to be a little perturbed to have discovered that my next door neighbour is a Creationist?

[Greensleeves]

DH overheard our next door neighbour having a row with his wife in the back garden yesterday. He was insisting - belligerently - that the Earth is 6000 years old, Stephen Hawking was an idiot and the moon landing was faked. His wife was cackling and saying things like "but it's basic GCSE physics!".

For the avoidance of dripfeed: he's a dour, ill-mannered git who bellows at his kids all weekend and lets his dog shit on our drive.

@Nighttimenope how would you explain the fossil record then? If you don't believe the bones etc belong to dinosaurs and other species that died millions of years ago as per the scientific evidence?

As long as he is not doing you any harm, let him believe in pixies and fairies and magic what nots. I would definitely have a word about the dog poop though! When you do, speak slowly and avoid big words, since he is obviously dim.

Just a side note. The evidence that suggests the moon landings were faked, is actually quite compelling.

So, that makes me a creationist. The definition references neither the moon landings nor the age of the earth. The reason that I struggle with the Big Bang theory? If there was nothing, what caused the bang?

This is a fair enough question - but the introduction of God complicates rather than simplifies the answer. How did God get there? I know the answer is he is eternal, he was always there but ... why is easy to believe in an immeasurably complex divine creator just always being forever and ever (and what did he do for the aeons before he decided to create the universe?) but you can't accept that the super dense molecule which exploded outward was always there? Why is one inexplicable and one is the answer to the inexplicable, when in fact it's the exact same answer - just a step more complicated?

I do take the first chapter of Genesis literally

Can I ask which version? there are two creation stories at the beginning of Genesis and the creation order is different between them. The first version is the 'day' version (on the first day God created...) In this one he creates animals before humans - and both man and woman at the same time. This day structure and the bulk of the order is most widely accepted BUT the story of creating Eve from Adam's rib comes from the second version of events - where Adam is created first and then the animals and then a woman. This is the widely accepted version of Eve's arrival (she actually arrives AFTER God tells Adam not to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge and God does not see fit to repeat himself - so I am unsure as to how she was supposed to know.) Now the church elders through the centuries have gone through a lot of contortions to try and explain the difference between the two times women are created. They have developed (with no reference to the bible beyond the one line 'he created them male and female' that Adam's first wife was a lady called Lilith who argued with Adam because she wanted sex on top, after the argument she flew (with those wings original women had) out of the garden and sat on the banks of a river killing babies (despite there being no other humans and no death at this point). Then God creates Eve to be more compliant. Now - you're free to believe all that, but it does rather beg the question - why did they go to all this trouble to explain the second creation of woman ... but they didn't feel the need to explain what happened to all the animals that were created before humans which must also have an interesting backstory on how they disappeared so that they could later be created after Adam? Why is that disparity not as important when it is just as nonsensical?

There are two Genesis stories a page apart and they contradict each other. You cannot believe them both. If one of them is wrong - which one? And if one of them is wrong ... how can you be sure the other isn't as well?'

Really snide to make fun and be perturbed at someone else’s religion op.

Why are people confusing conspiracists with creationist.

Greensleeves

I recognise you from lots of other threads, we have a shared interest, and I've never heard you like this, are you sure you are ok? You are usually really nice and fair, but here you are poking fun at religion, why?

Obviously address the dog shit problem, even put it on his step or through the letterbox, but leave his religion out of it, it isn't hurting you.

Really snide to make fun and be perturbed at someone else’s religion op.

No it's not, why should it be snide? If nobody had ever invented the idea of religion and I suddenly started preaching half the shit that's in the bible today, then folk would assume I was delusional. Nobody has to respect any religion, nor the ideologies they perpetuate, nor is it snide to (rightly, imo) be incredulous at some of the ridiculous ideas.

"Oh, you believe in god? How quaint!"

There are different sorts of creationists. Not all of them are bonkers. Young Earth Creationists are.

