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!

"This is apparently predicting the massacre of newborn babies at the time of the birth of Jesus. Expect that a) it doesn't say anything about a massacre of newborn babies at the time of the birth of Jesus and b) there was no massacre."

Bethlehem was a small town and likely had few children under the age of two - not exactly what could be described as a massacre - and thus would not be expected to be reported in the annals of ancient history. Further, it could have been mentioned in sources which are now lost.

How about finding your millions of transitional forms which should exist instead of making up fallacious arguments about the Bible?

"Oh and Bestvalue I'm perfectly capable of explaining how there is no objective morality if you can find someone capable of listening, but the may want to avoid the specific baby references since your god has killed so many. He was the first baby killer and his thirst for it has never been equalled."

God has the right to take away a life He has given and the power to give it back. Humans have neither. Now, please explain to me why there is no objective morality. And after you do, explain why you think any atrocities religious people commit in the name of God are wrong.

"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."

Yes, this is one I meant to comment on earlier. So if this is true, evolution does not predict a (relatively) large fossil record (which is what I've said from the beginning. Does a global flood predict a large fossil record? Yes. Do we have a large fossil record? Yes. Score another one for God.

Never met one of them, but I have met one or two people who believed other kinds of equally ridiculous bollocks. One who thought the moon landings were faked, and one who believed that aliens really are abducting thick rednecks human beings and sticking probes up their bums. I did tell him that it was OK to have that sort of sexual fantasy and I could bring my strap on round next time I went there for tea...

OK, all religion is bollocks anyway, but there are kind of degrees of bollocks, aren't there?

My room mate is a staunch atheist. He strongly believes in the multi-verse and has developed his own theory about it. He believes that alien abductions are credible and should be taken seriously. Although we disagree on many things, he is one of the most rational thinkers I know and he's only 27.

So, we are all going to be judged (at some time in the future), by a bunch of zombies?

Best I am judging you right now, and you aren't managing to answer any of the scientific or philosophical questions that are being put to you in a reasoned manner.

I think you are shaming your god , luckily he is forgiving. (Assuming you are New Testament rather than Old Testament - otherwise you are screwed come judgement day).

"So, we are all going to be judged (at some time in the future), by a bunch of zombies?"

Let's hope so or else there is no true justice.

"Best I am judging you right now, and you aren't managing to answer any of the scientific or philosophical questions that are being put to you in a reasoned manner."

Don't be silly. That's all I've been doing the whole time.

"I think you are shaming your god sad, luckily he is forgiving. (Assuming you are New Testament rather than Old Testament - otherwise you are screwed come judgement day)."

Christians are both.

Pedro, here's you're cue to go . . .

"Don't be silly. That's all I've been doing the whole time."

Uh, no you really haven't.

. . . since all you contribute is nonsense.

Do you have a book by the Flying Spaghetti Monster written millennia before this evidence was discovered or are you inventing him post hoc?

If you're suggesting that the Bible predicts modern physics merely because it starts with "In the beginning, God created the world...." (or whatever) then you are even more deluded and desperate to believe crap than you seem.

I didn't invent the FSM - but I am a devoted worshipper. By the way, just so you know (because I love you not really) the FSM loves you even though you hate him. K?

To deny the law of cause and effect shows just how desperate atheists can get to avoid the logical conclusion that God exists. At the quantum level, predictability gets touchy but just because we can't predict a cause doesn't mean there isn't one. Cause and effect is the foundation of science. I tell ya . . . if atheists had started science it would have never got off the ground

I'm denying nothing - I'm pointing out what the current evidence suggests. You know - that little thing called "evidence" that you claim to have an awful lot of but seem strangely unable to produce?

One of the reasons QM is so deeply mysterious and fascinating is that it is, or seems to be, entirely counter-intuitive. It's shown us that the laws and processes that we experience at our level of reality cannot be relied upon when we head down into the quantum level.

Therefore, if you're beginning your argument with "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" and it can be shown, with evidence, that this cannot be accepted as true without question then the rest of your argument is invalidated.

You began to exist the moment your father's sperm joined with your mother's ovum. You did not exist before that. The material your are composed of existed but it was not you. Oh, the tap dancing that must be done. If I made irrational arguments like this, I'd never hear the end of it. I'm imploring people to look at the facts we can actually observe while atheist must resort to denying fundamental laws of physics and logic

This assumes there's a "me" that is independent of the material "me" that is comprised of atoms and molecules. Why should we assume that? My conciousness (the me that feels like me) is an emergent property of brain matter - so still relies on matter to exist.....that same matter that was born in the heart of a star.

As Christopher Hitchens said: "I don't have a body. I am a body".

And, honestly, Best you won't know logic if it smacked you round the face with a wet fish.

