Canyon can form in a few days due to a flood. In fact, there are at least 3 other canyons in the U.S. I could name which formed in a matter of days just in the last 100 years. So if all the canyons we've seen form take a lot of water and little bit of time, why do we assume that the canyons we haven't seen form took a little bit of water over a lot of time? This is very persuasive evidence to me.

Any evidence that we can actually observe always points to things happening rapidly. (Incidentally, there are canyons on Mars, which has no liquid water that we know of for sure, that are hundreds of times bigger than Grand Canyon and yet scientists believe they were carved out in 6 days.)

What caused me to question evolution was this:

1. First, I read quotes from well-known scientists, who themselves believed in evolution, criticizing and making scathing remarks about it. If these had come from creationists I may have written them off as biased.

2. Second, I discovered that virtually all the evidence I'd been taught in school about evolution had either been discredited or could be explained just as well or better by a biblical, young earth model.

This allowed me to freely examine the evidence objectively and unbiasedly. I accept natural selection. I accept that fossils exist. I accept microevolution (or small changes in size, shape colour, etc. below the species level). And I accept genetic mutations. The major problem for evolution is that natural selection can only act on the information it is given and genetic mutations have not been shown to be able to provide the kind of information necessary for macroevolution - the formation of radically new traits and body plans - to occur. If this could be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, I would change my mind immediately.

I'm afraid you're reasoning doesn't sound very scientific to me. Canyons can be formed very quickly, therefore it's reasonable to assume they all were? What do you think of carbon dating?

That species sometimes interbreed proves the definition/concept of species is imperfect, but if you can accept a common ancestor of the canine family, why not extend that further back? Have you heard of ring species?

Macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time. You may be familiar with Tiktaalic and other amphibian-like fish. What would convince you that, say, humans and gorillas share a common ancestor? There's not much difference.

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 06:21:13

"I'm afraid you're reasoning doesn't sound very scientific to me. Canyons can be formed very quickly, therefore it's reasonable to assume they all were?"

Yes, Ria, that is very scientific. The scientific method is based on observation and testing. It is the epitome of science to say that what we observe is what we should expect. In fact, it is exactly what you're doing when you say "macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time." (This would be a reasonable assumption but, as it turns out, is false for reasons I will elaborate on later.)

"What do you think of carbon dating?"

As you might not be aware, carbon dating is only used to date fossils up to about 50,000 years old. Beyond that, there should be no measurable carbon14 left. Yet, there has never been a fossil that didn't have some amount of carbon 14 left - indicating they are not millions of years old.

What you might be referring to are other dating methods such as potassium/argon and rubidium/strontium which are used to date much older rocks. It is then assumed that the fossils found in those rocks are the same age. I can go into greater detail later as to how all the dating methods work as they are fascinating to learn about and I'm very familiar with them. For now, suffice it to say that all the dating methods contain assumptions that cannot be known accurately. Three are:

1. The decay rate from parent to daughter atom is know.
2. The initial presence of no daughter atom in the rock.
3. That no leakage or transfer has occurred during the process.

I'll also add that the carbon14 method is very friendly to a young earth position. Dinosaur bones purportedly 70 millions years old are carbon dated at less than 10,000. For other reasons, carbon dating points to an earth/sun system which is less than 10,000 years old.

"That species sometimes interbreed proves the definition/concept of species is imperfect, but if you can accept a common ancestor of the canine family, why not extend that further back? Have you heard of ring species?"

Yes, I agree with ring species. But I would argue that it is not the kind of evolution required to turn an amoeba into a man over millions of years.

"You may be familiar with Tiktaalic and other amphibian-like fish."

Yes, I am. My argument from the fossil record is this. Fossils don't form readily. They require special conditions - rapid burial followed by a lot of heat and pressure - like the kinds of conditions after a global flood. Evolution would not necessarily predict a large fossil record. But if a global flood had occurred we would expect to find billions of dead creatures all over the world in sedimentary rock layers which were laid down by water. That is precisely what we find.

Further, if evolution were true we would expect to find many transitional fossils. The overwhelming majority of them should be very different from what we see today. Yet what we find are mostly the same fossils even "millions" of years old looking pretty much the same as organisms alive today. So my conclusion is that the few supposed transitions we have like Tiktaalic are not transitions at all but are simply extinct species. Most evolutionists now reject the fossil record as evidence for evolution because they realize it doesn't support their theory. But it supports mine.

"What would convince you that, say, humans and gorillas share a common ancestor? There's not much difference."

There's a world of difference. The story we've been told that the DNA of chimps and humans is 99% similar is a myth. It was never true. I do acknowledge however that the fusion of chromosome 2 is compelling to me. It's not enough to overturn my beliefs just yet because my view is supported by an abundance of other evidence. But I do find it intriguing and it gives me pause.

Are you referring to the shellacked (and otherwise contaminated) dinosaur bones that a group dishonestly obtained and had tested? Not creationists finest moment.

VBisme Mon 08-Apr-13 06:56:40

Sorry best, but your "scientific" approach to geology doesn't really hold up.

Some canyons (for example in soft limestones or sediment) are created rapidly and we have seen this happening, therefore all canyons are created this way?

We are still seeing he creation of the Grand Canyon, the erosion is on-going.

There are numerous scientific paper which have argued over the last hundred years the catastrophic vs uniformitarian view and the overwhelming consensus is that both these are occurring.

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 07:01:01

"Are you referring to the shellacked (and otherwise contaminated) dinosaur bones that a group dishonestly obtained and had tested? Not creationists finest moment."

I've never heard of that SCSF so I would have to say no. But if you want to go there I could start dragging out the abundance of fakes and frauds committed in the name of science. In a recent anonymous survey, many scientists admitted to routinely falsifying their results. Then you'll change the subject by bringing up the pedophile priests and I'll have to prove to you how more sexual abuse is committed by female teachers in the public school system in 1 year than by all the Catholic priests in 52 years of data. (I'm Protestant by the way.) Then you'll bring up Galileo, the Crusades the witch hunts and how religion causes all of the world's wars and I'll have to prove to you how atheists have murdered more people in the last 100 years than religion has in all of human history. Then you'll call me names and a flat-earther and a holocaust denier and we'll never get anywhere. So let's just stick to the scientific evidence shall we. ;^)

no actually I wasn't planning to do that.

If you want to stick to scientific evidence then please cite sources for the carbon dating dinosaur bones.

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 07:07:17

"There are numerous scientific paper which have argued over the last hundred years the catastrophic vs uniformitarian view and the overwhelming consensus is that both these are occurring."

Exactly, VBisme. They've had to retreat from uniformitarinism and embrace catastrophism because the evidence was just too over-whelming. If they keep following the evidence, eventually they will become young-earth creationists like me.

By the way, the geologic column has been falsified by a simple experiment. The principle of superposition is invalid. Watch the video "Experiments in Stratification" on YouTube for more on that.

VBisme Mon 08-Apr-13 07:11:21

Both these are occurring, not one over and above the other. You are deliberately misreading my post.

And I'd rather not take my research from YouTube. grin

noblegiraffe Mon 08-Apr-13 07:36:47

Bestvalue have you read Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth? It lays out all the evidence for evolution in an incredibly compelling way, and has some beautiful pictures smile

If you have, I'd be interested to know how you felt after reading it.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Mon 08-Apr-13 08:29:29

In my arguments, I only use logic, reason and scientific evidence. You won't see me ever appealing to faith or emotional arguments.

Except that you do, because your first three assumptions at the basis of what you believe are that God exists, the bible is true and the bible can be read in plain text. This shows that the EVERYTHING from then on is biased by faith.

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 09:12:28

"Both these are occurring, not one over and above the other. You are deliberately misreading my post."

I understood perfectly well what you meant, VBisme. I was being a little facetious. But I have noticed a trend which goes like this. Both evolutionists and creationists make contrary predictions based on their opposing theories. Research is done and experiments are conducted. The evolutionists' hypotheses are falsified and the creationists' are vindicated. The evolutionists revise their model so it fits the data and claim victory all the while mocking creationism for being pseudo-science. I've seen it dozens of times in the past 5 years or so.

"And I'd rather not take my research from YouTube."

Suit yourself. It's kind of a low budget documentary anyway and you're free to buy the DVD but you can watch it for free on YouTube. Just because it's on YouTube doesn't mean it's not science. It's results were published in peer-reviewed journals. It was not made by a YouTube user. (Speaking of which, the whole peer-review process is a myth as well but that's a story for another day. Google "the myth of peer-review" if you want to know more.)

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Mon 08-Apr-13 09:18:14

I really think you need to start citing sources and quoting scientific paper details rather than pointing at you tube videos, low budget documentaries and Google search suggestions.

TheFallenMadonna Mon 08-Apr-13 09:19:56

I used to work with a Physics teacher who was a young earth creationist. He taught about big bang theory with no problems at all. But it made for interesting discussions in the staff room!

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Mon 08-Apr-13 09:26:25

Most evolutionists now reject the fossil record as evidence for evolution because they realize it doesn't support their theory. But it supports mine.

Where do you get your information from? There's nothing to suggest that most evolutionists reject the fossil record, except perhaps in creationist propaganda text. The fossil record is an incredibly elegant source of evidence for evolution. There's nothing in the fossil record, not one tiny shred, which gives evidence against evolution. If there were, evolution would no longer be an accepted theory. That's how science works, it's falsifiable and there's been nothing to falsify evolution.

Sure there are controversies around minor details of the theory and I think most scientists would agree that Darwin's theory in its original form was not exhaustive of the whole picture, but the basics of the theory of evolution by natural selection have stood up to some of science's most rigorous opposition.

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 09:30:07

"Bestvalue have you read Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth?"

Yes I have, NG. In fact, I have it right here in front of me. I remember my feeling of excitement when it came out because Dawkins admitted that all of his previous books had just assumed evolution were true but in this book he promised to present the evidence. I came to the book needing specific questions answered. I already accepted microevolution and natural selection. I was disappointed to discover that his "evidence" was just more of the same stuff I (and all creationists) already knew and accepted but really in no way served as evidence for macroevolution and common ancestry. One of the fossils he included a picture of (a lemur) had already been discredited as a missing link by the time his book hit the bookstores. I remember thinking, "Well if Dawkins doesn't have the evidence, then nobody has the evidence."

And so I'm still waiting for the evidence . . .

If you have the book and would like to direct me to a specific page that contains evidence you find persuasive, please do so and I'll consider it. Understand though that it might be something I've already thought about and feel my model has a better explanation for. You're welcome to explain to me why YOU feel it is valid evidence. But I don't find arguments like "macroevolution is just microevolution extrapolated over time" to be particularly compelling - especially considering I can easily prove that wrong.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Mon 08-Apr-13 09:36:07

Please also go into more detail about radiometric dating as I'd like to hear more about how this evidence supports a young earth. If possible, please cover dating of meteorite objects and samples from the moon as well as the various different radiometric options with respect to the number of radioactive elements which can be used for dating.

Incidentally, you mentioned that carbon dating only dates dinosaur bones to 10,000 years. How old do you think the Earth is?

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Mon 08-Apr-13 09:37:55

But I don't find arguments like "macroevolution is just microevolution extrapolated over time" to be particularly compelling - especially considering I can easily prove that wrong.

Please prove this.

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 09:44:45

"Except that you do, because your first three assumptions at the basis of what you believe are that God exists, the bible is true and the bible can be read in plain text. This shows that the EVERYTHING from then on is biased by faith."

I can see how you might think that Pedro, but that's not exactly true. I have scientific evidence for all those presuppositions. It's just beyond the scope of this thread to go into them here. If you like, I can direct you to some videos of some national TV programs I've been on which explain my views on those subjects in more detail - including evidence against evolution, arguments creationists should not use (like "evolution is only a theory" and "if man evolved from monkeys, why are the still monkeys?"), evidence for the existence of God and my whole young-earth model which explains the dinosaurs, the flood, the ice age, the origin of the races and more. They are on the dreaded YouTube but I can post links here if I'm allowed.

I also must point out that every worldview requires faith. The New Atheists like Dawkins use an incorrect definition of faith that is not in the dictionary or the Bible. What you are likely referring to is BLIND faith - belief in something with no evidence. There is no word for that but I just call it irrational. Since the scientific method itself does not and cannot provide absolute certainty or proof (as any honest scientist will admit) even science requires faith - which is a rational trust in something or someone based on evidence and not PROOF. You rarely hear me use the words 'faith' or 'proof' but I do use the word evidence quite a lot. :^)

mummytime Mon 08-Apr-13 09:47:34

I know a family of them, they are lovely people and quite tolerant of those of us who don't "believe" like them. They do have very good friends from the US (Texas), the father in that family did his doctorate on the "Science" of young Earth creationism.

Fossils wouldn't bother them BTW. They have all kinds of amazing beliefs, including the atmosphere once being much richer in Oxygen and people able to run around the world in about 10 days (if I remember correctly).

We once watched a series of programs on the subject when in the Carribean, but it is the kind of TV show I would ban my young children from watching (my 14 and 16 year old would find it amusing, my 9 year old would either be cross or might get confused).

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Mon 08-Apr-13 09:50:41

Ok, let's hear the evidence for those things. Whilst I agree that proving something is very difficult (although you can prove things within certain parameters), you can certainly 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' which you would have to do to a reasonable extreme to put the basis of your entire scientific belief on the existence of god (you'd also need to define what you mean by God, but given you are using the bible as your source, I think we all understand what you mean).

noblegiraffe Mon 08-Apr-13 09:53:27

direct me to a specific page that contains evidence you find persuasive

I think you misunderstand how science works, it isn't about one piece of evidence, it is about the weight of evidence - and that evidence is overwhelming. Yet if you could find one single rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian, the whole thing would be in question.

Have you found a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian?

noblegiraffe Mon 08-Apr-13 09:55:52

Not sure how you could have scientific evidence for the existence of god, science doesn't dabble in the supernatural?

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 10:04:37

"I really think you need to start citing sources and quoting scientific paper details rather than pointing at you tube videos, low budget documentaries and Google search suggestions."

Pedro, if you can't take the time to even look at the video that cites the peer-reviewed sources, it tells me you're really not interested in learning. I'm taking a lot of my personal time to do this so people can understand. I'm not seeking to convert here because most people are already convinced of their own view. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing a video which cites sources or an Answers in Genesis article which cites sources.

"Please also go into more detail about radiometric dating as I'd like to hear more about how this evidence supports a young earth. If possible, please cover dating of meteorite objects and samples from the moon as well as the various different radiometric options with respect to the number of radioactive elements which can be used for dating."

Pedro, I can't go into all that here. It would take a book. I'll give you one story in a minute.

"There's nothing in the fossil record, not one tiny shred, which gives evidence against evolution."

You speak like a fundamentalist, Pedro. That's not even a claim that I would make. Of course I believe the fossil record can be interpreted to support evolution. But you have to do a lot of twisting of the data and I think my view explains the fossil record better. That's what it's going to come down to - which view has the most evidence.

One thing I learned when writing a book on evolution is this. Suppose scientists have two competing naturalistic theories - one explains 5% of the facts, the other 15% of the facts. They will prefer the one which explains 15% of the facts and never tell you that 85% of the facts remain unaccounted for. Now, suppose here I am with a theory that explains, say, 90% of the facts. But because it makes reference to a global flood or other things that sound slightly biblical, it is ruled out a priori - even though it has far more explanatory power than the reigning scientific theory. That's how science works - and maybe even how it should work - just as long as we don't delude ourselves into thinking science is the only purveyor of truth.

Next up, my story about carbon dating . . .

noblegiraffe Mon 08-Apr-13 10:11:48

Answers in Genesis

Aaaargh, it would take a million years to deconstruct the bunch of shite on that travesty of a website.

I did once have an email exchange with a YEC where I actually went through some lies flaws in one of their articles and it did actually give him pause for thought about their agenda (if not YEC) which was satisfying.

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 10:25:34

So Pedro, you ask for evidence that carbon dating supports a young earth. I'll try to give it to you quickly because it's past 5 am where I am and I'm tired.

Willard Libby, who won a Nobel prize for inventing the carbon14 dating method, knew that in order for his system to work the earth's atmosphere had to be at equilibrium. (No time to explain this now. I'd love to explain the whole dating method thing, how it works and its assumptions at a later date because it's fun to talk about.)

Libby calculated that if you started with a brand new earth/sun system, our atmosphere would reach equilibrium in about 30,000 years. He thought because we know the earth is billions of years old (can't recall if they'd arrived at the 4.54 billion figure yet but I don't think so) the earth's atmosphere MUST be at equilibrium and he could ignore the equilibrium problem.

The fact is that we have since measured and discovered the atmosphere is only ONE THIRD of the way to equilibrium. What's one third of 30,000? 10,000 years. So the implications for carbon 14 dating are this:

1. The earth/sun system is less than 10,000 years old and
2. Carbon14 dating doesn't work

In fact, I don't trust any dating methods unless we have other ways to cross-reference such as dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) or recorded history. What frequently happens is that they will date a fossil 5 different ways, get 5 different dates and then they'll pick the one that matches their preconceptions and chock the others up to contamination or some other rescuing device. If the dates they get don't match their theories at all, they simply don't publish the dates. (That's why people like you can claim all the evidence supports evolution.)

You might disagree. You might not like Libby's calculations. I say take it up with him. You might have some trouble though since he died in 1980. :^)

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 10:33:09

"including the atmosphere once being much richer in Oxygen"

Yes, mummytime, that is one of creationist predictions vindicated by recent science. I'm not sure if I can post the link but Google the title of the article "Scientists Say Young Earth's Atmosphere Much Like Today's."

Of course they interpret this as evidence that life must have originated on another planet which is why NASA is looking for it so hard. I've been making a prediction for at least 6 years now that if they find microbial life on Mars it will prove to have come from earth. That's a falsifiable prediction. If I'm wrong, virtually my whole worldview collapses. If they are wrong, they will just modify the theory and carry on. Such is the theory of evolution.

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 10:36:29

"I think you misunderstand how science works, it isn't about one piece of evidence, it is about the weight of evidence"

I get that, yes.

"and that evidence is overwhelming."

For micro, yes, for macro, no. Just give me one or two you find persuasive for macroevolution and common ancestry. I'm giving you tons for my worldview. Is one or two too much to ask if it's so overwhelming?

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 10:38:44

"Not sure how you could have scientific evidence for the existence of god, science doesn't dabble in the supernatural?"

NG, name me the type of evidence you would accept. Perhaps the type of evidence you require is unreasonable.

noblegiraffe Mon 08-Apr-13 10:42:09

Talkorigins is your friend. Re your 'equilibrium' problem with carbon dating, this might explain your issue:

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

Also: evidence for macro evolution (there's loads, but I'm off out now, I might pop back and highlight my favourites later)

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 10:45:57

"Yet if you could find one single rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian, the whole thing would be in question."

I know that's their claim but I seriously doubt it. They've shifted the goal posts so many times before that I now believe a fossil rabbit in the pre-Cambrian would barely phase them.

"Have you found a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian?"

Obviously not but fossils are found out of order virtually every day and it doesn't affect them one bit. Red blood cells, soft tissue and DNA inside dinosaur bones is strong evidence that dinosaurs are not 65 million years old but that hasn't stopped them from believing it. And please no one bring up the biofilm argument because there are far too many cases now and that argument has been thoroughly debunked.

BestValue Mon 08-Apr-13 10:49:18

"Talkorigins is your friend."

I've read all of TalkOrigins. Even own the guy's book called The Counter-Creationism Handbook. His arguments are weak at best. But feel free to highlight specific ones you find persuasive and I'll take a look at them.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Mon 08-Apr-13 11:43:40

name me the type of evidence you would accept. Perhaps the type of evidence you require is unreasonable.

Perhaps you can present the evidence which you have. In fact, I think the entire scientific community would be pretty interested in seeing this. It's not about whether the evidence is unreasonable, it's about whether it is compelling, testable, repeatable, verifiable.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Mon 08-Apr-13 11:53:37

Best can you please, please, please direct me to evidence that fossils are out of sequence with no explanation to the degree that rabbits (or indeed any mammal) found in the Pre-Cambrian would demonstrate?

If this evidence does in fact exist and there is no explanation for it other than that evolution is completely wrong, then this is evidence which the scientific world needs to see. I suspect, however, that what is more likely is that either the evidence doesn't exist, the evidence has a rational explanation or the creationist community has convinced you that the evidence is irrefutable.

You seem to have many conspiracy theories about the scientific community. What agenda do you think the whole world of science has to prove evolution true if it is not? Perhaps individual scientists have agendas to make money or gain funding or fame, but the community as a whole is interested in the truth. The flip side of this is that the religious community has a massive incentive to 'disprove' science because it breaks their stranglehold on the people. Without belief in god and Jesus and the accuracy of the bible, the religion falls apart and disappears. The same cannot be said for science, nothing makes science go away because it deals with the understanding of the universe, so there's simply no agenda on a macro scale which would justify a 'cover up'.

SingingSands Mon 08-Apr-13 13:12:48

Thanks for answering my question best smile

I've only skimmed through the rest of the thread quickly (went to bed late last night after asking you to post, my apologies) so I'll catch up later, but I am genuinly interested in the YEC viewpoint, so I'll try to read up tonight on what you have posted.

LovelyMeredith Mon 08-Apr-13 23:57:21

I'm a former Young Earth Creationist.

OH is a Science nut and made me just as obsessed about Science as he is, hence why I'm no longer a YEC! :D

mummytime Tue 09-Apr-13 08:10:06

This reporting on the paper on young earth's atmosphere the real paper was published in nature.

First, what they at Rensellar call "young earth" is 500 million years old. Second they don't talk about it having more Oxygen than today, just having Oxygen at all which is contrary to traditional scientific teaching (including GCSE). This finding if confirmed by others would actually explain evolution and the creation of life more easily.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 11:46:03

"Re your 'equilibrium' problem with carbon dating, this might explain your issue"

NG, the link you provided was a bit disingenuous. It mentions Henry Morris and other creationists as if they invented the idea themselves. They don't even mention that it was Libby himself who made the calculations. I have Libby's quote right in front of me. He might have been wrong but it can't be dismissed as easily as you think.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 11:53:00

"Perhaps you can present the evidence which you have."

Pedro, that's a little unreasonable don't you think? I've written a book you can read and I've been on national TV and you can watch those shows online for free. It would take hundreds of hours for me to present all the evidence I have. My typing sucks and I'm doing the best I can but you could help to narrow it down by telling me what kind of evidence you'd accept rather than me typing for hours and using up bandwidth only to have you say, "Nope, sorry. What else ya got?"

