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!

You're very welcome dear :)

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

Fair enough. As long as you don't think it was me who was wandering off topic.

"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."

I suppose I agree that no one is completely rational all the time. But I would hope that is something we can all strive for. Here are three extreme and obvious examples of irrational thinking:

1. One girl tells me she is an atheist. Then, after a bit of discussion, she says, "Don't get me wrong. I believe in a higher power, just not the Christian God." Conclusion: She doesn't know what an atheist is. She's not one.

1. A guy tells me he is an atheist and believes in evolution. After a bit of discussion, he says, "Don't get me wrong. I don't think humans evolved from monkeys or anything." I tell him, "Neither do evolutionists. They think humans and apes share a common ancestor." Conclusion: He doesn't know what evolution is. He doesn't believe in evolution. If not, he should be a theist.

1. Just tonight on FaceBook, a guy who believes in evolution says, "Mutations have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is change over time." Conclusion: He doesn't understand evolution.

No, I've never made clothes.

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

I apologize. That wasn't directed at you. I don't even know if you're an atheist. Let me briefly explain why I said what I said. On second thought, watch this 1:30 video. I alluded to it in a previous post. John Lennox can say it better than I would. It's called The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.

Further to my previous post, Darwin himself said, "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
? Charles Darwin to William Graham 3 July 1881

Just something to think about.

Quote mining again. Are we supposed to take from that that Darwin doubted his own theory and compared his brain to that of a monkey's?

If you read the entire letter here you can see that he's actually being self-deprecating in an a discussion about whether design can be detected within the universe (he maintains it can't in the letter). His "horrid doubt" is to whether a mere human mind make reach a conclusion - nothing to do with doubt about the theory (which he never had).

Please stop doing this. Clearly you are simply lifting this stuff off a website without actually checking the source first.

"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."

Well, I'd prefer rational discussion to cursing. But if you feel like you can't formulate a logical argument without it, be my guest. I just feel it undermines your case.

"Explain how this method is not "accurate"?"

Species is too flexible. It's intended to mean animals that can interbreed and bring forth viable offspring. Domestic dogs and wolves can do that so they should be the same species. They're not. All of Darwin's 14 finches could interbreed yet he classified them as different species. They classify something as a different species if it has a slightly different morphology so they can say evolution happened. Most of the examples of evolution they point to have little or nothing to do with the actual definition of evolution as change from one species to another. In fact, that's never been observed. They recently downgraded the number of species of dinosaur from 1000 to about 500. Scientists had given multiple names to the same dinosaurs. The whole system is fraught with problems. That's all I'm saying.

"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."

You could mate with Neanderthals but they are a different species. (Creationists predicted that, by the way.)

"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."

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. Let me put it another way. The fossil record SHOULD be important evidence for evolution and was, in fact, predicted to be so. But because that prediction failed and the fossil record does not support evolution, they have to minimize it and say it is unimportant. That's what is really going on. Make sense now?

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

Ha. Two out of the three links (the more reliable ones) you provided supported my definition of creationism. The one I trust most, Oxford, does too.

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creationism

The point is, creationism, in some circles, has come to mean young earth creationism. But for the sake of accuracy and clarity, we should use the precise definition. A creationist believes in a Creator. A theistic evolutionist believes that God used evolution as His means of creating. A deist believes in an impersonal god who got the universe started and then walked away. A young earth creationist believes God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days. A pantheist believes god is in everything like the forces of nature. An atheist has a lack of belief in any god or gods. An agnostic doesn't know what to believe about God or thinks the answer is unknowable. We have these names for a reason and I like to keep them straight.

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

Oh trust me, I do. Atheist misdefine it as believing in something without evidence - even in spite of the evidence. That is wrong. Most dictionaries say "without proof." Because science cannot provide absolute proof, faith is required. Again, to be precise, I call faith without evidence "blind faith." Blind faith is quite frankly stupid and irrational. Faith is trust based on evidence and it is completely rational. We could not live without it.

"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"

I know that. That's why I use his quotes. He believed in evolution so his criticism of the fossil record is more credible.

*".....which is what you are trying to do."

Absolutely not. Try arguing against the actual arguments I'm making.

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

No, I'm not assuming intelligent design. It's unnecessary here.

"In no way, shape or form is this analogous to the random mutations that take place within a gene."