The Kalam argument can't get you there - and it's not meant to No, it can't get you there - but it is meant to. That's why it's exclusively used by religious types trying to prove their God exists (and it's used by Christians and Muslims alike). If it were only intended to prove a cause for the universe, physicists would be using it. They're not.

Because He said He did and everything else He said has come true so I trust Him on faith - but not blind faith. I'm sure if I felt like it I could turn everyone of those questions around and demolish naturalism too

You're welcome to try, but you've failed completely to demolish anything else, so I don't rate your chances much.

I would actually prefer to be an atheist. But I care more about truth than what feels good or is comforting

I don't believe you. If you cared at all about the truth you'd be reading actual science books instead of copying and pasting arguments from creation.com.

Your mistakes are too basic to have come from anyone who has ever picked up a real science textbook in their life.

It's fine not to "agree" with BB theory or evolution - but it's not fine to not quite understand those things you are disagreeing with.

My advice to you would be to get to the nearest library and learn a little something about this subject. At least argue from a position of knowledge - you are NOT doing that at the moment, and you are making a fool of yourself in the process.

Yes, this is one I meant to comment on earlier. So if this is true, evolution does not predict a (relatively) large fossil record (which is what I've said from the beginning. Does a global flood predict a large fossil record? Yes. Do we have a large fossil record? Yes. Score another one for God

Unbelievable. Just.........

Evolution is a theory about biological diversity. It does not say the slightest thing about how dead organisms may or may not be preserved. Perhaps geology makes such predictions - but how can evolution?

ALREADY KNOWING that fossils exist a biologist can predict that they should show ever increasing complexity the more recent they become. The older ones should show simplicity and the more recent complexity.

And what do we see when we look at the geologic column? Yep - exactly this slow progression from simplicity to complexity.

The Great Flood fairytale suggests that everything fossilised at once. If this were true, every fossil would be within the same strata. They are not.

And how do creationists explain this? "Oh well, see - simple organisms sank faster while more complex ones could swim better and could stay afloat"! Or worse, "Satan did that - he wants to trick us all".

You're an embarrassment to rational Christians everywhere.

"I'm denying nothing - I'm pointing out what the current evidence suggests."

I don't think the current evidence suggest that things can arise without a cause.

"Therefore, if you're beginning your argument with "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" and it can be shown, with evidence, that this cannot be accepted as true without question then the rest of your argument is invalidated."

Well, as I explained, I don't think it's reasonable to think QM breaks the law of cause and effect. Just because things get mysterious, there is no reason to break laws with justification. What you are proposing is worse than magic. A first cause is certainly more reasonable than claiming "the universe (or the singularity or whatever) just popped into existence from nothing for no reason without a cause.

"This assumes there's a "me" that is independent of the material "me" that is comprised of atoms and molecules."

No it doesn't. I don't believe in the soul. The Bible doesn't teach it. (Or hell either.) I mean "you" in your configuration. The stuff that makes you up previously existed but it was never put together in the form of you before.

"Why should we assume that? My conciousness (the me that feels like me) is an emergent property of brain matter - so still relies on matter to exist.....that same matter that was born in the heart of a star."

Yup.

"As Christopher Hitchens said: "I don't have a body. I am a body"."

Never heard Hitchens say that but I like it. Based on the Bible, I always say, "You don't HAVE a soul, you ARE a soul." Same idea. I would just add that your soul includes your body and your consciousness and who you are. But it is still made up of matter and energy.

"And, honestly, Best you won't know logic if it smacked you round the face with a wet fish."

And no one has managed to point even one logic error I have made so far. Logic is a chain of reasoning. So even if you think I have denied certain evidence that you accept for evolution, that is not an error in logic if I have justification for doing so. As I have repeatedly shown, I don't deny facts. I have never denied an actual fact that we can observe, test and examine in the present. My model, based on the Bible simply gives a different explanation of those facts - the same way any scientific theory does. I never invoked a miracle at any point in my discussion of evolution or cosmology.

"The Kalam argument can't get you there - and it's not meant to No, it can't get you there - but it is meant to."

Not by itself, no, it is NOT meant to. You are simply wrong here.

"I'm sure if I felt like it I could turn everyone of those questions around and demolish naturalism too. You're welcome to try, but you've failed completely to demolish anything else, so I don't rate your chances much."

Naturalism easily falls apart under it's own weight. It's known as the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Naturalism is self-refuting and so we have good grounds for believing that it is not true.

"I don't believe you. If you cared at all about the truth you'd be reading actual science books instead of copying and pasting arguments from creation.com."