I think you want to argue not to understand and I'm not interested in that.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 11:57:28

"You seem to have many conspiracy theories about the scientific community. What agenda do you think the whole world of science has to prove evolution true if it is not?"

Pedro, I have no conspiracy theories about the scientific community. In fact, I am very pro-science. Christians invented science for Pete's sake

"Perhaps individual scientists have agendas to make money or gain funding or fame, but the community as a whole is interested in the truth."

I totally agree 100%.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 12:10:11

"First, what they at Rensellar call "young earth" is 500 million years old."

Of course, Mummytime, I didn't mean to imply that the article would support a 6-10,000 year old earth. You won't find that in any secular peer-reviewed journal. Ever.

"Second they don't talk about it having more Oxygen than today"

True. My bad. I was unclear about that. It is true that when they drill into amber (like in Jurassic Park) the air bubbles contain 50% more oxygen but this article isn't about that.

"just having Oxygen at all which is contrary to traditional scientific teaching"

Right. That was my point. Evolutionists predicted what they call a reducing atmosphere - one without oxygen. Creationists predicted the earth always had oxygen. Creationists were right and evolutionists were wrong.

"This finding if confirmed by others would actually explain evolution and the creation of life more easily."

No. Oxygen prohibits life from coming from non-life. This is why they have pinned their hopes on life being seeded from Mars. I predict they won't find it. But will my prediction count as a win for creationists? Not a chance. They'll have some other rationalization and pick a different planet life must have come from. Mark my words. It might take a few decades but it'll happen. When it does, remember this conversation.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 12:16:20

"Thanks for answering my question best"

You're welcome, SingingSands. Any time. Thanks for your interest and for being respectful. If you're cute, I'm single. But if you're a guy forget it. LOL!

mummytime Tue 09-Apr-13 12:27:42

"No. Oxygen prohibits life from coming from non-life. This is why they have pinned their hopes on life being seeded from Mars. I predict they won't find it."

Well my reading was that some of the Chemistry is actually easier to explain if Oxygen was present.

However if you are right that life can't come from non-life except under reducing Chemistry; then that is no problem as there are lots of places on earth today, which have a reducing environment. From deep sea vents to water logged soil.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 12:33:05

"She told me in all seriousness that the reason that people in the Old Testament lived to such an old age was because before The Flood it never rained and so it was very cloudy and this filtered out the harmful ageing rays of the sun."

Hey NG, I just wanted to respond to this. While some creationists claim it didn't rain before the flood, I believe they are in error. They get it from Genesis 2:5 which says:

"Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground"

This is before God created Adam on Day 6 (a literal 24-hour day). The flood was 1,656 years later. There is no reason to think the water cycle was different for that long and it's not necessary any way. Some think that's why people scoffed at Noah because they'd never seen rain. But we've seen plenty of rain and gigantic local floods but even today if someone were predicting a global flood we'd think he was nuts.

I do believe in the long ages though but not exactly for the same reason. Adam and Eve were created perfect and were intended to live forever so genetic mutations did not begin until after they sinned. They died at a very old age (Adam was 930). But life-spans dropped off dramatically after the flood because the environment had changed (the whole world was destroyed).

Over time, mutations have built up (what is called genetic load) to the point where we only live to be 70 or 80 years old. Of course, many diseases like cancer are due to mutations. Yet modern medicine is starting to discover how to fight the damaging effects of these mutations and scientists now predict that someone who is alive today will live to be 1,000 years old. (Hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar.) :^)

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 12:41:47

"However if you are right that life can't come from non-life except under reducing Chemistry; then that is no problem as there are lots of places on earth today, which have a reducing environment. From deep sea vents to water logged soil."

The problem is that they don't think there has been enough time. From the time the earth cooled down 4.6 billion years ago till the first appearance of life is something like 800 million years - the blink of an eye geologically speaking.

Do some research on the Miller-Urey experiment for more on making life in the laboratory and the reducing atmosphere. It was hailed as a ground-breaking experiment in 1953 but it was actually a colossal failure. As one guy put it, there were only 3 things wrong with Stanley Miller's experiment: he started with the wrong conditions, he used the wrong materials and he got the wrong results. Everything else was perfect. :^)

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 12:48:54

Mummytime, listen to what Carl Sagan says here. Don't believe me. Believe him.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=79o6xzMfzKg

noblegiraffe Tue 09-Apr-13 12:53:15

Did I miss the bit where you said the name of your book?

CoteDAzur Tue 09-Apr-13 13:31:33

There really are all kinds on MN.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 13:52:51

"Did I miss the bit where you said the name of your book?"

I didn't mention it, NG. I'm not here to promote myself or to sell books. I want to answer honest questions from nice people who are genuinely interested in learning.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 14:02:26

Honestly there are much better resources than my book anyway written by real scientists - biologists, geologists, astronomers, astrophysicists, chemists etc. - all who believe based on the scientific evidence (as well as the Bible) that the earth is 6-10,000 years old.

I would recommend some if I really thought anyone would care to read them. Truthfully, if you're an atheist and want to stay that way, you'll never entertain this view. But in your pursuit of tolerance, you should learn about it. And if you're already a Christian, you should study it carefully. There is a world of information out there and you don't have to continue to live your life by blind faith.

Januarymadness Tue 09-Apr-13 14:03:09

hi I am fascinated by this view point. My personal thoughts are that even if you disregard much external evidence, the evidence for evolution exists simply within the human body.

The appendix. We have evolved from needing it but not evolved far enough to be born without it. Surely that alone proves that while evolution happens it takes a blooming long time?

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 14:07:27

By the way, I just realized that my book has nothing to do with young earth creationism any way which is the topic of this thread. It's only about the evidence against evolution. And I've learned way more since I wrote it. (Maybe it's time for a second edition.) :^)

Januarymadness Tue 09-Apr-13 14:10:38

oh btw I am neither Atheist nor Christian. But I would genuinely love to find an astrophysicist who really thinks the world is 6000 years old, as I have met several and none support tthis pov, so please do point me in their directiongrin

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 14:24:26

"My personal thoughts are that even if you disregard much external evidence . . ."

I don't disregard any evidence at all. I might often have a different interpretation of the evidence. Evidence never speaks for itself. It is always interpreted in light of a paradigm. I have all the same evidence you have. I just interpret it differently - and I would say better.

"The appendix. We have evolved from needing it but not evolved far enough to be born without it."

I'm afraid this is another myth. It's been well-known since the 1940s that the appendix is an essential part of the immune system. A doctor I interviewed told me if you take it out, you shorten your life span by about 5 years. Sure you can live without it. You can live without both your arms, both your legs and both your eyes too but that doesn't mean they don't serve a function.

Besides, if we ever evolved to the point where we were born without an appendix, that would be de-volution. To evolve from an amoeba to man, evolution needs to explain how we acquired all these parts in the first place. Evolution has utterly failed to explain that.

"Surely that alone proves that while evolution happens it takes a blooming long time?"

An article just came out this week which shows evolution (in the micro sense) happens very quickly. This is an essential prediction of my model but it was a huge surprise to those who thought it took a long time.

There's very little evidence you can name that my model doesn't explain and explain better than evolution.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 14:31:14

"But I would genuinely love to find an astrophysicist who really thinks the world is 6000 years old"

Your wish is my command. His name is Dr Jason Lisle and he's brilliant. Here's a brief introduction:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sHAre_yvTs

And then a longer presentation on logical fallacies. Anyone who wants to learn how to argue more logically should watch this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D7xm7UDtVQ

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Tue 09-Apr-13 16:01:18

Besides, if we ever evolved to the point where we were born without an appendix, that would be de-volution. To evolve from an amoeba to man, evolution needs to explain how we acquired all these parts in the first place. Evolution has utterly failed to explain that.

The appendix clearly isn't essential to our digestive system as we can cope without it.

But in any case, the appendix isn't used for what it used to be. Plus there are countless examples of ways in which parts of the human body are not as you would expect them to be of they were created but are exactly as they would be when you look at how they have evolved from being used in our ancestors.

If we moved towards having no appendix though, that would jot be devolution. Devolution cannot other happen, everything is evolution. You clearly don't understand the concept at all.

Evolution also explains very clearly how we acquired all our parts so you obviously don't have the same evidence which everyone else is looking at.

madhairday Tue 09-Apr-13 16:57:09

Reading with interest - science isn't my thing at all, but always interested to hear different viewpoints. I've never been a YEC, was brought up a Christian from fairly young and I remember my mum teaching me about evolution as a child and saying that in her opinion evolution and creation were not mutually exclusive. I've since been of the same viewpoint, having read round for myself - but I'm no expert at all, in fact the whole area confuses me a lot - give me theology and literature any day grin

Not convinced, Best, but it's great to hear a YEC argue their case with intelligence rather than just saying 'the bible says so' (it doesn't) grin

CoteDAzur Tue 09-Apr-13 17:13:04

"great to hear a YEC argue their case with intelligence"

LOL. Here we have a person who genuinely believes that the Earth itself is thousands of times younger than the fossils, diamonds, and coral reefs. I can't say I see "intelligence" anywhere in his/her argument at all.

madhairday Tue 09-Apr-13 17:18:00

You may not see it as an intelligent argument, but that's different to it being argued with intelligence, I think - at least Best has sources to back up his arguments and has obviously studied it in a lot of depth - it's just refreshing to hear when compared to usual YEC arguments.

As I say, I'm not convinced, it does not make sense to me, but no harm in acknowledging someone's efforts.

CoteDAzur Tue 09-Apr-13 17:20:00

Forget the "argument". Look at the facts.

Argument cannot be intelligent if it makes no sense in light of the facts.

CoteDAzur Tue 09-Apr-13 17:20:42

Oh yes, no harm in acknowledging his efforts.

Here, have an A for effort smile

I'm sorry, 'Christians invented science' - is this a joke?

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 22:29:25

"Here we have a person who genuinely believes that the Earth itself is thousands of times younger than the fossils, diamonds, and coral reefs."

CoteDAzur, "fossils, diamonds, and coral reefs" (including dinosaur bones) all still have carbon left in them which strongly indicates that they are only thousands of years old, not millions.

"Forget the "argument". Look at the facts . . . Argument cannot be intelligent if it makes no sense in light of the facts."

My arguments are based on facts. You evidently have swallowed some "facts" that, as it turns out, aren't really true at all. Science doesn't really like to deal much with facts. As Eugenie Scott once put it, "facts aren't really very interesting." Science traffics in scientific theories which are meant to explain those facts. By way of example, the FACT of gravity is that if I drop a pencil it falls toward the centre of the earth. Because it does this every time it's been tested, we call it a law. (That doesn't mean it's unbreakable. Laws are descriptive not prescriptive. They describe how things are, not how they should be.)

Now, why do things fall toward the centre of the earth? Because masses have an attraction and the greater the mass, the greater the attraction. This is the known as the THEORY of gravity. What I'm doing is putting forth a scientific theory based on the Bible which explains the facts. (All other scientific theories rule out God and the Bible from the start. This is not meant as a denigration of science. It's just how science woks.) My claim is that my theory explains more of the facts than evolution does.

Perhaps you can show me two or three examples of where you think I have run aground of the facts. Understand that none of the radiometric dating methods generate factual dates. The fossil doesn't come out of the machine with a date stamped on it. Radiometric dating gives a number - a measurement of an amount of a radioactive isotope - and that number is plugged into a formula which contains many unverifiable assumptions about the past. Change those initial assumptions and you get completely different dates for your fossils.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 22:42:43

A scientific fact is something that is has been tested, repeated and verified in the present - typically a laboratory. Because the majority of the process of evolution takes place in the past, it can never rightly be called a scientific fact. (Perhaps a better word to use is that you believe it is TRUE. I used to as well - that is until I looked at the facts.)

But, you say, hasn't evolution been demonstrated in the laboratory with bacterial resistance to anti-biotics? Yes and no. That is microevolution - small changes below the species level. Even the most ardent creationist in the world has no problem with this (nor with natural selection). But the grander claims of macroevolutiion and common ancestry have very little factual support. What apologists for evolution like Dawkins must do is claim that macroevolution is just microevolution over time. That's a nice belief but I don't have that much faith. Further, the "evolution" we see in bacterial resistance is not the kind of change we need in order to turn an amoeba into a man over millions of years.

Sunnywithshowers Tue 09-Apr-13 22:44:09

How and when did Christians invent science?

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Tue 09-Apr-13 22:44:43

"fossils, diamonds, and coral reefs" (including dinosaur bones) all still have carbon left in them which strongly indicates that they are only thousands of years old, not millions.

Ummm.... Diamonds are made of carbon, they are not radioactive, they don't decay. I think you have seriously misunderstood something here. The oldest diamonds ever found have been estimated to be 4.25 billion years old. Forget a few thousand years, you're a few thousand orders of magnitude wrong.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Tue 09-Apr-13 22:47:16

Further, the "evolution" we see in bacterial resistance is not the kind of change we need in order to turn an amoeba into a man over millions of years.

Every one of us grew from a single cell to a full human in 9 months.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 22:53:41

"I'm sorry, 'Christians invented science' - is this a joke?"

Ria, all of the major branches of modern science were invented by Christians. Most were Bible-believing young-earth creationists like me. Men like Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, Galileo, Pasteur and dozens more. Historians of science (and even Dawkins) acknowledge that modern science developed in the West because scientists believed in a rational universe which operated according to laws - because it was designed by a rational law-Giver. They believd they were "thinking God's thought after him."

Science did not arise in the east in places where they practiced Hinduism, for example, because Hindus believe the universe and the world is an illusion. Why study something that doesn't really exist?

Take a course in the history of science or just read a book about it. I don't make this stuff up. Remember that, in my worldview, it is wrong to lie. :^)

CoteDAzur Tue 09-Apr-13 22:57:54

I could take apart your posts sentence by sentence, but what would be the point of that? It would be like kicking a puppy.

Just a question, though: What do you think it means that we can see a star that is a 100 million light years away?

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 22:58:21

"Every one of us grew from a single cell to a full human in 9 months."

If you think that has anything whatsoever at all to do with evolution, Pedro, you are sadly misinformed and, I would dare to say, too far gone for me to help you. Unfortunately, the problem is that most people who believe in evolution don't really understand it. I understand evolution exactly the same way Dawkins does. I just start with different assumptions than he does so I reach different conclusions.

Isabeller Tue 09-Apr-13 22:59:48

BestValue I'm interested in what you're saying and have some distant relatives I think would agree with you.

I do however feel compelled to say that the science I know most about is maths and that wasn't exclusively invented by Christians.

Not sure what the Ancient Greeks were doing then, predicting the world was round and discovering that the planets move. Or the Medieval Muslims, inventing algebra.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Tue 09-Apr-13 23:12:41

If you think that has anything whatsoever at all to do with evolution, Pedro, you are sadly misinformed and, I would dare to say, too far gone for me to help you.

Hahaha! That was clearly tongue in cheek but perhaps you're a bit uptight for that right now.

I was hoping you might have more to say about the diamonds though.

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 23:13:21

"I could take apart your posts sentence by sentence, but what would be the point of that? It would be like kicking a puppy."

Go ahead and try. I'm one tough puppy. If sentence by sentence is too difficult a task, name just one error of fact or logic.

"What do you think it means that we can see a star that is a 100 million light years away?"

Understand that a "light year" is a distance, not a time. I believe those distances are real. The speed of light has been slowing down for the past two centuries we've measured it. And Harvard University has slowed and even stopped light in the laboratory 13 years ago. So maybe the speed of light is not a constant. If it were faster in the past, the light could reach earth in less time.

Also, there is a theory based on Einstein's theory of general relativity called gravitational time dilation. Time is affected by gravity. A clock at the top of a mountain ticks faster than one at the bottom. The big bang model contains two arbitrary assumptions: that the universe has no centre and no edge.

In the creationist's theory of cosmology, if the universe had an edge and the earth were at or near the centre, earth would be in a "gravitational well" and time would tick slower here than at the edge of the universe. Thus, 13.72 billion years could pass out there while a mere 6,000 years passed here on earth. Sounds crazy but such is science. If you want really weird stuff, try studying quantum mechanics.

See the brief video below for an explanation of the time dilation model:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=g73iuRlfl8E

BestValue Tue 09-Apr-13 23:22:04

"Not sure what the Ancient Greeks were doing then, predicting the world was round and discovering that the planets move. Or the Medieval Muslims, inventing algebra."

The Bible said the earth was round (actually a sphere suspended in space on nothing) before the Greeks did and thought it was supported on the backs of turtles. And algebra is math, not science.

Maths is unequivocally science.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Tue 09-Apr-13 23:26:48

In the creationist's theory of cosmology, if the universe had an edge and the earth were at or near the centre, earth would be in a "gravitational well" and time would tick slower here than at the edge of the universe.

So show me the evidence that a) the universe has an edge, b) the Earth is near the center and c) anything that would suggest that the center of the universe would necessarily be a gravitational well.

In any case you've already pointed out that a light year is a measurement of distance not time, so the time dilation is irrelevant.

Also, you asked for just a single instance when you have not used a fact. Well, I'm sorry to say that the speed of light has not decreased over time. This is one of the most insane creationist myths invented to explain the short age of the earth and you have been sucked in by a big fat juicy lie. Hope you enjoy trying to prove that one! grin

Redbindy Tue 09-Apr-13 23:34:38

I though the bible tends towards a flat earth, I don't remember any description of a sphere suspended in nothing. I do remember a description of Jesus being shown the whole world from the top of a mountain. I'm not sure who witnessed this event though. Are there any contemporary witnesses to Jesus at all?

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Tue 09-Apr-13 23:40:29

Redbindy, that's a good point. Can we have a chapter and verse please best

piprabbit Tue 09-Apr-13 23:46:38

Carbon dating is generally used to date samples which are relatively young (I'm thinking human archaeological remains dating back into pre-history here)

But I would love to hear how you explain away evidence from ancient samples analysed using potassium or uranium isotope dating? Geological samples from earth rocks have been dated as old as 4.5 billion years using these techniques.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Tue 09-Apr-13 23:48:10

Oh, and don't forget the diamonds, best, you got them wrong too.

How many errors do you want pointing out?

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 00:59:23

"Maths is unequivocally science."

Ria, your lack of understanding is truly astounding. We get PROOF in mathematics and logic. We don't get PROOF from the scientific method. This fact alone shows that math and science are inherently different.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 01:06:04

"So show me the evidence that a) the universe has an edge, b) the Earth is near the center and c) anything that would suggest that the center of the universe would necessarily be a gravitational well."

Pedro, the first two are starting assumptions. The big bang arbitrarily starts with the opposite assumptions. All are unprovable. Every scientific theory begins with unprovable assumptions. It is a reasonable assumption to concluded that the universe has an edge since we know the universe is finite. And galaxies appear to be evenly distributed in the cosmos in every direct we look, implying we are near the centre. For the answer to your third question, watch the five-minute video I posted or just read a physics textbook.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 01:16:52

"I though the bible tends towards a flat earth, I don't remember any description of a sphere suspended in nothing."

The entire flat-earth myth began in the 1800s by two guys who wrote a book to discredit Christianity. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was round by looking at the shadow of the earth on the moon during an eclipse. No one in Columbus's day thought the earth was flat. Read "Inventing the Flat Earth."

Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth ..." Circles are round. And the Hebrew word here translated as circle is best rendered as "sphere." (If you search the Internet, you'll find people who disagree with this but they are not Hebrew scholars. Plus, you'll find people who believe in evolution too. ;^))

Job 26:7 - "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing."

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 01:27:17

"Carbon dating is generally used to date samples which are relatively young (I'm thinking human archaeological remains dating back into pre-history here)"

Of course it is, Pip. I already explained that. And I'm glad you understand that. Most creationist do, but most lay evolutionists do not.

All the radioactive carbon should be gone in about 50,000 years. That's why if you find any fossils with carbon-14 still in them (that haven't been contaminated), it is a good bet they are less than 50,000 years old. This is why they generally refuse to carbon date dinosaur bones. They assume they are too old. Yet, every dinosaur bone that has ever been carbon dated still has carbon-14 in it. Oops! But evolutionists aren't known for their adherence to the data.

"But I would love to hear how you explain away evidence from ancient samples analysed using potassium or uranium isotope dating? Geological samples from earth rocks have been dated as old as 4.5 billion years using these techniques."

I don't "explain it away." I explained earlier how all radiometric dating methods are based on several unverifiable assumptions and how those methods don't provide an age. I can't keep repeating myself. New questions only, please. And don't ask questions that are already answered by links I provide.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 01:38:59

"How many errors do you want pointing out?"

You could start with just one. You haven't pointed out ANY yet. They are not errors of fact but different interpretations of facts. This is how science works. The Bible aside, that's how it is possible to have several competing scientific theories. Just look at how many theories there are about what killed the dinosaurs. Probably hundreds. They all have factual and evidential support. The reigning theory about a meteor hitting the Yucatán Peninsula just seems to have the most support right now. If another theory receives more support in the future, they will modify the theory.

I hope you guys are at least learning a lot about how science works. Much of what I'm saying in this thread is uncontroversial within the scientific community. Try to separate claims I make based on my theory and those which are based on the scientific method and on fact. Before posting, think critically and ask yourself, "How do we really know this? Has in been observed in the laboratory or in the field and thus w can justifiably call it a fact? Or is a part of theory intended to explain several facts?" You'll go a lot farther in your understanding of science if you learn how to do this.

Sunnywithshowers Wed 10-Apr-13 01:54:42

I hope you guys are at least learning a lot about how science works. Much of what I'm saying in this thread is uncontroversial within the scientific community. Try to separate claims I make based on my theory and those which are based on the scientific method and on fact. Before posting, think critically and ask yourself, "How do we really know this? Has in been observed in the laboratory or in the field and thus w can justifiably call it a fact? Or is a part of theory intended to explain several facts?" You'll go a lot farther in your understanding of science if you learn how to do this.

How patronising.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 01:56:43

Pedro, this may be what you're looking for about C-14 in diamonds. From a peer-reviewed journal and everything. Imagine that. Creationists doing real science.

www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

"After about 90,000 years of decay, there is so little 14C left that even today’s very sensitive instruments cannot detect it. … Yet 14C has been found in diamonds … even though the diamonds are allegedly 1 to 3 billion years old."

