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

No, ICEBENIG. I love you. You have been very respectful and knowledgeable.

"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?"

I could ask nothing more. You are correct. That is what I have tried to do here as well. The difference is that your understanding of science is based on materialism and human fallible opinion while my understanding of science is based a God who knows everything.

Smart people still make mistakes and violate the laws of logic

Not just one smart person, though is it? It's all of them. Is it really that likely that they are ALL wrong, but you, with no scientific qualifications at all, are right? Really? And a lot of those biologists, chemists, physicists and geologists are Christians - so you can hardly put that down to "atheist bias".

Ask any university professor who tries to tell you that it's true that there is no such thing as truth

Ha! Indeed. In my case, it was a lecturer, not a professor. He was still wrong.

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.)

Well, two things.

1. I don't think science had yet reached a point of "knowledge" about the ultimate origins of the universe. Ideas? Yes. Hypotheses? Yes. Knowledge? No.

You're the only one claiming to "know" - based entirely on the incoherent ramblings of Bronze Age goat herders.

If you "know" the universe came out of nothing - again, present your findings. There's gold in them there hills. Make a name for yourself & go down in history. What are you waiting for?

2. The quantum fluctuation stuff IS interesting, though, because it means that, as yet, we have no actual experience of "nothing" - there's always something, even when we try to get nothing by taking out all the "stuff". So how can we predict what "nothing" can or can't do, if we've no experience that allows us to test that? Maybe there's simply no such thing as "nothing"? I have always found that an interesting thought.

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

How is that "special pleading"? There is some evidence for this. The decay of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12. Look it up.

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

I'm not saying you would - it's an example to explain to you what an AFA fallacy actually is. You claimed it when someone asked what your science credentials are. Unless you think it's logically fallacious to ask someone about to cut into your chest with a scalpel what his qualifications are - do you? You have confused authority with expertise.

"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?"

It wasn't supposed to happen in that generation. It was the people of that generation which will be judged in the future. They would have understood what Jesus meant as they believed in a future judgment. It just obviously hasn't happened yet. Jesus gave some of the signs and many have been fulfilled in my lifetime.

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

I was talking about what people believed before science came along. You know - when religion was in charge. Also known as The Dark Ages.

Bestvalue, You question rightly my judgement of god's morals. I should expand on that. I do so by the morals that I have personally developed based on the principle I mentioned, which are also (more or less) the principles mankind has arrived at (okay not everyone sticks to them, but they mostly acknowledge that you should). Even the people who wrote the Jesus story claim he said something about doing unto others what you'd have them do unto you. That sounds like he/they were on the same track there.

How can I apply that to your religion and/or god though?

I have no special right to do so handed down to me. However Christianity claims that it has a direct line on the only true morals and the ones it often quotes more or less match up with mine and that of mankind generally. Ask a Christian what they consider right or wrong and they will mostly agree that murder, rape, theft and so on are evil. They will claim their god invented those rules - even the ones that are not in the bible, but they will mostly be in agreement.

The odd one out here is that this is NOT how god (supposedly) behaves. Everyone else is pretty much in agreement on behaviour. So while nothing is absolutely good or bad we are nearly all opposed to how god does it. So as a practical matter we can say "Not in our neighbourhood".

Now I know he doesn't exist, but it's a bit worrying that people such as yourself will acknowledge the atrocities god commits or has others commit in the bible and say that those are acceptable. That is where it gets quite weird and part of why Christianity is so disturbing.

Imagine for a moment you and I got talking down the pub and I told you about some friend of mine. Imagine I said he was so angry at his girlfriend having a baby that he determined to kill it, but didn't know which baby at the hospital it was so he killed all of them.

I'm as sure as I can be that you would be just as horrified as I even though you claim it's ok for god to do it. So really you don't like the way he behaves either.

"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 agree with you. In general, we should listen to the scientific community. Most of them are completely honest and hard-working people who are passionate about science. But they are working within a paradigm called naturalism which hijacked science 200 years ago. How quickly we forget history. Imagine if we had all lived back then, you would likely be a Christian. If I were an atheist, you would think I was mad for not believing in God and you would think I was crazy for ignoring all the scientific evidence.

There has NEVER been a time in history when there has been MORE scientific evidence for the existence of God than right now. The language of the DNA code, for example and the fact that all known languages come from a mind should be enough to convince the biggest skeptic. It convinced atheist Antony Flew, the Richard Dawkins of his day, that at least a deistic god must exist.

The difference is that your understanding of science is based on materialism and human fallible opinion while my understanding of science is based a God who knows everything.

Brilliant. I don't think there's anything that anyone can add to that really, is there? Case closed.

Bestvalue I didn't want to make that post any longer, but when I pointed out a prophecy that made no sense you responded by saying "I'm just not really that interested in prophecies or even in the Bible."

Since you have been claiming that they have all come true (except for those set in the future) that is an odd claim to make. Perhaps you forgot you had been arguing for them? It's a long thread. Perhaps you are having trouble remembering what it is you believe.

