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!

I'll make an honest challenge to anyone on here right now. All this stuff about the fossil record, the speed of light and radiometric dating methods etc. are irrelevant. They are things which led me to question evolution but they are all red herrings. Here's why. As you know, DNA contains the instructions to make living organisms. My primary argument against evolution is that genetic mutations (copying errors) in those instructions cannot generate new information to produce totally new features, traits or body plans. (I don't mean new functions for pre-existing traits.)

If anyone can provide several sources for examples of this having taken place and if it has been verified beyond a reasonable doubt, I will accept it. And this has huge implications for my worldview. For if evolution is true, the earth is very old. If that's true either my understanding of the Bible is very flawed or the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong, I would have no logical reason to trust many of its other claims. I would then probably become at least a deist or even an atheist. And I would be perfectly fine with that. I want to believe what is true, not a comforting delusion.

So bring it on. All the evidence you can find. Understand that I've already seen a lot over the past six years. Forget any evidecne for microevolution. I already accept that. And forget things like nylonase and the TalkOrigins Macroevolution page. It's probably going to have to be genetic evidence only.

But here's part two of my challenge . . . when you don't find it, will you at least have the intellectual honesty to consider this a point in favour of my side? If not, can you really consider that your belief in evolution is not based on blind faith?

No. I dont believe in aliens. Dont be ridiculous.

'If that's true either my understanding of the Bible is very flawed or the Bible is wrong. '

I'd say both. Its a bunch of stuff written by a nomadic middle eastern people several thousand years ago that was initially an oral tradition. To try and explain how we came to be. At some point around 900 BCE it started to be written down and became judaism and was formalised as a religion. That is generally what happened.
Around 100-300 CE a whole bunch more stuff was tacked on to make a new religion called Christianity.
HTH

But best, you don't want to believe so nothing will convince you, you'll find excuses one way or the other.

I mean, you'd look at a picture like this
i.imgur.com/fdc2BNq.jpg
And instead of thinking 'gosh, common ancestor, successive small changes over a very long time leading to very different body features' you'd write it off as, I dunno, God being lazy in his body design or something.

"No. I dont believe in aliens. Dont be ridiculous."

If you're an atheist, you probably should, Infamous. So no evidence for me, then?

they are not red herrings they are all vey tangeble evidence that the universe is much older than 6000 years.

I suspect articles on the rapid evolution of coral would just lead you to use it as evidence that evolution can happen quickly in all species.....

My primary argument against evolution is that genetic mutations (copying errors) in those instructions cannot generate new information to produce totally new features, traits or body plans. (I don't mean new functions for pre-existing traits.)

Then your understanding of evolution is flawed, because the new features, traits and body plans are all born from the re-functioning of previous features. Feet and legs are re-functioning of fins for example. Wings are re-functioning of forearms or front legs. These are simplistic examples but there are plenty more..... In fact there are as many examples of this as there are different traits in animals and plants.

why would any atheist automatically believe in aliens? Thats just silly talking best. eally scraping the barrel there accusing people of believing in aliens with no evidence at all. As well as lumping atheists into a homogenous group.

And who said I was an atheist? Ive not made such a claim. I've said nothing about my personal beliefs but you can bet I'm not a young earther or a creationist.

I would have thought that atheists were the least likely people to believe in aliens, since there's no credible proof of their existence.

My primary argument against evolution is that genetic mutations (copying errors) in those instructions cannot generate new information to produce totally new features, traits or body plans. (I don't mean new functions for pre-existing traits.)

The link below might address some of your confusion over how seemingly small changes in genes can lead to massive phenotypic changes. You need to understand that genes don't act as independent entities. There are many 'master genes' (such as homeobox genes and other transcription factors) that can control the expression of many others. Get a mutation in one of these and you could potentially change the body plan dramatically.

users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutation_and_Evolution.html

Also just wanted to point out that the body plans of mammals, for example, aren't even that different to one another. Every mammal has exactly the same bone structure, the only thing which varies is the size of those bones.

The modern creationist movement didn't even get started until well after Archaeopteryx was found in 1859.

They might have banded together relatively recently as their numbers fell, but creationists would have been around since whoever it was wrote Genesis.

The number of ribs in the supposedly ?intermediate? stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.

