Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Young Earth Creationists

1001 replies

PedroPonyLikesCrisps · 28/03/2013 18:57

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!

OP posts:
IsletsOfLangerhans · 20/04/2013 17:44

Best - just out of interest, have you ever read The Seashell on the Mountaintop by Alan Cutler? Very relevant to this discussion and would be interested to hear your opinion of the story.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 20/04/2013 17:57

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.

So basically you're saying that you are unwilling to have a conversation about anything wrong with the bible. Yet you are happy to spend days having conversations about things you think you can support. Sounds like you have very little faith in the bible after all. In fact it's not the first time you've decided not to discuss something which didn't support your beliefs.

infamouspoo · 20/04/2013 18:03

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

Which ones Best? Rashi, the Ramban, Rabbi Akiva to name but 3 all have Genesis down as not literal. You know better than Maimonides? Modern day scholars agree with them. They live and breathe Torah. Its not literal.

infamouspoo · 20/04/2013 18:06

But I like the way that you, who I'm guessing is mid 20's given your 'rrommate' is 27 (and is so rational he believes in alien abductions ahem) dismiss 99% of the worlds scientists and jewish and biblical historians and think you know better than all of them.
Its kind of fascinating.

ICBINEG · 20/04/2013 20:07

best could you give me a clue where your conviction that if something can be counted it can not be infinite comes from? It might help me understand why you think that.

I really don't think that at all. I have no problem whatsoever with there being an infinite number of stars, even though I can count the finite number I can see.

The cosmological models mean infinite in the layman definition of infinite. There is no prevaricating on definition that I am aware of.

On the topic of information creating mutations, how about:

'I love you'
'I love you you'
'I love you yoo'
'I love you too'

SolidGoldBrass · 20/04/2013 22:57

Thing is, all of Best's arguments still boil down to the same old toddler tantrum of 'My imaginary friend IS real, it IS it IS it IS WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH' because there's fuck all else to offer. The purpose of superstition is social control: for one self-selected group of people to wield power over others. Superstition doesn't have that much to do with ethics - an ethical code is an evolutionary mechanism that basically boils down to a mixture of co-operation and competition being more effective than raw competitiveness. Most of the 'morality' assigned by the representatives of imaginary friends is about enforcing non-rational obedience, end of.

BestValue · 20/04/2013 23:06

ICBINEG, I did some checking and one definition of infinity is "boundless."
If that's what you mean by saying the universe in infinite, then I agree. I said from the beginning that the BB model makes 2 arbitrary assumptions that the universe has no centre and no edge. If "no edge" is what are referring to, then yes you are correct.

LizzyDay · 20/04/2013 23:13

I love you SGB.

For anyone reading who can't see past the word 'fuck', PLEASE retune, recline and let SGB's logic wash over you.

BestValue · 20/04/2013 23:49

Infamous, in my very first post in the first four words, I said my age. I am 46. (If you watched any of the videos I posted of my national TV appearances and you think I look mid-20s, thank you.) I also have said repeatedly things like I believed in evolution and an old earth until I was 40, I believed in the soul till I was about 43, I believed aliens likely exist until about the same time. I always changed my mind based on the evidence. Stephen Hawking believes aliens are visiting us and if we meet one we shouldn't talk to him. I think it's a viable thing to believe if you're an atheist. Realize that Hawking and other atheists would believe in aliens because they start with the basic assumption that life has evolved from non-life here so why not elsewhere. I reject that assumption primarily because there is little evidence for it and much against it. Incidentally, I know another young atheist who believes she actually WAS abducted by aliens. She's a member of MENSA and very successful.

SolidGoldBrass · 20/04/2013 23:53

Holy fucking shit, it's David Icke! How are the lizards doing, Davey? And have you washed that turquoise tracksuit yet?

infamouspoo · 21/04/2013 00:06

hawkings never said aliens actually were visiting.
are you David Icke?

BestValue · 21/04/2013 00:27

Who is David Icke?

BestValue · 21/04/2013 00:46

"best could you give me a clue where your conviction that if something can be counted it can not be infinite comes from? It might help me understand why you think that. I really don't think that at all. I have no problem whatsoever with there being an infinite number of stars, even though I can count the finite number I can see."

I think I answered that. Hilbert's hotel.

"On the topic of information creating mutations, how about:"

"'I love you'
'I love you you'
'I love you yoo'
'I love you too'"

Okay, good. I like that illustration. Now, this assumes that line #2 and line #3 are neutral mutations and not harmful so the organism doesn't get weeded out by natural selection. And it assumes that the environment changes such that line #4 becomes a beneficial mutation and the organism survives and thrives. Am I following you so far?

Now, so far you have shown two neutral mutations and one beneficial mutation. (I realize this is a simple scenario so I'll grant you that.) But in the real world, in say 100 mutations, you would more likely get something like (and don't quote me because this is an estimate) 90 neutral mutations, 9 harmful or deleterious ones and 1 beneficial mutation. (Probably much lower a ratio for the beneficial ones but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.) So how is this process going to grow a new limb, organ or structure before natural selection gets it?

Also note that you have lost the information in line #1. You would claim that had lead to a vestigial organ and that line #4 lead to a new innovation. If you can show my 10 confirmed real-world examples of this being observed either in nature or in the laboratory, and demonstrate how each step of the way was neural or beneficial, I will likely be convinced that genetic mutations are a viable mechanism to cause macroevolution. Even just one example for now will do. Anxiously awaiting your reply. Thanks.