- Dr Jim Mason - B.Sc. in Engineering Physics from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Ph.D. in Experimental Nuclear Physics from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

piprabbit Wed 10-Apr-13 01:59:46

Having reread all your contributions on radiometric dating, I don't think you've specified what unverifiable assumptions there are that make it such a flawed methodology.

Could you give us some details? Or provide a link?

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 03:03:20

"Having reread all your contributions on radiometric dating, I don't think you've specified what unverifiable assumptions there are that make it such a flawed methodology.

Could you give us some details? Or provide a link?"

I did, Pip, but I'll do so again.

First, let me say that I'm not claiming it has "a flawed methodology." I believe the dating methods are valid to a point. The problem becomes when 1/ there are no other independent sources to cross-reference like dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) archaeology and recorded history and 2/ when they use it only to confirm their presuppositions.

For example, they already believe based on the geologic column, that dinosaurs are 65 million years old. So dinosaur bones are not dated. The rock strata surrounding the fossil is dated and the fossil is assumed to be the same age. (A reasonable assumption but not necessarily true for other reasons.)

Sometimes they date a fossil several different ways and get several different dates. They then pick the one which matches the geologic column and don't publish the other dates. If they don't get the date they want at all, they chock it up to contamination and don't publish the data. This is common practice.

The three primary assumptions are these:

1. that the decay rate from parent to daughter isotope has remained constant through time
2. that the rock sample contained no daughter isotopes at the start
3. that there has been no leakage across time

There is good evidence to suggest that all of these assumptions are invalid. This Wikipedia article explains what I've just said in more technical language. Wikipedia is not a creation-friendly site.:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating#Assumptions

Also, see this video and skip to where he talks about the assumptions.:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZxnjUrb8dI

What you must understand is that these assumptions are widely known and not controversial within the scientific community. Ask a scientist who uses these methods and he'll say, "Of course." He won't say I'm lying. But these assumptions are not widely publicized to students or the general public so we assume on blind faith that they know what they're doing. For me, the blinders are off. I am not anti-science one iota but I am cautious and skeptical about the claims of scientists. I think we all should be.

One more example: Mt St Helen's blew in the early 1980s. Around 2000, researchers used potassium/argon dating to date some of the newly-formed rocks. By their own dating methods, the rocks should have dated to be about 20 years old. The results came back millions of years old. Obviously something is wrong.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 03:11:02

"How patronising."

Sorry, Sunny, but in this case I'm afraid it's called for. One needs to have a grasp on how science works before they can understand a lot of the stuff I'm saying. Many of the snide remarks I am getting are not attacks on my theory but on the scientific method itself. When I debate atheists and evolutionists who are scientifically literate, they often disagree with my conclusions but rarely my methodology. I appreciate that and we have a healthy discussion. If you think I'm wrong, say so but make sure it's a valid objection first.

Sunnywithshowers Wed 10-Apr-13 03:19:16

I've been reading and not commenting, but when I read something like what you posted it doesn't encourage me to read more.

It's not as if women are short of men telling us how we should be thinking.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 03:20:57

"You may not see it as an intelligent argument, but that's different to it being argued with intelligence, I think - at least Best has sources to back up his arguments and has obviously studied it in a lot of depth - it's just refreshing to hear when compared to usual YEC arguments.

As I say, I'm not convinced, it does not make sense to me, but no harm in acknowledging someone's efforts."

Thank you, Mad. I commend you for not being convinced. (That is not my intent here anyway.) And I would be disappointed if your worldview crumbled that easily. It took a few years and thousands of hours of study before I arrived at these views. But since you seem open to learning, tell me what I've said so far that does not make sense to you and I'll see if I can help. :^)

beansmum Wed 10-Apr-13 03:33:27

Do you have a link to the Mt St Helens results?

beansmum Wed 10-Apr-13 03:40:35

it's ok - googled it.

piprabbit Wed 10-Apr-13 03:45:06

"we assume on blind faith that they know what they're doing".

Not really. Scientists are well-known for being competitive with each other and critical of each others findings. Even if the public has blind faith in scientists (which seems very, very unlikely given way that the public accepts woo that is contrary to all evidence), other scientists don't.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 04:55:00

"I've been reading and not commenting, but when I read something like what you posted it doesn't encourage me to read more. It's not as if women are short of men telling us how we should be thinking."

I actually wasn't aware that this was a women's only site? Is that true? I thought most of you were men. Not sure why. Probably because most people I debate with online about this subject are men. Definitely meant no offense to women, Sunny, and I deeply apologize if it came off that way. I think ALL people - men and women - need to learn more about science - partly because it's a fascinating subject and partly because there's never been a time in history when there's been more scientific evidence for the existence of God.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 05:20:19

To get a better understanding of dating methods and what they can prove, check out this excellent article titled, "101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe."

creation.com/age-of-the-earth

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Wed 10-Apr-13 08:01:02

*"How many errors do you want pointing out?"

You could start with just one. You haven't pointed out ANY yet. They are not errors of fact but different interpretations of facts.*

I did. But you managed to avoid answering questions on it.

Your claim that the speed of light has slowed down over time. This is not just an error it's a lie. A famous lie invented by creationists. There is literally zero evidence which suggests that the speed of light has EVER changed. But of course, with all your incessant ramblings, you probably hoped we'd forget that you didn't mention it again.

Incidentally, I watched your video, it's a load of bollocks. Perhaps it's too trivial for your incredibly advanced scientific brain, but the distances of stars proves not the age of the Earth but the age of the universe. The Earth could have popped into existence yesterday but we would still get light from stars which had been travelling for over 13 billion years which gives a minimum age of the universe.

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of physics.

I was going to take you up on the discussion of the quantum, but I think you need to go back to remedial physics first.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Wed 10-Apr-13 08:23:16

And galaxies appear to be evenly distributed in the cosmos in every direct we look, implying we are near the centre.

Another fundamental misunderstanding. The universe has no centre. Wherever you are, the galaxies appear evenly distributed. The universe is also expanding uniformly everywhere, no matter where you stand in the universe, the perception is exactly the same.

Again, fundamental flaws in your arguments because you don't understand relativity, doppler shifts or particle physics.

Januarymadness Wed 10-Apr-13 08:38:10

I cant say your view makes sense to me. There are anomalies but carbon dating on the whole is fairly reliable. Other methods of rock dating even more so. Crestionists idea of the floods sorting Fossils into strata makes little or no sense and does not explain the complete separation of the ages.

Evidence does show that the appendix may have some, non vital, use but it also shows that this use is not the origional purpose of the organ and it has EVOLVED to be that way.

The diversity of species, even within their kinds, could not have occured in the time period you are talking about and could not be explain the complete separation of one species and another. For example why animals of the same kind but not spwcies are found on completely separate continents. Speaking of which how do we explain their movement over time?

And the light year interpretation well that is just rubbish. There is no evidence that the speed of light has changed and even if it did how dramatic would the slow down have to have been to account for what we believe (know) to represent billions of years only to actually represent 6000?

You dont have to be atheist to accept these things but you do have to accept that maybe the bible is not literal.

CoteDAzur Wed 10-Apr-13 09:01:46

The problem here is that you are trying to have a conversation about astrophysics with a man who is so ignorant about the basics that he can say things like "there is carbon left in diamonds".

CoteDAzur Wed 10-Apr-13 09:05:06

Not to mention the piercing powers of observation required to come to a website called MumsNet and conclude that its posters must be mostly men.

juule Wed 10-Apr-13 09:15:00

Didn't Best mean carbon-14 left in diamonds? Can diamonds be made of carbon but have no carbon-14? Genuine question as I don't have a clue.

And regarding women on mumsnet. What's the relevance of sex to the conversation? Best could have been female for all I knew or cared.

CoteDAzur Wed 10-Apr-13 09:27:17

My point wasn't that Best is a man, but rather that I am not impressed with his powers of observation if he has come to a website named MUMSnet and thought its posters are mostly men.

Diamonds are not dated by carbon dating at all, because that is used for dating organic substances and only works for dating relatively younger substances. Many diamonds are over a billion years old. Diamonds are dated by radiometric dating that involves other (radioactive) elements.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 09:48:17

"Your claim that the speed of light has slowed down over time. This is not just an error it's a lie. A famous lie invented by creationists."

Pedro, please stop believing lies perpetuated by atheists to discredit creationists. Watch this recently banned TED talk by anti-creationist Rupert Sheldrake (before it gets removed again) about the varying speed of light and how the universal constants may not actually be constant.

Listen to the story he tells between 10:00 and 15:15. This is very recent so try to tell me creationists made it up. I've had evolutionist professors who should know better tell me that creationists made up the terms micro-and macroevolution too until I proved them wrong. You're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 10:00:34

Two recent stories about extremely rapid evolution - a prediction of creationists but a huge surprise to evolutionists. I see this type of thing practically every day, folks.

news.discovery.com/videos/humans-are-speeding-up-evolution.htm

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22039872

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 10:06:12

"The universe has no centre."

Pedro, I'll say it one last time. That is an arbitrary starting assumption of the big bang model based primarily on what is known as the Copernican Principle. It is not a fact. Please read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 10:15:05

"Not to mention the piercing powers of observation required to come to a website called MumsNet and conclude that its posters must be mostly men."

Cote, I get Google alerts daily on the key words "evolution," "creationism" and "intelligent design." I got an e-mail message with a link in it to this forum asking questions about creationism. I clicked on the link and offered my help without paying much attention to the domain. I know nothing about this site and have not perused its other pages.

Websites have all kinds of names that don't mean anything. Shoot me for making a mistake but ad hominem attacks don't become you and will not replace your need for a cogent rebuttal against by arguments. If you don't want to learn about a view other than your own and are happy living inside your own little bubble, then please go away. Some people on here actually care about truth.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 10:24:54

"Didn't Best mean carbon-14 left in diamonds? Can diamonds be made of carbon but have no carbon-14? Genuine question as I don't have a clue."

Thank you, juule. Yes, I meant carbon-14 and no after about 50,000 years a diamond should not have any carbon-14 left. It is the hardest substance known on earth so contamination is ruled out as a possibility. The logical conclusion is that they are not millions of years old - especially considering we can make them in a laboratory in a few weeks.

Do some research and you'll find that every single thing we are told takes millions of years to form can be formed in days or weeks when given the right conditions - often the very same conditions a global flood would provide. Evolutionists can no longer use arguments like this to support their long-age theory. The truth is out and the Emperor has no clothes.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Wed 10-Apr-13 10:43:47

Pedro, please stop believing lies perpetuated by atheists to discredit creationists.

Best, please stop believing lies perpetuated by creationists to discredit science.

I'll say it again there is no evidence, none at all, which suggests a change in the velocity of light and certainly not since we've been measuring it. It is a universal constant.

I think you have a problem with this because to accept this constant, it destroys all your 'theories' about the age of the universe.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Wed 10-Apr-13 10:51:14

Pedro, I'll say it one last time. That is an arbitrary starting assumption of the big bang model based primarily on what is known as the Copernican Principle. It is not a fact. Please read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."

I've read it thanks, and apparently understood it better than you did.

The big bang model is not arbitrary, it is backed by an overwhelming amount of evidence.

The suggestion that we are at the centre of the universe is not only arrogant, it has zero evidence.

But let's say you are right and that we are near the centre of the universe and in your lovely gravitational well. Whilst this would affect time as we measure it, it would have no effect on light since light speed is constant to every observer in any level of gravitational pull or at any velocity. Therefore, the lightyear is a fixed distance and to travel that distance will always take light the same time in a vacuum. So if you are looking at a galaxy billions of lightyears away, the light has travelled for billions of years and that gives a minimum age of the universe. No mater how close the fictional centre you are.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Wed 10-Apr-13 11:02:52

Thank you, juule. Yes, I meant carbon-14 and no after about 50,000 years a diamond should not have any carbon-14 left. It is the hardest substance known on earth so contamination is ruled out as a possibility.

Another flawed argument. Hardness of a material has nothing to do with contamination. Diamonds are not pure carbon, they have contaminations, the most common being nitrogen, around 0.1% in gem quality stones. Nearby radioactive material could easily trigger the C14 production process.

Aside from that, it is basically impossible to get a zero reading of C14 and the contamination and the non-zero levels cited by creationists are well below the measurement error tolerance.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 11:16:57

"I'll say it again there is no evidence, none at all, which suggests a change in the velocity of light and certainly not since we've been measuring it. It is a universal constant."

Obviously Pedro, you are too blinded by your own dogma to even watch the video. Anyone who is really interested in truth would not behave as you do. I will not respond to your questions any further. I have presented plenty of evidence to support my views and you have presented none to support yours. It is obvious to me that your rejection of this has little to do with the evidence and much to do with your ego. I don't know if you are an atheist but I certainly suspect so. As the old saying goes an atheist can't find God for the same reason a bank robber can't find a policeman.

mummytime Wed 10-Apr-13 11:25:25

Not all diamonds are 1- 3 billion years old. You can make them in the lab (from peanut butter, the video is on youtube).

Not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists.

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 11:55:03

"The big bang model is not arbitrary, it is backed by an overwhelming amount of evidence."

I did not say the big bang model was arbitrary. I said the starting assumptions that the universe has no centre and no edge are arbitrary. I believe in the big bang. The Bible predicted it at a time when most others believed the universe was eternal. The expanding universe is eluded to 14 times in the Bible.

Arno Penzias who won a Nobel Prize for co-discovering the CBR (cosmic background radiation) said: "The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."

(Note: There is a growing list of scientists who reject the big bang model. Many of its tenets go against known laws of physics. For example, Boyle's gas law would prevent a swirling gas cloud from coalescing into a planet. Incidentally, Robert Boyle, the father of modern chemistry was a Christian.)

BestValue Wed 10-Apr-13 12:02:20

"Not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists."

That is true. In fact, probably most aren't. I wasn't for nearly 40 years. But I would say (and this is going to be controversial), if they aren't it's usually because they don't know either science or the Bible very well. (At least that's been my experience with the ones I meet.) Likely they just haven't given it much thought like me. It's not a salvation issue. You can believe in evolution and an old earth and still be a Christian. But then again, you can still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and be a Christian too so that's not saying much. ;^)

bumbleymummy Wed 10-Apr-13 12:30:45

This is a very interesting thread!

Can I just ask - do YEC believe that the universe is young too or just the earth/our solar system/our galaxy?

bumbleymummy Wed 10-Apr-13 12:31:39

Sorry - some x-posting!

Sunnywithshowers Wed 10-Apr-13 12:45:24

Thanks Best smile

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Wed 10-Apr-13 13:47:12

The no centre position is not an assumed starting position. It's a conclusion drawn from the evidence obtained through measurements made of the speed at which galaxies move away from one another.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Wed 10-Apr-13 13:54:19

In terms of evidence, I could point you to plenty of youtube videos as you have done but I suspect the you would find them as uncompelling as I find yours.

monsterchild Wed 10-Apr-13 13:54:34

I've been liking but it seems to me that what you're saying best is that changing the basic assumptions through which you view evidence facts will support any theory. Which I agree with. However it means that given time and resources I can make a very good argument using facts to support the truth of pretty much any religion.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Wed 10-Apr-13 14:07:21

But if you really want something, this article explains why a decaying light speed theory is a ridiculous position to take.

Januarymadness Wed 10-Apr-13 14:09:47

I dont see the point in attacking people or their beliefs personally. Open debate is the best way forward.

Please Best could you answer some of my points. If you believe light has slowed down so things are not as far away as we think. What kind of rate of slowdown do you think has occured. Why is this rate not continuing and if the furthest visible object away from us is actually only 6000 lightyears away from us why cant we see it bettter?

monsterchild Wed 10-Apr-13 14:11:19

I also find it interesting that unlike many scientists three is not one shred of unexplainable data in your theory. Nothing that you have to work around or account for that doesn't fit in nicely. This is not how I have seen other scientists work. There always seems too be some"rogue"or uncooperative data that has to be asterisked. Your theory is very tidy. More like a legal argument that a scientific one...

backonlybriefly99 Wed 10-Apr-13 14:32:30

I watched the video Bestvalue refers to about light speed. There's quite a lot of and this is what I've found so far.

He complains that science is influenced by a world view that is essentially "materialism" Which is basically seeing what is there rather than what you'd like to be there.

He has 10 things that he thinks we say that we are wrong about.

#1 'The universe is machinelike'. He is objecting to cause and effect. I suppose it would be interesting if you dropped a stone and instead of falling to the ground it turned into a bowl of Petunias (thank you Douglas Adams). I'm afraid that our view is supported by evidence and experience.

#2 'Matter isn't conscious". He would have us think that trees for example are conscious which doesn't sound too bad, but then by his argument so is that pencil, that toilet roll and that small rock. He should have invited a small pebble along to speak on his behalf. Might be a problem for people that as it would mean your skin and your thumb had it's own consciousness

#3 "Laws of nature have never changed since the big bang". Not my area, but probably best if gravity doesn't stop working on Wednesdays and it hasn't so far. Hands up anyone who has noticed physical laws changing.

#4 "Total of matter and energy is the same". I'm no expert but if he is saying energy goes away where does it go?

#5 "Nature has no purpose or plan". Well as much as he might like to think that the clouds rain on you on purpose it doesn't work that way.

#6 "Everything you inherit is in your genes". What else would you inherit? Even Christians don't claim you inherit your soul from parents.

#7 "Memories are stored in your brain". Where else? in a cloud? In God's notebook?

#8 "Your mind is inside your head". Well clearly his is lower down so I guess we are sometimes wrong.

#9 "Psychic phenomena don't exist". I wouldn't rule out say 'Telepathy', but if it existed then it would one day be explainable in terms of energy fields and therefore wouldn't be 'psychic' (which is just a more respectable sounding term for 'magic'). Also we do investigate such things. We don't dismiss them out of hand.

#10 "Mechanistic(physical) Medicine is the only kind that works". Alternative medicine just doesn't (aside from the placebo effect which is not really the medicine working). Trials are conducted all the time and if any do work they are no longer alternative. And btw we do have therapy and such, but I guess he doesn't know that.

After listing those he says that he looked up old books and the speed of light was different. He thinks this is a revelation, but it's not news to most people.

The speed of light has been measured many times with increasing accuracy, Gradually we got better at it and it got closer and closer to the speed we know today.

I don't have a link handy, but I vaguely recall reading that if it really had been increasing at that rate then 'Adam' would have been able to outrun it.

He complains that all these things that he disagrees with are the default position of all educated people. I can only suggest that this is a hint he might want to consider carefully.

backonlybriefly99 Wed 10-Apr-13 14:36:11

Ah good. Pedro found a proper link to the speed of light thing. I see I was remembering it backwards. The silly claim is that it is decreasing not increasing.

backonlybriefly99 Wed 10-Apr-13 14:55:16

Okay finished watching the video and I see he caps it off by claiming that looking at a star may affect it.

I loved superman comics when I was a kid, but I soon learned that eyes are receivers and don't really send out beams.

CoteDAzur Wed 10-Apr-13 14:56:43

"Not all diamonds are 1- 3 billion years old. You can make them in the lab"

Those are called artificial diamonds. We are talking about diamonds that are formed in earth over hundreds of thousands of years, and frequently are over a billion years old.

It is absolutely nonsensical to claim that the Earth is only a few thousands of years old, since it contains substances that are over a billion year old.

It is absolutely nonsensical to claim that the universe is only a few thousands of years old, since it contains stars that are billions of years old and we see the light of stars that are billions of light-years away.

The only way that the Earth is 6000 years old would be if its Creator is a trickster who has put billion year old substances in a 6000 year old Earth to fool us. (Very funny hmm)

bumbleymummy Wed 10-Apr-13 15:03:07

cote, I think the point they were making is that if it is possible to make diamonds in a lab in a few days/weeks then perhaps they don't take hundreds of thousands of years to form in the earth...

CoteDAzur Wed 10-Apr-13 15:15:12

That is not a "point". That is a misconception.

Laboratory conditions are artificial (obviously). In nature, diamonds take over a billion years to form.

We know this process. We know the age of tested diamonds to be around or over a billion years.

Unless your "point" is that it is all a web of lies hmm it seems to me that there is no point there whatsoever.

bumbleymummy Wed 10-Apr-13 15:45:12

It's not my point - just the point I think is being made. I could be wrong.

bumbleymummy Wed 10-Apr-13 15:58:47

Do they take hundreds of thousands of years or over a billion years cote? You've said both...

CoteDAzur Wed 10-Apr-13 16:13:33

Iirc it was a minimum of 900,000 years, which is "hundreds of thousands of years" and most diamonds we find are over a billion years old. Many are several billions of years old.

I can't remember where I read the 900,000 figure, but if you are interested in not only catching me in a mistake but actually learning something the age of diamonds should be easy enough to Google.

The point is that they are so much older than 6000 years that it doesn't matter if most we find are over 900K years old or several billion years old. It is preposterous to say the Earth is a mere 6000 years old when there is stuff in it that takes hundreds of thousands of years to make, which we then date and find are about a billion years old.

Unless, as I said, God is a trickster that has created the Earth 6000 years ago, with much older stuff already in it.

bumbleymummy Wed 10-Apr-13 16:23:55

Cote, why are you acting so defensive? I'm not trying to 'catch you out'. You said both, I asked you to clarify hmm

infamouspoo Wed 10-Apr-13 16:24:03

unscientific question here, but reading the Torah, how does one arrive at the whole young earth thingy anyhow. Reading it in hebrew that is. I've never managed it. Does the latin/English translation change it somehow or do you need to read it as a young earther?

CoteDAzur Wed 10-Apr-13 16:26:19

I had a look around for you, and while I couldn't find the minimum theoretical amount of time it would take for a diamond to naturally form, I found that:

"As a generalization, most diamonds formed more than 990 million years ago, deep within the earth, from either of two rock types, peridotite and eclogite. They were stored below the base of cratons for varying periods of time, some as long as 3,200 million years, before being transported to the surface." here

Wikipedia says "Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years (25% to 75% of the age of the Earth"

Unfortunately for the fundamentalists among us, "Scientists have unearthed diamonds more than 4 billion years old and trapped inside crystals of zircon."

CoteDAzur Wed 10-Apr-13 16:28:08

bumbley - The questioning over a detail which doesn't at all affect the point does look like your are trying to catch a mistake. Apologies if that wasn't the case and you were only too lazy to Google it yourself wink

Hemisphere Wed 10-Apr-13 18:06:42

BestValue:

I noticed you were getting somewhat hung up on this whole carbon dating issue, particularly around dinosaur bones etc.

Let us first clarify that when people find 'dinosaur bones', they are actually finding a fossil. A fossil is NOT the original object, it is instead a collection of minerals that have replaced the object.

Now, you find the discovery of carbon-14 inside these fossils to be a case against them being millions of years old. However, it is perfectly possible, even expected, to get carbon-14 in very old fossils. This is because fossils regularly contain uranium or thorium. As uranium decays (over millions of years) it releases alpha particles.

Inside our million year old fossils all of our original C-14 has decayed into nitrogen-14. So, millions of years after the bone 'died' we end up with some N-14 and some decaying uranium. The alpha particles from the decaying uranium provide the energy required to initiate a process whereby N-14 is converted back into C-14. This is why very old fossils contain C-14 that can make people mistakenly believe they are only 20-50 thousand years old. Hopefully this clears up any confusion you had.

bumbleymummy Wed 10-Apr-13 19:13:57

Wasn't tissue found inside dinosaur bones recently?

CoteDAzur Wed 10-Apr-13 19:46:53

Talking about dinosaurs, how about the age of meteor craters?

This one in South Africa is apparently 2 billion years old.

And this one is thought to have caused the dinosaurs their 135-million-year dominance on earth. In any case, it dates from about 65 million years ago.

No doubt everyone sees where I'm going with this.

infamouspoo Wed 10-Apr-13 20:03:02

would it be....that the earth is actually billions of years old?
Even after reading all this creationist stuff I just cannot get my head around the contortions necassary to believe the earth is 6000 years old and ignore all science and thousands of scientists. While I dont actually care what individuals think inside their own heads, some of this stuff is affecting schools and being taught to children. That does bother me.

bumbleymummy Wed 10-Apr-13 21:44:29

Cote, I think the idea being presented is that the dating is wrong. I'm sure BV will be back later to confirm...

CoteDAzur Wed 10-Apr-13 22:05:36

Oh yes, how could I forget. Radiometric dating is wrong. Geologists, scientists, astrophysicists are all wrong wrong wrong.

BestValue is right. He gets alerts about threads on the internet about YEC and related nonsense, flies over to "help" us (no less hmm). Because he is right and everyone else is wrong. All measurements done in the past hundred years, whether it is about the speed of light, distances between stars, or how long ago the dinosaurs lived... all of it is wrong wrong wrong.

But fear not. BestValue is right. And he has arrived to help us!

<cries tears of gratitude>

beansmum Wed 10-Apr-13 22:49:16

You're all forgetting that BestValue is working off three primary assumptions...

1. God exists.
2. He has revealed information to us about His creation in the Bible.
3. The Bible can be understood through a plain reading of the text.

It is perfectly possible that the earth is 6000 years old if these three things are true and

4. God wants to make it difficult to the point of impossibility for any sane person to believe that He exists.

Even if 1,2, and 3 are fair assumptions, 4 seems a little far-fetched to me. But God works in mysterious ways...

Hey, I don't think that is fair Cote.

nightlurker Thu 11-Apr-13 03:00:27

Interestingly enough, even 1500+ years ago there wasn't a complete consensus about whether to take the creation story completely literally.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 03:31:05

"This is a very interesting thread! Can I just ask - do YEC believe that the universe is young too or just the earth/our solar system/our galaxy?"

Thanks, bumble. I hope I am partly responsible reason for that. I believe there are some of both but I think the majority believe the universe is young as well.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 03:35:12

"In terms of evidence, I could point you to plenty of youtube videos as you have done but I suspect the you would find them as uncompelling as I find yours."

Probably not if it were made by a real scientist at a respectable conference like TED talks. On the other hand, if it were just some random person raving on a message board without providing evidence, you're probably right. (Oops! Did I say that out loud?)

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 03:41:08

"I've been liking but it seems to me that what you're saying best is that changing the basic assumptions through which you view evidence facts will support any theory. Which I agree with. However it means that given time and resources I can make a very good argument using facts to support the truth of pretty much any religion."

Yes, that is what I'm saying. However, I would argue that the Christian worldview is the ONLY one you can make a logically-consistent case for. (If there were another, I would switch to it immediately.) I know that's a radical claim but I think I can back it up. It would be off the topic of this thread, though, and more philosophical in nature. I like sticking to science.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 03:45:37

"But if you really want something, this article explains why a decaying light speed theory is a ridiculous position to take."

Pedro, I think you mentioned before that I was clinging to the speed of light issue because, without it, my worldview crumbles. I'm actually not committed to it and prefer the gravitational time dilation theory. But in all honestly, I don't really give the distant starlight problem much thought. Perhaps I should. Incidentally, the big bang model has its own starlight problem. Google "The Horizon Problem."

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 03:52:45

"Please Best could you answer some of my points. If you believe light has slowed down so things are not as far away as we think. What kind of rate of slowdown do you think has occured. Why is this rate not continuing and if the furthest visible object away from us is actually only 6000 lightyears away from us why cant we see it bettter?"

Good questions, January. As I just wrote above, I am not committed to the speed of light slowing down. There is just good evidence that it is not a constant. And it's possible the rate of slow down IS continuing or that i is fluctuating. Watch the video I posted to see why. They fixed the sped of light by definition in 1972 so it could be slowing down and they wouldn't even know it.

No one says things are not as far away as we think. Young earth creationists believe those distances are real.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 03:56:57

"I also find it interesting that unlike many scientists three is not one shred of unexplainable data in your theory. Nothing that you have to work around or account for that doesn't fit in nicely. This is not how I have seen other scientists work. There always seems too be some"rogue"or uncooperative data that has to be asterisked. Your theory is very tidy. More like a legal argument that a scientific one..."

Monster, if you're talking to me, I think I love you. That's pretty much how I see it too. And this is just the beginning. There are very few anomalies that this view does not explain - unlike secular science. :^)

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:05:38

"Those are called artificial diamonds. We are talking about diamonds that are formed in earth over hundreds of thousands of years, and frequently are over a billion years old."

Perhaps they call them "artificial" to retain the value of the ones they find so as not to destroy the entire jewellery industry. Just a theory. But similar things are going on in the pharmaceutical industry. I'm no conspiracy theorist, though.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:06:51

"cote, I think the point they were making is that if it is possible to make diamonds in a lab in a few days/weeks then perhaps they don't take hundreds of thousands of years to form in the earth..."

Bingo, bumble. (Hey, that's cute.) :^)

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:11:47

"Laboratory conditions are artificial (obviously). In nature, diamonds take over a billion years to form."

I agree with you, Cote. Will you extend your analogy to abiogenesis? If they ever succeed in making life in the laboratory, I'll stand right there with you and say, "That doesn't prove it really happened that way on earth." (Except that if they really did make life in the lab, I would probably be intellectually honest, change my view and become an atheist.)

RichManPoorManBeggarmanThief Thu 11-Apr-13 04:11:56

So if you think the world is only 6,000 years old, do you think dinosaurs didnt exist at all, or that they did exist, but at the same time as people? If they existed in biblical times, how come no-one mentions these absolutely massive animals that are wandering around the place?

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:16:53

"Unless, as I said, God is a trickster that has created the Earth 6000 years ago, with much older stuff already in it."

I wouldn't buy that God is a trickster. And I don't believe he created the earth with the diamonds already in them (although he has the power and the prerogative to do so). But the creation he made was mature. Adam was one day old on Day 7 but he could walk, talk and take care of himself. If we were to see Adam, we might think he was in his 20s. This doesn't make God a trickster because he told us what he did in his Word.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:22:19

"unscientific question here, but reading the Torah, how does one arrive at the whole young earth thingy anyhow. Reading it in hebrew that is. I've never managed it. Does the latin/English translation change it somehow or do you need to read it as a young earther?"

Infamous, the original Hebrew indicates a literal six-day creation. I could give quotes and evidence if you're interested but it would be a lengthy answer and there are many other questions to get to as well.

I covered it here on national TV right near the beginning. (Saves me a lot of typing.)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujIcThSVJuM

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:26:09
BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:31:28

"I noticed you were getting somewhat hung up on this whole carbon dating issue, particularly around dinosaur bones etc."

Not really, Hemi. It is only one small part of the mass of evidence I've accumulated. Thank you for your detailed answer. I believe I have read a rebuttal to that and when I find it I might post it to get your response. It is something I will seriously consider however. Thanks again.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:34:58

"Wasn't tissue found inside dinosaur bones recently?"

Yes dozens of times, bumble. And possibly DNA this past January. They also find frogs - still alive - that are supposedly millions of years old in a state of suspended animation. They start moving around and die shortly after. Weird, huh?

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:37:36

"While I dont actually care what individuals think inside their own heads, some of this stuff is affecting schools and being taught to children. That does bother me."

It bothers me too, bumble. I don't advocate teaching creationism in public schools. At least not in science class.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:39:40

"Cote, I think the idea being presented is that the dating is wrong. I'm sure BV will be back later to confirm..."

Yes, bumble. I like how you get me. If I believed in soul mates I'd think you were mine. (You complete me.) :^)

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:41:27

"But fear not. BestValue is right. And he has arrived to help us!

<cries tears of gratitude>"

You're welcome, Cote. Glad I could help. ;^)

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:47:35

"4. God wants to make it difficult to the point of impossibility for any sane person to believe that He exists.

Even if 1,2, and 3 are fair assumptions, 4 seems a little far-fetched to me. But God works in mysterious ways..."

Aww, bean, you had me going there. For a second I thought you were on my side. Some of the things secular scientists believe in seem pretty insane too - like quantum mechanics - and yet they are true. At one time, secularists thought it was an insane idea for the earth to revolve around the sun. But it turned out Galileo, the Christian, was right.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:49:48

"Hey, I don't think that is fair Cote."

Thanks, SCSF, for backing me up. I apologize to you for my tone in my first post to you. I was wrong and I'm sorry.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 04:54:09

"Interestingly enough, even 1500+ years ago there wasn't a complete consensus about whether to take the creation story completely literally."

That's true, Night. I believe Thomas Aquinas talked about an old earth. But I disagree with what some theistic evolutionists have said that creationism and a literal interpretation of Genesis is a recent phenomenon of only the past 100 years or so. If that were true and I couldn't trust that God meant what he said in the Bible, I would throw it away tomorrow.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 05:01:44

Hemi, what I was talking about before came from this site in the comments below the article:

creation.com/age-of-the-earth
-----------------------------------------------------
Someone writes:

"I am also a chemist, and will speak to radiocarbon dating listed here. Carbon-14 found in coal, oil, and fossil wood may be generated by nearby uranium deposits producing carbon 14 from nitrogen 14. Thus, “new” carbon 14 is being formed, long after the organism has died. When measuring carbon 14 in any sample, we scientists need to take into account any contamination the sample may have been exposed to, including uranium. That’s why we double and triple check the age of the samples using a number of different techniques. If we suspect uranium contamination, we can test that hypothesis, and if found, we can throw out carbon dating as a reliable technique for dating that particular sample. Science wins on consilience, the “jumping together” of many different forms of analysis, methods, techniques, and studies. If you would read the articles you cite, you would find the authors have very good explanations for why some of the radiometric dates don't match what we think they ought to be."

Jonathan Sarfati responds:

"I am a chemist too, so an argument from authority—such as “we scientists”—won’t work on me. Indeed, I dealt with this very claim in my article Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend: Objections.

In summary, it would need a neutron flux many orders of magnitude stronger than observed today. Even more seriously, this theory would predict a very strong correlation between nitrogen content and 14C activity, so high-N samples should be “dated” far younger. Indeed, this would be serious enough to invalidate radiocarbon dating completely.

About “consilience”, the above 101 evidences are very consilient, I would have thought ;)"
--------------------------------------------------

What say you, Hemi? Why not Google the article Sarfati references and write back. I'm very open to learning and you seem knowledgeable about this. If I'm wrong, I'll stop using it.

Best, no probs. I don't agree with you on pretty much anything, but there is no reason for this to be anything other than civil.

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Thu 11-Apr-13 08:17:52

It bothers me too, bumble. I don't advocate teaching creationism in public schools. At least not in science class.

What an odd thing to say when you've just spent days providing an argument for the scientific proof of creationism. Sounds like you actually think it's a crock of shite after all..... welcome to the club!

Januarymadness Thu 11-Apr-13 08:36:21

If you arent arguing the distances you are agreeing that the light would have taken billions of years to get to us and thus the universe must be billions of years old. Or if you think light has slowed down from the extent we cannot distinguish between 6000 and several billion we are talking about a rate of slowdown that would be obviously measurable in living memory. And I mean obviously measurable by halving ect rather than tiny proportions which could be easily explained by the fact that our analysis is getting better.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 09:30:54

"Best, no probs. I don't agree with you on pretty much anything, but there is no reason for this to be anything other than civil."

Agreed, SCSF. I'm not asking you to answer this in detail here but, after reading this thread, do you at least have a better understanding of WHY you disagree with me and do you feel you are better able to articulate your point of view using logic, reason and evidence? If so, I will feel my time here has been worthwhile.

My mission in life, more than anything else, is to encourage people to think critically about their worldview, ensure that it conforms to the laws of logic, can withstand tough criticism and can ultimately be communicated without ambiguity or fear.

I hope you can agree with me on THAT. :^)

infamouspoo Thu 11-Apr-13 09:49:38

dh is formulating a response. He's a research physicist and knows excatly why you are wrong regarding the speed of light etc.

infamouspoo Thu 11-Apr-13 09:54:48

but I will stick to asking you, you do realise that biblical historians are still debating much of the translation of the biblical hebrew? As well as the authenticity of the whole Torah. Its tribal myths. Myths to explain both the origins of the universe and the origins of the tribe.
Have you ever read it in the original hebrew? yourself? not relying on christian translations?

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 10:00:52

"What an odd thing to say when you've just spent days providing an argument for the scientific proof of creationism. Sounds like you actually think it's a crock of shite after all"

Not at all, Pedro. There is a time and place for everything. Science must remain naturalistic. Because creationism starts with God and the Bible, it has no place in the science classroom. But that doesn't mean it's not true.

If I bought into your scientistic* view that science is the only purveyor of truth, then my statement WOULD INDEED be "an odd thing to say." But because scientism* is self-refuting and irrational (like saying there are NO ABSOLUTES) it is a perfectly valid view to hold (and one that I would think you of all people, Pedro, should commend me for holding.)

I don't call atheism a religion (I realize it is just the lack of belief in any deities) but I would say that expressing the opinion that atheism follows logically from science should stay out of the classroom as well but there are a lot of teachers and professors who refuse to do that.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

P.S. I never claimed to provide "scientific proof" of creationism. Science does not - and cannot - provide absolute PROOF of anything (as every scientist knows) and your use of the word 'proof' demonstrates to me your total lack of understanding of the scientific method.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 10:12:55

"Have you ever read it in the original hebrew? yourself? not relying on christian translations?"

I've studied some of it in Hebrew lexicons a few years ago - specifically the words 'nephesh' (soul) and 'ruach' (spirit) - which, in part, caused me to reject the concepts of the immortal soul and eternal hell as unbiblical.

For my understanding of the days in Genesis, I rely on scholars of Hebrew who are in near-unanimous agreement that they are literal 24-hour days. Any ambiguity is made clear when God gives Moses the 4th commandment in Exodus. In commanding rest on the Sabbath, He says, "I created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th so I want you to work 6 days and rest on the 7th." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

You'd have a very tough time changing my mind on the days. It would take more evidence than I believe you've got but I am open to hearing what you have to say.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 10:20:32

"dh is formulating a response. He's a research physicist and knows excatly why you are wrong regarding the speed of light etc."

Infamous, I'm willing to listen but frankly I would take the word of Rupert Sheldrake and the guy who is in charge of measuring the constants for the entire world over your anonymous friend. Even if the speed of light thing is wrong, I rarely use it anyway. I mentioned it here casually. It only became an issue after someone challenged it and because the banning of Rupert Sheldrake's talk was so prominent and so recent. I prefer the gravitational time dilation model. (And ultimately I have the word of God so that trumps all.)

infamouspoo Thu 11-Apr-13 10:30:34

dh = husband. Not an anoymous friend. Only been a physicist for 30 years at a leading university but dont let that get in the way hmm

As for hebrew scholars, no, there isnt near-unananimous agreement. Not even close. Not among the liberal, conservative, reform, progressive or even orthodox rabbis and scholars. The vast majority of jews, like Christians, do not take the 'days' literally.
Even Maimonides, the most revered jewish Rabbi and scholar argued against a literal interpretation.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 10:31:03

One more thing about the speed of light. (Remember that it is a distance, not a time. And it is measured in a vacuum.) Isn't the whole point of a black hole that its gravity is so strong that even light cannot escape it? So as light is travelling through space (which is not a true vacuum*) wouldn't it be attracted by all sorts of things as it passes them and thus slow down?

If I'm wrong here let me know. Again, I don't have anything invested in this argument whatsoever but I'm willing to learn.

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Outer_space

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 10:36:36

Regarding the Torah and the days of Genesis, the year 2013-2014 is the Hebrew year 5774. So they're off by a few hundred years. I forgive them. But that counts as evidence for my view. :^)

NotDavidTennant Thu 11-Apr-13 10:58:36

These debates are pointless, as there are internet links that can back up any position under the sun, and a layperson with no detailed knowledge of science has no way of knowing what's relaible or not.

Ultimately it has to come down to whether you think geologists, biologists, astrophysicists and scientists form a whole bunch of related disciplines have got everything hideously wrong for at least the last hundred years, or if a group Bible literalists are distorting the scientific evidence to fit with their Biblically inspired belief in a young earth.

If you're a neutral here, that's what you have to choose between. Everything else is basically noise.

NotDavidTennant Thu 11-Apr-13 11:15:44

"One more thing about the speed of light. (Remember that it is a distance, not a time. And it is measured in a vacuum.) Isn't the whole point of a black hole that its gravity is so strong that even light cannot escape it? So as light is travelling through space (which is not a true vacuum*) wouldn't it be attracted by all sorts of things as it passes them and thus slow down?"

Well first off, the speed of light is neither a distance or a time, it's a speed. I think you're confusing it with a light-year.

Secondly, in special relativity the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, c. The actual speed of an individual photon need not be c - interactions with matter can cause photons to slow down. However, I'm not sure this helps your theory, as you're proposing that photons travelled much faster, not slower, in the past. In relativity, c acts as a kind of universal speed limit, so no photon can ever exceed c. For your theory to work, you would have to propose that the constant c was much larger in the past (and hence not a constant).

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Thu 11-Apr-13 11:46:24

Science - noun - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Is this not what you are doing with your evidence for creation?

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 11:47:13

These debates are pointless . . . Everything else is basically noise.

NDT, you remind me of the chess-playing pigeon who swoops in, knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. After not even making so much as one previous comment you interrupt and inform us that what we are doing here is totally pointless nonsense.

I suppose you would rule out a priori any evidence that doesn't support your view but that is not how the world works. If you have read the thread from beginning to end, you know that I put forth 3 starting assumptions. Those assumptions are backed by an abundance of evidence that is available in every half-decently-sized library in the world but they are too broad in scope to go into in depth on this forum.

Once you accept them, you must look for internal consistency and errors in my chain of reasoning. No one has, as of yet, pointed out a flaw in my logic or to any violations of the law of non-contradiction. I contend that just about any worldview (except the Christian worldview) is easy to dismantle using logic alone. (Atheism is the easiest. It implodes in about a minute and half.*)

"Ultimately it has to come down to whether you think geologists, biologists, astrophysicists and scientists form a whole bunch of related disciplines have got everything hideously wrong for at least the last hundred years, or if a group Bible literalists are distorting the scientific evidence to fit with their Biblically inspired belief in a young earth."

NDT, presents us with his first logical fallacy (not bad for a first post) - a false dichotomy. Perhaps "geologists, biologists, astrophysicists and scientists from a whole bunch of related disciplines" haven't got "EVERYTHING" wrong? If that were so, I wouldn't be able to claim any of their research as evidence (which I've done ad nauseam). Perhaps Bible literalists are not "distorting" the evidence but honestly believe what they believe and are just sincerely mistaken?

Or what is most likely is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Perhaps I am wrong on some things and they are wrong on some things. But I have one piece of evidence they do not have - the reliable, eye-witness testimony of Someone who was there, knows what happened and caused it to be written down.

* www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCUKZ4e7zRw

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 12:02:08

"Is this not what you are doing with your evidence for creation?"

Yes, that is one definition of science. The word "science" literally means knowledge. But science rules out a priori any supernatural explanations. I accept this restriction as the way things should be.

Because creationism and atheism both have theological implications which science is impotent to comment on, they must be kept out of the science classroom and perhaps taught in a course on religion or philosophy. This is my view and I think it is yours too. So why make an artificial disagreement argument where none exists?

I can always see both sides of an issue so I can attempt to make a case for teaching creationism in the classroom if you'd really like me to. But I think that would be counter-productive on this forum and a waste of both your time and mine.

BestValue Thu 11-Apr-13 12:14:47

"Well first off, the speed of light is neither a distance or a time, it's a speed. I think you're confusing it with a light-year."

Yes, I'm sorry, NDT, you are correct. I misspoke. My bad.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Thu 11-Apr-13 12:22:54

*"Your claim that the speed of light has slowed down over time. This is not just an error it's a lie. A famous lie invented by creationists."

Pedro, please stop believing lies perpetuated by atheists to discredit creationists. Watch this recently banned TED talk by anti-creationist Rupert Sheldrake (before it gets removed again) about the varying speed of light and how the universal constants may not actually be constant.*

So when you made this comment, you did so having no real understanding of light speed or even any kind of interest in the topic? It certainly didn't sound like you mentioned it casually.

So it became an issue when it was pointed out that you were wrong?

What other points have you made casually?

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Thu 11-Apr-13 12:26:40

best can I ask how old you think the Earth is and how old you think the Universe is?

infamouspoo Thu 11-Apr-13 15:56:04

Best, you're startig with the premise that the bible, the hebrew Torah, is the written word of God.

So that has to be your first point of proof. The vast majority of biblical historians, using historical techniques, think the Torah has multiple human authors and was written down and revised repeatedly over hundreds of years. Hence the numerous contradictions, difficulties with the hebrew translation (as you know, it was written without any vowel markers) and varying styles.
Once you realise that none of it is 'the written word of od, given to Moshe' blah de blah, then the rest of your stuff just falls apart.

Januarymadness Thu 11-Apr-13 19:27:10

let me break this down.