Bestvalue, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I got the feeling from that you expect evolution to have an aim in mind. like "I'm going to turn this goldfish into a bear" and later thinking "phew that's done so I'll stop now".

This is probably oversimplifying, but I would imagine that if you had a forest full of giraffe and the tall trees started to die off then that would favour shorter neck giraffe. Later if the taller trees flourished then that might favour the longer necked ones. That's not devolution either, but evolution in a different direction.

Hate to be pedantic back but it's commonly understood now that giraffe necks actually developed for superiority in mating fights rather than for reaching high branches, in fact they often eat from low branches!

Not that it changes the point of your post at all though.

"And who said I was an atheist? Ive not made such a claim. I've said nothing about my personal beliefs but you can bet I'm not a young earther or a creationist."

A creationist, by definition, is someone who believes in a Creator. So if you're not a creationist, that makes you an atheist. (Unless you're trying to say you're an agnostic which is really just a weak form of atheism according to the New Atheists.)

"why would any atheist automatically believe in aliens? Thats just silly talking best. eally scraping the barrel there accusing people of believing in aliens with no evidence at all. As well as lumping atheists into a homogenous group."

I said "if" you're an atheist and I didn't say "automatically" I said "probably." When I make these claims, I'm referring to people who have thought through their worldview to make it logically consistent (like I have). The problem comes in because most people haven't.

Atheists believe that life arose spontaneously from non-living material either on this earth or on another planet which was then seeded onto earth. Because, so the argument goes, earth is not special (see the Copernican principle) there are likely many earth-like planets in the universe capable of supporting life. And because our sun is a relatively young star and there are probably trillion of other solar systems out there much older than ours, the chances are great that there exists life and possibly advanced life on at least one if not many other planets in the universe.

This is the argument I accepted and preached up until about 4 years ago. My favourite arguments was, "We'd be arrogant to think that we are alone in the universe." That was until I learned that, according to the best scientific evidence, the earth actually is quite rare and special in the universe and that the chances of life coming from non-life without a Creator are so remote as to be in the realm of impossibility.

This is why most atheists, if they are logically consistent in their thinking, believe that the existence of aliens is quite probable. Stephen Hawking himself said recently that they may even walk among us now and if you meet an alien, you should avoid talking to him because he's probably dangerous.

*"But best, you don't want to believe so nothing will convince you, you'll find excuses one way or the other.

I mean, you'd look at a picture like this
i.imgur.com/fdc2BNq.jpg
And instead of thinking 'gosh, common ancestor, successive small changes over a very long time leading to very different body features' you'd write it off as, I dunno, God being lazy in his body design or something."*

That's unfair, NG. In fact, I am the only one on here who has demonstrated a willingness to change his views, has done so recently on a variety of topics and has given specific examples of evidence that would falsify my views. You have done none of those.

The homology argument is one I used to find persuasive for nearly 40 years. They now know those limbs are not generated via the same genes and chemical pathways. The homology evidence seems persuasive to a layperson but has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community. It is one if the weakest arguments for evolution.

Realize that I have been studying this subject for several hours a day, every day for over 6 years. You'll have to do better than just showing me evidence from a high school or even university-level biology text book. I've seen it all before - numerous times. Most of it is merely evidence for microevolution at best or is no longer held to be true by experts. And if you're evidence is that macroevolution is just more microevolution over time, forget it. That's not reasonable or credible.

Here's a brief excerpt from a book I'm writing called, "How to Debate an Atheist." It addresses 101 of the biggest challenges leveled at the Christian faith. Topics include: evolution, intelligent design, creationism, the existence of God, Jesus, the Bible, science, atheism and religion.

Perhaps any one of you can make a similar list and post it here. It forces you to examine your worldview carefully to make sure it is evidence-based, falsifiable and logically consistent.

--------------

"WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD FALSIFY YOUR BELIEFS?"

a) Here are seven empirical and scientific evidences that, if unequivocally confirmed, would pose a serious challenge to my beliefs in God and Christianity.

1. If it could be proved conclusively that the universe is eternal and had no beginning, that would seem to contradict the Bible which claims God alone is eternal and the universe is finite.

1. If we discovered that our universe was but one of trillions of other universes with varying laws of physics, that would seem to destroy the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God (a.k.a. the Anthropic Principle). If the universe did not require a fine-tuner, God's role as Creator and Designer of the universe would be greatly diminished.