LuisGarcia · 21/04/2013 01:03

Even just one example for now will do.

Ducks feet.

Also, you don't know what "information" is, by the way.

BestValue · 21/04/2013 01:10

"Ducks feet."

Luis, you have to give me all the steps at the genetic level and show that each step was neutral or beneficial. Simply asserting "ducks feet" does not wash as valid evidence.

LuisGarcia · 21/04/2013 01:15

No I don't. You asked for an example, I gave you one. You didn't ask me to spoonfeed you as well.

BestValue · 21/04/2013 01:28

"Also, you don't know what "information" is, by the way."

How so, Luis? I'm using the definition of information as defined by Claude Shannon - the father of information theory. What are you using? Something you have concocted out of your head?

BestValue · 21/04/2013 01:34

"I think it's rather more complicated than that Einstein was nervous it looked too much like Genesis."

Yes it is. And it wasn't just Einstein.

"Bear in mind that before Hubble came along, the idea of a static, unchanging universe was simply more feasible."

Yes, I would say it was something they wanted to believe so that they could explain away God. But the Bible predicted something very different against the odds. The Bible was right.

BestValue · 21/04/2013 01:39

"No I don't. You asked for an example, I gave you one. You didn't ask me to spoonfeed you as well."

Luis, it's not called spoon-feeding, it's called providing evidence. Simply asserting that ducks' feet evolved and that proves evolution is begging the question. It okay, though. I can tell you are not up to the task. You seem like Pedro with a different screen name. At this point, it looks like all my hopes are pinned on ICBINEG. Don't let me down, buddy, because I really want to see it the way you see it.

BestValue · 21/04/2013 01:43

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

Or SHOULD work. I'm fairly confident that 100 years from now Intelligent Design will have evolved into a viable scientific theory. As I wrote earlier and as one scientist put it, "Paradigms in science change one funeral at a time."

BestValue · 21/04/2013 01:46

"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."

Actually none of that is true. I haven't already decided. I was driven to this conclusion by the scientific evidence. And I would desperately like to be proved wrong. I don't want to be right, I want to know the truth.

BestValue · 21/04/2013 01:51

"I love you SGB."

Lizzy, SGB has not contributed anything of value to this discussion. I will not respond to people who jump in with a nonsensical rant like that without making a logical argument or presenting some evidence. I certainly hope that is not the kind of behaviour or style of argumentation that you respect.

BestValue · 21/04/2013 02:08

"Best - just out of interest, have you ever read The Seashell on the Mountaintop by Alan Cutler? Very relevant to this discussion and would be interested to hear your opinion of the story."

Never heard of it, Islets. If I can find a free copy of it online somewhere I'll check it out and give you my thoughts.

Here's a description from Amazon:

"In the bestselling tradition of The Map that Changed the World and Longitude comes the tale of a seventeenth-century scientist-turned-priest who forever changed our understanding of the Earth and created a new field of science. It was an ancient puzzle that stymied history's greatest minds: How did the fossils of seashells find their way far inland, sometimes high up into the mountains? Fossils only made sense in a world old enough to form them, and in the seventeenth century, few people could imagine such a thing. Texts no less authoritative than the Old Testament laid out very clearly the timescale of Earth's past; in fact one Anglican archbishop went so far as to calculate the exact date of Creation...October 23, 4004, B.C. A revolution was in the making, however, and it was started by the brilliant and enigmatic Nicholas Steno, the man whom Stephen Jay Gould called "the founder of geology." Steno explored beyond the pages of the Bible, looking directly at the clues left in the layers of the Earth. With his groundbreaking answer to the fossil question, Steno would not only confound the religious and scientific thinking of his own time, he would set the stage for the modern science that came after him. He would open the door to the concept of "deep time," which imagined a world with a history of millions or billions of years. And at the very moment his expansive new ideas began to unravel the Bible's authoritative claim as to the age of the Earth, Steno would enter the priesthood and rise to become a bishop, ultimately becoming in 1988. Combining a thrilling scientific investigation with world-altering history and the portrait of an extraordinary genius, The Seashell on the Mountaintop gives us new insight into the very old planet on which we live, revealing how we learned to read the story told to us by the Earth itself, written in rock and stone."

What jumps out at me immediately is this:

"Fossils only made sense in a world old enough to form them, and in the seventeenth century, few people could imagine such a thing."

Of course we now know that fossils can form very quickly under the right conditions are completely consistent with a 6,000 year-old earth.

"revealing how we learned to read the story told to us by the Earth itself"

I would prefer to trust the story told by God Himself. It sounds interesting though. Of course sea shells on top of Mt Everest are better explained by my model of a global flood than by deep time. I can read up on Nicholas Steno and buy the book if I am so inclined. Thanks for the recommendation.

Also, I have to admit that I would have a slight bias against Steno if he was "venerated as a saint and beatified by the Catholic Church." The Catholic Church is not known for its adherence to the Word of God - hence the Protestant Reformation.

SolidGoldBrass · 21/04/2013 02:13

Fess up, Best: you're actually Penn Gillette, aren't you?
Otherwise the whole thread is just poke-the-piggy-with-a-stick.

BestValue · 21/04/2013 02:17

Ah, yes Steno is the one who came up with the principle of superposition which has been discredited by actual laboratory experiments. But I'm trying hard to stay open-minded.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread