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!

Why would you write a book called "How to debate an atheist"? Seems a little argumentative. Not sure why anyone needs to "win" this.

It feels a bit like you think that scientists are trying to disprove Creation.

That isn't what science is. Science is at its most basic is just a way of describing what can be observed and as new observations come in and are backed up and repeated and tested those descriptions change. Scientific wisdom today is just a description of what we know so far based on what we have observed, of course that will change as new information comes in.

Atheists believe...

Atheists believe all sorts of things. The only thing we have in common is a lack of belief in any gods.

You seem to believe that the opposite of creationist is evolutionist, as if those were the only two choices.

Why would you write a book called "How to debate an atheist"?

That would be the shortest debate in the history of time.

Atheist: So what evidence do you have for the existence of a god?

Theist: I don't need evidence, I have faith.

Atheist: I deploy Hitchens Razor. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". What do you say to that?

Theist: Like I said, I have my faith.

Atheist: So no evidence then? Goodbye.

studying this subject for several hours a day, every day for over 6 years

I am completely aghast that you seem to think this makes you an expert on any of the vast array of geological, biological and physical subjects you are attempting to disprove. It takes years and years for scientists to become an authority in one relatively miniscule field of one particular science. This involves an education in how to gather evidence, perform experiments reliably and interpret data. If you think you have done all of this by reading textbooks/googling I am utterly astounded by your arrogance and wonder if there is any point in debating with you

For 'studying' read 'quotemining'.

BV does love a good quote, as he has demonstrated to us, and as is pointed out here (amongst other places)

"Why would you write a book called "How to debate an atheist"? Seems a little argumentative. Not sure why anyone needs to "win" this."

It's not about winning or losing. It's about truth. A debate does not have to be confrontational or combative. It is simply a method of interaction which includes both sides of a particular viewpoint proposing logical and rational arguments to defend their views.

"It feels a bit like you think that scientists are trying to disprove Creation."

And what could I have possibly said in anything I've ever written here to give you that impression?

"That isn't what science is. Science is at its most basic is just a way of describing what can be observed and as new observations come in and are backed up and repeated and tested those descriptions change. Scientific wisdom today is just a description of what we know so far based on what we have observed, of course that will change as new information comes in."

I totally agree and have said nothing different.

"Atheists believe all sorts of things. The only thing we have in common is a lack of belief in any gods."

Agreed. Remember that I am the one who has to keep reminding people what the definition of atheism is. When I wrote "atheists believe that life arose spontaneously from non-living material . . ." perhaps I should have made it clear by saying, "a logically-consistent atheist MUST believe . . ." I was just granting atheists the benefit of the doubt for being logical but I see how I was mistaken there. Any atheist who does not believe that, has simply not thought through his worldview clearly enough.

"You seem to believe that the opposite of creationist is evolutionist, as if those were the only two choices."

Yes and no. There appear to be only two choices: design or natural, undirected processes. (And please don't anybody make the lame "evolution is not chance" argument here. I'm not saying that.) If I believe in intelligent design I am free to believe in any one of many thousands of gods. Or even many gods. But an atheist is compelled to accept evolution no matter how much evidence is against it because it is currently the best naturalistic explanation.

One thing I learned in writing my evolution book a few years ago (released November 24, 2009 - the 150th anniversary of the release of "On the Origin of Species") was that scientists will not reject a theory until a better naturalistic theory comes along. So imagine this thought experiment. Suppose there are 100 observations (facts) that need to be explained. If scientists have two competing theories - one which explains 5% of the data and one which explains 15% - the higher one wins be default and becomes the reigning theory. The general public accepts it as truth never suspecting that it leaves 85% of the data unaccounted for.

Now, I believe that what I have is a theory which explains, say, 90% of the known facts. Sure there are still a few bugs to be worked out but such is the nature of science, right? But because my theory has theological implications and it makes reference to a global flood (for which I have a purely naturalistic mechanism - no miracles are required) it is rejected - not on scientific grounds but for philosophical and emotional reasons. That is the situation I believe we find ourselves in with the creation/evolution debate today.