Yes it is. Geneticists say that DNA is not just analogous to a code or language - it IS a code. (Hence the name "genetic code.") There is letters, words, grammar, syntax and information.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that there is some pre-determined "meaning" to be changed by the addition of a mutation."

I wouldn't say pre-determined. But even the simplest cell contains enough information to fill the 30 volume set of Encyclopedia Britannica. So "I LOVE YOU" was a very simple example. In reality, it is much more complex.

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

Sorry but you are simply wrong here. I'm not saying there is meaning as in Divine purpose or anything. But if a strand of DNA is instructions to make a gene and a mutation occurs, most of the time it is benign, often it is harmful and rarely it is beneficial. In all known cases, even when a mutation is beneficial, it is still a broken gene with lost information. In the instance of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, it happens to help it to survive but the organism is actually less fit than before.

I see we're in agreement about the language BEst. :) I'm sure we aren't the only ones!

define evolution:

Okay here is my pitch:
(I have numbered the points so that we can discuss the validity of the evidence for a specific step in the process as desired.)

1.DNA is copied when cells divide, so that the genetic information is present in both cells.

2.This process is very high fidelity but not 100% accurate.

3.Every time the code is copied it gains a few mistakes.

4.The code is massively redundant (meaning that most important processes are covered by several different bits of code, so mistakes are not very likely to be catastrophic.)

5.Cells have their own error checking protocols, so catastrophic mistakes can be corrected.

6.When you look at something like a human being, the whole organism has a further level of error control to correct catastrophic mistakes (although anyone who has had a run in with cancer will know that these don't work 100% of the time either).

7.The net result of this activity is that no two cells in your body have 100% identical DNA coding.

8.The net result of this is that when you (the parent P) reproduce, your child does not have a genetic code that is 50% identical to you and 50% identical to it's other parent, but a code that is very slightly less than 50% identical to either.

1. Two of your children will have different differences in DNA code from each other. Lets call those children A and B.

10.In a very few cases this means that the children cannot survive.

11.In most cases it makes very little difference at all.

12.Over many repetitions of this cycle the child's DNA becomes more and more different from the fractional identity expected from all of it's ancestors, as more and more errors are collected.

13. The genetic lines of our two original children, A and B may have gone in totally different directions due to the random nature of the process. Once the difference between the genetic codes of the descendants of A and the descendants of B are sufficiently different, an arbitrary line can be drawn and the descendants of A and B are considered to be different species from each other, with a common ancestor (parent P). If the codes are sufficiently different from that of parent P also, then parent P and the descendants of A and B are considered to be 3 distinct species.

14. If the descendants of A are sufficiently better able to cope with life and reproduce successfully than the descendants of B then at some point the genetic line of B will die out leaving only the genetic line of A.

15. If of all of the genetic lines of parent P, only the descendants of A are still present in any large number then species P is considered to have evolved into the species A.

Conclusion

This is the process of evolution. We started with one code, produced two new species, lost any versions of the code that were incompatible with survival, and one species, via a large number of very small steps, evolved into a second more successful species.

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. Let me put it another way. The fossil record SHOULD be important evidence for evolution and was, in fact, predicted to be so. But because that prediction failed and the fossil record does not support evolution, they have to minimize it and say it is unimportant. That's what is really going on. Make sense now?

No, you STILL don't understand it, do you?
The fossil record IS important. And it 100% supports evolution. If it didn't, then evolution wouldn't persist as a theory. It just so happens that there are many, many, many other forms of evidence which also demonstrate evolution, so the fossil record is simply supportive of all those other pieces of evidence.

Oh trust me, I do. Atheist misdefine it as believing in something without evidence - even in spite of the evidence. That is wrong. Most dictionaries say "without proof." Because science cannot provide absolute proof, faith is required. Again, to be precise, I call faith without evidence "blind faith." Blind faith is quite frankly stupid and irrational. Faith is trust based on evidence and it is completely rational. We could not live without it.

Oh ok, so the dictionary definitions are wrong and you have a better definition which you choose to use instead. Thay really does explain a lot.......

Funny how the dictionary definitions are important when they back up what you think and irrelevant when they don't. Bit like your science really.

"Fine tuning isn't a problem."

"Call it [the fine-tuning of the universe] a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest PROBLEM in physics. [Emphasis mine.] Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse."

"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."

