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!

"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.

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. ;^)

"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.

by starting with biblical assumptions you breach Occams Razor. So what you actually get is Jack.

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.

"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.

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

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

A different side of the coin:

www.examiner.com/article/growing-list-of-scientists-who-consider-young-earth-creationism-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk

Believing in God and beliving in yec are 2 different things.....

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

and even then they are not all living scientists?

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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/

"Thanks best, hopefully we'll get one from you eventually!"

Touche, Pedro. Good one. :^)

"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." "

"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.

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

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. :)

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.