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!

I'm reading this page to get some background in Steno.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/steno.html

It contains this line:

"This conclusion also follows from Steno's reasoning that rock strata form when particles fall out of suspension in a fluid."

This holds true in standing water but in moving water (such as in a global flood) strata form diagonally and hundreds of layers can form simultaneously - which invalidates the principle of superposition.

As long as no one questions this "law" they will never understand my view, continue to believe all the evidence is against it and believe lower rocks are older than higher rocks. But the fact is that this assumption, while a valid one for its time, has since been falsified by actual peer-reviewed laboratory experiments.

"Steno essentially abandoned science after his conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1667"

Whoa-ho! Oh, the irony.

I also have several books on the history of science so I will see what they say about Steno in there. So far I can't find a free copy of the e-book online and can't even download a sample for my Kindle. Oy!

LOL! :^)

Great Creation Scientists: Nicolaus Steno
Founder of modern geology and young?Earth creationist

creation.com/great-creation-scientists-nicolas-steno

"Fess up, Best: you're actually Penn Gillette, aren't you?"

I love Penn Gillette. He has a brilliant mind. And he believes strongly in Christians proselytizing so at least he's logically consistent in that respect. It's hard to believe he's even an atheist. (Only his potty mouth gives him away.)

Don't be so fucking stupid. Even if you don't, I have considerably more respect for Einstein, Hoyle, LeMaitre and so on than to believe that they all based their entire lives work on whether or not their theories "fit" with a stupid story written thousands of years ago by people who thought that the moon was a light .

Guess what - not everyone bases their entire thought processes on Genesis. Only idiots do that. Not that I'm looking at anyone in particular when I say that, you understand. Ahem.

Steady state was favoured because that fit the current observations. Before anything to the contrary came along, any proposal that the universe had a beginning WAS invariably religious. Once LeMaitre proposed an expanding universe, backed up with observations from Hubble...and BB theory was devised, the observations available changed and so did the conclusion. That's how science works.

As usual, you have taken one tiny, perfectly understandable quote and conflated into a meaning to suit yourself.

LeMaitre, by the way, was most displeased when Pope Prat started proclaiming that BB "proved" Genesis. He told him to stop mixing science and religion. They do not go together well - as you have demonstrated in abundance on this thread.

Islets, I would be really interested in your opinion on these two articles about Steno. Perhaps it's worthwhile to take a peek at the other side of his story.:

creation.com/great-creation-scientists-nicolas-steno

creation.com/geological-pioneer-nicolaus-steno-was-a-biblical-creationist

And it has not escaped my notice, incidentally, that the only one of my comments that you have chosen to ignore is when I asked you - clearly and concisely - to please present your evidence that God created the world.

Quibbling about evolution & BB is neither here nor there - if they are wrong, then they should be stricken from the body of evidence altogether. You cannot prove creationism true by proving evolution wrong - it needs it's own body of evidence. You claim to have loads - where is it?

"And it has not escaped my notice, incidentally, that the only one of my comments that you have chosen to ignore is when I asked you - clearly and concisely - to please present your evidence that God created the world. Quibbling about evolution & BB is neither here nor there - if they are wrong, then they should be stricken from the body of evidence altogether. You cannot prove creationism true by proving evolution wrong - it needs it's own body of evidence. You claim to have loads - where is it?"

Must have missed that question, Ellie, I apologize. I would not have avoided it on purpose. I agree with you that creationists cannot just criticize evolution without proposing their own model of earth's history. I have attempted to do that on here occasionally but perhaps it is time to make it clear exactly what I believe.

My evidence is so vast that it would take dozens of threads like this one and hundreds of hours to put it all forward. It would be similar to me asking you to reproduce all the evidence for evolution, deep time, the big bang etc. I'm sure you can agree that would be unreasonable. I have often asked for even just one piece of evidence people find persuasive - not an unreasonable request - and have rarely received a reply. (One person posted a picture of homologous bone structures.)

I have previously posted these two links but I present them again for your convenience. The first is a national TV appearance of mine where I lay out the creationists' model of earth history. This will give you a framework within which to explore further.:

After watching that, go here.:

creation.com/the-creation-answers-book-index

It's an entire free book online which will answer most of your questions. It's conveniently divided into chapters so you can read up on just the parts you're interested in, whether it be evolution, cosmology, geology, etc. without spending a lot of time.

Finally, if you come back here and formulate a few simple questions at a time, I will do my best to answer them and clarify any missing pieces of the puzzle. Remember my first three starting assumptions:

1. God exists.
2. He has revealed information to us about His creation in the Bible.
3. The Bible can be understood through a plain reading of the text.