Nicholas, your post is not even worth responding to. No one is advocating blind faith here. If you'd take a few minutes to read the thread, you'll see that.

By the way, I loved Christopher Hitchens and miss him dearly. He was the most rational of the New Atheists (Dawkins is the worst). But Hitchens himself often asserted things without evidence and therefore, with his permission, I dismiss them without evidence. His primary arguments added up to one big non sequitur - namely "Christians do bad things. Therefore God does not exist" with a little "I don't want to be controlled by a Celestial Dictator!" thrown in for good measure.

"For 'studying' read 'quotemining'."

That is a slanderous claim for which you're going to have to provide some evidence, Bore.

"I am completely aghast that you seem to think this makes you an expert on any of the vast array of geological, biological and physical subjects you are attempting to disprove. It takes years and years for scientists to become an authority in one relatively miniscule field of one particular science. This involves an education in how to gather evidence, perform experiments reliably and interpret data. If you think you have done all of this by reading textbooks/googling I am utterly astounded by your arrogance and wonder if there is any point in debating with you"

I didn't ask you to debate me, Islets. You've showed up a little late, - apparently bringing a knife to a gunfight - a the end when my opponents are all nearly dead any way. I didn't say that makes me an "expert" (although, by the definition of the word, it actually does). It does however makes me much more knowledgeable than the average person who has a right to hold views on a subject he studies rigorously and loves passionately.

By the way, I loved Christopher Hitchens and miss him dearly. He was the most rational of the New Atheists (Dawkins is the worst). But Hitchens himself often asserted things without evidence and therefore, with his permission, I dismiss them without evidence. His primary arguments added up to one big non sequitur - namely "Christians do bad things. Therefore God does not exist" with a little "I don't want to be controlled by a Celestial Dictator!" thrown in for good measure.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Christians do bad things therefore God does not exist????!!!! You've never actually listened to a word he's said have you? It's like talking to a child. You really are the dumbest person on the planet aren't you?

You literally have no concept that almost everything you say is complete crap. All your arguments can be found on creationist websites, you've studied nothing. You copy and paste most of what you say here (literally or paraphrasing other sites). All of your evidence has been refuted by real scientists and yet you just carry on with your bollocks as if no one has ever challenged anything or has any kind of evidence against what you are saying.

This whole thread has been a bit like the Monty Python Black Knight sketch, you really just don't realise when all your limbs have been chopped off.

Pedro, That's okay. I'm sure you're right about the necks. I was just going for a really basic image there. :)

Bestvalue, my reason for the example was that you seemed disturbed by the idea of the number of ribs in horses going down AND up. I have no idea if they did or not, but I see no reason why they couldn't. I've found that many of the people who are against evolution have this idea that it only goes in one (usually pre-chosen) direction.

I don't understand why you think mutation can't produce new information.That is what it means. If it was unchanged than it wouldn't be a mutation.

best if you like theories that explain the vast majority of stuff in a single sweep, then how about the theory that the Bible contains inaccuracies, inconsistencies, basic weird nonsense because it is not divine, and merely the work of men, with the understanding of the world that they had a few thousand years ago? That really does explain everything.

Some of those who will read this thread and not post may see how ridiculous YEC is and not adopt it. That's why I think the sillier parts of religion should get an early evening TV slot.

That is a slanderous claim for which you're going to have to provide some evidence, Bore.

There's evidence aplenty throughout this thread

Ellie, all we can rationally conclude from that is that organisms reproduce after their kind. Humans give birth to humans. Just as the Bible describes. You've inadvertently proved my point

No, I didn't. For a start - the the fuck is "after their kind"? This is supposed to be a science discussion, as you keep telling us all. "Kind" is a Biblical term and is not recognised in science at all. I thought you, who have, er, studied science all your life allegedly would have at least known that.