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.

That's not powerful evidence for the truth of the bible. That would be like suggesting that if a boy was found with a lightning scar on his head that it would be powerful evidence for the truth of Harry Potter. It's not.

And again, the bible does not predict that the universe came from nothing. Like I said before, you can't predict something which has already happened. You can however, have a theory about how the universe came to be which predicts that you will find certain evidence. The bible neither presents a theory nor makes predictions about evidence. It's not a scientific document and if it were it would be the worst scientific document ever written. What it is, is a story which claims to be how everything in history actually happened.... and it doesn't do that particularly well either.

It wasn't supposed to happen in that generation. It was the people of that generation which will be judged in the future. They would have understood what Jesus meant as they believed in a future judgment. It just obviously hasn't happened yet. Jesus gave some of the signs and many have been fulfilled in my lifetime.

You still made an incorrect claim though (I'm just pointing this out because you keep saying that you don't make mistakes).

Care to share those signs? I wonder if they are as ambiguous as the definition of generation in this case.

"Not just one smart person, though is it? It's all of them. Is it really that likely that they are ALL wrong"

Is it likely that all the smart scientists in the world who believe in God are wrong? They outnumber the atheist scientists. Truth is not determine my majority opinion. What matters is logic and reason and evidence.

"Ha! Indeed. In my case, it was a lecturer, not a professor. He was still wrong."

Ha! Someone really said that to you? How did you respond?

"1) I don't think science had yet reached a point of "knowledge" about the ultimate origins of the universe. Ideas? Yes. Hypotheses? Yes. Knowledge? No."

At what point do we call it knowledge? Most cosmologists consider the big bang to be a fact.

"You're the only one claiming to "know" - based entirely on the incoherent ramblings of Bronze Age goat herders. If you "know" the universe came out of nothing - again, present your findings. There's gold in them there hills. Make a name for yourself & go down in history. What are you waiting for?"

THEY are claiming the universe came from nothing. I am merely pointing out how it agrees with the Bible. It's a good thing that many of them are atheists. Otherwise, if creation scientists created a model of the origin of the universe where it sprang from nothing, they'd be written of as biased.

Are you aware that the big bang was rejected at first by Einstein and other atheistic scientists because it seemed to too-closely parallel the Genesis account? The first to propose it was a Catholic priest.

Maybe there's simply no such thing as "nothing"? I have always found that an interesting thought."

I hope that's not true because then when my wife asks what I'm thinking about, I can't say, "Nothing."

"How is that "special pleading"? There is some evidence for this. The decay of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12. Look it up."

Carbon 14 decays into Carbon 12 without a cause? I WILL look it up.

"I'm not saying you would - it's an example to explain to you what an AFA fallacy actually is."

Oh, sorry. My bad.

"You claimed it when someone asked what your science credentials are. Unless you think it's logically fallacious to ask someone about to cut into your chest with a scalpel what his qualifications are - do you? You have confused authority with expertise."

A valid point. You are correct, Ellie.

a whole year studying biblical hebrew? Stand back hebrew scholars, your work is done....

There has NEVER been a time in history when there has been MORE scientific evidence for the existence of God than right now.

Well of course not because there's more scientific evidence out there. But you'll also find that there's never been a time in history where there's more scientific evidence AGAINST god either. And a damn site more than there is FOR.

"I was talking about what people believed before science came along. You know - when religion was in charge. Also known as The Dark Ages."

Okay, but you should know that I was just doing some research on that recently and the term Dark Ages has fallen out of favour. It was coined primarily to malign Christianity but historians now recognize Christianity was largely responsible for pulling the world OUT of the Dark Ages. "Middle Ages" is preferred now and doesn't have the same negative connotation.

"Brilliant. I don't think there's anything that anyone can add to that really, is there? Case closed."

I've said that from the very beginning, Lizzy.

Christianity was largely responsible for pulling the world OUT of the Dark Ages

I would accept 'Christians' at a push here but not 'christianity'. Simply because the dark ages was a western event and most people around would there happen to be Christians.

But Christianity stood in conflict with many who were exploring the universe at that time, resistant to change.

Ha! Someone really said that to you? How did you respond?

Was part of the whole post-modernism clap trap debate beloved of humanities departments everywhere. I said, "Don't be so bleeping stupid" or words to that effect.

At what point do we call it knowledge? Most cosmologists consider the big bang to be a fact I'm not talking about the Big Bang - I'm talking about what, if anything, "caused" it - if anything did. If that's even a good or valid question to ask.

Are you aware that the big bang was rejected at first by Einstein and other atheistic scientists because it seemed to too-closely parallel the Genesis account? The first to propose it was a Catholic priest

Einstein favoured a steady state universe - and proposed his cosmological constant within General Relativity to achieve it. Later called it the biggest blunder of his career. Nothing whatsoever to do with Genesis. Wherever did you get that.