Sorry macca but I do think it is. Most of the worlds main religions believe in creation, that’s an awful lot of people. I think tolerance is the way forward, we don’t all believe the same thing and shouldn’t be ridiculed for having different beliefs that someone else

He sounds very unpleasant, but his YEC views aren't necessarily a contributor to his general demeanour. I know a good few people who are young earth creationists and the nicest, kindest people you could find. Bit unfair to be collating the two.

I prefer to take the science seriously and as a Christian have no issues with looking at Genesis as a non-literal engagement with how things got started and how things went a bit pear shaped. But the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old is surely so obviously flawed, and for me the billions of years of evolution, the big bang etc are in no way whatsoever at odds with there being a God who created it all. Most Christians I know think like this. Saying that, I'd prefer not to mock those who believe in a young earth, simply because I prefer to respect people. However, your neighbour doesn't seem to respect you or his wife.

Well, my former neighbours are Nazis and their house is full of all sorts of creepy historical Nazi stuff they have collected. They are 'collectors', not obviously in like the National Front and out marched. But we are noisy and snooped on their (public) Facebook pages and it's filled with their trips to Germany and them smiling in front of all sorts of Hilter stuff. Given I'm Jewish, I'm glad we don't live next to them anymore....At least a creationist, I could sort of laugh at their foolishness. Not so much with the Nazis.

Someone analysed the degree of fundamentalism of various religious sects versus their likelihood to be climate change deniers. There was a strong correlation. Given the prevalence of fundamentalists in the US, this mindset is very far from harmless eccentricity. Anti-science attitudes have a massive negative impact on the real world.

No, religions are allowed to be ridiculed. Beliefs are allowed to be ridiculed, as atheist's often are. You can be respectful to somebody as a person but religion does not command respect.

“Most of the worlds main religions believe in creation, that’s an awful lot of people. I think tolerance is the way forward, we don’t all believe the same thing and shouldn’t be ridiculed for having different beliefs that someone else”
It rather depends on what you mean by creation. Most world religions believe that their God was Involved in the beginning of everything. Only a few believe that he was involved in doing it 6000 years ago. Once a “belief” is replaced by cold hard fact it is entirely OK for people to ridicule the people who cling unthinkingly to the belief in the face of the fact. I don’t personally choose to ridicule if I can avoid it, but I can understand people who do. Particularly if the joke is proper funny.....

Ridiculing religion often has the opposite of the intended effect.

No way would I want to talk to someone who wants to ridicule my religion. I'd give them a wide berth, whereas I'm fine with people who accept that people have the right to hold religions and non-religious beliefs.

I have a right to be free of proselytisation and people imposing their views on me, both atheist and theist.

“I have a right to be free of proselytisation and people imposing their views on me, both atheist and theist“
I agree. The problem is that in the U.K. as an atheist, I don’t have that right.

Why don’t you feel you have that right Bertrand?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - not one person has been able to show one scrap of evidence of any deity, ever. Therefore imo religion should not be protected from any ridicule. Though personally my ridicule would generally be in response to somebody trying to force their religious beliefs on me.

“Why don’t you feel you have that right Bertrand?”
Because Christianity is embedded in many institutions in the U.K. It is, for example, impossible to take a full part in the life of any state school without taking part, at least nominally, in Christian worship. The House of Lords has a Christian block vote that influences, for example, all legislation- particularly health and social policy.

I'm not humourless, but it really pisses me off that people think it's fine to take the piss out of someone for believing in God.

I'm afraid that I think that anyone believing anything for which there is no evidence is fair game, frankly. That goes as much for people believing in god as people believing in astrology, reading tea leaves or Brexit being a good idea.

DP's DM gets stick from the whole family for believing that the moon landings were fake, even though she's otherwise utterly rational, intelligent, well educated and in full possession of her marbles at the age of 80. She laughs it off and doesn't take offence.

i'm a non-bonkers young earth creationist! There is compelling scientific evidence to support this view, but as with both views, a bit of faith is required to support your belief. I find it much harder to believe the earth and our complex anatomy and very single creature came about from an explosion millions of years ago....I just can't see how that would work at all...where did it all start? None of us were there to see it, so we need to believe that our view is what took place.

