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!

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?

"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.

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.

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."

Strong the delusion in this one is.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

Any comment on the moon being a light, best?

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

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?

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Not necessarily hugely relevant Ellie but I believe even in mathematics there is room for doubt (thinking of Godel for instance)

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?