Yes, Le Maitre first proposed the Big Bang. And then had to tell the Pope to shut up telling everyone this proved Genesis because it didn't.

Lots of scientists were priests - free accommodation and food while they could pursue their work. Pretend you were looking for God and they left you alone. Smart. I'd do that myself.

"Since you have been claiming that they have all come true (except for those set in the future) that is an odd claim to make. Perhaps you forgot you had been arguing for them? It's a long thread. Perhaps you are having trouble remembering what it is you believe."

I have not forgotten and I was not really arguing for them. I said it once in response to a question and, like the speed of light and something else, it got blown out of proportion. I was really into Bible prophecy in the mid-1980s but have rarely studied it since then. (And even that was prophecies yet to be fulfilled.)

I suppose I would have to admit that I am basing a lot of my belief about past biblical prophecies being fulfilled from things I have read from experts, historians and theologians who have intensively studied the subject. But I'm sure you could bring up all kinds of prophecies that I know nothing about and I would have to spend hours researching them which I don't really have the time to do. (I prefer reading science books, remember?)

Another example would be alleged Bible contradictions. Many people claim the Bible is wrong because it supposedly contains contradictions. I've investigated several of these and they always turn out to have simple explanations that are merely misunderstandings of the text. I'm sure you could find hundreds of these on a website somewhere and I would have to spend days researching them to give you the answers.

If you think there are contradictions or unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible, find a site that gives a reasonable response to them from a Christian point of view and read it with an open mind. The one previously mentioned by Pedro had a simple and reasonable explanation to anyone willing to learn.

I have investigated enough of the Bible to know that it hangs together. While there are parts I don't understand I take on faith that it makes sense and I will one day understand more. It is a very rational and scientific approach.

"a whole year studying biblical hebrew? Stand back hebrew scholars, your work is done...."

Hebrew scholars agree with me, Infamous. They also agree the Bible claims the world is 6,000 years old.

"But Christianity stood in conflict with many who were exploring the universe at that time, resistant to change."

Not Christianity. The Catholic Church did if you're referring to Galileo. But that's only because they had bought into the science of the pagan Greeks who claimed the sun went around the earth (which is not in the Bible). The Galileo affair is quite interesting and not what we've been taught. Galileo was confined under house arrest more for insulting the Pope than for his science. And Galileo kind of had it coming. Even his own friends said he was wrong in his behaviour. The intelligentsia of the day were against Galileo too but the Church supported and funded his work.

Okay, but you should know that I was just doing some research on that recently and the term Dark Ages has fallen out of favour. It was coined primarily to malign Christianity but historians now recognize Christianity was largely responsible for pulling the world OUT of the Dark Ages. "Middle Ages" is preferred now and doesn't have the same negative connotation

You're getting there.... that's almost true. But not because Christianity is recognised as having done any such thing. It was used as a pejorative, and the case is less clear cut now than it was when it initially used, plus it also leads to geographical confusion because different places had "dark" ages at different times.

So close, but not quite.

"Was part of the whole post-modernism clap trap debate beloved of humanities departments everywhere. I said, "Don't be so bleeping stupid" or words to that effect."

Ha, ha! You really said that? Funny. He had it coming.

"Einstein favoured a steady state universe - and proposed his cosmological constant within General Relativity to achieve it. Later called it the biggest blunder of his career. Nothing whatsoever to do with Genesis. Wherever did you get that."

Common knowledge but at the risk of being accused of quote-mining again (which I don't do unless by accident), here's Stephen Hawking:

"Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang."

sqentropy.dyndns.org/ebook/Stephen%20Hawking%20-%20A%20brief%20history%20of%20time/b.html

I think it's rather more complicated than that Einstein was nervous it looked too much like Genesis. It was more to do, I believe, with his belief that the universe should look the same to all observers at the same time. Bear in mind that before Hubble came along, the idea of a static, unchanging universe was simply more feasible.

But the point is, Einstein changed his mind based on the evidence. That's how science works.

But we're getting into an area of physics I'm not really competent to talk about.

Not Christianity. The Catholic Church did if you're referring to Galileo.

No, I wasn't. But if it suits your argument for you to take it there then fair enough. the establishment (church) might have funded the university but they really didn't accept any findings that contradicted the way they had interpreted the Bible, did they?!

Not exactly an example of Christianity pulled the whole world out of the dark ages!

Having read this thread, my impression is that you are very intelligent and well read but that you have a tendency to manipulate 'evidence' to fit your theory too much. You are looking too hard to prove your case at evidence that doesn't go nearly as far as you like to think it does. We are never going to agree and no amount of your assertions are going to convince me otherwise.

I need to go now, good luck with your ideas in the future...

BestValue - the thing is that it's going to be really hard for you to study properly because:

a) you've already decided what you're going to believe

and

b) you desperately want to believe that you are right - for religious reasons.

That's really got to hamper your progress as a scientist.