Young Earth Creationists

[PedroPonyLikesCrisps]

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!

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

'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.

'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.

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.

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?

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.

I might love weegiemum for that comment..... is that really wrong?

"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.

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!

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!!

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......

I think he's in a different timeline weegie.

Time zone -possibly!

Timeline - almost certainly

(Sorry :D)

Oops! I meant time zone - not sure how timeline came out!

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.

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!

briefly you've made me realise, it's not that best is talking rubbish at all, we just need a babel fish!

*"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.

slight margin my bottom

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.

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

"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 peoplelived 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.

"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:

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.

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

and my appologies. I also initially mixed the concepts to that is in part my fault