1. If we were to find life arising spontaneously from non-living matter by purely natural processes here on earth or throughout our solar system or galaxy, that would seem to negate the need for divine intervention to create life.

1. If we were to uncover a mechanism by which novel genetic information could be generated (genetic mutations, on which evolution depend, are not known to accomplish this), that would support the biological evolution of all living organisms from a common ancestor and severely undermine the biblical claim that God created living creatures "after their kind."

1. The discovery of the bones of Jesus Christ would effectively put an immediate end to Christianity. (1 Corinthians 15:14-20)

1. If DNA evidence determined that Jesus in fact had a human father and was not born of a virgin, Christianity would be falsified.

1. The elimination of the Jewish people would discredit God's promise to Abraham and end-time events as prophesied in the Book of Revelation.

b) Note that science does not and cannot provide absolute proof. Therefore, it is very difficult to completely falsify any worldview whether theistic or atheistic. Some measure of faith is involved in every belief system. These evidences would have to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" - a standard of which is unique to each individual.

"I suspect articles on the rapid evolution of coral would just lead you to use it as evidence that evolution can happen quickly in all species....."

Well, not necessarily in all species. But evolutionists are constantly surprised at how fast microevolution can happen and they are baffled because it falsifies their predictions. Creationists, on the other hand, are not surprised. It is exactly what we would predict based on a young-earth model. I've already seen rapid evolution is many species - not just coral. And yes, it is evidence FOR my view and AGAINST yours.

I solved the dinosaur conundrum

I actually agree with you about alien life forms, given what we've so far discovered about the universe I think they're much more likely than the existence of God. I don't 'believe' in them because we haven't yet found any evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if we did one day though.

I think the 'little green men' scenario is fanciful (but not impossible) but if we found something akin to a bacteria it'd still be an alien life form.

" I would have thought that atheists were the least likely people to believe in aliens, since there's no credible proof of their existence. "

No, Lizzy. Aliens are not supernatural so there is no reason to reject them on that grounds. See my explanation above. Scientists now know there was likely not enough time for life to get started here on the early earth (only a mere 500 million years or so is available between the time the earth cooled down 4.6 billion years ago until the first life appears). So they theorize life was seeded here from another planet - possibly Mars or Jupiter's moon Europa.

I have been making a falsifiable prediction for about 5 years now that if they find microbial life on Mars it will prove to have come from earth.

"Get a mutation in one of these and you could potentially change the body plan dramatically."

Thanks for the link, Islets. I'll check it out.

"They might have banded together relatively recently as their numbers fell, but creationists would have been around since whoever it was wrote Genesis."

Agreed. (And I would say even earlier than that - since the creation of the world 6,000 years ago. Adam was a creationist because he talked with God.) Creationists started all the major branches of science. They didn't see a conflict between their science and their faith. Darwin's biggest opposition did not come from creationists but from his materialist colleagues - the intelligentsia of his day.

"Bestvalue, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I got the feeling from that you expect evolution to have an aim in mind."

Absolutely not. Perhaps you should start with the presupposition that I actually understand how evolution works instead of assuming I do not. Is it really not possible to think that someone can understand evolution and still not believe it? It was my understanding of evolution which led me to reject it and I find that most who believe it, do so on weak arguments and scanty evidence.

"Hate to be pedantic back but it's commonly understood now that giraffe necks actually developed for superiority in mating fights rather than for reaching high branches, in fact they often eat from low branches!"

Score another one for Pedro. Lamarckism was thoroughly discredited 200 years ago. But I didn't see anyone make that argument. Must have missed it.

Best, are you really that dense? Being an atheist has absolutely nothing to do with belief in aliens.

Personally I agree that we'd be arrogant to think there's no other life forms in the universe, but as there's no evidence for them, I don't believe in them because I'm not about to go pretending stuff exists like you do.

Oh, and if you've really spent that long studying all this then you've wasted your life because you don't actually understand any of it.

"This is probably oversimplifying, but I would imagine that if you had a forest full of giraffe and the tall trees started to die off then that would favour shorter neck giraffe. Later if the taller trees flourished then that might favour the longer necked ones. That's not devolution either, but evolution in a different direction."

Oh yes, I see it now. Backonlybriefly isn't suggesting Lamarckism and is in fact correct.