Not all of my ancestors were human, for a start. And the point I was actually making is that we can infer with a high level of certainty that something happened without being there to physically see it if the evidence supports it. Everything we know about biology suggests that I wouldn't be here if my ancestors hadn't had sex. I am - so they did. But guess what......NONE of us here saw them at it, thankfully, but none of us doubts the fact of it.

Do you get it now?

A creationist, by definition, is someone who believes in a Creator. So if you're not a creationist, that makes you an atheist Bullshit. A creationist BY DEFINITION is one who believes in the literal account of the creation in Genesis (also known, in common parlance, as a complete berk). You can believe that God created the universe without making the kind of fool of yourself that you are.

Oh, and I don't "believe" in aliens either. Without evidence, there's nothing to base that belief on. Like most people, I look at the vastness of the universe and find it hard to imagine that we're really all alone in it, but we might be. No evidence (for rational people) = I don't know.

I know exactly what I mean by transitional and I defined it for you. I realize it's got to have all working parts and we don't expect to find a cross between dog and cat since they are both modern animals and not from the same lineage

Well, OK - I have been slightly unfair to you about this. Strictly speaking, all fossils are transitional. But what you mean is those specific fossils that happen to show traits that can clearly be linked with both it's ancestors.

Pedro gave you a list. I suggest you look at it. There are rather a lot of such fossils - an awfully long way from your position of "there's only one" .

I've never heard that before. Can you provide me a reference from a creationist source? The modern creationist movement didn't even get started until well after Archaeopteryx was found in 1859. Perhaps they weren't creationists but other scientists

No one knew what it was when it was first dug up. It was only when it was identified that the creationists got their knickers in a twist. I don't know exact dates and I can't be bothered to look it up.

Fossils are often found out of order Not "often", no. They are sometimes found and appear to be out of order, but there's always a perfectly reasonable explanation for this - which the creationists flagrantly ignore. Our planet is not made of cement you know - it's a living thing. Stuff happens, things get moved....sometimes. By and large we find fossils exactly where we expect to.

The evolution of the horse is a complex thing. Creationists seem to think there should be a straight, unbroken line - but horses didn't evolve like that. There were many different branches, only one of which survives today....Equus. So all this crap about ribs is totally irrelevant.

I have absolutely no idea why you've quoted Dawkins. He's merely making the point that fossils, while interesting, are not essential evidence of evolution. If we'd never, ever found a single fossil, evolution would still be a proven fact. Which is what makes the creationists obsession with them even more laughable. Fossils are not the only evidence - they are not even the best evidence. They are supportive.

You have quote mined Gould. How dishonest. Please don't do that again. What he actually said was:

Many evolutionists view strict continuity between micro- and macroevolution as an essential ingredient of Darwinism and a necessary corollary of natural selection. Yet, as I argue in essay 17, Thomas Henry Huxley divided the two issues of natural selection and gradualism and warned Darwin that his strict and unwarranted adherence to gradualism might undermine his entire system. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it -- selection can operate rapidly. Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory

This is to do with gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium - not whether or not fossils support evolution as a whole .

But what you mean is those specific fossils that happen to show traits that can clearly be linked with both it's ancestors Sorry - this makes no sense....what I meant was "clearly linked with both it's ancestors and descendants".

You're writing a book called "How to debate an atheist"? Why? You don't appear to be very good at it.

We have proven you wrong about the C-14 issues, the light issues, the BB issue and rather than have the grace to acknowledge that you've dismissed it all as "irrelevant".

This is honest debate, is it?

As others have pointed out, we are unable to offer you the "proof" that you're asking for. That's for one simple reason - it does not exist. Evolution by natural selection does not predict that one organism can pass on the "information" for a brand new organ or body part just like that. If I personally had evidence for that, I wouldn't waste my time bringing it to you - I'd be off to find the highest level biologist I could and make a name for myself. It would be an extraordinary finding - on a level with a varying speed of light.

A mutation, as you know, is a random and spontaneous change (usually) to DNA - an error in replication. The key word here is CHANGE. This change represents new information which can either prove beneficial or disadvantageous to the organism as a whole, or have no effect. If it proves beneficial, natural selection - in the most beautiful bit of logic imaginable - means that the organism is more likely to survive and pass on the change to off spring.