Try to suspend your disbelief and watch and read with an open mind and an open heart. Seek to understand rather to merely dismiss. Thank you for your interest. :^)

But this is the basic problem for me.

My basic assumptions are:

1. God does not exist
2. The Bible is an ancient document with some historical context
3. it is not possible, or indeed credible, to interpret the Bible literally.

My assumptions are just as valid to me as yours are to you.

"My assumptions are just as valid to me as yours are to you."

That is fair, Ship. I understand. But as I explained in my very first post, my assumptions are not blind and without evidentiary support. They can be supported with scientific, historical and archaeological evidence. There is just too much of it to go into here.

So tell me, if you are able to in this short space, some of your evidence that God does not exist, that the Bible is not what it claims to be - the Word of God - and that it is not possible or credible to interpret the Bible literally.

But you still used the word 'assumptions'.

You did not use the word 'fact' or 'certainty'.

The word 'assumption' is the acceptance of proof without evidence as a premise at the outset of an argument, in this context.

With such differing assumptions, all else is rather pointless.

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?

You seem think that 1% is a very small number. But the average rate of reproduction if bacteria is around 15 to 20 minutes. Let's be a little (ok VERY) generous to you and say that it's actually a whole day for a bacterium to divide.

After one month, you would have 2^30 bacteria, or just over 1 billion. (remember that we're being generous here, so this would actually happen in about 10 hours). So suddenly your 1% beneficial mutations applies to 10 million bacteria in an incredibly short space of time.

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.

If you so desperately want to know the truth rather than be correct, why do you ignore things?

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not fossils CAN be produced in a short time frame, it's whether they DID. And the evidence is pretty conclusive that they did not.

I also have several books on the history of science so I will see what they say about Steno in there. So far I can't find a free copy of the e-book online and can't even download a sample for my Kindle. Oy!

It concerns me that you only seem willing to read books you can find for free on the internet. I thought you had a library you used regularly.

Mind you, if you're looking for a good read, there's a classic called On the Origin of Species which you might want to have a look at which is available on Kindle for free!

"But you still used the word 'assumptions'. You did not use the word 'fact' or 'certainty'. The word 'assumption' is the acceptance of proof without evidence as a premise at the outset of an argument, in this context. With such differing assumptions, all else is rather pointless."

Fact and certainty play no role in science. Science itself is based on some unverifiable assumptions. But those assumptions can be rational inferences based on evidence.

"So suddenly your 1% beneficial mutations applies to 10 million bacteria in an incredibly short space of time."

I think 1% was being generous but what you're forgetting is that the negative mutations were 10 times the beneficial ones so the organism would die before it could achieve any meaningful evolution.

"It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not fossils CAN be produced in a short time frame, it's whether they DID. And the evidence is pretty conclusive that they did not."

We don't know that. The only thing we know is that they can.

"It concerns me that you only seem willing to read books you can find for free on the internet. I thought you had a library you used regularly. Mind you, if you're looking for a good read, there's a classic called On the Origin of Species which you might want to have a look at which is available on Kindle for free!"

Own it.

The paper version and everything. Even read it once in while.

"The word 'assumption' is the acceptance of proof without evidence as a premise at the outset of an argument, in this context."

Yes, I'm asking YOU to do that at this point in order for the discussion to move forward. But it doesn't mean I did. I am able to put myself in your shoes and accept your assumptions. I fully admit - and have previously done so on here - that if I were an atheist I would likely be compelled to believe in evolution. If I remember correctly, Dawkins once said that even if there were absolutely NO evidence for evolution, he would still believe it. Says a lot doesn't it?

I found out I worked with one once, you literally could have knocked me over with a feather when she came out with it a lunch one day! Was sat with another colleague and we could not look each other in the eye.

As much as I dislike Dawkins and he remains polite throughout.

It'sAllBunkTiggaxx

Fact and certainty play no role in science. Science itself is based on some unverifiable assumptions. But those assumptions can be rational inferences based on evidence.

Sorry, not sure what point you trying to make here.

It's doesn't change the fact that your arguments are underpinned by assumptions that I do not accept.

"Instead of examining the evidence for and against rival theories, I shall adopt a more armchair approach. My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories."

• Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

I think 1% was being generous but what you're forgetting is that the negative mutations were 10 times the beneficial ones so the organism would die before it could achieve any meaningful evolution.

I do not accept this assumption either. the organism would not die out because of a mismatch between beneficial and nonbeneficial mutations.

you are leaving out the vast majority of bacteria that show no mutation at all!