As most people understand it.

If we call Earth E and random, light emiting stella object A.

It is currently assessed that object A is so far away that it would take light traveling at constant C (the speed that we know light to travel at) 13 billion years to travel the distance.

so light travelling at C would take 13 billion years to travel distance D.

The argument I would give that if we can see A, via the light it has emitted, that light would have been emitted 13 billion years ago thus the universe is far older than 6000 years.

do we all agree that this is a reasonable layman (non yec) conclusion given the info provided?

Januarymadness Thu 11-Apr-13 19:33:20

Best is not arguing, as most people would, that actually A must be closer than we think.

Best is arguing that the point of emission the light travelled millions of times faster than C and that spacial interactions coincidentally slowed it as it approached us meaning that the light could have been emitted much later than we think but still have travvelled the same distance. is that right?

Januarymadness Thu 11-Apr-13 19:43:58

so by that theory a star 6.5 billion light years away must have emmitted light that travelled at half the speed of the light emitted by A and slowed down at the same rate?

also both of these would be faster than light out of our own sun. But modern science has not witnessed any evidence of this phenomina yet?

o kaaaayyyy

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Thu 11-Apr-13 19:48:43

Yes, I think that we can all agree that the slowing light speed theory is flawed at best.

It's also interesting to note that those who assert the theory believe that the speed of light happened to stabilise at almost exactly the same time that we developed the instruments to measure it accurately. Pretty big coincidence that.....

Januarymadness Thu 11-Apr-13 19:57:48

oh oh I forgot a bit.

And, despite stellar objects not being uniformly spread to induce these light inteactions, the effects are exactly the same no matter what direction we look in......

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Thu 11-Apr-13 20:06:11

Once you accept them, you must look for internal consistency and errors in my chain of reasoning. No one has, as of yet, pointed out a flaw in my logic or to any violations of the law of non-contradiction.

You keep saying this even though several people have pointed out flaws in your logic. Most notably that you are clueless about the speed of light, asserted truth in the theory that it has slowed (quite aggressively and rudely) with yet another dodgy youtube video, then got challenged with some actual reasoning which you couldn't refute, backtracked on what you said, claimed you didn't really understand it anyway and weren't that interested and went back to telling us that the evidence for the existence of god and the truth of the bible are solid but you're not prepared to discuss it.

It sounds like a) you're not actually listening, b) you're deluded about not ever having a single person ever demonstrate you are wrong despite the plethora of evidence on this thread alone, c) you were not prepared for people here to actually know what they are talking about or realise that you are spouting complete and utter bollocks.

Januarymadness Thu 11-Apr-13 20:38:33

As I have said I am a Theist. I love Shakesperes quote.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are deamt of in your philosophy"

I respect people and faith. But it is not really on to present things as fact that can be proven to be incorrect.

BestValue Fri 12-Apr-13 10:41:57

Oops! Time to revise the human evolutionary tree of life - AGAIN! Looks like Lucy's out. (Of course creationists always knew that.)
"Lucy . . . you got some 'splaining to do."

www.theverge.com/2013/4/11/4212390/au-sediba-prehuman-fossils-could-rewrite-human-evolution

BestValue Fri 12-Apr-13 10:52:02

"Best, you're starting with the premise that the bible, the hebrew Torah, is the written word of God. So that has to be your first point of proof."

Infamous, we simply can't go into that here. I have tons of books on the subject. Since a starting assumption of science is that only natural explanations are valid, it would be a little like me asking you to prove that naturalism is true or that there is no God. See my point?

If you'd like to put forth some evidence that the Torah is meant to be allegorical (or whatever your claim is) go ahead and I'll read up on it. Can you recommend a book or two about it? I'm not unreasonable and I'm willing to consider that I'm wrong about that but it is just too big a topic to tackle here.

BestValue Fri 12-Apr-13 10:55:55

The speed of light issue has become a distraction and a red-herring. I am willing to concede that point (since I never use the argument anyway). Can we perhaps move on and go back to evolution or something?

BestValue Fri 12-Apr-13 11:09:46

"It's also interesting to note that those who assert the theory believe that the speed of light happened to stabilise at almost exactly the same time that we developed the instruments to measure it accurately. Pretty big coincidence that....."

Pedro, for Pete's sake, if you'd watched the Rupert Sheldrake video I posted you would know that his claim is that the speed of light has NOT stabilized but that they fixed it by definition in 1972. (Your argument is a straw man.)

In fact, Sheldrake said in a different video that they publish new values of the constants every so often. Watch the video below between 27:00 and 28:00. I've made it as easy for you as possible. Click a link and watch just one minute. Otherwise, I think you are demonstrating to others your ignorance and unwillingness to learn. Not a good quality for someone supposedly interested in science.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4

BestValue Fri 12-Apr-13 11:16:35

"I respect people and faith. But it is not really on to present things as fact that can be proven to be incorrect."

I agree whole-heartedly, January. However, no one has done so thus far. Further, science doesn't PROVE anything so the only was one could do so is to present a logical argument in the form of a syllogism which no one has done yet either.

Can you name even one thing I have presented as fact that can be proven to be incorrect? If I have, I will admit it and stop doing it immediately. (Keep in mind that a fact must be something that is observable and repeatable in the present.)

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Fri 12-Apr-13 12:32:55

Ok, you've conceded the speed of light (although you did present that as factual so I'm pointing it out again as you keep asking).

So great, let's move on and I'll ask again. How old do you think the earth is and how old do you think the universe is? That would be a good starting point for discussion.

Januarymadness Fri 12-Apr-13 13:21:38

Science can provide proof! you are miss quoting Karl Pooper. Popper's theory shows an asymmetry. He says that EVIDENCE cannot prove a theory to be correct but it CAN PROOVE a theory wrong.

BestValue Fri 12-Apr-13 13:22:56

"Ok, you've conceded the speed of light (although you did present that as factual so I'm pointing it out again as you keep asking).

Creationists have used the speed of light argument for years. I never used it because I didn't necessarily believe it. Now Rupert Sheldrake comes out and says the guy who measures the constants says the speed of light is slowing down so I think I'm going to take his word over yours. (I'll probably incorporate it into my live presentations and mention it in passing before I go into the gravitational time dilation theory. This usually only comes up during Q & A time.)

I'd like to do more research on it but I don't really care about the argument and, for now, I'll concede it so we can move forward. (That doesn't mean I'm saying I don't think it's true because I'm persuaded more now than ever that it is - especially since you're fighting so hard against it. It tells me you're either incredibly stubborn or you're hiding something.)

"So great, let's move on and I'll ask again. How old do you think the earth is and how old do you think the universe is? That would be a good starting point for discussion.

I didn't see you ask that before but I think I answered it for a someone else. Creation scientists typically say the earth and the universe is 6-10,000 years. If you add up the genealogies in the Bible you get about 6,000 years. I can't remember why they say up to 10,000. I know I saw an astrophysicist say it in a presentation but I can't remember just now where or why. I am comfortable saying that the earth and the universe are 6-10,000 years old. You would first have to convince me that the Bible doesn't teach that before starting with any scientific evidence. It IS possible because many people teach what is known as the Gap Theory - that there is a gap of billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

BestValue Fri 12-Apr-13 13:24:55

Perhaps you prefer to read rather than watch a video. See what Sheldrake says here:

The fall in the speed of light from 1928 to 1945

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant: it is an absolute constant. Much of modern physics is based on that assumption. There is therefore a strong theoretical prejudice against raising the question of possible changes in the velocity of light. In any case, the question is now officially closed. Since 1972 the speed of light has been fixed by definition. The value is defined as 299,792.458 ± 0.001 # 2 kilometers per second.

As in the case of the universal gravitational constant, early measurements of c differed considerably from the present official value. For example, the determination by Römer in 1676 was about 30 percent lower, and that by Fizeau in 1849 about 5 percent higher.

In 1929, Birge published his review of all the evidence available up to 1927 and came to the conclusion that the best value for velocity of light was 299,796 ± 4 km/s. He pointed out that the probable error was far less than in any of the other constants, and concluded that 'the present value of c is entirely satisfactory, and can be considered as more or less permanently established.' However, even as he was writing, considerably lower values of c were being found, and by 1934 it was suggested by Gheury de Bray that the data pointed to a cyclic variation in the velocity of light.

From around 1928 to 1945, the velocity of light appeared to be about 20 km/s lower than before and after this period. The 'best' values, found by the leading investigators using a variety of techniques, were in impressively close agreement with each other, and the available data were combined and adjusted by Birge in 1941 and Dorsey in 1945.

In the late 1940s the speed of light went up again. Not surprisingly, there was some turbulence at first as the old value was overthrown. The new value was about 20 km/s higher, close to that prevailing in 1927. A new consensus developed. How long this consensus would have lasted if based on continuing measurements is a matter for speculation. In practice, further disagreement was prevented by fixing the speed of light in 1972 by definition.

How can the lower velocity from 1928 to 1945 be explained? If it was simply a matter of experimental error, why did the results of different investigators and different methods agree so well? And why were the estimated errors so low?

One possibility is that the velocity of light really does fluctuate from time to time. Perhaps it really did drop for nearly twenty years. But this is not a possibility that has been seriously considered by researchers in the field, except for de Bray. So strong is the assumption that it must be fixed that the empirical data have to be explained away. This remarkable episode in the history of the speed of light is now generally attributed to the psychology of metrologists:

The tendency for experiments in a given epoch to agree with one another has been described by the delicate phrase 'intellectual phase locking.' Most metrologists are very conscious of the possible existence of such effects; indeed ever-helpful colleagues delight in pointing them out! . . . .Aside from the discovery of mistakes, the near completion of the experiment brings more frequent and stimulating discussion with interested colleagues and the preliminaries to writing up the work add fresh perspective. All of these circumstances combine to prevent what was intended to be 'the final result' from being so in practice, and consequently the accusation that one is most likely to stop worrying about corrections when the value is closest to other results is easy to make and difficult to refute.

But if changes in the values of constants in the past are attributed to the experimenters' psychology, then, as other eminent metrologists have observed, 'this raises a disconcerting question: How do we know that this psychological factor is not equally important today?' In the case of the velocity of light, however, this question is now academic. Not only is the velocity fixed by definition, but the very units in which velocity is measured, distance and time, are defined in terms of light itself.

The second used to be defined as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day, but it is now defined in terms of the frequency of light emitted by a particular kind of excitation of caesium-133 atoms. A second is 9,192,631,770 times the period of vibration of the light. Meanwhile, since 1983 the meter has been defined in terms of the velocity of light, itself fixed by definition.

As Brian Petley has pointed out, it is conceivable that:

(i) the velocity of light might change with time, or (ii) have a directional dependence in space, or (iii) be affected by the motion of the Earth about the Sun, or motion within our galaxy or some other reference frame.

Nevertheless, if such changes really happened, we would be blind to them. We are now shut up within an artificial system where such changes are not only impossible by definition, but would be undetectable in practice because of the way the units are defined. Any change in the speed of light would change the units themselves in such a way that the velocity in kilometers per second remained exactly the same.

www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/

Januarymadness Fri 12-Apr-13 13:37:26

A non visible change in the speed of light would still not account for the size of descrepancy we are talking about. 6 thousand to 13 Billion!

And if you dont believe it how do you account for being able to see something that was produced billions of years ago when the universe is only 6000 years old.

BestValue Fri 12-Apr-13 13:41:30

Alan Guth's expansion theory may help to resolve the apparent dilemma. Here is the relevant passage from the link below.:

--------------------------------------
But how do we know if any of this is true?

"There really are tests," Guth says. Readings from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, launched in 1989, show that the temperature of the radiation that pervades the universe is astoundingly uniform. Standard Big Bang cosmology theory without inflation offers no explanation. Some mechanism would have to transmit energy and information at about 100 times the speed of light for these vastly distant parts of the background radiation to "know" and reflect one another's temperature. Inflation, expanding at faster-than-light speed, is the only known way such uniformity could be spread so widely. (Incidentally, such expansion does not violate the cosmic speed limit. Einstein correctly asserted that nothing in the universe could exceed light's speed, but even as the cosmos grew at faster-than-light speeds, no particle within it could ever win a race with a beam of light.)"
------------------------------------

So perhaps it is the expansion rate of the universe (or stretching out of the heavens as the Bible calls it 14 times) and not the speed of light itself which was faster in the past.

discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover#.UWf_IkoYn9U

BestValue Fri 12-Apr-13 13:42:28

Guth's inflation theory, not expansion theory.

BestValue Fri 12-Apr-13 13:51:38

Maybe the question is not how did the light get from out there to earth in 6,000 years but how did the galaxies get to where they are in 6,000 years. Suppose for moment that God did not create the universe from a singularity as in big bang cosmology and that the universe started out, say, half the size it is now. Then, through rapid expansion at 100 times the speed of light as in Guth's inflation theory, the universe grew to the size it is today in just 6-10,000 years.

Januarymadness Fri 12-Apr-13 14:29:21

but god created the universe out of nothing didnt he so how could it have been half the size?

why is it easier to argue against a wealth of evidence that you can see and feel (fossils and rocks and canyons etc) than is is to accept that the bible was written by humans and humans are falible. It doesnt mean you have to abandon faith totally it just means that you have to be open to the possibility that some of the bible may not be 100 percent as God told it.

Januarymadness Fri 12-Apr-13 14:35:16

oh and the expansion theory doesnt explain it either as we jusge distance by what we see. if we are seeing light that was emitted 6000 years ago we would judge it as being in the position it was 6000 years ago

NotDavidTennant Fri 12-Apr-13 15:11:41

'NDT, presents us with his first logical fallacy (not bad for a first post) - a false dichotomy. Perhaps "geologists, biologists, astrophysicists and scientists from a whole bunch of related disciplines" haven't got "EVERYTHING" wrong? If that were so, I wouldn't be able to claim any of their research as evidence (which I've done ad nauseam).'

This just makes it clear that you really don't undertsand the implications of what you're arguing.

The entirety of modrn geology is based on the princple of geological features being formed by slow processes over timescales of thousands and millions of years. If the earth is only 6000 years then nearly everything we think we know about geology has to be thrown out.

Likewise for biology: huge sections of the field are based on the idea that natural selection has been operatng over similar timescales. Again, if the earth is only 6000 years old then all this must be thrown out too.

And then on to astrophysics: galaxies, stars, planets, all believed to be formed over unimaginably long times scales - millions of years and longer. Our understanding of the big bang and the large scale structure of the universe only make sesnse if the universe has exisited for billions of years. Insist that the universe has only been around for 6000 years and more or less everything we know about how physics works on astronomical scales has to be thrown away as mistaken.

So make sure you really understand what you're proposing here: it is not possible to accomodate a 6000 year old Earth by making a few tweaks here and there to exisiting scientific understanding, whole fields have to be overturned and begun again more or less from scratch.

'Perhaps Bible literalists are not "distorting" the evidence but honestly believe what they believe and are just sincerely mistaken?'

Cherry-picking evidence to fit a pre-determined conclusion is a distortion of science regardless of whether it is done deliberately or due to a sincerely-held, but mistaken, belief.

infamouspoo Fri 12-Apr-13 17:38:29

'I am comfortable saying that the earth and the universe are 6-10,000 years old. You would first have to convince me that the Bible doesn't teach that before starting with any scientific evidence.'

Total opposite to what you said earlier when you dismissed what I said. The bible is not literal. It is a collection of myths and writings from a nomadic tribal people who eventually became known as Jews. Biblical historians will point out multiple styles, authors, mistranlsations, contraidictions and a mix of hebrew and aramaic and well as words we no longer know the meaning of. And yet you are basing your entire world view on the idea its literal and true and thus dismissing all science to the contrary that does not fit in with this.
I suggest you start with a decent translation and commentary of its many difficulties and the theories behind the translation. Plaut is a decent one.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Fri 12-Apr-13 18:04:44

So make sure you really understand what you're proposing here: it is not possible to accomodate a 6000 year old Earth by making a few tweaks here and there to exisiting scientific understanding, whole fields have to be overturned and begun again more or less from scratch.

And I think this is the problem with the creationist argument. Sure you can pick bits and pieces of science and support alternative views in a variety of areas. Some of the arguments can even sound convincing, but you have to look at ALL of the scientific evidence which is relevant. As it turns out, the currently held understanding of evolution, astronomical distances, how the solar system was formed, etc. etc. is supported not only by specific theories like natural selection or light speed, but by everything we have to throw at them. If they weren't, they would have been thrown out as theories by the scientific community.

If I had compelling evidence that could demonstrate that the earth was only 6000 years old which held up to measurements and evidence from all areas, I would jump at the chance to put it forward as a theory, that's the kind of stuff Nobel prizes are made of. But yet the people who claim to have this evidence don't achieve this. That's not because the scientific community just don't want to accept it, it's because these theories simply don't hold up.

weegiemum Fri 12-Apr-13 18:25:43

I'd like to ask which scientific and theological qualifications you are bringing to this BestValue? Excuse me if you'd said already, I might have missed it.

Just I'm an evangelical Christian with a degree in Geography and Geology from a top uk university, and also a degree in theology from a fairly evangelical institution, and I'm fairly sure you're mostly spouting opinion, not fact.

Strange as it may seem, you can actually be a rational evangelical scientist. Have you ever met one?

Januarymadness Fri 12-Apr-13 18:38:25

going away from the stars now to someyhing much much smaller. Look into mitochondrial dna (mtDNA) mutatuons in mtDNA happen abouy once every 3500 years. For Eve to have been created less than 6000 years ago we would all share 1 of 2 kinds of mtDNA and we don't. scientists have traced out mtDNA Eve back to existance 190000 to 200000 years ago. This woman is the one all humans are now related to but not the first or only woman of her time. Just the one who managed to have girls who produced girls who produced girls up to today.

A 6000 year old gene pool where we all shared a common ancester would also be much smaller than we see today as there would be no time for the mutations and variants to establish.

Januarymadness Fri 12-Apr-13 18:39:37

I might love weegiemum for that comment..... is that really wrong?

backonlybriefly99 Fri 12-Apr-13 20:43:58

"Suppose for moment that God did not create the universe from a singularity as in big bang cosmology and that the universe started out, say, half the size it is now"

That's back to the idea that god is tricking us by going out of his way to create a universe that just 'looks' like it fits in with scientific knowledge and theory. If you're going to play that game I can go one better.

God created the universe 2 hours ago. Everything you think you remember before that is just an illusion because he created you with those memories. Everything in the bible is also an illusion because that too was only created two hours ago along with all those tricky astronomical measurements and Carbon 14 dating. Any proof you think you have for god or the big bang is all just implanted memories.

As for the real god. Well he is sitting right next to me now dictating this. He is laughing that you fell for the whole dinosaurs, crucifixion and heaven nonsense and he's about to destroy this universe to make room for the next one. He only keeps them running for a couple of hours at a time before he gets bored. This universe is the 17,456th.

It fits the facts as well as creationism, but the idea is not to simply invent a story to fit the facts - anyone can do that.

weegiemum Fri 12-Apr-13 20:48:27

Always up for being loved, January......

I'm sure BV will turn up again at silly o'clock when there's no one here to argue and suggest my qualifications aren't worth diddly squat.

Frankly I don't care!

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Fri 12-Apr-13 20:53:11

briefly that's funny, I was actually pondering that exact position over lunch today!

Although I find it strange that God would laugh at us for falling for the dinosaurs when all the reading up I did on them to believe in them was just a memory which he put there!! grin

So I've dismissed that idea as silly and I'm now talking to the Spaghetti Monster about some moral values he wants me to chisel onto my IKEA wardrobes......

bumbleymummy Fri 12-Apr-13 20:53:48

I think he's in a different timeline weegie.

weegiemum Fri 12-Apr-13 20:56:44

Time zone -possibly!

Timeline - almost certainly

(Sorry :D)

bumbleymummy Fri 12-Apr-13 21:31:32

Oops! I meant time zone - not sure how timeline came out! confused

backonlybriefly99 Fri 12-Apr-13 21:46:11

Actually you're right, he's not laughing at you. He is going on and on about what a good job he did of the earth. Very full of himself he is.

He is even boasting about the design of Norway when we both know he got Slartibartfast to do the fiddly bits around the Fjords.

Januarymadness Fri 12-Apr-13 22:02:14

Evidence of Gods sense of humour can be seen in the fact that he shaped Italy like a foot kicking a ball. Then made Italians really good at Football. Brilliant!

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Fri 12-Apr-13 22:03:46

briefly you've made me realise, it's not that best is talking rubbish at all, we just need a babel fish!

BestValue Sat 13-Apr-13 12:53:46

*"I'd like to ask which scientific and theological qualifications you are bringing to this BestValue? Excuse me if you'd said already, I might have missed it.

Just I'm an evangelical Christian with a degree in Geography and Geology from a top uk university, and also a degree in theology from a fairly evangelical institution, and I'm fairly sure you're mostly spouting opinion, not fact.

Strange as it may seem, you can actually be a rational evangelical scientist. Have you ever met one?"*

Hi weegiemum. Thanks for the question, I have no formal training in either science or theology. But I'm sure you do not want to make an argument for authority. You must deal with my arguments on their own merits. If I've made an error in logic, point it out. If I make an error of fact, I'll stop doing it. The problem is that most people do not understand the difference between a fact and a conclusion based on a fact.

I would also point out that Darwin had no formal training in science and Dawkins has no formal training in theology, yet millions take what they say as authoritative.

Let me offer two definitions:

*sci·en·tist - Noun
A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.*

Well, I am certainly studying science.

*ex·pert -Noun
A person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area*

Well, I certainly have comprehensive scientific knowledge. (One could argue if it is authoritative. It's certainly authoritative in the area of young earth creationism.)

The point is that there are many biologists who don't believe in evolution. They are automatically classified by the establishment as not real scientists. But that commits the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Strange as it may seem, you can actually be a rational evangelical scientist. Have you ever met one?"

That may seem strange to people like Dawkins but not to me. Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins are two well-known American scientists who are Christians and believe in evolution and an old earth. I obviously think they are wrong for the reasons I have given here (and many more).

Edgar Andrews is a well-known British scientist and young earth creationist who rejects evolution. If we were just going to list the names of scientists on both sides, I'm afraid we would both lose as most scientists by a slight margin are atheists. And nearly all members of the National Academy of Science are too. I'm sure they would conclude that both a Christian evangelical scientist and a young earth creationist are a few bricks short of a load.

infamouspoo Sat 13-Apr-13 13:05:07

slight margin my bottom

BestValue Sat 13-Apr-13 13:07:53

but god created the universe out of nothing didnt he so how could it have been half the size?