Now this tiny, tiny change cannot produce a new body part all by itself. It takes millions of such changes slowly building upon each other to do that.

Now, if we found evidence that one organism was passing on a blueprint for a large scale change of the kind you mean this would, actually, be good evidence for creationism (sort of). So, not only does the fact that we cannot offer you the evidence that you've decided you want prove our case that evolution is what happened - it's also good evidence AGAINST creationism.

What you're essentially doing is asking us to provide evidence of creationism. The problem is, you don't know that's what you're doing because you don't know enough about the subject to understand that.

BestValue, please excuse the length of this post, I have tried to be a succinct as possible.

Whilst I can understand how the criteria you outline appeal to your target audience, I believe that most of them lack coherence, or are of no relevance in this debate.

1. Why would there be evidence of something that contradicts scientific understanding? There is speculation about what happened before the Big Bang and whether other universes exist, but we?re agreed that the universe had a start, so this is a spurious point.

1. By what logic would the lack of proof of some fictitious and illogical set of circumstances lead to the conclusion that there must have been a creator of the Universe? Why would there have to be trillions of other universes and why would they have differing types of physics?

1. Given that this only needs to have happened once in billions of years, the chances of it happening any time soon are fairly slim. Even if it does, how would we know it? There are millions of organisms yet to be discovered, so it could be happening now. On a similar note, if proof of life is found on Mars, will this falsify your beliefs? I can?t see any reason for a creator to have placed life there.

1. I will ignore this point as a number of others are already debating it with you.

1. How would anyone possibly know they were his bones? Therefore, how do you know they haven?t been found already?

1. Where would this DNA come from? If it?s from bones, then your point 5 has already dealt with this. Therefore this is another spurious point.

1. I fail to see the relevance of this to a scientific debate.

For those lurking in the background who would genuinely be interested in what could possibly be covered in a book called, "How to Debate an Atheist: Using Logic and Reason to Defend Your Faith in God," here are the 101 most asked questions and challenges posed by the New Atheists. Only about half the book has been completed to date and, as you'll see, some of the topics have not been fleshed out yet.

The book is written in a similar format to "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" by Mark Isaak of TalkOrigins which was, in part, my inspiration for writing it.

==================================================== GOD (18)

1. There is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of God.

1. Belief in God is like believing in unicorns, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Grow up already.

1. Religion is a comforting myth. Belief in God is for weak-minded people who can't deal with reality (eg. death, suffering).

1. Prove to me that God exists and then I'll believe.

1. If God were to come down and show me a miracle, then I would believe.

1. Science can explain the universe without positing a god. To say "goddidit" does not add anything new to our knowledge.

1. If there is such good evidence, why isn't everyone a believer? If God really existed, it would be obvious to all and irrational to deny.

1. Can God make a rock so big that he could not lift it? Either way, he cannot be omnipotent (all-powerful).

1. God could not exist because a god who created everything while not existing is greater than one who exists and creates everything.

10. The universe is not fine-tuned. It is the way it is because otherwise we would not be here to observe it.

11. There might be an infinite number of universes and ours just happened to get it right for life to exist.

12. I'm an atheist and I'm a good person. We don't need to believe in God to be moral.

13. Personal experience is not evidence.

14. To postulate God creates an infinite regress of causes.

15. If everything requires a cause, who caused God?

16. To claim that your god does not require a beginning is "special pleading."

17. If God is a God of love, why is there so much evil and suffering in the world? God is either not able to stop it or he doesn't care.

18. Why won't God heal amputees?

====================================================ATHEISM AND SCIENCE (8)

19. Atheism is not a belief but merely a lack of belief. And we are all born atheists so atheism is the default position.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

20. Atheism is not a religion. If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheists have no common beliefs other than a non-belief in any gods.