I haven't copied-and-pasted any of my arguments on this site. Not even once. Reading actual science books is pretty much all I do. Truth is the most important thing in the world to me. You, on the other hand, appear to be just regurgitating platitudes you've heard from Dawkins and Hitchens and have presented no real science as I have done.

"Your mistakes are too basic to have come from anyone who has ever picked up a real science textbook in their life."

You haven't pointed out a mistake yet.

"It's fine not to "agree" with BB theory or evolution - but it's not fine to not quite understand those things you are disagreeing with."

I understand both the big bang theory and evolution very well - better than the average person. Don't mistake my disagreement with an aspect of a theory for my misunderstanding of it. The greatest scientific theories and discoveries have always come about because someone was willing to challenge the reigning paradigm. Your view is decidedly ANTI-science.

"My advice to you would be to get to the nearest library and learn a little something about this subject. At least argue from a position of knowledge - you are NOT doing that at the moment, and you are making a fool of yourself in the process."

I get science books out from the library nearly every week have bookshelf full of them. All my arguments have been completely logical and rational and no one has ever shown an error in my logic.

"Evolution is a theory about biological diversity. It does not say the slightest thing about how dead organisms may or may not be preserved. Perhaps geology makes such predictions - but how can evolution?"

Because evolution and geology are intertwined when it comes to the fossil record. Tough they are different fields of study, they over-lap. It was Darwin's reading of Principles of Geology which gave him his foundation for the theory of evolution by natural selection. This could not be so if there was no over-lap between the two disciplines.

"ALREADY KNOWING that fossils exist a biologist can predict that they should show ever increasing complexity the more recent they become. The older ones should show simplicity and the more recent complexity."

Correct.

"And what do we see when we look at the geologic column? Yep - exactly this slow progression from simplicity to complexity."

True. That is a fact. Although to be slightly more accurate, I would re-word it to say, "The ones near the bottom are simpler and the ones at the top are more complex." The claim that the lowest ones are older is an assumption which can - and indeed, HAS - been disproved by testable science. Also to claim this apparent progression as evidence for evolution is also an interpretation of the facts and not a fact itself.

"The Great Flood fairytale suggests that everything fossilised at once. If this were true, every fossil would be within the same strata. They are not."

No. That is not how layers of strata are laid down in moving water. Many layers are laid down simultaneous according to density. What we see in the fossil record is what we would expect if a global flood had occurred.

"And how do creationists explain this? "Oh well, see - simple organisms sank faster while more complex ones could swim better and could stay afloat"! Or worse, "Satan did that - he wants to trick us all"."

No creation scientist working today makes either of those claims. The fossils are sorted by habit and ecosystem. This has been verified by actual experiments in flumes.

"You're an embarrassment to rational Christians everywhere."

Well, that's not very nice of you to say but I won't respond in kind. And not just because Jesus would not want me to but because I actually don't feel any animosity toward you.

The one thing I will say is that even if you disagree with my methods and conclusions you should think it good that I at least attempt to make a logical case for my beliefs rather than accepting it all on blind faith. I would think you would encourage other Christians to investigate the evidence - as I do - rather than blindly believing dogma.

You clearly know nothing about geology. I don't have time to explain it all here, but do yourself a favour and get a geology book out.

Even a GCSE level one should give you enough information to stop making such basic errors.

Ultimately it is proven (yes proven) by looking at the way environments work today (the present is the key to the past), that some rocks were laid down in catastrophic conditions, other over vast periods of time, (such as limestone). Certainly in very different ages and conditions.

Metamorphic rocks are either igneous (volcanic) or sedimentary (laid down in strata due to weathering and erosion), which have been changed due to intense heat and or pressure. Again not a quick process.

The pseudo scientific nonsense that you are coming up with (or copying and pasting) is insulting.

Just as an aside why are you questioning gods word, I didn't think Christians were allowed to do that (it won't look good come judgement day - which is when exactly?).

"But you actually just admitted that something he said hasn't come true"

Many prophecies have not been fulfilled yet. I'm sure you realize that and you are (as you are wont to do) just finding a flaw where none exists. But how can I talk about prophecies with a person who doesn't even understand scientific predictions. Jesus said, "If you don't trust me with earthly things how can you trust me with heavenly things?" He constantly provided evidence, by the way, and never asked for blind faith.

It's good how you avoid what I was actually saying and answer something completely different. Are you in politics?

My point was, you were staking your entire faith on the fact that everything Jesus has said would happen has happened. I have demonstrated unequivocally (and you even agreed) that this is wrong. You are wrong. So I now understand that you say stuff which you haven't actually researched at all. This is quite similar to your understanding of science, as it happens.

My room mate is a staunch atheist. He strongly believes in the multi-verse and has developed his own theory about it. He believes that alien abductions are credible and should be taken seriously. Although we disagree on many things, he is one of the most rational thinkers I know and he's only 27.

