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!

"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."

Maybe. But what is more likely is that some people will become even more strong in their faith and maybe even go out and start their own creation ministries to reach the lost. There is power in the truth.

"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."

Please do not use that kind of language. It is unnecessary in a civilized and rational discussion. I think I DID explain the word "kind" before. Yes, it is a biblical term and more accurate than "species." It is a group of organisms that can interbreed and bring forth offspring (not necessarily fertile offspring).

To repeat what I said earlier, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, foxes, jackals, domestic dogs can all interbreed. Same with dolphins and whales. Same with alpacas, llamas and camels. Same with lions, tigers, jaguars, cheetahs, bobcats and domestic cats. And many other examples. Researchers have adopted the term "baramin" after the Hebrew "bara" (created) "min" (kind). Feel free to use baramin of you don't like he word "kind." By the way, Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy who invented the classification system was also a Christian. (Forgot to mention him before. There's just too many.)

"Not all of my ancestors were human, for a start."

I would agree with that (as it is evident by your conduct) if it weren't more circular reasoning and question begging.

"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?"

I always got it. I simply disagree with your reasoning.

"Bullshit. A creationist BY DEFINITION is one who believes in the literal account of the creation in Genesis."

No. That is a young earth creationist. As you can see I like to be very precise with language. It helps to avoid confusion. I usually break things down to make them clearer while evolutionists I've met tend to generalize so as to obfuscate.

"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."

Yes. Excellent way to put it. I'll use that in future. Thank you.

"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"

If he (she) did, I apologize but I did not see it. I've started reading through the entire thread today to see if there's anything I missed by mistake so when I find it I will check it out. And no where did I say there was only one. I said archaeopteryx is one of a few lonely examples. Evolutionary theory would predict millions or billions. (I hope Pedro's list contains at least a few thousand for it to be credible.)

"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."

Well, you've just answered your own question then because that was exactly the point I was making.

"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."

I have no obsession with them. I just point out that they are dubious support for evolution and played a minor role in my questioning of it.

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

I realize that, Ellie. Are you really that blinded by your faith that you can't see that Gould and Eldredge formed the theory of punctuated equilibrium as a way to explain the paucity of transitional forms. I have not taken him out of context. (Next you'll tell me not to quote him because he's an evolutionist, not a creationist - which is the very reason I'm quoting him in the first place.)

"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."

I know that. But as research on fruit flies has shown over the last century, mutations are not even a viable mechanism for creating even a new enzyme, much less an entire organ. Show me just that and I'll consider it strong evidence for evolution.

*"The key word here is CHANGE. This change represents new information . . ."

NO! If I take the sentence, "I LOVE YOU" and mutate it just once to:
"I LO E YOU," have I added information to the sentence or lost the original meaning? Even if I could mutate it so it would make sense - a beneficial mutation - like this: "I LOSE YOU" have I lost or gained the original meaning of the sentence?

"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)."

Interesting point - but irrelevant since that's not what I'm doing. I'm feeling very understood here, guys. I'm trying to be as clear as I can but people keep assuming I'm saying things I'm not. If I want to be misunderstood, I can go talk to my wife. ;^)

Ok first of all, I'm really not interested in going back on this thread and dredging up stuff or researching on the internet or whatever. I really don't have much interest in 'defending my beliefs' or whatever. So really I was just posting my perception based on my reading this thread over a number of days a bit at a time.

Remember that I am the one who has to keep reminding people what the definition of atheism is.

Not sure why you feel the need to do that. I'm pretty certain that most atheists know they aren't believers. For those that are not atheists and who don't understand what one is they can ask one.

*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.*

Now see two separate and not necessarily linked ideas here. If you are logical you must believe blah blah blah and if you don't believe blah blah blah then you haven't thought it through. It is possible to be atheist, logical and not think it through.

Perhaps I could add some more ideas?

1. The atheist may be logical but doesn't care enough the subject to explore it and it doesn't feature heavily enough in their day to day life to spend time and energy considering it.