He created it from nothing at half the size it is now. (Don't quote me. That was a speculation. Not the out-of nothing part.)

why is it easier to argue against a wealth of evidence that you can see and feel (fossils and rocks and canyons etc)

That is precisely what I am NOT doing. Fossils, rocks and canyons all exist. That is a fact. You won't find that I have ever even once denied anything that is an observable and repeatable fact.

Januarymadness Sat 13-Apr-13 13:13:59

There are a wealth of faith structures outside fundamentalist atheist and fundamentalist Christian. Science is no barrier to having some faith. Science is a barrier to taking what we are told without examining all sides of the argument. If we start with presumtions we are in breach of Occams Razor.

I am yet to find a fundamentalist on either side who doesnt resort to the answer ..."Just because..." at some point. While atheists can show a decent amout of evidence that various scriptures are incorrect and philosophise on why people often have a basic need for faith they are yet to find anything that supports their assertion that there must be no God of any kind (yes Dawkins I am looking at you)

I believe that most people l, in fact, are liberal Theists of some kind but dont examine all sides enough to positively identify as such. I have recently been considering ways to expand my qualifications in such a way that may lead to a research paper on the subject

Januarymadness Ma and Bsc (hons) fwiw grin

BestValue Sat 13-Apr-13 13:19:16

"Look into mitochondrial dna (mtDNA) mutatuons in mtDNA happen abouy once every 3500 years. For Eve to have been created less than 6000 years ago we would all share 1 of 2 kinds of mtDNA and we don't."

I'm so glad you brought that up January.:

"Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."
- Ann Gibbons, "Mitochondrial Eve: Wounded, But Not Dead Yet", Science, Vol. 257, 14 August 1992, p. 873.

Of course, Ann Gibbons went on to say that this couldn't possibly be true. So they messed around with the numbers and the rates until they got the dates they wanted. Problem solved.

BestValue Sat 13-Apr-13 13:23:06

"A 6000 year old gene pool where we all shared a common ancester would also be much smaller than we see today as there would be no time for the mutations and variants to establish.

January, see a book called Genetic Entropy by Dr. John Sandford:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c

flaminghoopsaloohlah Sat 13-Apr-13 13:27:05

I feel that Christians who get caught up in how old the earth is and whether or not the bible is 100% accurate etc are missing the point of Christianity. Each to his own, but as a Christian how old the earth is matters not a jot to me.

Januarymadness Sat 13-Apr-13 13:34:46

you are mixing the most recent common ancestor with the most recent matralinial common ancestor. it is the latter we are dealing with with mitrochondrial DNA

Januarymadness Sat 13-Apr-13 13:36:10

and my appologies. I also initially mixed the concepts to that is in part my fault

BestValue Sat 13-Apr-13 13:41:06

"That's back to the idea that god is tricking us by going out of his way to create a universe that just 'looks' like it fits in with scientific knowledge and theory."

No it's not, no He isn't and no it doesn't. The current "scientific knowledge and theory" are not based on biblical assumptions. When you start with those you get young earth creationism.

"If you're going to play that game I can go one better . . ."

Oh God, please don't . . .

"God created the universe 2 hours ago . . ."

You did.

"As for the real god. Well he is sitting right next to me now dictating this.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how cults get started. I would never trust the word of just one person - especially someone who appears to be delusional. What my theory has going for it is a convergence of evidence from a variety of different disciples - science, history, archaeology, theology - over thousands of years.

"It fits the facts as well as creationism, but the idea is not to simply invent a story to fit the facts - anyone can do that.

I would say it doesn't. And yes, the idea is to have story that is not invented ad hoc and actually makes future predictions that can be tested and falsified. Worse you're theory is self-refuting. If your story were true we would have no reason to trust that anything is true - including that your story is true.

BestValue Sat 13-Apr-13 13:43:52

Although I find it strange that God would laugh at us for falling for the dinosaurs when all the reading up I did on them to believe in them was just a memory which he put there!!

At last . . . the moment I've been waiting for when Pedro makes a valid point. ;^)

BestValue Sat 13-Apr-13 13:53:16

"I'm sure BV will turn up again at silly o'clock when there's no one here to argue and suggest my qualifications aren't worth diddly squat."

Silly o'clock! I love that! Can I steal it? By the way, I'm in Canada so there's a bit of time zone difference. That said, I'm usually doing this over night so silly o'clock is an appropriate term to use.

"Frankly I don't care!"

No? I find that sad. I care deeply about truth. But I would never say your qualifications are worth diddly squat. Nor would I say they are bollocks (or whatever you chaps say across the pond.) I actually have a high respect for your education. But even the most educated people make bad arguments sometimes. (Just try reading The God Delusion. Best to do it on an empty stomach. Some of the most illogical nonsense ever written.)

Perhaps you could name some specific factual or logical errors I have made.

Januarymadness Sat 13-Apr-13 13:59:33

by starting with biblical assumptions you breach Occams Razor. So what you actually get is Jack.

BestValue Sat 13-Apr-13 14:01:29

slight margin my bottom

Infamous, I made that clear. 96% (or thereabouts) of the members of the National Academy of Science are atheists. But I was being generous with the other part. I think there are actually more scientists who are theists. And if I remember correctly, more scientists by a slight margin don't believe in evolution. But that could be one of 2 things: 1/ I'm remembering incorrectly or 2/ The study is out of date. And admittedly, most of those scientists would not be biologists.

BestValue Sat 13-Apr-13 14:05:58

"About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do."

www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

Are you beginning to notice a trend here? I never make a claim that I can't back up with evidence. If I'm not sure, I say so and I'm not dogmatic about it.

BestValue Sat 13-Apr-13 14:11:12

Newer research. Please note I am not claiming that because a lot of people believe it, that means it must be true. (That would be logical fallacy.) I'm just refuting the oft-repeated claim that most scientists are atheists. They are not.

atheistwatch.blogspot.ca/2011/10/more-than-half-scientists-believe-in.html

Januarymadness Sat 13-Apr-13 14:13:09

please dont say you don't want to use Occams Razor. As it is the exact point you use when you say Science cannot prove a theory to be true. It is Occams razor that states you cannot assume by the fact that something has been repeatedly witnessed in 1 way that it would always happen in that way.

For example when an apple comes from a tree on earth it falls to the ground. We know this we have seen it repeated over and over again. We cannot assume that will always happen that way in the future. We can state that next time an apple comes off a tree overwhelming evidence suggests that it will fall to the ground.

A theory CAN be proven wrong. If someone puts the theory that an apple will always float from a tree they can be proven wrong.

If it is the lack of assumption which means we cannot prove a theory correct you cannot make that argument and then go on to base all your arguments and science on assumptions. You cant have it both ways

BestValue Sat 13-Apr-13 14:17:04
Januarymadness Sat 13-Apr-13 14:19:01

Believing in God and beliving in yec are 2 different things.....

Januarymadness Sat 13-Apr-13 14:22:20

That is a complete list of published scientists that believe in YEC? pahahahahaha....... the list may be growing but yesh it has a lot of catching up to do

Januarymadness Sat 13-Apr-13 14:26:14

and even then they are not all living scientists?

Hechan Sat 13-Apr-13 16:48:49

So Adam lived to 930 years old. The flood was about 700 years later, even assuming life span after Adam dropped immediately to 70ish, that's only 10 generations for everything to go to hell in a handbag. That also means the flood happened about 4,500 years ago, at about the same time as the Egyptians were building the great pyramids. So did some Egyptians survive the flood with construction knowledge and social structures intact? Or did the flood not affect Egypt? A quick look at wikipedia tells me that the Early Dynastic period in Egypt starts around 3100BC, so just about still in Adam's life time, so how does that work? Where did that entire civilisation spring from?

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sat 13-Apr-13 19:49:33

At last . . . the moment I've been waiting for when Pedro makes a valid point. ;^)

Thanks best, hopefully we'll get one from you eventually!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how cults get started.

<snorts at parallels with Christianity>

Also, for the record, regardless of Dawkins' theology qualifications, he is very well qualified and experienced in the natural world which is the angle he makes arguments from, so in fact I think his views bare a great deal more weight than you who despite your delusions of grandeur, do not have a comprehensive understanding of science as you have proven quite neatly in the course of this thread.

BestValue Sun 14-Apr-13 01:16:37

"Believing in God and beliving in yec are 2 different things....."

Agreed, January. If I implied something different, I apologize. What I think I said is that if you start with the Bible you get YEC. I realize there are a variety of opinions on this and I am always willing to entertain any and all other views. But my contention (and this I freely admit is my opinion, although based on evidence and reason) is that a serious study of the Bible should lead one unequivocally to YEC.

BestValue Sun 14-Apr-13 01:23:00

Let me make a quick point here that I have not yet made. Young earth creationists do not take the entire Bible literally (although they take it seriously). There are many different forms of literature in the Bible. To quote an article I wrote which is online at the link below:

*"When someone glances at me incredulously and asks, "You don't really take the Bible literally do you?" I typically reply, "I take the literal parts literally and the figurative parts figuratively." What I mean by that is that I attempt to interpret the biblical text the way the author intended it to be read.

The Bible is a collection of 66 books written on three continents, by some 40 different authors over a 1,600-year period. It contains songs, poetry, allegories, parables, prophecy and, yes, history; history that has been confirmed relentlessly by archaeology - much to the chagrin of skeptics and non-believers.

The Bible does, of course, contain figures of speech. Jesus called himself "the door" but I don't believe for a second that he was implying he was made of wood and had hinges. But the only way Jesus' declaration makes any sense at all is because we can compare his claim to be "the door" with what we know about a literal door - an entrance-way. If real doors did not exist, they could not be invoked symbolically. A literal meaning of a word or passage must always precede a metaphorical one."*

www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/2012/11/creationist-randy-ruggles-strikes-back/

BestValue Sun 14-Apr-13 01:25:20

"Thanks best, hopefully we'll get one from you eventually!"

Touche, Pedro. Good one. :^)

BestValue Sun 14-Apr-13 01:35:43

"please dont say you don't want to use Occams Razor. As it is the exact point you use when you say Science cannot prove a theory to be true. It is Occams razor that states you cannot assume by the fact that something has been repeatedly witnessed in 1 way that it would always happen in that way."

I've never used Occam's razor for that, January. I use it for the multi-verse and other gods. I say "science cannot prove a theory to be true" because that is the nature of science. It can prove things wrong but never proves them 100% right. Please don't mistake this as an indictment of science. It's just the way science works. Case closed.

Another quote from my article above:

"Psychology Today magazine pulled no punches when it stated emphatically that, "Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science ... Anyone who uses the words 'proof,' 'prove' and 'proven' in their discussion of science is not a real scientist." "

BestValue Sun 14-Apr-13 01:46:43

"That is a complete list of published scientists that believe in YEC? pahahahahaha......."

I highly doubt that is a complete list. But again, it doesn't matter. What matters is truth. Lots of things are true even if no one believes them.

This list merely serves the purpose of refuting the claim that no real scientist and no intelligent person believes the earth is young. I forget what it is but I quote someone in my book who says, "Young earth creationists are some the most intelligent and highly credentialed members of the scientific community." This person was a critic of YEC. (I typically only cite hostile witnesses.)

Incidentally, the Canadian who invented the MRI, Raymond Vahan Damadian, is a young earth creationist. There is speculation that he was passed over for the Nobel Prize because of it.

BestValue Sun 14-Apr-13 02:06:11

"so in fact I think his views bare a great deal more weight than you who despite your delusions of grandeur, do not have a comprehensive understanding of science as you have proven quite neatly in the course of this thread."

Pedro, you have yet to point out any errors of scientific fact I have made. I think were are each operating on two different definitions of the word. To me, a fact is something that is observable, testable and repeatable. To you, a fact is anything said by a person in a white lab coat.

Why not list a few facts you think I have got wrong and I'll see if I can clear up the confusion? Any actual facts you can demonstrate to me that I have wrong (beyond a reasonable doubt with some reputable sources), I will quit using immediately.

This is good because I think it is a huge part of the problem. People claim a lot of things as facts that are not indeed facts. I will hereafter reserve the word "fact" only for something that is observable, testable and repeatable - something every one of us can see, hear, taste, smell or touch. If I draw a conclusion based on said facts which I believe is valid, I will say I hold it to be "true." Is that fair and, for the sake of clarity, will you do the same?

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 14-Apr-13 07:49:59

Why not list a few facts you think I have got wrong and I'll see if I can clear up the confusion?

Do we really have to keep going over and over this? Light Speed. You got it wrong. Now we've thrown it out of the conversation because you don't want to talk about it anymore despite it being crucial to the mountain of evidence of of a world which is older than 6000 years.

Unless of course what you are really getting at is that nothing can truly be 'fact' in which case you are not presenting any facts and the claim you make that nothing you say is unfactual is an empty claim and quite misleading.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 14-Apr-13 07:56:03

"Young earth creationists are some the most intelligent and highly credentialed members of the scientific community."

The problem is that they are usually qualified in a completely unrelated field of science.

But I think that claim is pretty unlikely and I'd love to see the evidence so I can make my own conclusions. Incidentally, I often find that false scientists (homeopathists for example) go out of their way to obtain qualifications and credentials (usually from dubious institutions - but not always) just so they can use these qualifications to back up their credibility.

Januarymadness Sun 14-Apr-13 10:19:48

What you are quoting about proof IS Occams Razor whether you call it that or not.

Also you are factually incorrect when you use that list of scientists. The list is formed of creationist...... Yes. The list is formed entirely of Young Earth Creationists.... No.

Bad science.... Manipulating theories to fir your assumptions. Good science making as few presumptions as possible. You have repeatedly contradicted yourself. Other peoples research must be false because you claim the facts have been manipulated to fit the theory. You then go on to do the same yourself.

You in 1 post quote an article by a woman who has gone on to discredit ift herself. You present the article as fact but then go on to say she must be wrong in her later work because that doesnt fit in with your theories. You cant pick and choose like that and present it as evidence.

infamouspoo Sun 14-Apr-13 11:13:04

I think Pedro and January summed up nicely. You also contradicted yourself completely in your attitude towards the Torah when asked to prove your translation skills and explain both the untranslatable hebrew, the contradictions and the aramaic words that appear randomly in the text. First claiming it wasn't relevant to the 'science' of your argument then claiming your entire creationist view was based on taking the Torah literally. Well, if you cannot read something properly to even grasp it, then how can you dismiss most scientists based on it?

BestValue, thank you for advising us that taking someone's word for anything is a bad idea - especially if they sound delusional. smile

We'll make an atheist out of you yet. I'm sure you already are an atheist when it comes to the 1000s of other gods. Just one more to go.

I notice that you say "if you start with the Bible you get YEC" and that is probably true. I sometimes think that atheists should subsidise YEC and/or anyone who wants to take the bible literally. The bible is the best argument against religion there is.

The trouble is that if you start with the bible you get YEC, If you start with the Hindu holy books you get Monkey Gods and women with lots of arms and If you start with the Chronicles of Narnia you get talking animals (Hmm the bible has talking animals too so I guess that's supporting evidence) and wardrobes as transportation systems.

Much better to start with Science.

At one time you would have had more support. All Christians would have been sure that the earth was made in 6 days with all the animals etc that it has now. I think everyone knew as well that Jesus was coming again once the world was 6000 years old (on Jan 1st 2000 or 2001).

As scientific knowledge increased and education spread that become more and more embarrassing. Eventually most (not all Christians) moved onto more solid ground by claiming that all the science was true (evolution etc) but that god had invented Evolution.

There's another thread on here where Christians are distancing themselves from Hell too for the same sort of reasons. Gradually retreating.

YEC is about being true to the original belief so it's probably unfair for Christians to laugh at it. Though Atheists have no reason not to.

Januarymadness Sun 14-Apr-13 11:41:45

back on, while agree with large parts of what you are saying I do think it unfair to demand atheim. Although science has provided good evidence that literal interpretation of religious books is a bad idea it has shown no evidence that God or Gods dont exist.

That, ay least at the moment is down to personal belief.

Actually agree about demanding atheism. All I demand really is that religion not be forced on me. Unfortunately in the UK it's hard to avoid it.

But it is true that everyone is Atheist for most gods. Ask a devout Catholic how they feel about Zeus or one of the old Sun Gods and they will almost certainly treat the idea of worshipping them with contempt. They won't feel they need proof that Mithra doesn't exist because "it's just obvious".

Januarymadness Sun 14-Apr-13 14:15:00

I get your point but the terminology is wrong. Atheism is without the belief in any God and Theism is the belief in one or many Gods. Those terms exist outside of religion so someone who believes in any God cannot be Atheist.

Sorry to seem like a pedant. But it bugs me that because I dont identify as being part of a particular religion I must be Atheist. I am NOT. I belive in God I just dont believe everything any religion tells me.

noblegiraffe Sun 14-Apr-13 14:38:55

If you start with the Bible you get YEC, true, but you get all sorts of other nonsense too. Do you subscribe to it all?

Januarymadness, Fair enough. Yours is a relatively rare position anyway if you are open to all possibilities. Most people have separated out the 'proper' gods from the obviously fake ones that they will reject and by doing so justified the atheist attitude to their choice.

TheDeadlyDonkey Sun 14-Apr-13 15:39:21

I've just found this thread and thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
Forgive me for asking a very stupid question (most of the sciencey/speed of light posts have sadly gone over my head)

If you believe the bible is an accurate version of events, and base the 6-10 thousand year old earth on this, where do dinosaurs come in to the equation?
You (meaning Best here) have mentioned dinosaurs in relation to C-14, "fresh" bones being discovered etc., yet there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible?
Were they an accidental creation that no-one talked about? Was the ark too small to fit them on?

Where were the dinosaurs?

(I'm aware this ^^ comes across as jokey, but I would genuinely like to hear your thoughts on this smile)

Januarymadness Sun 14-Apr-13 16:18:02

This is slightly off topic and probably worth a thread of its own. I don't think my position is really that rare. For me it is a question of identity.

Take, just for example christianity, there are people who have looked into it and signed up because their beliefs totally coinside. There are others, however, who have either not given much thought to, or deep down completely reject, bits that are fundimental to that religion. Like Jesus being the literal rather than figurative son of God. These people would probably still tick the Christian box on a census and would ultimately identify themselves as such.

I have lost count of the number of people who have told me they believe in a Deity but they are not sure about the rest.

People are not very likely to positively identify as a liberal theist because few know what the term means. A large proportion of those who do know wouldnt use the term because it is not a recognisable identity and it may separate them from their cultural identity of Christian or Catholic etc...

Januarymadness Sun 14-Apr-13 16:19:02

Good question deadlydonkey

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 14-Apr-13 18:00:05

Although science has provided good evidence that literal interpretation of religious books is a bad idea it has shown no evidence that God or Gods don't exist.

I still find it bizarre that theists use this argument when science is quite clear about the fact that it can never prove the non existence of anything, let alone a god.

What's more telling, however, is that no religious book has ever proved the existence of a god. And frankly, that's their job, so they haven't done very well. they've

Januarymadness Sun 14-Apr-13 18:15:55

My argument is that without any tangible evidence for or against something you have to ask yourself the question "what do I instinctively believe /have faith in?". The belief in the absence of a deity is as much of a gut instinct choice as belief is.

In the absence of tangible evidence I wouldn't want to try to convince an atheist to believe something that goes against their instincts. I don't see why anyone should try to convince me to go agaist mine.

The unreliable religious books is somewhat of a red herring. If you dont subscribe to a religion subscribing to a religious book would just be silly.

Januarymadness Sun 14-Apr-13 18:29:41

My reasons for belief are many, varied and personal. None originate from any religious text.

on another note.

I would like to quote something I saw on Family Guy last night, though off topic it is funny.

Peter Griffin is filming a plastic bag floating in the wind and is waxing lyrical about it's beauty.

Cut to God on a cloud saying
"That is trash blowing in the wind... Do you have ANY idea how complicated your circulatory system is!"

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 14-Apr-13 19:03:04

My argument is that without any tangible evidence for or against something you have to ask yourself the question "what do I instinctively believe /have faith in?". The belief in the absence of a deity is as much of a gut instinct choice as belief is.

Actually it's not. When you have an absence of evidence for something it's far more logical not to believe it exists. That's not to say it doesn't, but the two positions are from equal.

"I don't see why anyone should try to convince me to go against mine"

No need to try if you are not part of an organised religion bent on forcing others to do things your way or arguing for special privileges or exemptions from the law.

However when you say "The belief in the absence of a deity is as much of a gut instinct choice as belief is" that certainly would be true, but personally I don't believe that god doesn't exist.

It's not a matter of faith you see. In the sense of "knowing something is true without evidence" I have no beliefs at all. I don't believe New York exists. I have never been there, but its existence is filed under "probably true" because I have lots of overlapping evidence to suggest it's there.

My atheism is simply what you'd feel if I showed you a sealed box and asked you what was in it. Since you don't know you're probably say "I don't know". It would be foolish to suddenly have faith that it contained a lemon without some reason to think so.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 14-Apr-13 19:23:07

It would be foolish to suddenly have faith that it contained a lemon without some reason to think so.

Unless you really wanted a lemon and prayed for god to put one in there......does he do that kind of thing?

Just to be clear. Belief in either direction would be irrational, but logic requires you not to file god under 'real' unless there is evidence so the choice is not 50/50. Without evidence atheism is the default.

If it's a sealed iron box than god can't get inside anyway. For the same reason he can't win a battle against enemies with iron chariots smile

Judges 1:19

Januarymadness Sun 14-Apr-13 20:20:11

The New York analogy is a good one. I believe in something, God for want of a better word, because I see evidence in the natural world and universe. What I see and my reasoning leads me to have faith in a greater power. You have no evidence to show me I am wrong. I am not trying to convince anyone else (the reason why I am not giving list and details as to why I hold these beliefs). Atheists trying to push me into thinking how they do is the same as any religion trying to make me think how they do. I have my own thought and reasoning I will believe what I like.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 14-Apr-13 20:31:03

I don't think anyone is trying to push you to become an atheist. We're presenting our argument and you are presenting yours. Same difference.