If this is an example of the most rational person you know, than that really does explain a lot.

. . . since all you contribute is nonsense.

Speak for yourself.

The short sharp response I gave you earlier was humorous because it carried about as much weight as everything you've said on this thread. But you didn't really get that because your head is so firmly buried in the sand that humour doesn't penetrate that far.

Well, as I explained, I don't think it's reasonable to think QM breaks the law of cause and effect. Just because things get mysterious, there is no reason to break laws with justification. What you are proposing is worse than magic. A first cause is certainly more reasonable than claiming "the universe (or the singularity or whatever) just popped into existence from nothing for no reason without a cause.

Can you tell us what you actually understand of QM, please?

No it doesn't. I don't believe in the soul. The Bible doesn't teach it.

I'm starting to wonder whether you've even read the bible.....

Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

1 Thessalonians 5:23, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

And no one has managed to point even one logic error I have made so far.

It's like listening to a broken record.

You came to a conclusion that slowing speed of light supports a young earth. Even if there was evidence that demonstrated slowing light, I provided a link which demonstrated how it is logically impossible for slowing light to support a young earth. Perhaps you didn't read it, but it proves your logic error.

As with all Christians I think best is picking and choosing which bits of the bible to take literally. That seems to be par for the course and I have no issue with that.
It's the fact that he chose the "world created in 7 days" bit to believe in and not the soul.
Quite frankly I find the water into wine easier to stomach than the world being created in 7 days (and much more fun).

You haven't pointed out a mistake yet.

So not just logic then, you really think you haven't made any mistakes.

I refer you to this entire thread as evidence against your position. If you actually read what people are writing rather than pulling quotes out and responding to them (much like you do with scientific quotes) you might see how wrong you are.

I understand both the big bang theory and evolution very well - better than the average person.

You continue to demonstrate that this is not the case. Or are you just claiming intellectual supremacy which is how you come to 'know' things which nobody else can possibly comprehend.

best thats a shame. I really thought we were getting somewhere. We don't have to agree to disagree. I have been and spoken to the people in my building who work on cosmology and it as a FACT that most theoretical models of the universe are based on a big bang AND and infinite universe. Lots are still based on either finite universe or even no big bang, but MOST are infinite and BB.

Now of course the universe may or may not have started with a big bang (although the quality of the evidence s VERY high that it did), and it may or may not be infinite (although there is more evidence supporting infinite than finite), I am not trying to tell you that we know the truth on this one yet.

But there is a very real undisputable truth (from mathematics) that disproves the idea that the universe MUST be finite if it starts with a BB.

I get science books out from the library nearly every week have bookshelf full of them. All my arguments have been completely logical and rational and no one has ever shown an error in my logic.

You know you have to take those back, right?

And I just pointed out an error in your logic, so please stop saying that, it's getting rather tiresome.

Sorry best you may understand BB theory better than the average person but, as I have ust demonstrate, you certainly don't understand it WELL.

I don't think the current evidence suggest that things can arise without a cause

Then you know bugger all about the current evidence then. Quelle suprise.

Well, as I explained, I don't think it's reasonable to think QM breaks the law of cause and effect

Who cares if you think it's reasonable? Got a PhD in particle physics, have you? Those that do disagree with you. I'll listen to them, ta.

(Cue Best misunderstanding and misusing Argument from Authority. Again).

No it doesn't. I don't believe in the soul. The Bible doesn't teach it. (Or hell either.) I mean "you" in your configuration. The stuff that makes you up previously existed but it was never put together in the form of you before

True. But I didn't emerge ex nihilio, did I - which is what you think happened with the universe. If you're comparing like with like then you must think the universe was formed from pre-existing material. Did God go to B&Q and get what he needed to make a universe?

Maybe cause & effect only holds true when we're talking about the reconfiguration of matter. I fail to see why it should do when we talking the ultimate, ultimate beginning when there was no matter at all.

And no one has managed to point even one logic error I have made so far

Only in every comment we've directed at you. Perhaps you need to understand logic first before you can see where you've failed at it.

Reading actual science books is pretty much all I do I'd find this funny if it wasn't quite so tragic. I genuinely feel a little sorry for you. Only a little though - your tremendous and unwarranted arrogance at thinking you have spotted flaws in evolutionary theory that has eluded 99.9% of all biologists, physicists, chemists and geologists for the past 200 years makes makes me rather less sorry for you than I might otherwise have done. And you freely admit never having studied the subject .

Oh and an Argument from Authority would be: "Newton was right about gravity. Newton believed in God. Therefore God exists". Not "Excuse me, Best, what are your credentials?"