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!

best if you think no one has ever found an error in your logic, then what do you call the following:

1. Your statement that BB theory prohibits the universe being infinite in size.

Given that it doesn't do any such thing and most currently discussed cosmological models are both BB and inifnite, this is an ERROR of logic.

1. That the 'c' the constant speed of light (the speed of light in the vacuum) is not constant because we can slow it in the lab.

We slow the speed of light by pushing it through complex materials. This has no bearing on the constant 'c' which is the speed in the vacuum. This is an ERROR of logic.

1. That any mutation must make an organism less fit.

I gave you several real examples of mutations that make an organism more fit with no loss anywhere else. This is an ERROR of logic.

1. That information is lost during mutation.

I have given real examples that show that mutation can lead to an increase in the information content of DNA. There is a further example in which a whole gene is duplicated and mutated. This leave the system with both the original gene and a whole new gene. In no possible measure of 'information' has the level gone down.

This is an ERROR of logic.

And those are just the ones I personally have demonstrated on this thread.

I find it more that a little insulting that I have bothered to make these points and that best has even begun to accept some of them, and yet still claims to have 'made no mistakes'.

best one final thought on BB, although I can't imagine why I am bothering.

There are valid mathematical models of the universe that are BB and finite.
There are valid mathematical models of the universe that are BB and infinite.
There are valid mathematical models of the universe that are non-BB.

As we get more evidence from the world around us we change our minds about which of these models is most likely to accurately reflect reality.

If more evidence turns up that the universe is finite, then that will simply increase the perceived likelihood that the first group of models are right.

These models all make testable predictions, about what should be happening out there. There would only be a failure of cosmology as a whole if we discover evidence that both validates one of the models and also refutes that same model. If none of our models can explain what is seen then we have to go look elsewhere....

At the moment the problem is that many very different models are ALL capable of describing the evidence found so far, so we cannot easily pick between them.

Can we have a list of all the branches of science Best may wish to look individually into for pretty solid evidence he is wrong about YEC. And then maybe he can take the over lapping evidece together just to sure it up.

I will start:

Geology
Palentology
Archeology
Evolutionary Science
Biology
Genetics
Theoretical Physics
AstroPhysics
Cosmology
Climate science
Marerial Science
Earth Science
Marine Biology
Ecology

oh also error of logic pointer. the most recent MATRALINIAL common ancestor dates back to 190000 to 200000 years ago. It is the paper you quoted on that that you also pointed out was later discredited by its own author.

Bestvalue Still catching up but you say "How about finding your millions of transitional forms which should exist instead of making up fallacious arguments about the Bible?"

You are wrong because:
#1 I didn't make that up. It is a catholic proof-of-the-bible site that claims that verse is a prophecy of the massacre.

#2 you are unable to refute my point that the verse mentions nothing of any massacre

#3 by claiming that there is no record of the massacre because Bethlehem was too small and unimportant you undermine that verse as one of the much touted proofs that the bible is true.

The fact that you also want to change the subject suggests I struck a nerve. Would you like to hear more prophecies? I'll see what time I have later, but anyone can google a few along with their supposed meaning.

Morality

As for the morality thing it is wasted on you, but if god decides morality then that isn't objective it is simply external. Like EU rules applying to the UK (Federal laws applied to States) especially as we only have your word what god said and your interpretation of what those words meant.

In any case your god's morality is straight from the sewer. He admits openly that he has a temper problem and kills people when he gets angry. That he likes to make rules without telling people in advance so he can catch them out and that his idea of justice is to punish children for their parents crimes.

If he existed we'd have him in the special part of the prison for the perverts and serial killers

Not having an objective morality (and partly guided by evolution which shaped our minds to enable us to cooperate with others) we are able to work out a morality based on what can be called 'enlightened self interest'. That is freedom for all to do as they like, subject to that freedom not impinging on others freedoms.

All laws can be built on that in a logical manner and anyone capable of thinking it through can see that is the best thing for them personally.

Actually the best thing for them personally is to be dictator of the world, but unless you can be sure you will get to be dictator then equality is your safest most logical bet.

I don't feel animosity towards you Best - I'm sure in many areas of life you're a perfectly decent fellow with an awful lot of things I could find to respect about you.

But there's the thing:

I, personally, truly love science. I never got beyond A'Level when studying it, but 50% of the time I spend reading, it's books about science. I love, love, love the fact that, thanks wholly to science, my time on Earth can be spent marvelling at the beauty of the universe instead of peering up at it in fear and thinking that thunder is an angry God.