Your invoking the Strong Anthropic Principle. Very, very unlikely. Read the article. You'll see why the fine-tuning is a problem. And you'll see why the only options are a multi-verse or God.

discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator#.UW-1dkqxbeA

Regarding information levels in the genetic code:

Some mutations reduce the level of information and some increase it.

One that increases it would be when a piece of DNA is copied twice instead of once (probably by a slippage of the replication machinery.

This is a massively important process in the evolution of some protein structures which change length by adding in extra iterations of the same motif of amino acids.

Proteins also adopt whole new functions by having extra domains spliced in at random. For example a structural/nutritional protein might can an atpase site that enables it to do work in the cell....or an enzyme might gain a dimerization domain that would enable it to have more rigorous control of catalytic rates.

"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."

Love you, Bumble.

"I see we're in agreement about the language BEst. I'm sure we aren't the only ones!"*

Let's hope not.

I get the sense that my comments on evolution will be ignored but whatever.

Regarding all mutations making an organism 'less fit':

This is untrue.

As an example, a mutation to an atpase may very slightly increase the rate of conversion of atp to work. The cell in which this occurs will simply be ever so slightly more energy efficient. There is no disadvantage to this. The cell is more fit.

Thanks, ICBINEG. That's very helpful - and much more detailed than I expected. I was just hoping for at least something like "natural selection acting on random genetic mutations."

"Oh ok, so the dictionary definitions are wrong and you have a better definition which you choose to use instead."

No, can you please try to get what I say right for once? I said the dictionary definitions are right. Dawkins is wrong.

Well I thought if I broke it into steps we could examine which ones cause the problems with respect to validation of the theory as a whole more easily.

So...erm...which step do you actually have a problem with?

"Regarding all mutations making an organism 'less fit': This is untrue."

I did not say "all". I said most are benign but even the rare beneficial ones are a loss of information. And in the case of bacterial resistance to anti-biotics, they are less fit.

"As an example, a mutation to an atpase may very slightly increase the rate of conversion of atp to work. The cell in which this occurs will simply be ever so slightly more energy efficient. There is no disadvantage to this. The cell is more fit."

Fair enough. Thanks, ICBINEG. Quick question though. Since, due to the second law of thermodynamics there is always an energy loss, where does the extra energy come from and what is the cost. There has to be some cost, no?

Oh, sorry. I read it wrong. It's more energy-efficient. I think I get what you're saying.

You are remarkably wedded to this idea Best. That you spend hours writing little bookklets and reading creationist websites. Would all your faith vanish if all those scientists were right? Just curious.
You know what, I suspect Jesus, if he existed, didnt actually give acrap about all this. He would have much more interested with getting out there and helping the poor and disadvantaged.

oh, and foxes and dogs belong to difference families and have different numbers of chromosones. A viable hybrid is extremely unlikely.

"So...erm...which step do you actually have a problem with?"

I don't have a problem with any of them. I wanted to see who on here really understood evolution because I realized we could be talking about completely different things. I was a bit shaken up tonight when a guy on FaceBook who I knew believed in evolution told me mutations had nothing to do with it. And I don't think most lay people can even explain natural selection. That's been my experience any way. They REALLY need to teach way more evolution in public schools.

best

No there need not be a cost...you are making it more efficient.

Think of it like simply making a better car engine. It might cost more to produce a more efficient engine but it doesn't have to...it could be cheaper to make AND more efficient. Win win.

You are correct that in the case of antibiotic resistance it usually costs the bacteria to produce the resistance, so once the antibiotic is removed, non resistant bacteria would beat the crap out of the resistant.

However there is often more information in a mutated code than in the original as I gave examples of.

"Some mutations reduce the level of information and some increase it. One that increases it would be when a piece of DNA is copied twice instead of once (probably by a slippage of the replication machinery."

You could call that an "increase" in information if you want but it's not NEW information. It's a copy of old information. And now possibly the old information doesn't work properly. It should probably be called "noise" rather than information. It's like inserting static into a radio signal.

"oh, and foxes and dogs belong to difference families and have different numbers of chromosones. A viable hybrid is extremely unlikely."

I didn't say they had to be viable. If they can interbreed and bring forth offspring - or even if they ever could but can't now - they are the same biblical kind. But I will check into it and if you are correct, I will cease to include foxes on my list.