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!

Just to comment on the links you sent for Mitochondrial Eve, January, allow me to point out that the first article used the words "assumption" or "assumptions" 7 times. Again, I am not criticizing science. I am merely calling for a realistic understanding as to how science works. I find creation scientists are far more willing to be honest and open about their presuppositions whereas secular scientists tend to gloss over them, minimize them and cover them up except when talking to their peers.

For a little balance on the issue, see this article:

Mother of All Humans Lived 6,000 Years Ago
www.icr.org/article/5657/

I'm not claiming that this was THE Eve from the Bible. But assuming evolution is true, which is more likely: that the common ancestor of all people alive today would be more recent or longer ago? Obviously more recent is a better prediction. But when they got the 6,000 number, it sounded suspiciously biblical. (In fact, I'm surprised that line didn't get excised from the science journal.)

So they had to go back to the drawing board and, as your article states, do a "side-by-side comparison of 10 human genetic models that each aim to determine when Eve lived using a very different set of assumptions about the way humans migrated, expanded and spread across Earth."

It is not surprising then that they chose one of the 10 models which gave them the answer they were looking for. I'm not saying they are dishonest. They are just oblivious to their bias. Creation scientists admit their biases up front. (I admitted mine in my second post.)

This is what goes on in radiometric dating as well. They will date a rock or a fossil using several different methods and then choose the result that most closely matches what they already believe and not publish the rest. If they don't get the result they want at all, they chock it up to contamination and don't publish ANY dates. Such is the "dating game."

I asked this before and didn't get any takers but is anyone willing to go on record and make a falsifiable prediction for evolution where the opposite finding would be good evidence against it? And what about a falsifiable prediction for the existence of God?

But with the Bible there are many forms of literature: poetry, prophecy, wisdom, parables, allegory and, yes, history. The Harry Potter analogy just doesn't work unless you can produce evidence that the historical parts of the Bible are meant to be read as fiction. Because they have been confirmed and vindicated hundreds of times by archaeology, I doubt you could do that.

Have you actually read Harry Potter? It is full of poetry, prophecy, wisdom, parables and allegory. It also contains many examples of facts about the modern world. Kings Cross Station, for example.

I genuinely don't see the difference between 21st century fiction and 1st century fiction except that latter is far less compelling. Harry Potter hasn't bee around long enough for geologists and archaeologists to have found all the information to back up its 'truth', but they will.

and science doesn't work like that.
You begin with an observation. Develop a hypothesis to explain that observation. Test, test, test. Present your findings to your peers. They test, test, test. If they can't prove you wrong, then you may be on to something.

An excellent description of the scientific method and one which all young earth creationists agree with - namely because WE invented it.

Except you started with not just one assumption, but three. So you didn't even follow the method you seem deluded enough to believe that your 'kind' invented.

Pedro, I know now that you must be just making silly posts to either waste my time or test my patience because nobody can really be that dumb. Starting a scientific experiment and starting a blog post are two entirely different things and if can't understand the difference, please go away. Your posts are nothing but a distraction.

Yes, I can see that logic, reason and common sense would be a distraction to you, Best.

Stop flim flamming around. What is your starting observation for this hypothesis of yours?

Best, I'm quite aware of the difference thanks. But it's you who started off saying that in order to accept your view on things we must start with those three assumptions. That wouldn't be the case if you had a decent theory.

You also seem to think that people on here are not showing 'the scientific' way if they don't change their opinion based on the 'evidence' you provide. What you forget is that whilst science changes its view based on the evidence, that doesn't mean it has to change its view. That only happens if the evidence is compelling enough, which in your case, it isn't.

best longer post coming but I needed to pick up on "We've said beneficial mutations are only beneficial in relationship to the environment."

Actually I thought you had been persuaded by my previous posts that mutations can be beneficial regardless of environment?

Don't be back tracking when we are going forward!

best Please answer my previous post first - because if you are going to drop new ideas again so fast then it really is pointless having this discussion.

A simple statement that you do indeed now understand that mutations can be beneficial regardless of environment will be enough to demonstrate that it is worth continuing.

Certainly you must retract the statement that we already agreed that they cannot be universally beneficial - that certainly hasn't happened.

I can't see it being possible to put any organism into an environment where cancer is beneficial, can you?

This is an interesting point. Because cancer is a direct result of an organisms ability to evolve. The best fitness test going is the ability to adapt to a new environment. The way in which our genetic code does this is to introduce errors at certain rate. So our ability to evolve is directly linked to our suffering from cancer. From that point of view cancer is and always has been beneficial in our current and past environments.

Just curious . . . does anyone on here think that the 98.5% genetic similarity between chimps and humans is evidence for common ancestry?

Yes I think this is true. I also think that the presence of proteins in mice that are directly homologous to human proteins indicate that mice and humans have a common ancestor.

Interesting article you guys might like about rapid evolution. I've mentioned that this is a prediction of my model.

news.ucsc.edu/2013/04/relentless-evolution.html

"Yes, I can see that logic, reason and common sense would be a distraction to you, Best."