EllieArroway Sun 14-Apr-13 22:26:28

BestValue I could pick apart absolutely everyone of your "arguments", but I don't have time - let's look just at the scientific mistakes you've made:

As you might not be aware, carbon dating is only used to date fossils up to about 50,000 years old. Beyond that, there should be no measurable carbon14 left. Yet, there has never been a fossil that didn't have some amount of carbon 14 left - indicating they are not millions of years old

A big, big mistake here - detectable and measurable are not necessarily the same thing. No measurable C-14 has been found in fossils or fossil fuels, but some has been detected. There’s many and various reasons for this - but to suggest that NONE should be detectable is nonsense. There will be some due to the nature of it’s formation and decomposition - but it’s no longer measurable so can’t be used for dating purposes.

Your understanding of the fossil record is also desperately flawed. You are right in that fossils do not form readily, they need special and specific conditions in order to form at all (that’s why the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of creatures that have existed have left no record of themselves at all) but a worldwide flood is not one of them. The clue is in the phrase “worldwide”. Such an event would affect every living thing in every part of the world - this clearly and obviously is not what has happened. Fossils form in a variety of ways, but it’s very rare that it should happen at all. This does not suggest that a global catastrophe that happened everywhere at once is in any way responsible for fossils.

*Further, if evolution were true we would expect to find many
transitional fossils* And we do. Every fossil ever found is “transitional”. Know why? Because every single creature that has ever existed (including you and me) is “transitional”. If I dropped dead in a peat bog tomorrow and fossilised, I’d be dug up as a transitional fossil. Not to understand this is, I’m sorry, not to understand evolutionary theory at all.

Willard Libby, who won a Nobel prize for inventing the carbon14 dating method, knew that in order for his system to work the earth's atmosphere had to be at equilibrium. (No time to explain this now. I'd love to explain the whole dating method thing, how it works and its assumptions at a later date because it's fun to talk about.)
Libby calculated that if you started with a brand new earth/sun system, our atmosphere would reach equilibrium in about 30,000 years. He thought because we know the earth is billions of years old (can't recall if they'd arrived at the 4.54 billion figure yet but I don't think so) the earth's atmosphere MUST be at equilibrium and he could ignore the equilibrium problem.
The fact is that we have since measured and discovered the atmosphere is only ONE THIRD of the way to equilibrium. What's one third of 30,000? 10,000 years. So the implications for carbon 14 dating are this:
*1. The earth/sun system is less than 10,000 years old and
2. Carbon14 dating doesn't work*

Right. This is what happens when you swallow whole what creationists say without taking the trouble to learn the science behind it.

Equilibrium WOULD be reached in 30,000 years IF the amount of input & loss of C-14 in the atmosphere were equal and consistent. They are not - the production and decay rate fluctuate wildly. If you take this into account (as you have singularly failed to do) you’ll see that this argument is baseless and completely wrong.

CoteDAzur, "fossils, diamonds, and coral reefs" (including dinosaur bones) all still have carbon left in them which strongly indicates that they are only thousands of years old, not millions Bull. There are DETECTABLE amounts of C-14, not MEASURABLE amounts. A big difference that you seem unable to grasp.

Because the majority of the process of evolution takes place in the past, it can never rightly be called a scientific fact

Really? A “fact” points to the truth of something. It’s a fact that every one of my ancestors had sex at least once in their lives. I wasn’t there to see it and it all happened in the past - but my existence PROVES the fact of it. We are in the same sort of place with evolution - we don’t need to see it with our own eyes to know that it happened. Evidence comes to us in many forms.

You have fallen, it seems, into the microevolution vs macroevolution trap. They are in essence two stages of the same thing - the ONLY people who make this distinction are creationists, real scientists do not. A long journey begins with one step (microevolution) it concludes with a zillion steps having been taken - the effect of macroevolution. Microevolution + time = macroevolution. What mechanism exists, do you think, to stop those tiny steps building into a journey, the end result of which is macroevolution?

But the grander claims of macroevolutiion and common ancestry have very little factual support. What apologists for evolution like Dawkins must do is claim that macroevolution is just microevolution over time. That's a nice belief but I don't have that much faith. Further, the "evolution" we see in bacterial resistance is not the kind of change we need in order to turn an amoeba into a man over millions of years

You don’t need faith, you just need to bother looking at the evidence - which is immense.

Macroevolution is another word for evolution above the species level, yes? Also known as speciation. This HAS been observed, quite a lot. How have you missed it?

And what kind of change do you think we should see to turn an “amoeba into a man”? It could only happen in tiny, incremental steps - that's what evolution is.

I’m slightly losing the will to live here - you’ve managed to get everything wrong so far. But I’ll address one more thing:

The speed of light has been slowing down for the past two centuries we've measured it. And Harvard University has slowed and even stopped light in the laboratory 13 years ago. So maybe the speed of light is not a constant. If it were faster in the past, the light could reach earth in less time

This is just bonkers - where are you getting this tripe?
No, the speed of light has not been slowing down. Our measurements over the past 200 years have gotten better! And sorry - but of course we can slow down and stop light! Light speed remains constant only IN A VACUUM - there are all sorts of ways of slowing it down and stopping it. Good grief!

In the creationist's theory of cosmology, if the universe had an edge and the earth were at or near the centre, earth would be in a "gravitational well" and time would tick slower here than at the edge of the universe. Thus, 13.72 billion years could pass out there while a mere 6,000 years passed here on earth

There's no evidence whatsoever that the universe has an "edge" or that we are at or near the centre in the bottom of a gravitational well. If this were true, we would expect to see blue-shifted light instead of the red-shifted that we do see. The red-shifted light that we see is in line with an expanding universe as predicted by Hubble's Law.

Sounds crazy but such is science. That's not science, that's utter rubbish that has been refuted again and again and again.

EllieArroway Sun 14-Apr-13 22:37:13

You have no evidence to show me I am wrong

It's amazing how often this is presented - it's the most logically flawed argument of all.

No - there's no evidence to show that your God doesn't exist (or any god).

Know why? Because in order to prove anything, including existence & non-existence, you need evidence. Evidence is the building blocks of proof.

Things that don't exist leave no trail of evidence, so what do you use to prove it doesn't exist?

As an atheist, I would not expect to be able to disprove your God any more than I can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster or invisible unicorns.

So, really, the fact that we can't (and freely admit that we can't) disprove your God's existence is rather massively in favour of our contention that this is because no such being exists.

Januarymadness Sun 14-Apr-13 23:26:33

hey you know you are right I just think I am...I am open to the possibility I might be wrong. Things I see as evidence others will see as chance or nature or whatever. I have evidence enough for me. Really what I think doesnt matter to anyone but me.

Januarymadness Sun 14-Apr-13 23:29:56

if someone believes in invisible unicorns. They have their reasons for doing so. Those reasons arent based on manipulation or bad science and they are not trying to make others believe. I say let em carry on. What harm are they doing to anyone.

EllieArroway Sun 14-Apr-13 23:34:39

hey you know you are right I just think I am...I am open to the possibility I might be wrong

Please don't do that - it's a rude misrepresentation of what I said.

I, too, am open to the possibility that I am wrong. All I ask is for some evidence - as you would do in absolutely every other area of your life.

Really what I think doesnt matter to anyone but me. OK. So, why are you getting sniffy with me for pointing out the flaw in your logic (a very, very common one) by trying to imply that you're somehow more open minded than me?

You're not, as it happens.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 04:50:32

Here's an entire free chapter of a book explaining, from a young earth creationist's point of view, how who can see distant star light in a young universe.

creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

EllieArroway Mon 15-Apr-13 05:10:41

I prefer real science books written by real scientists, thanks.

EllieArroway Mon 15-Apr-13 05:36:43

I'll just point this out to you, BestValue......hopefully it'll make you stop and think.

You said: And Harvard University has slowed and even stopped light in the laboratory 13 years ago. So maybe the speed of light is not a constant

I can't even describe this as a school boy error - I have a school boy living with me revising for his physics GCSE, and even HE wouldn't make an error this basic.

No one has ever, ever suggested that light is always at the same speed in every circumstance - this applies ONLY in a vacuum. Light can be bent, stopped, slowed down, absorbed into other things. Only when there's nothing to impede it will it remain constant as proven by Special Relativity.

I have to ask you - do you think, given that you made such a really fundamental error, is it possible that you're persuaded by creationist arguments because you don't really understand the science involved?

You're wrong about the difference between detectable and measurable C-14, throwing a large chunk of your "proof" out of the window - you're also wrong about the C-14 equilibrium issue. Just flat out wrong.

Does this not start to tell you something? You started this thread saying that you respect science and evidence and would be willing to change your mind. Is that actually true?

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 07:10:18

Looks like the entire Creation Answers book is online for free. It's one of the most informative books I own on this subject with lots of peer-reviewed science. Here's a handy link to a page with all the chapters:

creation.com/the-creation-answers-book-index

Questions answered are:

Chapter 1: Does God Exist?

Does God exist?
Is there objective evidence that God exists?
What are the consequences of atheism?
Where did God come from? Can we know God personally?
See Study Guide, Lesson 1

Chapter 2: Six days? Really?

Six days? Really?
Are the days of creation ordinary days? Could they be long periods
of time?
Why six days? Is Genesis Poetry?
Does the length of the days really affect the Gospel?
How can there be ‘days’ without the sun on the first three days?
Does Genesis 2 contradict Genesis 1?
What about the framework hypothesis?
See Study Guide, Lesson 2

Chapter 3: What about gap theories?

What about gap theories?
What is the ruin-reconstruction theory?
Is the ‘soft gap’ idea better?
See Study Guide, Lesson 3

Chapter 4: What about carbon dating?

What about carbon dating?
How does the carbon ‘clock’ work? Is it reliable?
What does carbon dating really show?
What about other radiometric dating methods?
Is there evidence that the earth is young?
See Study Guide, Lesson 4

Chapter 5: How can we see stars in a young universe?

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to
get to us from many stars, how can we see them?
Did God create light in transit?
Was the speed of light faster in the past?
Does this have anything to do with the ‘big bang’?
See Study Guide, Lesson 5

Chapter 6: How did ‘bad things’ come about?

How did ‘bad things’ come about?
If God’s original creation was ‘very good’, why is ‘nature red in
tooth and claw’ now?
Did God create animals with defence-attack structures?
Or were they re-designed after the Fall?
Wouldn’t there be a population explosion if animals did not eat
each other?
See Study Guide, Lesson 6

Chapter 7: What about arguments for evolution?

What about arguments for evolution?
Do similarities between creatures prove that they had a common
ancestor (evolved)?
Is human and chimp DNA very similar?
Do human embryos go through animal stages as they develop?
Do we have useless left-over bits of animals in us? What about
‘ape-men’?
See Study Guide, Lesson 7

Chapter 8: Who was Cain’s wife?

Who was Cain’s wife?
It is now not lawful to marry your sister?
So if Adam and Eve were the only two people God created, how
could their son Cain find a wife?
How is this important to the Gospel?
See Study Guide, Lesson 8

Chapter 9: Were the 'Sons of God' and/or nephilim extra-terrestrials?

Were the ‘sons of God’ and/or nephilim extra-terrestrials?
Has Earth been visited by extra-terrestrials? Could life exist ‘out
there’?
What about UFOs and government cover-ups?
See Study Guide, Lesson 9

Chapter 10: Was the Flood global?

Was the Flood global?
Does it matter?
Does the Bible say that Noah’s Flood covered the whole earth?
Is there any evidence outside the Bible for such a Flood?
See Study Guide, Lesson 10

Chapter 11: What about continental drift?

What about continental drift?
Have the continents really moved apart?
How could this relate to the Bible’s account of history?
Could it have had something to do with the Flood?
See Study Guide, Lesson 11

Chapter 12: Noah’s Flood—what about all that water?

Noah’s Flood—what about all that water?
Where did all the water come from for the Flood?
Was there a water vapour canopy?
How was Mt Everest covered with water?
Where did the water go after the Flood?
How could this have happened?
See Study Guide, Lesson 12

Chapter 13: How did the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?

How did the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?
What animals went onto the Ark?
Where did they store all the food?
How could the Ark be big enough?
What about all the animal wastes?
See Study Guide, Lesson 13

Chapter 14: How did fresh and saltwater fish survive the flood?

How did freshwater and saltwater fish
survive the Flood?
How did saltwater fish survive dilution of the seawater with
freshwater, or how did freshwater types survive in saltwater?
And how did plants survive?
See Study Guide, Lesson 13 (continued)

Chapter 15: Where are all the human fossils?

Where are all the human fossils?
Why are human fossils not found with trilobites, for example?
If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, why aren’t their
fossils found together?
How could the Flood produce the order in the fossil record?
See Study Guide, Lesson 14

Chapter 16: What about the Ice Age?
What about the Ice Age?
How many ice ages were there?
Where does an ice age fit into the biblical account?
How much of the earth was covered by ice?
How long did it last?
What about the frozen mammoths?
How were people affected?
See Study Guide, Lesson 15

Chapter 17: How did the animals get to Australia?

How did animals get to Australia?
How did the animals get from remote countries to the Ark?
After the Flood, did kangaroos hop all the way to Australia?
What did koalas eat on the way?
See Study Guide, Lesson 16

Chapter 18: How did all the different ‘races’ arise?

How did all the different ‘races’ arise?
What is a ‘race’? How did different skin colours come about?
What are the consequences of false beliefs about ‘race’?
Are black people the result of a curse on Ham?
See Study Guide, Lesson 17

Chapter 19: What about dinosaurs?

What about dinosaurs?
Was there an ‘age of dinosaurs’ long before people came on the
scene?
What does the Bible say about dinosaurs?
What do dinosaur fossils tell us?
How could so many huge dinosaurs fit on Noah’s Ark
What happened to the dinosaurs?
See Study Guide, Lesson 18

Chapter 20: What can I do?

What can I do?

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 07:26:07

"Do we really have to keep going over and over this? Light Speed. You got it wrong."

No, I didn't. I gave strong evidence that it has changed over time. But, yes, let's forget that one.

"Unless of course what you are really getting at is that nothing can truly be 'fact' . . ."

Uh no, I wouldn't do that. That is an atheist's tactic. Christians believe in absolute truth. Many atheists do not. I'm the one who gave a definition of "fact," remember?

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 07:33:01

"The problem is that they are usually qualified in a completely unrelated field of science."

Sometimes, but not always. The same can be said of all fields of science. The cosmologist believes in evolution because the biologist says so. The biologist believes in the big bang because the cosmologist says so. There is very little that we know from experience. We all believe most things we believe based on the claims of someone else. I just have a Higher Authority than you do. You believe the words of men while I believe the Word of God.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Mon 15-Apr-13 07:33:38

No, I didn't. I gave strong evidence that it has changed over time. But, yes, let's forget that one.

You gave no evidence, let alone strong evidence. If you had strong evidence you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the topic and not discuss it anymore. You know, like all the other drivel you you keep on with.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 07:40:34

"Also you are factually incorrect when you use that list of scientists. The list is formed of creationist...... Yes. The list is formed entirely of Young Earth Creationists.... No."

I don't know about that. You might be right. It's a red herring any way. All the major branches of science were started by Christians who were mostly young-earth creationists until materialism took over and held science hostage to this day. But a new paradigm is on the horizon. As one scientist put it, "Paradigm shifts come one funeral at a time." One hundred years from now, intelligent design will be a routine part of science (as it is already in archaeology, forensics and the SETI program) and then scientists will say, "Of course. That's one of the strengths of science. It makes progress."

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 07:47:34

"You in 1 post quote an article by a woman who has gone on to discredit ift herself. You present the article as fact but then go on to say she must be wrong in her later work because that doesnt fit in with your theories. You cant pick and choose like that and present it as evidence."

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I can't change facts. But I can certainly pick and choose how to interpret those facts. That's how all science is done. And just because I choose to accept one piece of evidence someone presents, it doesn't mean I have to accept everything they present. That's a non sequitur.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 07:52:26

"I think Pedro and January summed up nicely. You also contradicted yourself completely in your attitude towards the Torah when asked to prove your translation skills and explain both the untranslatable hebrew, the contradictions and the aramaic words that appear randomly in the text. First claiming it wasn't relevant to the 'science' of your argument then claiming your entire creationist view was based on taking the Torah literally. Well, if you cannot read something properly to even grasp it, then how can you dismiss most scientists based on it?"

Just as you rely on experts for things you don't know, I rely on Hebrew scholars who are in agreement that Genesis teaches 6 literal 24-hour days. They don't believe it but they admit that's what it teaches - which is valuable because, as hostile witnesses, they are more reliable in my opinion.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 08:03:07

"We'll make an atheist out of you yet."

I would have to give up logic and reason (as well as free will and absolute morality) to be an atheist and that's not a trade off I'm willing to make.

"I'm sure you already are an atheist when it comes to the 1000s of other gods. Just one more to go."

Oh, puhleeze . . . allow me to debunk that silly, tired statement right now and if you're intellectually honest you will never use it again.

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in any gods, deities or the supernatural. It is not a positive belief. But as a Christian, I am a mono-theist. That means I believe there is only one God. So I don't merely have a lack of belief in other gods, I have a positive belief that they do not exist. Thus, in no way shape or form can I be described as an atheist. You now have to equivocate on your definition of atheism - which is irrational - or be honest and take back your statement. Which will it be?

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 08:05:33

"Much better to start with Science."

And yet science starts with philosophy - philosophy that is based on the Christian worldview. And so we've come full circle.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 08:08:52

"moved onto more solid ground by claiming that all the science was true"

I DO believe all science is true. Don't confuse what scientists say with science itself. That's called the fallacy of reification.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Mon 15-Apr-13 08:10:14

So I don't merely have a lack of belief in other gods, I have a positive belief that they do not exist.

That is exactly what was suggested. You do not believe in the other gods. That is atheistic. Non belief, regardless of whether you treat it as positive or passive is still non belief. You have a lot of learning to do my friend.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 08:15:00

"There's another thread on here where Christians are distancing themselves from Hell too for the same sort of reasons. Gradually retreating."

I changed my mind about hell a few years ago when I studied the Hebrew and Greek texts and discovered the Bible doesn't teach hell. I've changed my mind on several long-held beliefs in the past 6 years - always based on the evidence.

1. I used to believe in evolution. Now I don't.
2. I used to believe the earth was old. Now I don't.
3. I used to believe in aliens. (Even thought I saw a UFO as a kid.) Now I don't.
4. I used to believe in the immortal soul. Now I don't.
5. I used to believe in life after death. Now I don't.
6. I used to believe in an eternal-burning hell. Now I don't.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 08:16:36

"YEC is about being true to the original belief so it's probably unfair for Christians to laugh at it. Though Atheists have no reason not to."

And God is laughing at atheists.

EllieArroway Mon 15-Apr-13 08:16:47

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in any gods, deities or the supernatural Not really. It is defined as "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods".

See - there's two possibilities there....God or gods. This means that an atheist is either someone who rejects a particular God, or gods in general.

I do both - but not everyone does. You do the former with every other god proposed except your own.

Like it or not, you are an atheist.

And philosophy was born thousands of years before Christianity.

How sad you have to be so dishonest to make your case. Not much of a case is it?

infamouspoo Mon 15-Apr-13 08:23:38

lol at calling jews 'hostile witnesses'. Really, young earth Christians can be very amusing to watch.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 08:23:40

"Although science has provided good evidence that literal interpretation of religious books is a bad idea it has shown no evidence that God or Gods dont exist."

Science cannot show evidence that God does not exist and no scientist would claim it can. Science can only appear to make Him unnecessary and superfluous. This is what materialist scientists think they have done but in reality science has provided more evidence for the existence of God in the last century than in all the centuries that have come before put together.

"*That, at least at the moment is down to personal belief."*

Only if you want to have BLIND faith. But my trust in God rests on a solid foundation of scientific evidence.

infamouspoo Mon 15-Apr-13 08:24:34

'science has provided more evidence for the existence of God in the last century than in all the centuries that have come before put together.'

Where?

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 08:26:05

"I get your point but the terminology is wrong. Atheism is without the belief in any God and Theism is the belief in one or many Gods. Those terms exist outside of religion so someone who believes in any God cannot be Atheist."

Thank you, January. I invented that rebuttal recently and never heard anyone else use it. It's simple and brilliant if I do say so myself.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 08:28:03

"If you start with the Bible you get YEC, true, but you get all sorts of other nonsense too. Do you subscribe to it all?"

It is not nonsense to me, NG, and I subscribe to all of it.

EllieArroway Mon 15-Apr-13 08:43:03

It's simple and brilliant if I do say so myself

Does it not matter to you that it's wrong?

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 08:48:06

"If you believe the bible is an accurate version of events, and base the 6-10 thousand year old earth on this, where do dinosaurs come in to the equation?"

Thanks for the question, TDD. Dinosaurs were created on Day 6 with the other land animals and man They are mentioned frequently in the Bible as co-existing with humans. The word 'dinosaur' was only invented in 1841 by Richard Owen and the King James translation was completed in 1611 so we would not expect to find that word used.

Instead, they used behemoth, leviathan and the word dinosaurs have been called throughout most of human history: dragons. By the way, there is plenty of evidence of dragons co-existing with humans (Napoleon even mentions seeing one). And the numerous findings of soft tissue red blood cells (and as of January 2013, possibly even DNA) inside dinosaur bones indicates they did not live millions of years ago.

"*You (meaning Best here) have mentioned dinosaurs in relation to C-14, "fresh" bones being discovered etc., yet there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible?"*

See above.

"Were they an accidental creation that no-one talked about? Was the ark too small to fit them on?"

Nope. They were on the Ark. Most dinosaurs, even full grown, were about the size of a chicken. But Noah was smart enough to take young animals. They are smaller, they eat less, they sleep more, they produce less waste and they live longer after the Flood to produce more offspring - which is the reason Noah was bringing them in the first place.

All the animals in the world, averaged out, are about the size of a sheep. There was plenty of room on the Ark for all of the "kinds" (not species) of land animals and plenty left over for food storage and Noah's family. There's a great book called Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study which explains it all in detail. And the link I provided above to a free book would answer all the questions everyone on here had - if they would only take the time to read it. Seems they would rather argue than learn.

EllieArroway Mon 15-Apr-13 08:57:04

Are you getting your science from the Flintstones now? Did they mix cement in a Pelican too?

If you knew how wrong you are about everything, I think even you'd be a bit embarrassed.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 08:59:32

"What's more telling, however, is that no religious book has ever proved the existence of a god. And frankly, that's their job, so they haven't done very well."

Pedro, as you've seen I like to avoid the word proof because science cannot provide proof, only evidence. But just how would a Holy Book prove the existence of God?