I am extremely grateful that my son and I have science to fix our teeth, vaccinate us against deadly illness, fly us away on holiday, bring a world of information into our home via the internet, warm our home, make sure our food is safe to eat....etc. etc.

On this basis I take great exception, on behalf of the very people that brought us these things through diligence and dedication, to anyone who's willing to dismiss every last one of them as a charlatan, a liar or hopelessly inept. I know that's not what you think you are doing - but actually you are.

If you were right and there's such a thing as a varying light speed, then every physics text book would have to be ripped up. Every geology text book has to go if it's found that the world as we see it was caused by a worldwide flood and that radiometric testing is useless. And that evolution can't account for the diversity of life and the way it works? - bang goes all the biology and medical textbooks.

You simply don't understand enough about the subjects you're trying to tackle to understand all the various implications. And on this basis, alone, I have a problem with you. First rule of debate - know your subject.

But you've put up a spirited defence, I'll hand that to you. But that's all.

"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."

No, not proven. Clearly you don't understand the scientific method. "The present is the key to the past" (uniformitarianism) is the foundational principle modern geology is built upon. But it is just that - a principle - an assumption.

I don't based my conclusions on that assumption (and neither did geology until Charles Lyell came up with it). When I start with different assumptions, I get different results and reach different conclusions based on the same evidence. There is nothing inherently illogical or unscientific about my approach.

"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?)."

We are supposed to study God's Word and question it. The Bible commands us to do so. (I am not Catholic, remember?) If you're referring to the doctrine of the soul and hell, I only came to this conclusion a few years ago after a year-long study of the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek. I changed my mind about what I had believed (based on blind faith)by studying the Bible and understanding that the soul and hell are not taught there but crept in to the teachings (not the Bible itself) of the early Church through the Greek philosophies of Socrates and his student Plato.

Where did you ever get the idea Christian's weren't allowed to question God's Word? Because Christian's do question God's Word, this is the explanation for why numerous Protestant denominations exist. (I consider myself non-denominational, by the way, and not even particularly religious. God hates religion.)

"My point was, you were staking your entire faith on the fact that everything Jesus has said would happen has happened."

I misspoke. Jesus made predictions that haven't happened yet. I should have said "all of the predictions that were supposed to happen by now have come true." If your purpose here is to catch me making a mistake rather than to try to understand, you're doing a good job of it. I fully believe that you know what I meant and to pretend otherwise is to be dishonest and unnecessarily argumentative.

By the way, there ARE Christians called Preterists who believe all prophecies in the Bible were fulfilled by 70 A.D. There are many different views. Christian Universalists believe everyone goes to heaven. Those who believe in Conditional Immortality (like me) believe the unrepentant do not burn in hell for eternity but are annihilated and will cease to exist. (That's what atheists believe will happen to them anyway so, for them, it's no biggie.) I believe it is the judgment of a just, loving and righteous God.

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

He's far more rational than anyone I have seen on this board. He would not need to swear and make fallacious arguments to make his case. He is almost half my age and I learn a lot from him. He says I have made him question his views as well. That's the way it should be. A mutual understanding and respect. Most of my friends are atheists and none of them behave they way you guys do.

Pedro, regarding the soul, you can't just quote-mine the Bible and pull verses out of context. The Bible uses the word "soul" (especially in the King James version translated in 1611) but it doesn't mean what we've been lead to think it means.

By way of example, S.O.S. in Morse Code means Save Our Souls. Are they talking about an immaterial part of you that survives death? No, they are saying "Save Our Lives." A "soul" is living, breathing being. Biblically speaking, humans and animals are souls but plants are not.

It took me a year of exhaustive study to figure all this out so there is no way I can give you all my evidence here. Suffice it to say that I believe the Bible teaches that when you are dead, you are dead. The Christian hope is a bodily resurrection (like Jesus) not an immortal soul.

best Are you including me in that sweeping assertion that no one on this board is rational?

I think I have done nothing but show you the evidence in the light of my own personal understanding of science.

What could be more rational than that?

"As with all Christians I think best is picking and choosing which bits of the bible to take literally."

Uh, duh! Of course we do! Not everything in the Bible is literal. Jesus said he was "the door" but no one thinks he was made of wood and had hinges. You have to take the entire Bible in its historical context and determine what the writer was trying to convey. Every writer has an intended purpose and it is my job to figure out what he meant. It is not my right to reinterpret what he was saying according to what I would personally like to believe. In short, I take the literal parts literally and the figurative part figuratively.

