Young Earth Creationists(1002 Posts)
I know Young Earth Creationists exist, I've seen them on telly, but never met one in real life, so I'm just wondering if anyone here is one or knows one or whether they are actually just incredibly rare and reserved for extreme tv debating!
"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.)
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.
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!
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 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.
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?
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.
"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. :^)
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).
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).
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?
Not sure how you could have scientific evidence for the existence of god, science doesn't dabble in the supernatural?
"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 . . .
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.
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. :^)
"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.
"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?
"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.
Talkorigins is your friend. Re your 'equilibrium' problem with carbon dating, this might explain your issue:
Also: evidence for macro evolution (there's loads, but I'm off out now, I might pop back and highlight my favourites later)
"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.
"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.
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.
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'.
Thanks for answering my question best
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.
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
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.