2. The atheist may as you noted not be a logical person or may not be capable of logic. Again atheists include a very varied group.

3. The atheist may believe that neither science or faith has found the correct answer yet.

4. The atheist may also be an agnostic (I know ones that are and ones that aren't) and while they might favour one theory they might also believe that it is entirely possible that one or more other theories are the actual answer.

*"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*

There is a third, both. Also even though yes, 'creationist' broadly means anyone who believes in a creation story as the start of life, you have approached it only from the perspective of a Christian fundamentalist IIRC so it is very natural to assume that when you say creation and creationist you are referring to the judeo/christian version. Also as I said above it is possible that no-one currently holds the key to the mystery of how life began.

Ok I have wasted enough time on a subject that I am only mildly interested in (i.e. I am #1 in my list above, an apatheist. I really don't care that much. So long as your beliefs don't impact others I'm happy for my faith-loving friends to find comfort in their faith)

*Are you really that blinded by your faith that you can't see that ancient Hebrews Gould and Eldredge formed the theory of punctuated equilibrium Genesis as a way to explain the paucity of transitional forms information about how the world works.

You're accusing scientists, specifically scientists who have no faith in the supernatural if having something ti gain from hiding the truth, when they don't at all. In fact, as most scientists are constantly seeking funding, any of them who could begin to show that the universe were created would potentially stand to gain quite a lot of money from pro-creationist funders, so the incentive is there, but it's not happening.

I'm guessing because as much as you would like data oints to exist in a vaccuum to be plugged into any old theory, it actually doesn't work that way.

And again, If I cared to use the next 6 years spending hours a day to prove that the Dreaming is what created the Universe you can bet your bottom dollar I'd do a fine convincing job of it too.

I admire your belief and your tenacity though.

"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."

You've lost me already, RationalThought. But your nickname gives me hope.

"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."

The universe having a start was predicted by the writers of the Bible 3,500 years before modern science figured it out. It was a radical prediction made at a time when most so called "intelligent" people thought the universe was eternal. Score one for God. Next.

"2. 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?"

Oh, dear. It seems I'm going to have start repeating myself again which I hate doing. First, not proof - evidence. Second, not a lack of evidence but actual positive evidence (i.e verified predictions) lead logically to the conclusion that there must have been a creator of the universe.

About the multi-verse, I don't believe in that. It's what atheists postulate to explain the fine-tuning problem. As one physicist said, "If you don't want God, you'd better have a multi-verse."

"3. 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."

This illustrates why evolution makes crappy predictions. If life is scarce in the universe, you say, "It only had to happen once." If life is ubiquitous, you say, "See? No God is required to make life." You can't have it both ways. You have to pick one or your theory isn't refined enough.

If life were found on Mars that could not have come from earth then yes it would pose a serious challenge to my worldview. The problem is that if they DON'T find it, true believers will still claim life must be out there somewhere. My prediction is falsifiable. Theirs is not.

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

Exactly. I'm just saying if it could be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, this would falsify all of Christianity (except for maybe Jehovah's Witnesses who don't believe Jesus rose bodily.)

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

It is evidence that would prove the Bible wrong and thus falsify my worldview.

young earth creationist.

To be fair, that is the title and topic of the thread.

"What proof do you have for the existence of a creator?"

Watch this:

"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?"

First, I reject your premise that the Bible "reflects the creation stories from earlier civilisations." Second, it doesn't invalidate them, it confirms them. Complete opposite.

"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?"

Yes.

"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?"

Easy. All your questions are answered below.:

And a link I posted earlier to a free book answers them all and much more in greater detail. Here it is again for your convenience.:

creation.com/the-creation-answers-book-index

"Now see two separate and not necessarily linked ideas here. If you are logical you must believe blah blah blah and if you don't believe blah blah blah then you haven't thought it through. It is possible to be atheist, logical and not think it through."