Ellie, if you truly think Pedro has demonstrated any of those things I would seriously question your sanity. Don't defend people that you must clearly know are wrong - even as a joke. It just makes you look as bad as they are. Everyone can see that Pedro is not interested in making rational arguments.

I'm really beginning to see why the Bible says, "The fool says in his heart there is no God." God is not engaging in childish name-calling here. He is saying that, when you take God out of the equation, you have no foundation for logic. Pedro proves it with every post.

Just curious . . . does anyone on here think that the 98.5% genetic similarity between chimps and humans is evidence for common ancestry?

Yes

For a start, Best - it's really very bad form to tell someone to stop posting on their own thread, even if you don't agree with them.

But he is actually right.

The way I see it is this:

IF I accepted your three starting assumptions, then I would agree with every single word you've posted. In the light of your assumptions, you are correct. You have to be. If we assume what you want us to assume, then evolution & BB theory are complete bullshit - because they are at odds with your assumptions.

But, when it comes to science, this approach makes no earthly sense - because we could all do that, about whatever we like.

How can I prove to you that I am more beautiful than Angelina Jolie? Well, accept my starting assumption that I am the most beautiful woman in the world, and you have no option to accept that, indeed, I must be more beautiful than Angelina Jolie. Or Claudia Schiffer. Or Keira Knightley, or any other woman.

Have I really proved that? Of course not - because you have not the slightest reason to accept my starting assumption. (Yes, yes...I know it's all in the eye of the beholder. Don't take it off on a tangent).

Science does not begin with assumptions on this level. It begins with an observation. I suppose it has to assume that the observation is a valid one otherwise no rational hypothesis could be constructed from it.

I am asking you what your starting observation is? Come on - you claim to be science's biggest fan. Start showing it some respect.

"Best, I'm quite aware of the difference thanks. But it's you who started off saying that in order to accept your view on things we must start with those three assumptions. That wouldn't be the case if you had a decent theory."

Pedro, I never expected anyone to, as you say, "accept" my view. I thought you and others wanted to UNDERSTAND it. (Perhaps I was wrong.) The topic of the thread was not proving God exists or proving the Bible is His Word or proving that it has been reliably transmitted. It was specifically about young earth creationism. As I mentioned, I could have this same discussion with someone who agrees with all my assumptions yet disagrees with me about a literal 6-day creation and thinks God used evolution over millions of years. I posted those initial assumptions to help guide the conversation and keep it on track.

I'm not sure if you are married but I'd recommend you learn how to put yourself in your spouse's shoes. To do that, you will have to accept some things - even if only temporarily - that you do not agree with so you can see things from his/her point of view.

Those who want evidence for my three assumptions can check out the various links I have posted. I know it won't convince you but that is not my goal. The Bible says everyone really knows God exists anyway so, in my worldview, you already have enough evidence to make a rational decision.

"best longer post coming but I needed to pick up on "We've said beneficial mutations are only beneficial in relationship to the environment."
Actually I thought you had been persuaded by my previous posts that mutations can be beneficial regardless of environment? Don't be back tracking when we are going forward!"

I don't recall agreeing to that. I don't remember you even questioning that. Remind me. How can a mutation be beneficial on its own?

Islets, what if I told you that the similarity between chimps and humans was downgraded to 96% in 2005? No big deal, I guess, right? It still seems like a lot.

But now what if told you that this figure came out at a time when they thought 98% of the human genome was junk. They were only comparing the 2% of genes that code for proteins. 96% of 2% is virtually nothing. It is not evidence FOR evolution but strong evidence AGAINST evolution.

Best your third assertion: that young earth creationists invented the scientific method.

I'm not sure if you are married but I'd recommend you learn how to put yourself in your spouse's shoes. To do that, you will have to accept some things - even if only temporarily - that you do not agree with so you can see things from his/her point of view.

Remember what I mentioned about tone upthread? This is what I meant about patronising.

"A simple statement that you do indeed now understand that mutations can be beneficial regardless of environment will be enough to demonstrate that it is worth continuing."

No, we never discussed that as far as I can remember. But I can assume it for the sake of argument so you can make your point.

"Certainly you must retract the statement that we already agreed that they cannot be universally beneficial - that certainly hasn't happened."

I don't understand what you mean by "universally beneficial."

"I can't see it being possible to put any organism into an environment where cancer is beneficial, can you? This is an interesting point. Because cancer is a direct result of an organisms ability to evolve."

By "evolve here do you just mean "mutate"? Otherwise it sounds like you're begging the question.

"The best fitness test going is the ability to adapt to a new environment. The way in which our genetic code does this is to introduce errors at certain rate."

You sound like you are introducing teleology here. The organism is not TRYING to adapt. It either is adapted or it isn't. It doesn't mutate so that it can evolve. It just mutates. Those mutations either help it to survive and leave more offspring or it dies. Don't go adding purpose in on me where none exists.

"So our ability to evolve is directly linked to our suffering from cancer. From that point of view cancer is and always has been beneficial in our current and past environments."

So now even cancer is somehow a beneficial mutation? Don't you think that is really grasping at straws? Don't you think if they really had any sold evidence they wouldn't need to use all these bad examples like eyeless fish, wingless beetles, sickle-cell anemia - and now cancer? I don't think I have enough faith to believe what it seems like you're claiming. Surely you must see how ridiculous it sounds.