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

Mistakes of mis-wording, yes. (No one is perfect. We are all sinners. Even you, Pedro.) Errors of fact, I don't think so. And errors of logic, I seriously doubt.

"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."

We are. Perhaps you better define what YOU mean by infinite then. If you mean an infinite number of stars and galaxies, no that's impossible. If you man infinite in space, I would have to ask what space is composed of. If it is composed of matter, no matter how small, it cannot be infinite. Let's put it this way: if it can be counted, it cannot be infinite in reality.

But it is a side issue. We should go back to discussing mutations and information. That could make me believe in evolution which, in turn, would compel me to accept a young earth.

*"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."

There is real indisputable PROOF (I can use that word here since we are talking about mathematics) that ANYTHING which is composed of matter and can be counted cannot be infinite and exist in reality.

"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."

Smart people still make mistakes and violate the laws of logic. Ask any university professor who tries to tell you that it's true that there is no such thing as truth.

"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?"

If God had to make the universe out of pre-existing stuff it would be co-eternal with Him and he would not be God. The fact that the Bible predicted the universe came from nothing and that modern science agrees is powerful evidence for the truth of the Bible.

(Cue Ellie to claim modern cosmology does not say the universe came from nothing. Yes, a quantum fluctuation, I get it.)

"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."

Perhaps you are right. But I would call it special pleading to make that claim. You should have good reason to assume the law of cause and effect does not hold true and I don't think you have good grounds for it.

"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."

No. People have attempted to claim I have my facts wrong. I pointed out to them that I have my facts right but my interpretation of those facts is different from theirs because I start with different assumptions. As I recall, no one has pointed out an actual logical fallacy I committed like begging the question, straw-man etc. (I think Pedro, tried to at one point but he was wrong.)

"Oh and an Argument from Authority would be: "Newton was right about gravity. Newton believed in God. Therefore God exists"."

Uh, I would never make that argument. That truly would be an argument from authority. You'll NEVER hear me say anything even remotely close to that.

"best if you think no one has ever found an error in your logic, then what do you call the following: 1. Your statement that BB theory prohibits the universe being infinite in size. Given that it doesn't do any such thing and most currently discussed cosmological models are both BB and inifnite, this is an ERROR of logic."

I never said the BB prohibited anything. And even if I was wrong it would be an error of fact, not of logic.

"2. That the 'c' the constant speed of light (the speed of light in the vacuum) is not constant because we can slow it in the lab." We slow the speed of light by pushing it through complex materials. This has no bearing on the constant 'c' which is the speed in the vacuum. This is an ERROR of logic."

Fair enough. Maybe I should word it "light doesn't travel through space at a constant speed." If the "speed of light" is fixed by definition it can't vary so I see how what I said might confuse some people. (Although if they paid attention, they'd understand what I mean.) But light can be slowed so its speed can't be a constant. I'm not sure it's an error of logic but more of defining terms.

"3. That any mutation must make an organism less fit. I gave you several real examples of mutations that make an organism more fit with no loss anywhere else. This is an ERROR of logic."

No. If I am wrong, this is an error of fact. And I never said that anyway (and previously clarified it once before). I said that only with regard to bacterial resistance to anti-biotics and you agreed with me. So no error there whatsoever.

"4. That information is lost during mutation. I have given real examples that show that mutation can lead to an increase in the information content of DNA. There is a further example in which a whole gene is duplicated and mutated. This leave the system with both the original gene and a whole new gene. In no possible measure of 'information' has the level gone down."

We are again disagreeing about definitions. You say an "increase" in information but what it seems like you mean is an increase in stuff. I always say "new" information, not just an "increase."

A mutation that causes "I LOVE YOU" to become "I LOVE YOU YOU" is an increase in stuff but it is not new information. And if it became
"I YOU LOVE YOU" it is a loss of information because now the sentence doesn't make sense.

"I find it more that a little insulting that I have bothered to make these points and that best has even begun to accept some of them, and yet still claims to have 'made no mistakes'."

I didn't claim to not make any mistakes at all, just no mistakes in logic. Since you haven't managed to demonstrate any, I would say don't feel insulted. We all make mistakes.