21. You are an atheist with respect to Zeus, Thor and Wotan. I just go one god further.

22. Science deals with reason and evidence. Religion is based on faith.

23. Science is the only way to discover true knowledge. We should not believe anything that cannot be verifed through the scientific method.

24. Atheists are okay with saying "I don't know" when faced with a mystery. Religion is dogmatic and must fill every gap in our knowledge with facile answers like 'goddidit.' Science makes progress and many of the questions we have today will be answered in the future but it will not be with a god and it certainly will not be YOUR god.

25. Most of the top scientists in the world are atheists.

26. Einstein was an atheist.

==================================================== EVOLUTION (24)

27. Spontaneous generation is not the same as biogenesis.

28. Evolution is not chance - it's natural selection which is the opposite of chance.

29. Macroevolution is just microevolution over a longer period of time.

30. No REAL scientist doubts that evolution is a fact.

31. By rejecting evolution, you are rejecting science.

32. The fossil record supports evolution.

33. Homology

34. Vestigial organs - appendix

35. Look in the mirror. YOU are a transitional form.

36. Denying evolution is like denying gravity and believing the earth is flat and revolves around the sun.

37. Micro and macroeveolution ere terms made up by creationists.

38. Darwinism, Newtonism, Einsteinism

39. How can you doubt evolution? We see it happening all around us every day.

40. Evolution is not something you believe in. It's something you accept.

41. A dog producing a non-dog would falsify evolution.

42. Even the Pope accepts evolution.

43. Natural selection is evolution.

44. nested hierarchies

45. nylonase

46. whale evolution

47. fusion of chromosome 2

48. beneficial mutations

49. We can observe evolution in the laboratory. Bugs become resistant to pestcides. Bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics.

==================================================== INTELLIGENT DESIGN (10)

51. I.D. is a science stopper.

52. I.D is just dressed up creationism.

53. I.D.iots don't publish in reputable science journals.

54. I.D. is not testable and makes no predictions. Therefore, it is not science.

55. Why would a Designer design things so they look like they evolved?

56. Michael Behe's irreducible complexity has been disproved.

57. If we teach Intelligent Design in schools we would have to teach astrology in astronomy class, alchemy in chemistry class and the "stork theory" of reproduction.

58.So called designs in living things are suboptimal. The human eye, the panda's thumb, the rabbit's digestive system and the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve for example.

59. I.D. is an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. Because you don't understand how something could have evolved, you say "goddidit"

60. Unlikely events happen all the time. Design is an illusion of the results of natural selection.

====================================================CREATIONISM (16)

61. Creationism is anti-science.

62. Creationists are liars.

63. Creationists are uneducated about science or have phony degrees from diploma mills.

64. Debating creationists gives them undue credibility.

65. Creationists quote-mine and misrepresent the views of scientists to support their agenda.

66. Creationists don't do any real science.

67. Name one prediction creationism makes.

68. Carbon dating proves the earth is millions of years old.

69. Why would God deceive us by making the world look old?

70. Genesis 1 and 2 are conflicting creation accounts

71. There is no evidence for a global flood.

72. Why hasn't anybody found Noah's Ark?

73. What is a "kind?"

74. Why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?

75. It takes millions of years for fossils to form.

76. If the universe is only 6,000 years old why can we see stars that are millions of light years away?

==================================================== RELIGION AND CHRISTIANITY (12)

77. Most of the prison population is made up of Christians. Few are atheists.

78. How can a God of love send people to hell?

79. You're only a Christian because you were raised to be. If you had been raised in China you'd be a Buddhist or in India you'd be a Hindu.

80. Galileo, Inquisition

81. Hitler was a good Christian. He never renounced his Catholicism and the Church never ex-communicated him. In Mein Kampf he wrote, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

82. I believe in the separation of church and state.

83. Why are there so many Christian denominations?

84. Religion is the cause of all the world's wars. (eg. Crusades)

85. Religion is on its way out.

86. Teaching your child they will go to hell if they don't accpet your religion is child abuse.

87. What evidence would falsify or make you question your beliefs?

88. God created us sick and commands us to be well. (Christopher Hitchens)

==================================================== THE BIBLE (8)

89. The Bible has been translated so many times that we can't trust its accuracy (the telephone game). And why are there so many translations anyway? Can't God get it right the first time?