"Yes I think this is true. I also think that the presence of proteins in mice that are directly homologous to human proteins indicate that mice and humans have a common ancestor."

Does the bill on a duck-billed platypus indicate to you that it shares a common ancestor with ducks? I bet they have some similar genes. The genes for the bill on the platypus would be homologous to the genes for the bill on the duck. The more parts a creatures shares with another creature, the more DNA it will have in common. This is evidence for design, not common ancestry. Are you able to see how I'm seeing it?

I'm loving this exchange by the way. :^)

does anyone on here think that the 98.5% genetic similarity between chimps and humans is evidence for common ancestry?

Yes it is good evidence for common ancestry. It probably isn't absolute proof.

In any case you can always say "god made it like that"

The trouble is that you can always say "god made it like that" for every question ever asked.

I'm not a scientist, but isn't there a word for a theory that is so loose it can be made to fit any observation. I vaguely recall a principle that a theory should fit the observed facts and only fit those to be taken seriously?

"Best your third assertion: that young earth creationists invented the scientific method."

Well, technically Sir Francis Bacon is credited with inventing the scientific method and I'm not quite sure what his views were on the age of the earth. He was definitely a bible-believing creationist and it is likely that he believed in a young earth. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it so that I can know for sure. But virtually all of the other major branches of science were started by Christians who believe in a young earth. And they were really the first testers of the method and I would consider them co-inventors. Sort of like Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace for natural selection.

"Remember what I mentioned about tone upthread? This is what I meant about patronising."

Well, even though I didn't do that, Pedro would deserve a little patronising. I'd say after all he/she has dished out, he/she should be able to take it. At least I haven't been rude or used curse words or made him repeat something over and over again for no reason.

Best claimed YEC and Christians invented Science? Really?

He was definitely a bible-believing creationist and it is likely that he believed in a young earth

Francis Bacon who lived in the 1500s? Before modern science, before Newton, Darwin & Einstein?

EVERYONE was a creationist back then! I expect I would have been too.

What you're basically saying is that your thinking & scientific opinion is on a par with the Elizabethans/Jacobeans! Yes...I'd agree with you on that one

Anyway - it was Roger Bacon in the 1200s who is credited with the beginnings of the scientific method. So your comparison gets even sillier.

"Yes it is good evidence for common ancestry. It probably isn't absolute proof."

Science doesn't traffic in absolute proof. We've been over that. If all the known scientific evidence in the world pointed to evolution (it doesn't), no scientist would say it is absolutely proven. They would say it is as proven as science gets.

But it's also not even true and never was.

www.ufpel.edu.br/biotecnologia/gbiotec/site/content/paginadoprofessor/uploadsprofessor/581979340b6e34a2b410efb4c4cf9350.pdf

"The trouble is that you can always say "god made it like that" for every question ever asked."

Except I haven't done that even once on this thread. Evolutionists have their own God-of-the-gaps fallacy I like to call Darwin-of-the-gaps. It goes, "Sure we don't know how it happened but science makes progress and we know we will find a natural explanation some day."

"I'm not a scientist, but isn't there a word for a theory that is so loose it can be made to fit any observation."

Yes. EVOLUTION.

"I vaguely recall a principle that a theory should fit the observed facts and only fit those to be taken seriously?"

You might be thinking of Popper's principle of falsification. I have repeatedly given predictions that if wrong would falsify my view and asked - no, begged - for someone here to do the same. But I'm still waiting.

For instance, someone has pointed out to me that evolution does not predict even one fossil. (I would suggest that is an overstatement but that it predicts a small fossil record.) My global flood theory would predict a huge fossil record with only a few supposed transitions. If there were no or few fossils, my theory would be wrong. But in fact, my prediction is exactly what we find.

If evolution were true we would expect to find features which take millions or billions of years to form. Yet everything we know forms quickly - often through catastrophic processes - and can easily fit into a 6,000-year time frame.

I hope people are seeing here that I have never claimed (like many Christians they may have encountered) that we need to throw out science, logic, reason and evidence in favour of blind faith. My claims is that not only does my theory account for more of the scientific facts - but it accounts for them better than evolution.

"Francis Bacon who lived in the 1500s? Before modern science, before Newton, Darwin & Einstein? EVERYONE was a creationist back then! I expect I would have been too."

Thank you for making my point, Ellie. Don't shift the goal posts on me now. A challenge was made. I answered it. I never said that because creationists invented the scientific method, God must exist. That's a non sequitur and I don't make those. Are you not able to humble yourself enough to give me credit when I am right? At least I can admit when I'm wrong.

"Anyway - it was Roger Bacon in the 1200s who is credited with the beginnings of the scientific method. So your comparison gets even sillier."

Sorry but you have your facts wrong here. Sir Francis Bacon is commonly known as the father of the scientific method - also known as the Baconian method.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method

But look on the bright side. At least you didn't say Kevin Bacon, right? (He is the father of the Footloose method.)

And who could be against bacon, huh? Oh yeah, the Jews. :^(