*"best one final thought on BB, although I can't imagine why I am bothering. There are valid mathematical models of the universe that are BB and finite. There are valid mathematical models of the universe that are BB and infinite. There are valid mathematical models of the universe that are non-BB."

Fair enough. I would like to see them. I would say they must be equivocating on the definition of infinity. As an mathematician worth his salt knows, an actual infinite cannot exist.

"These models all make testable predictions, about what should be happening out there. There would only be a failure of cosmology as a whole if we discover evidence that both validates one of the models and also refutes that same model. If none of our models can explain what is seen then we have to go look elsewhere...."

Yes, my model make testable predictions as well - many that have been verified. No one has shown that my model both validates and refutes itself at the same time. That would obviously destroy it and I would be forced to, as you say, look elsewhere.

"At the moment the problem is that many very different models are ALL capable of describing the evidence found so far, so we cannot easily pick between them."

And yet the standard BB model is the reigning theory and has been for 50 years. I think they only reason they have started to look elsewhere is because they realize several features of the current BB model violate known laws of physics.

"oh also error of logic pointer. the most recent MATRALINIAL common ancestor dates back to 190000 to 200000 years ago. It is the paper you quoted on that that you also pointed out was later discredited by its own author."

January, you don't seem to understand what an error of logic is. If I got that wrong it would be and error of fact, not of logic. But I am not wrong on that (if I even know what you are talking about - Mitochondrial Eve being 6,0000 years old. If you mean something else, let me know.)

"You are wrong because:
#1 I didn't make that up. It is a catholic proof-of-the-bible site that claims that verse is a prophecy of the massacre."

Except that:

1. I'm not Catholic and
2. The babies were killed. It just wasn't a "MASSACRE."

"#2 you are unable to refute my point that the verse mentions nothing of any massacre"

It doesn't have to. It refers to the killing of the babies - which really happened. It just wasn't a MASSACRE.

"#3 by claiming that there is no record of the massacre because Bethlehem was too small and unimportant you undermine that verse as one of the much touted proofs that the bible is true."

I've never heard anyone use that as evidence (not proof) that the Bible is true. In fact, I don't see how one would even go about using that passage as evidence that the Bible is true - unless the (as you call it) "massacre" was mentioned by other historians outside the Bible. Because it isn't, I would never use it as evidence that the Bible is true. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. That's logically fallacious.

"The fact that you also want to change the subject suggests I struck a nerve. Would you like to hear more prophecies? I'll see what time I have later, but anyone can google a few along with their supposed meaning."

I'm not changing the subject. I'm just not really that interested in prophecies or even in the Bible. I'm more interested in science. And I feel it would take away from the topic of the thread - which is young earth creationism. But go ahead and give me what you've got.

I misspoke. Jesus made predictions that haven't happened yet. I should have said "all of the predictions that were supposed to happen by now have come true." If your purpose here is to catch me making a mistake rather than to try to understand, you're doing a good job of it. I fully believe that you know what I meant and to pretend otherwise is to be dishonest and unnecessarily argumentative.

No, my point was that your logic for believing what Jesus said was fundamentally flawed because it was factually inaccurate. I'm not trying to catch you out (although you make it remarkably easy). But I'd still like to know how something which was supposed to happen within a generation is still being waited for 2000 years later and you can have even the remotest genuine belief that it will still happen?

Prophecy in the Bible

skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

Pedro, regarding the soul, you can't just quote-mine the Bible and pull verses out of context. The Bible uses the word "soul" (especially in the King James version translated in 1611) but it doesn't mean what we've been lead to think it means.

So it's ok for you to quote mine scientists and pull things completely out of context, but not ok for me to give you two bible verses which specifically mention souls which you claim the bible doesn't do and then you can just merely brush that aside and not provide any explanation whatsoever that what it says isn't what it means. Perhaps it took you a year of study to understand, but it took science hundreds of years to study fields which you quote mine from but we still try to offer you evidence which you blatantly ignore.

Mistakes of mis-wording, yes. (No one is perfect. We are all sinners. Even you, Pedro.) Errors of fact, I don't think so. And errors of logic, I seriously doubt.

Wow, you've been given at least half a dozen examples and you still believe this? Do you actually read what anyone is saying?

"As for the morality thing it is wasted on you, but if god decides morality then that isn't objective it is simply external. Like EU rules applying to the UK (Federal laws applied to States) especially as we only have your word what god said and your interpretation of what those words meant."

"In any case your god's morality is straight from the sewer."