90. The God of the Old testament is evil, commands genocide, etc.

91. The Bible endorses slavery.

92. The Bible is not a science book. We can still enjoy the stories without taking them literally. (says earth is flat and the centre of the universe).

93. The Bible is full of contradictions.

94.The Bible contains miracles and we know miracles are impossible so the Bible cannot be true.

95. The Bible was written thousands of years ago

96. The Old Testament is full of myths.

==================================================== JESUS (5)

97. No other historians outside the Bible mention Jesus.

98. Jesus never existed. He is a compilation of pagan mythological gods like Osiris, Horus and Mithras.

99. How can Jesus be both God and a man?

100. What about other religions or those who have never even heard about Jesus? It's arrogant to claim that Jesus is the only way to God.

101. Jesus never claimed to be God. He was just a good man.

Oops! Sorry for the formatting problems above and a few typos. (Even a link to evidence I plan to use sneaked in there.)

Hi again BestValue. I decided to ask my questions in a new post, otherwise it would have been too long. I haven?t read all pages of this discussion, so please excuse me if these questions have already been covered. As a former member of a Church that believes the Bible to contain a full account of the history of the Earth, they are some of the questions that finally persuaded me that this stance is completely untenable.

What proof do you have for the existence of a creator? By what logical criteria do the writings of some small tribes over 1,500 years ago, reflecting the creation stories from earlier civilisations, invalidate the clear and coherent works of thousands of scientists from many disciplines?

Do you believe that a flood around 4,500 years ago wiped out all life on Earth, other than those that were on a ship? If so, how did life manage to spread to all the habitable islands around the World in such a short time? How did the millions of types of animals that now exist fit on a single ship? What did the plant eating animals feed on immediately after the flood? When the flood retreated, what happened to the trillions of litres of water required to cover the Earth to the over the height of the mountains?

Did dinosaurs walk the Earth? If they did, when was this? If not, why are their remains found all over the World? Why are these remains found in distinct layers, following a clearly defined process of evolution?

I hope that you will have time to address these question and look forward to your response.

"I've found that many of the people who are against evolution have this idea that it only goes in one (usually pre-chosen) direction."

I don't think that. The only direction evolution can be said to have is to greater adaptation. Those that aren't adapted to their environnment, die. There is an evolutionary principle which says evolution cannot go backwards (I can't think of the name of it but when I do, I'll post it) but that principle was recently called into question when evolution was discovered to indeed go backwards.

I understand evolution the same way Dawkins and other mainstream evolutionists do and I work very hard not to take them out of context, misrepresent what they say or use straw-man arguments. As you can see by my list above, these are all things that have been said to me many times over the years (many right here on this message board) so I just decided to write my answers in a book.

"I don't understand why you think mutation can't produce new information.That is what it means. If it was unchanged than it wouldn't be a mutation."

Scrambled information is not new information. It is a loss of information. Perhaps I can explain in more detail later.

Pedro, because I am trying my best to be a good Christian I will not reply to your previous post - and I will love you anyway, even as you mock me. (It's what Jesus did.)

I must say, although I am grateful to you for initiating this thread and providing me with the opportunity to explain my views to those who are truly curious, I feel a little disappointed that it seems you did so under false pretenses. You did not wish to learn about a view different from your own but merely to make yourself feel superior by having someone to ridicule. I hope you find peace within yourself, my friend. God loves you - even as you hate Him -and I love you too.

"best if you like theories that explain the vast majority of stuff in a single sweep, then how about the theory that the Bible contains inaccuracies, inconsistencies, basic weird nonsense because it is not divine, and merely the work of men, with the understanding of the world that they had a few thousand years ago? That really does explain everything."

I would except that then all I'd be left with is evolution which explains nothing.