I'm not sure I understand your question. Or even if there IS a question. Is it possible for an atheist to be logical and not have thought it though? I would say they can be logical on some things I suppose but not completely logically consistent until they have thought it through. The problem is that the entire atheistic worldview is self-refuting and thus illogical by definition. So an atheist is logical only when he borrows from the Christian worldview to make his case.

"Perhaps I could add some more ideas?

1. The atheist may be logical but doesn't care enough the subject to explore it and it doesn't feature heavily enough in their day to day life to spend time and energy considering it.

2. The atheist may as you noted not be a logical person or may not be capable of logic. Again atheists include a very varied group.

3. The atheist may believe that neither science or faith has found the correct answer yet.

4. The atheist may also be an agnostic (I know ones that are and ones that aren't) and while they might favour one theory they might also believe that it is entirely possible that one or more other theories are the actual answer."

I think I agree with you point for point and appreciate your logical and clear thinking here. I'm a very linear thinker as well and like to make numbered lists. I think with #2 I would say everyone is capable of logic (unless they are mentally deficient in some way). But just because someone is capable of it, doesn't mean they are always logical. I strive to never make emotional arguments. I don't want believe something just because it is comforting. I want to believe what is true. In fact, many of the things I believe based on evidence go directly against want I wish to be true.

"You're accusing scientists, specifically scientists who have no faith in the supernatural if having something ti gain from hiding the truth"

No I'm not. I wasn't criticizing Gould and Eldredge. This is not a conspiracy theory. They developed Punk Eek to explain the lack of transitional forms. That's what scientists do - form theories to explain facts.

"I admire your belief and your tenacity though."

Well, you can admire my tenacity but don't admire my belief if you think it's wrong. Challenge it.

"young earth creationist: To be fair, that is the title and topic of the thread."

SCSF, what do you mean by that?

• "Bullshit. A creationist BY DEFINITION is one who believes in the literal account of the creation in Genesis."

No. That is a young earth creationist. As you can see I like to be very precise with language. It helps to avoid confusion. I usually break things down to make them clearer while evolutionists I've met tend to generalize so as to obfuscate. *

I was pointing out that while the topic may have wandered (has it? I don't remember) we started out talking about young earthies.

Point #2 I was specifically thinking of someone who might not be capable of logic because of some issue.

If as you assert, someone is only logical if they have thought everything through then I would hazard a guess that by that definition no-one is logical because no-one has examined every subject from a thoughtful viewpoint. We all pick and choose our interests and passions. I like drafting clothing and making it from scratch, often recycling them from readymade and discarded garments. I have had to reason my way through complicated patterns and have lively debate with fellow enthusiasts as to which is the 'best' or 'proper' way to do something. I'm guessing perhaps you haven't done that.

So an atheist is logical only when he borrows from the Christian worldview to make his case

Now see we were getting on just fine, you really didn't need to throw that in.

I should go back to lurking, I find it less interesting than arguing. In fact if I could persuade you lot to all go talk about crafts then I could skip this board...

Please do not use that kind of language

Excuse me? I'll use whatever language I like, thanks very much. This is MN, we do that here (lots of us). If I'd sworn AT you, you'd have a point - but I didn't. I swore while talking to you. Don't like that? Tough fucking shit. Don't ever tell me what language to use again. Clear? Marvellous.

Yes, it is a biblical term and more accurate than "species." It is a group of organisms that can interbreed and bring forth offspring (not necessarily fertile offspring)

You are truly clueless, aren't you? Not only that, breathtakingly arrogant too.

Accurate to WHAT?

The term "species" is part of method of classification invented by scientists. They did this in order to clarify the overall situation, spot patterns and so on. Explain how this method is not "accurate"? And against what standard are you measuring the accuracy? This is like telling me that my invented CD classification system is "inaccurate" - as if there is some standard out there that tells me how it should be done. It works for me, so it's accurate given my requirements. In the same way as the Linnean system works for science.

To assume that you, personally, know how it ought to be done, and scientists are getting it wrong leaves me doing this --> with my face.