By what standard do you judge this?

"He admits openly that he has a temper problem and kills people when he gets angry. That he likes to make rules without telling people in advance so he can catch them out and that his idea of justice is to punish children for their parents crimes."

"If he existed we'd have him in the special part of the prison for the perverts and serial killers"

By what standard do you judge perverts and serial killers? Atheism says what they are doing is not objectively wrong. Moreover, it says we have no free will. So not only is what they are doing not wrong but they can't stop themselves so they are not responsible. This is the current state of neuroscience. See Sam Harris below:

"Not having an objective morality (and partly guided by evolution which shaped our minds to enable us to cooperate with others) we are able to work out a morality based on what can be called 'enlightened self interest'. That is freedom for all to do as they like, subject to that freedom not impinging on others freedoms."

Fair enough. That is the argument I would make if I were an atheist. I think a logical case can be made for morality arising as a biological adaptation through evolution.

"All laws can be built on that in a logical manner and anyone capable of thinking it through can see that is the best thing for them personally. Actually the best thing for them personally is to be dictator of the world, but unless you can be sure you will get to be dictator then equality is your safest most logical bet."

I think I totally agree with you. Based on your worldview that is logically sound. As long as you don't judge the morality of people from other cultures or who may have evolved slightly differently. To be logically consistent (and please don't fail me now) you would have to agree that the atheistic Chinese who strangle their infant girls due to a one-child policy are not doing anything wrong. You can say you don't personally like it or agree with it but that it is not wrong. If you agree I will consider you to be intellectually honest and to have a good grasp of your worldview. (As a Christian, I will of course completely disagree with your worldview but at least commend you for being consistent.)

Smart people still make mistakes and violate the laws of logic. Ask any university professor who tries to tell you that it's true that there is no such thing as truth.

That may be, but a whole community of smart, peer reviewed individuals are far less likely to make a mistake than some unqualified bloke who likes to assert his baseless theories on an Internet forum.

"I don't feel animosity towards you Best - I'm sure in many areas of life you're a perfectly decent fellow with an awful lot of things I could find to respect about you."

That's good. You shouldn't. Most people respect that I take a logical and rational approach to the big questions - almost to a fault. I am always able to remove all emotion and decide a question purely on rationality. That is probably irritating to some but envious to others.

"I, personally, truly love science."

Me too.

"I never got beyond A'Level when studying it, but 50% of the time I spend reading, it's books about science."

100% for me.

"I love, love, love the fact that, thanks wholly to science, my time on Earth can be spent marvelling at the beauty of the universe instead of peering up at it in fear and thinking that thunder is an angry God."

No one thinks that. And Christians don't live in fear of God.

"I am extremely grateful that my son and I have science to fix our teeth, vaccinate us against deadly illness, fly us away on holiday, bring a world of information into our home via the internet, warm our home, make sure our food is safe to eat....etc. etc."

Me too. Christians love science. You can thank Christianity for most of those things.

"On this basis I take great exception, on behalf of the very people that brought us these things through diligence and dedication, to anyone who's willing to dismiss every last one of them as a charlatan, a liar or hopelessly inept. I know that's not what you think you are doing - but actually you are."

No actually I'm not.

"If you were right and there's such a thing as a varying light speed, then every physics text book would have to be ripped up. Every geology text book has to go if it's found that the world as we see it was caused by a worldwide flood and that radiometric testing is useless. And that evolution can't account for the diversity of life and the way it works? - bang goes all the biology and medical textbooks."

Forget the speed of light. I never said I believed that. But I just recently came across new evidence that it has varied. So now I am open to it. You should be open to new evidence too.

If it's wrong every textbook SHOULD be ripped up. Otherwise science becomes dogmatic like religion. By the way, you should understand that evolution really has little to do with modern medicine and nothing at all to with technology. So if evolution were not true, you'd still get your dentistry, your vaccines, your airplane, your warm home, your Internet and safe food to eat. You would just probably have to believe in God which might affect some of the choices you make.

"You simply don't understand enough about the subjects you're trying to tackle to understand all the various implications. And on this basis, alone, I have a problem with you. First rule of debate - know your subject."

I think I've proven I know it pretty damn well. (I threw in the "damn" because I thought you might like that.)

"But you've put up a spirited defence, I'll hand that to you. But that's all."

Thanks Ellie, for your heart-felt response. Keep searching for truth. When you find it, God will be waiting for you.