As for fossil dating, to achieve the date, a set of parameters is assumed ie. that the earth is a certain age, that the dinosaurs lived a certain number of years ago, it's how part of dating works. Because no-one was actually there, how can you assume it's a certain number of years old.

I don't doubt the moon landings (not sure how that's got anything to do with anything), dinosaurs existed, but became extinct, like many other animals have...not sure what other assumptions are made about YEC beliefs, but happy to answer.

What I'd like to ask anyone who doesn't believe in Creation is-
How can something come from nothing?
Where did that something come from?
How can complex physiology come by chance?
How does it make sense that your bodily systems work together so well?
Where are all the 'in-between' beings from evolution?
How can beauty come from mess?
How is there order in the world?
How even does everything work?
Doesn't everything need someone to make it?
The second law of thermodynamics shows that everything is in a worse state than it's first state, how does this apply to everything become better and more complex than it's initial state at the assumed beginning of time?

Mrs9C - how old do you think the earth is?

I just found out my neighbour is a Holocaust denier. Honestly, I feel like moving.

Golden rule....if you want to deny something, don't pick the holocaust or evolution. There's way too much evidence, and you'll end up looking like a fucking twat.

I've had a quick skim over the thread, and just to answer some questions/assumptions that have been made about literal 6 day biblical creation...

In the beginning God... that's how the bible starts. God is eternal, no beginning, no end. No, we can't understand this, our minds are limited by time - it is faith to accept that God was the beginning, is the end, all things are in his hands.

Correct that the sun was not created on day 1, only on day 4. But each day was "evening and morning" and was a day, the sun was not there from the beginning of time, perhaps so it should not be worshipped, perhaps not, regardless, God made light, and the light was the day and the darkness was the night, until the 4th day.

God created man in perfection. This is key to the understanding of the human race. Utter perfection...not one cell, not one flaw in the human body, super human almost - hence he lived until 900 years, there was not the existence of disease.

The biggest key in the understanding and acceptance of Christianity is that there was NO sin in the beginning, hence the perfection. Humans were vegetarian to begin with - as there was no sin, or death, no animals had died, therefore man ate fruit and vegetables and was sustained on this. No sin, and the perfect human body is the reason why Adam's sons AND daughters (Get 5:4) were able to marry and reproduce. Don't go to the bible with our 21st century logic, it won't make sense to your thinking, look at the 21st century with biblical eyes and it makes more sense then.

Sin came into a sinless world... God set Adam a test, which he failed, therefore cursing the rest of humanity to be born in sin. This is also another crux to the understanding of Christianity. Sin equals death, sadness, tragedies, crime...indeed Adam's son Cain murdered his brother Abel in jealousy. Nobody after this was born good, save Jesus, who did not have an earthly father, therefore the lineage of Adam not passed to him.

Fossils came about when there was worldwide flood of the earth, the flood is not only rain for the 40 days and 40 nights as we traditionally know it, but the bible states that it was an eruption of earthquakes, and the ground literally splitting apart. Everything on earth, save what was on the ark, yes, including dinosaurs (average size of dino is the size of a horse, there were large and small ones), was buried quickly in the layers of earth that shifted and adjusted. Want to see evidence of this -- grand canyon is a good example. There are layers upon layers of rock and fossils buried there. Now we can assume one of two things, that either each layer took millions of years, or that it happened quickly and catastrophically in a very short amount of time. The second fits with what the Bible tells us.

Marrying brothers and sisters did not last, this was prohibited quite quickly after the beginning, as soon as sin came into the world the human life span quickly shortened after the first few generations. Because of the flaws that came into the body it very quickly became wrong to marry close, children born to close relatives often have problems, and this is why.