Oh - it's not you personally, right? It's the Bible.

Well, the Bible merely states that organisms can only reproduce according to their kind. Well, guess what? So does evolutionary theory (if we take kind and species to mean the same thing). An off-spring can only ever be of the same species as it's parents. At not time was there ever a mother who gave birth to another species. Not ever. She might have given birth to one with a mutated gene that eventually resulted (after a million years) in a new, reproductively distinct organism.

I could (horrible thought) mate with my father - we are the same species, but I could not mate with most of my ancestors because we are now different species.

So, actually the Bible is not inconsistent with evolutionary theory at all - unless you show that it specifically and clearly defines a "kind" and that these "kinds" are fixed and unchangeable. Where does it say that?

By the way, Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy who invented the classification system was also a Christian Guess what? The writers of Genesis were not. Irrelevant? Yes. So is your point.

I always got it. I simply disagree with your reasoning

OK - I'll dumb this down even further for you. My great-grandparents had sex. I didn't see it happening - but I know that it did. The fact that I can say this PROVES how stupid your claim is that we can only acknowledge something as a fact if we can actually see it happening.

Evolutionary theory would predict millions or billions (of transitional fossils).

No it wouldn't. Evolutionary theory does not "predict" one single fossil. It says nothing whatsoever about the preservation of dead organisms. The issue is whether or not the fossils that we are lucky enough to have support evolutionary theory. They do.

Darwin predicted that fossils would support evolution - NOT that evolution predicts fossils. He said this already knowing that fossils exist.

Well, you've just answered your own question then because that was exactly the point I was making

Caught you out in a another embarrassing contradiction. If you accept that fossils are not essential evidence for evolution, or even the best evidence (as Dawkins says, and you quoted) then exactly why are you saying in the next breath that evolutionary theory predicts "millions of fossils". If it did, then the fossil record would be of overwhelming importance in terms of evidence. You cannot on the one had agree with Dawkins on the importance of fossils, while also saying that they are so important evolutionary theory makes predictions about them

Get with the programme, for crying out loud.

As you can see I like to be very precise with language

Perhaps you'd like to start with buying yourself a dictionary then.

www.thefreedictionary.com/creationism
dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationism
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

I realize that, Ellie. Are you really that blinded by your faith that you can't see that Gould and Eldredge formed the theory of punctuated equilibrium as a way to explain the paucity of transitional forms

(Perhaps you'd like to look up the definition of "faith" in that new dictionary of yours).

So what if they did? They took a different view of HOW evolution happened - scientists do this a lot. Gould was not a deluded moron, and at no time whatsoever did he suggest that this so-called "paucity of transitional forms" threw the slightest doubt on the clear and undeniable FACT that evolution happened at all.....which is what you are trying to do. You are quote mining - firstly using only part of the quote, and then using it to support a position that you yourself hold but the speaker does not. If you were an honest person, you would make it clear that Gould's conclusion was NOT the same as yours (that evolution didn't happen, and that the lack of transitional forms supports this) - but then there'd be no point in actually quoting him then, would there?

NO! If I take the sentence, "I LOVE YOU" and mutate it just once to:
"I LO E YOU," have I added information to the sentence or lost the original meaning? Even if I could mutate it so it would make sense - a beneficial mutation - like this: "I LOSE YOU" have I lost or gained the original meaning of the sentence?

Oh dear.

This analogy only works if you assume something in advance - intelligent design.

Intelligent design exists. We are intelligent designers. We are intelligent (some of us) and we design things.

One of the things we've designed is language and words, purely to make sense of the noises we make at each other, and to keep our communications consistent.

One of those words is "Love". We know what it means, we designed it. If we take out or add in another letter, we change the word. It is no longer the thing we designed, so it becomes meaningless - or changes meaning.

In no way, shape or form is this analogous to the random mutations that take place within a gene. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is some pre-determined "meaning" to be changed by the addition of a mutation.