What my Holy Book, the Bible, did is form a hypothesis about God that has been tested and vindicated by modern science again and again. That is strong evidence that the Bible is true and inspired by Someone with foreknowledge.

You're rather strange statement that "no religious book has ever proved the existence of a god" is backwards and seems to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the scientific method. It's a little like saying Plato's writings should prove the existence of Socrates. (Incidentally, there's actually scant evidence that Socrates existed.)

noblegiraffe Mon 15-Apr-13 09:04:49

Best So you think that the moon is a light made to rule over night?

Even though it's not a light and is sometimes around during the day too?

Really, the Bible isn't that hot on science. Rather primitive, in fact, as one might expect from the primitive societies that wrote it.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 09:05:11

"My argument is that without any tangible evidence for or against something you have to ask yourself the question "what do I instinctively believe /have faith in?". The belief in the absence of a deity is as much of a gut instinct choice as belief is."

I'm sorry but I have to completely disagree with January here. In my opinion, this is akin to advocating blind faith which I abhor. Don't go with your gut because your gut is often wrong. (Your gut would tell you the earth is flat and stationary with the earth revolving around it.) Go with the scientific evidence.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 09:07:35

"Actually it's not. When you have an absence of evidence for something it's far more logical not to believe it exists. That's not to say it doesn't, but the two positions are from equal."

Score another one for Pedro. You're on a roll, man. Two valid points in 352 posts. I totally agree with this statement.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 09:14:07

"My atheism is simply what you'd feel if I showed you a sealed box and asked you what was in it. Since you don't know you're probably say "I don't know". It would be foolish to suddenly have faith that it contained a lemon without some reason to think so."

Totally agree with Back on this one too. Except that once you've seen the evidence, you have no excuse. And God says He has provided enough evidence in the natural world that atheists are without excuse. In the past, people had to have much more faith. But so much evidence has been discovered in the past 100 years that nowadays atheists have to be - as the Bible says - "willingly ignorant." In my worldview, there are no true atheists. Everyone knows God exists.

noblegiraffe Mon 15-Apr-13 09:18:40

Everyone knows God exists

Nope, I spent quite a bit of my childhood believing he did, then it became increasingly obvious that church was nothing but an empty room.

And I've read the Bible and I'm damn sure that the god contained therein is the work of man. It is so blindingly obvious to me that it truly baffles me that some people think otherwise.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Mon 15-Apr-13 09:25:40

Pedro, as you've seen I like to avoid the word proof because science cannot provide proof, only evidence. But just how would a Holy Book prove the existence of God?

The statement I was responding to referenced that science hasn't proved the non existence of god. That is why I was using that same language in the response. Not your quote I might add.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Mon 15-Apr-13 09:29:11

Your gut would tell you the earth is flat and stationary with the earth revolving around it.

Your gut might. In fact that would explain an awful lot. But I can see the horizon and it doesn't take a creationist to realise that means the earth's not flat.

EllieArroway Mon 15-Apr-13 09:42:12

In my worldview, there are no true atheists. Everyone knows God exists

Well, your worldview has humans playing with dinosaurs, so it can hardly be called compelling.

But it's just one more thing for you to be wrong about. And you are. Again.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 10:09:47

"A big, big mistake here - detectable and measurable are not necessarily the same thing. No measurable C-14 has been found in fossils or fossil fuels, but some has been detected."

This is just plain nonsense and obfuscation. There should be no detectable C-!4 in anything older than 100,000 years.

"Every fossil ever found is “transitional”."

Ellie, that is question begging, not to mention dishonest. You know what I meant. The vast majority of fossils are very similar to living organisms still alive today. That should count as a failed prediction for evolution and a confirmed one for creation.

"Equilibrium WOULD be reached in 30,000 years IF the amount of input & loss of C-14 in the atmosphere were equal and consistent. They are not - the production and decay rate fluctuate wildly.

If they fluctuate wildly, then C-14 dating is impossible.

"Really? A “fact” points to the truth of something. It’s a fact that every one of my ancestors had sex at least once in their lives. I wasn’t there to see it and it all happened in the past - but my existence PROVES the fact of it."

True but for the sake of clarity let's stick to the agreed upon definitions of fact and truth previously mentioned. Leave "fact" to something observable in the present. Otherwise, it leads to people making silly statements like "evolution is fact." Unless you are purposely trying to mislead and I don't think you are. And avoid the word "prove" too. You only get proof in logic and mathematics - not science.

"You have fallen, it seems, into the microevolution vs macroevolution trap. They are in essence two stages of the same thing - the ONLY people who make this distinction are creationists, real scientists do not."

It's not a trap. And I think I previously mentioned that the whole "creationists made up those terms" argument is an atheist myth. (Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation")

To claim microevolution is the same as macroevolution is more question begging. It's akin to saying that because I can jump 3 feet it the air, I can jump to the moon. There is a barrier to how high I can jump and it's called gravity. There is also a barrier to how much an organism can evolve and it's called genetic information. Then you commit the "no true scotsman" fallacy. You managed to pull off 3 logical fallacies in one short paragraph. Good one.

"You don’t need faith, you just need to bother looking at the evidence - which is immense."

For microevolution, yes. For macroevolution, no. It needs to be independently verified. You don't get a free ride to assert that evolution is a fact by claim on is the other.

"Macroevolution is another word for evolution above the species level, yes? Also known as speciation. This HAS been observed, quite a lot. How have you missed it?"

I didn't miss it. I believe in speciation. But speciation is not the same as macroevolution either.

"And what kind of change do you think we should see to turn an “amoeba into a man”? It could only happen in tiny, incremental steps - that's what evolution is."

I realize that. I don't expect to see it one lifetime. I expect to see it first in the fossil record. But I also need to see a mechanism by which new genetic information can be generated. Mutations have not been know to accomplish this. Carl Sagan's ex-wife Lynn Margulis was working on a mechanism before she died. Here's an excellent interview with her. Although she believed in evolution, she admits creationists are right that it impossible by genetic mutations. Please read it and you'll understand my view.

discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/16-interview-lynn-margulis-not-controversial-right#.UWu_0EoYn9U

"No, the speed of light has not been slowing down. Our measurements over the past 200 years have gotten better!"

I'm sure that's what you've been taught and it's what I used to believe too. But now the evidence is fairly conclusive that it had actually slowed down. Watch the video I posted by Rupert Sheldrake.

"There's no evidence whatsoever that the universe has an "edge" or that we are at or near the centre in the bottom of a gravitational well."

There is no evidence that there isn't either. They are both arbitrary starting assumptions. The big bang adopts those assumptions to make the theory work. The gravitational time dilation theory starts with different assumptions.

Respected cosmologist George Ellis said, "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations . . . You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

So after all that, no one has managed to point out even one fact - an observation we can all make in the present - that I've gotten wrong. Can anyone do that?

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 10:16:07

"That is exactly what was suggested. You do not believe in the other gods. That is atheistic. Non belief, regardless of whether you treat it as positive or passive is still non belief. You have a lot of learning to do my friend."

You apparently don't understand how atheists define atheism. I'm just using their definition. They have a lack of belief. I have a positive belief. There is a difference and any atheist will be glad to clear it up for you. Even Dawkins would never claim he has a positive belief that God does not exist.

noblegiraffe Mon 15-Apr-13 10:31:30

There should be no detectable C-!4 in anything older than 100,000 years.

Why not? As I understand it, radioactive decay isn't a nice linear process where the atoms queue up one after the other to decay in an orderly fashion. If the half life is 5000-odd years, that means after 5000 years you'd expect half the original amount of C14. 5000 years later, half that, and so on. Any mathematician will tell you that halving and halving in an infinite series never actually reaches zero. But anyway, as radioactive decay of individual atoms is random, it is only probability telling us that in 5000 years we'll have half the amount left. And that probability is more accurate the higher the number of atoms you start with. When you have so very few atoms that they are just detectable, the half life prediction is going to be much less accurate and you could well have atoms hanging around for far longer than expected.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Mon 15-Apr-13 11:59:27

You apparently don't understand how atheists define atheism. I'm just using their definition. They have a lack of belief. I have a positive belief. There is a difference and any atheist will be glad to clear it up for you. Even Dawkins would never claim he has a positive belief that God does not exist.

Well actually you're wrong on both points there. A non positive belief in no god would be nontheist and Dawkins says it himself:

"Perhaps the best of the available euphemisms for atheist is nontheist. It lacks the connotation of positive conviction that there is definitely no god, and it could therefore easily be embraced by Teapot or Tooth Fairy Agnostics."

NicholasTeakozy Mon 15-Apr-13 12:25:35

<does best Yoda impression>

Strong the delusion in this one is.

infamouspoo Mon 15-Apr-13 12:41:31

Would your belief in God vanish Best, if the world was found to be older than 6000 years? You're very wedded to this rather bizarre idea. But I did rather enjoy the ludicrous claim of dinosaurs around 6000 years ago. Where are they now?

This is fun! Like debating which of the Teletubbies created the universe. It won't be the one with the handbag as everyone knows all the real gods are male.

So St George really did kill a dragon? Since we now know they existed there is no reason to disbelieve him. Anyone know how the fire breathing worked? It does say in the bible that Leviathan breathed flames, but doesn't explain the mechanism.

Hey, if the 'kinds' became all the species then shouldn't there be transitional forms since creationists keep demanding them for Evolution? and how come all the kangaroos ended up in the same area?

I think the 'Atheism' thing was covered, but I would like to know why we are required to have proof that BestValue's god doesn't exist, but it's ok for him to just know the others don't.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 20:48:37

"Like it or not, you are an atheist."

Ellie, it is very dishonest of you to change the meanings of the words. Let atheists define themselves the way they want to. They always say it is a "lack of belief." It is a non-position. It is also known as weak atheism. A "strong atheist" makes a positive claim that he knows God does not exist. Most atheists are smart enough to not go this far because they know science cannot prove or disprove God and so to make this claim is irrational.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 21:24:12

Over the past week I have received several private messages from silent observers on this message board who tell me they really love and appreciate what I'm doing here. So this leads me to conclude there might be many more of you who are following the thread but are choosing not to post. I wanted to let you know that God in his Word, tells us 365 times to "be not afraid." That is a daily reminder that He is with you and He loves you.

Don't be afraid to stand up for your convictions with confidence. Let the love and compassion you feel for non-believers shine through. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." We are called to defend God's Word without fear. But this passage goes on to say, "Do this with gentleness and respect." Never use profanity or bad arguments. Just sound reasoning and logic. Your conduct reflects on Jesus.

It is not your mission to convert unbelievers. That is the Holy Spirit's job. Yours is to defend your faith with honour, dignity, pride and compassion. Have no fear. For when God is with us, who can be against us.

BestValue Mon 15-Apr-13 22:29:52

"Anyone know how the fire breathing worked? It does say in the bible that Leviathan breathed flames, but doesn't explain the mechanism."

See the bombardier beetle, BOB. It shoots a chemical out its butt that burns its attacker. (I do that sometimes too after eating at Taco Bell.) This could be what was being described.

noblegiraffe Mon 15-Apr-13 23:02:47

Any comment on the moon being a light, best?

EllieArroway Mon 15-Apr-13 23:04:40

This is just plain nonsense and obfuscation. There should be no detectable C-14 in anything older than 100,000 years

Not true. Contamination happens in a variety of ways, so you're simply not correct. Do you have any links to research showing that the sample was intrinsic rather than a contamination? Let me save you time - no. That C-14 was detected is irrelevant when all the issues are corrected for.

Ellie, that is question begging, not to mention dishonest. You know what I meant. The vast majority of fossils are very similar to living organisms still alive today. That should count as a failed prediction for evolution and a confirmed one for creation

Not dishonest - a fact. All living things are "transitional" - that's how evolution works. How unfortunate that you don't know this. You seem to think that we ought to be finding half-cow, half-monkey fossils. You really do, don't you???? If we found anything like that, evolution would be disproved there and then. We find precisely what we expect to find. Like most creationists you don't even understand the theory that you're claiming is wrong. How arrogant.

To claim microevolution is the same as macroevolution is more question begging. It's akin to saying that because I can jump 3 feet it the air, I can jump to the moon. There is a barrier to how high I can jump and it's called gravity. There is also a barrier to how much an organism can evolve and it's called genetic information. Then you commit the "no true scotsman" fallacy. You managed to pull off 3 logical fallacies in one short paragraph. Good one

You could jump to the moon if you could do it in stages. What you can't do is make one enormous leap - and neither can evolution. It does it in tiny incremental stages not in one enormous bound as you creationists seem to expect.

There is no "barrier" to how much an organism can evolve! What a daft thing to say to say. I suppose it's your attempt at the "Mutations can't add information". Well, they can - and do. Even idiots like the Answers in Genesis lot have distanced themselves from this frankly ludicrous claim. Why are you still using it. Catch up with the bullshit at least!

It needs to be independently verified Speciation has been. Again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Deny it all you like, it's a fact.

If they fluctuate wildly, then C-14 dating is impossible Oh, for crying out loud - if you're going to try and discuss this matter at all, familiarise yourself with the science involved. I'm talking about atmospheric equilibrium, not samples taken from rocks for dating hmm

I believe in speciation. But speciation is not the same as macroevolution either If "macroevolution means anything, it means evolution above the species level. That is speciation - THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS. If you accept speciation, then you are accepting macroevolution.

I realize that. I don't expect to see it one lifetime. I expect to see it first in the fossil record What - a half man, half amoeba? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Sorry. If I was going to be rude, I might suggest looking in the mirror.

Look, if we found anything even approaching that, evolution as a theory would be blown out of the water. Every thing that has ever lived has been a fully evolved organism existing in it's own right and on it's own terms. To suggest that evolution predicts that we find anything else within the fossil record or anywhere else displays a fundamental lack of understanding for what evolutionary theory actually is.

I'm sure that's what you've been taught and it's what I used to believe too. But now the evidence is fairly conclusive that it had actually slowed down. Watch the video I posted by Rupert Sheldrake No, I'm not watching any video. I already know that this is bull because I know some physics.

Do you understand that the speed of light is a fundamental property of the universe - not just some speed that it happens to run at? If that speed were faster, it would have a massive...*MASSIVE*.... impact on how the universe works, and I doubt we'd even be here to talk about it.

Remember E=MC 2? Energy = Mass x Speed of light 2? This means that the faster light goes, the more mass it converts to energy. If light went faster it would cause an increase in the amount of energy released by matter and something like our sun, which relies heavily on material reactions, would be around a billion times hotter than it is now!

No - it's rubbish. Absolute rubbish. And another example of an argument that creationists have tried to use in the past and now distance themselves from for fear of being laughed at.

There is no evidence that there isn't either. They are both arbitrary starting assumptions. The big bang adopts those assumptions to make the theory work. The gravitational time dilation theory starts with different assumptions Not true. The BB model is the one that best fits the observations. Nobody suggests it's the final story but it makes predictions that are bourne out (most notably in CBR levels) and is supported to large amount of evidence from various scientific disciplines.

Your silly "we're sitting in a gravitational well" one is not based at all on an observation - it's a scrabbled together attempt at an explanation for something that proves your insane ideas (that the universe is a few thousand years old) are as silly as they sound.

For a start, there is no edge to the universe. We know this because we know that time and space are interconnected and bend in such a way that it's impossible to get to an edge. "Finite but boundless", as Hawking put it. If I set off tomorrow to get to the edge, eventually I'd end up back where I started.

And there is either no middle of the universe, or everywhere is the middle depending on how you want to view it.

If your time dilation idea were true, we'd see blue shifted light. If BB theory is true, we'd see red shifted light. Guess which one we see?

Isabeller Mon 15-Apr-13 23:43:27

Best can you really say that one person's belief is positive and another's negative?

Surely someone who positively believes our world and existence can be completely explained in material terms could equally say the belief that these things could not be explained in purely material terms is negative?

If you say there are no true atheists are you implying that the word atheist has no meaning? Or that it's meaning cannot be applied to a human?

Perhaps you are using the word 'know' in an unusual sense if you are convinced people 'know' God exists but sincerely believe otherwise. I'm not sure the alternative of suggesting those who disagree with you are insincere is very persuasive.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Mon 15-Apr-13 23:58:53

See the bombardier beetle, BOB. It shoots a chemical out its butt that burns its attacker.

Ahh yes, the famous bombardier beetle which about as dragon like as it is cabbage looking. It also doesn't breath fire and the chemical reaction it uses wouldn't work in a reptile of 'dragon' size, it would be fatal to anything other than an insect. It's also a process which has never been seen in reptiles. So this is a ridiculous answer to the question.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Tue 16-Apr-13 00:09:21

Over the past week I have received several private messages from silent observers on this message board who tell me they really love and appreciate what I'm doing here. So this leads me to conclude there might be many more of you who are following the thread but are choosing not to post.

Awww that's cute. Do you have any idea how many private messages I've had discussing how much of a prat you sound?

If there are, in fact, a number of YEC loving lurkers hanging around, let's have them join in. <<waves frantically>> best could do with some help here guys!

Or maybe they're trying to post but because the speed of light is slowing down, the electrons aren't reaching the internet and are getting sucked in by the gravitational well with the fire breathing dinosaurs in it.

EllieArroway Tue 16-Apr-13 01:27:30

Ellie, it is very dishonest of you to change the meanings of the words. Let atheists define themselves the way they want to. They always say it is a "lack of belief." It is a non-position. It is also known as weak atheism. A "strong atheist" makes a positive claim that he knows God does not exist. Most atheists are smart enough to not go this far because they know science cannot prove or disprove God and so to make this claim is irrational

Well, Best on this, at least, you are right. I'm not sure of the relevance, though, since this wasn't the point I was making.

Someone pointed out that you are an atheist with regards to all gods except Yahweh. You objected by claiming that no, atheism means the rejection of all gods and deities - and you claimed that this was the dictionary definition.

I showed that, actually, that's not the dictionary definition, at least not entirely. An atheist is one who "rejects God or gods". So, either atheism means to reject a PARTICULAR God (given as a proper name with a capital letter) or all gods generally.

With this definition, you are an atheist as far as a Hindu or Muslim is concerned. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but you were the one insisting on using dictionary definitions.

I am a strong atheist. I lack belief in a god and I also believe that no god exists. The latter is a positive statement and should be backed up by evidence (the former doesn't need to be). My evidence that no god exists is the lack of evidence demonstrating that one does.

My evidence that your God doesn't exist is exactly the same evidence that I would use to support my active belief that leprechauns don't exist.

Is it 100% conclusive? Nope. That level of certainty is available only to mathematicians.

Glad we cleared that one up.

Isabeller Tue 16-Apr-13 01:33:07

Not necessarily hugely relevant Ellie but I believe even in mathematics there is room for doubt (thinking of Godel for instance) smile

EllieArroway Tue 16-Apr-13 01:54:22

Sorry - keep seeing more that I really can't let go.

True but for the sake of clarity let's stick to the agreed upon definitions of fact and truth previously mentioned. Leave "fact" to something observable in the present. Otherwise, it leads to people making silly statements like "evolution is fact." Unless you are purposely trying to mislead and I don't think you are. And avoid the word "prove" too. You only get proof in logic and mathematics - not science

So, let's ignore the definitions of certain words since to apply them would not support your position?

No, dear - it doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

Fact:
1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation
3. a piece of information get me all the facts of this case

Truth:
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true

My ancestors had sex. Fact. That no living person was around to see it does not make it less of a fact.

Therefore, it is logically flawed, to say the least, to suggest that no one can consider evolution a FACT since no one was there to eyeball it happening (leaving aside the FACT that we can actually see evolution happening, so your position is wrong anyway).

Most of the information we have collated as human beings was not brought to us by being able to physically see it, thank goodness.

Anything else you'd care to get wrong?

infamouspoo Tue 16-Apr-13 09:49:35

'"Anyone know how the fire breathing worked? It does say in the bible that Leviathan breathed flames, but doesn't explain the mechanism."

See the bombardier beetle, BOB. It shoots a chemical out its butt that burns its attacker. (I do that sometimes too after eating at Taco Bell.) This could be what was being described.

hahahahahahahahha <wipes tears from eyes>
Even a pissed saxon couldnt mistake a beetle for a dragon

noblegiraffe Tue 16-Apr-13 11:38:55

No, there isn't room for doubt in maths! Pythagoras' Theorem is, and always will be true for all time, 100% certainty. Goedel says that there are true statements for which no proof exists, within a consistent axiomatic system.

Isabeller Tue 16-Apr-13 11:55:02

I have studied some maths though not geometry to a very high level but surely Pythagoras' theorem (have studied Pythagorean triple in context of Number Theory so not just being ignorant) depends on your frame of reference so it is possible to ask what if it wasn't true and look at the implications. For me maths is often about asking what if and although really good proofs are fantastic logic itself is worthy of study IMHO.

Anyway this debate isn't about maths and I'm not trying to derail. I do love the "God made the integers" quote

BestValue Tue 16-Apr-13 12:14:47

"Even a pissed saxon couldnt mistake a beetle for a dragon"

What??!! I'm saying they could have used the same process. The bombardier beetle has three chambers inside its body. One contains hydroquinones and another hydrogen peroxide. When threatened, the beetle combines the two chemicals in the third chamber and shoots the resulting liquid at its attacker. According to Wikipedia, "The boiling, foul-smelling liquid partially becomes a gas by flash evaporation and is expelled explosively through an outlet valve, with a loud popping sound."

The extinct species of crocodile Sarcosuchus (sometimes called supercroc) has three such chambers inside its skull. It is not unreasonable to think that something like this might have been possible.

dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/Sarcosuchus-Facts.htm

But let me make two other important points here. Evolutionists have much more ambitious claims to overcome than fire-breathing dragons so they should remove the beam from their own eye before looking at the splinter in the eye of creationists. Or to use another biblical metaphor, they strain at gnats while swallowing camels.

Second, I have no doubt that if this hypothesis turned out to be true, you would praise secular scientists for discovering it and give no credit whatsoever to creationists or the Bible.

infamouspoo Tue 16-Apr-13 12:19:04

Dragons. grin
Best laugh I've had all week

If our efforts to contact aliens ever succeed I doubt the makers of E.T or Mork & Mindy will get much credit either. smile

You are still trying to make stuff fit the story you have already decided is true. I know you think that's the same as science - hence your use of the word hypothesis - but it isn't really. You should be looking at what is, not what you'd like it to be.

Didn't marking a map "Here be Dragons" come to mean "no, I don't have a clue what's there"