For your position to make sense, you have to assume (ASSUME) that there is some inherent "meaning" that can be changed in this way - that there's a blueprint somewhere of how it ought to be. Since there's literally no evidence that you can bring to bear to support this, then you are merely begging the question - you are assuming the existence of the thing you are trying to prove. This is highly illogical.

There is not "original meaning" that was changed by the replication error - there was simply a change.

The universe having a start was predicted by the writers of the Bible 3,500 years before modern science figured it out. It was a radical prediction made at a time when most so called "intelligent" people thought the universe was eternal. Score one for God. Next.

You can't predict something which already happened.

Since you've asserted so many times that you are extraordinary precise with language, I can only conclude that you don't understand science even a little bit when you make statements like this.

About the multi-verse, I don't believe in that. It's what atheists postulate to explain the fine-tuning problem. As one physicist said, "If you don't want God, you'd better have a multi-verse."

Fine tuning isn't a problem. It's necessary for us to exist. If the Universe was not exactly as it is, we could not be here to ponder on it. Very, very simple to understand that, but you seem to struggle with anything which involves thought. It also doesn't necessarily suggest multiple universes, that is merely one possible option.

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.

Did my original post say that I wanted to find out about a different point of view? No. Did I ask for a YEC to come and talk to me so I could understand their view? No. So it was not started under false pretences. Again you show an extraordinary lack of understand of language which bizarrely you pride yourself on.

You see these things you are looking at? They are words, we use them to communicate. Each word has a meaning (which can differ with context, but each are clearly defined).

It's amazing how you argue semantics with respect to specific words like atheist or creationist, but have so little care for your science or indeed for other words and sentences you use.

I just caught up on this thread. It has been very interesting but I do think its a bit disappointing that the tone has gone down somewhat. Whether you agree with BestValue or not at least he has been polite throughout which is more than can be said of those resorting to insults and bad language. Shame.

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

Then why on earth do you keep mentioning your book "How to debate an atheist" if you aren't wnating people to debate with you??? DO YOU NOT SEE HOW CONTRADICTORY YOU ARE??????

PS. I have not arrived late to the debate - I have been reading intently from the beginning. The difference between you and I is that I only wanted to contribute to the debate in respect to an area of biology I am confident with (for that read having a degree, a Ph.D, years of research etc).

I imagine you would perform very well in a debating situation due to your clever manipulation of 'facts' and hilarious anaologies re gunfights and knives. But put you in a courtroom to prove and back up your ideas - that would be very interesting to watch....

Whether you agree with BestValue or not at least he has been polite throughout which is more than can be said of those resorting to insults and bad language

He hasn't actually been that polite, as it goes.

While you may be somebody's "mummy", you are not mine. So, disapprove all you like, but don't expect me to care.

OK?

Hey, just three quick question guys. It would really help me out.:

1. Define evolution.

1. What are its primary mechanisms?

1. How does it work?

Thanks.

Why so hostile Ellie? :) I've read the whole thread - he's definitely not come across as rude to me. More than can be said for your posts I'm afraid. It's a shame really, you are making some good points but the scattered insults somewhat tarnish them.

Sorry - so what?

He's been very, very rude about our reasoning abilities, education and so on. If you've missed that, I don't know why.

And - no I don't want a ruck - but I take exception to anyone taking it upon themselves to effectively tell me off for using naughty words. Who do you think you are?

And a good point is a good point. The word "fuck" does not tarnish that. If it does it was never a good point.

But peace - I don't want to argue with you. I'm sticking the rules with regard to the guidelines, so if you don't like people swearing, take it up with the powers that be.

:)

You've been very rude about his. You can use whatever language you like but it doesn't come across very well. I usually find that the person who has to resort to bad language and insults is losing their argument.... :)

You've been very rude about his - with some justification.

You can use whatever language you like Gosh, thanks.

I usually find that the person who has to resort to bad language and insults is losing their argument.... ...except I'm clearly not.

But other than that - you are absolutely right. About everything. Thank you, Aunty Bumbleymummy.

Have a nice day.