Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
ICBINEG · 22/04/2013 15:17

best again please respond to previous post first because I am not going to spend any more time on this thread if you are going to accept points in passing and then deny them later on. In fact this we be my last post unless you get back to me on this point.

However: "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?"

The duck-billed platypus has a shared ancestor with me and I have one with ducks....also therefore there is a shared ancestor between ducks and the platypus..they may be more closely related to each other than they are to humans...I wouldn't know without looking up the genetic tree.

I think it is a mistake to think of there being a part of the DNA code that codes for 'duck-bills'. You could insert all the relevant DNA for duck bills into human code (in fact most of it is probably there anyway) without it causing a bill to happen on a human.

It is highly likely that we already make all the proteins and other building blocks used in duck bills, and the only reason we don't have bills is due to the differential expression of our code wrt to ducks.

TBH I think this might be the cause of a lot of the confusion our discussion has suffered.

Humans have limbs not because there is a bit of code that says 'make limbs' but because all of the code taken together along with specific environmental factors in the womb leads to a cellular protein expression pattern that eventually leads to limbs.

I'll say it again, you could put all the missing bits of duck bill related DNA into a human (if there is any) and it would likely have no noticable affect.

Similarly, hair and feathers. We humans likely have all the DNA to make feathers but we don't express that function....

EllieArroway · 22/04/2013 15:23

An interesting thought experiment maybe.... For you rather than for me, I think...since my brain just turned inside out Grin

Januarymadness · 22/04/2013 17:44

ICBINEG. Sorry to hijack but the thing I dont get about the infiate model of the universe and the BB theory is that to have BB there must have been a finite amount of matter. How can a finite amount of matter equate to an infinite universe. Or do we mean the universe as an infinite amount of space meaning universe rather than an infinite amount of objects in space?

Not sure I put that right.

BearsInMotion · 22/04/2013 18:43

January that's how I've always understood it, a finite amount of stuff in an infinite amount of space. But then if the universe is expanding according to the inflationary model, I've never quite understood what it's expanding into!

Januarymadness · 22/04/2013 19:14

glad it is not just me!

BestValue · 22/04/2013 20:22

"January that's how I've always understood it, a finite amount of stuff in an infinite amount of space. But then if the universe is expanding according to the inflationary model, I've never quite understood what it's expanding into!

Bears, according to the big bang theory, the universe is not expanding INTO anything. Space itself is expanding.

Januarymadness · 22/04/2013 20:43

Ah thats the infinite ruller stuff. Still a finite amount of stuff in it though.

BestValue · 22/04/2013 21:41

Back, I just saw a post you made two days ago I would like to respond to. I can't copy-and-paste your exact words from where I am right now (using my BlackBerry) but first you said something about "God invented those rules." That's not exactly correct. God's morality is an expression of His character and nature. He did not invent the rules. Otherwise, we would run into the Euthyphro dilemma (Google it) and you might have a valid objection.

You also mention something about God not knowing which child is guilty so He kills all of them. You seem to be confusing God with King Herod who did that after Jesus' birth. Also, to God everyone is guilty so this argument fails. And got has the right to take away life He has given and the power to give it back again. We do not. Finally, a logically-consistent atheist admits that there is no objective morality and no free will. Thus, the concept of morality becomes meaningless and atheists forfeit the right to complain about anyone's morals - especially God's.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 22/04/2013 22:05

Finally, a logically-consistent atheist admits that there is no objective morality and no free will. Thus, the concept of morality becomes meaningless and atheists forfeit the right to complain about anyone's morals - especially God's.

You appear to assume that atheists think that they aren't responsible for their own actions. I believe that I am, I just don't believe I was given free will by a supernatural entity, because that in itself is logically impossible. What if one doesn't want free will? How would that work in your world?

PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 22/04/2013 22:07

Also, to God everyone is guilty so this argument fails.

Good job he loves everyone then....

BestValue · 22/04/2013 22:14

Ellie, to my knowledge Paul Davies is NOT a Christian. I have several of his books. He does seem to infer teleology however and may be a deist. Regarding Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, obviously I think they are wrong. In my opinion, they put science above the Word of God and make them disagree whereas in my worldview they harmonize perfectly.

BestValue · 22/04/2013 22:22

Regarding my bad form about asking Pedro not to post nonsense on his own thread, I abhor political correctness. I care little about form and much about truth. Pedro, is more interested in arguing, finding fault and mocking rather than understanding someone else's point of view or discovering truth. When he respectfully asks valid questions, I will answer them. When he makes good points, I will commend him. And when he is right and I am wrong, I will humbly acknowledge it.

VerlaineChasedRimbauds · 22/04/2013 22:28

I am amazed that this thread is still going (and quite impressed with BestValue's indefatigability).

but...

"atheists forfeit the right to complain about anyone's morals" ???

Why?

I suppose it could be an argument about semantics, but I, as an atheist, certainly don't think that morals are inextricably linked to religion. I think that morals can be linked to society and humanity and civilisation. " Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character ". to quote one of the on-line dictionaries.

If we live in a community we make judgements about the goodness or badness of human action and character. WE make the judgements, and as an atheist, I make a judgement (which I might or might not make public) without reference to God or Gods.

And "no free will"? What is your reasoning for that statement? Surely we do indeed have free will. We make decisions which will be influenced by our culture and upbringing and possibly our genes, but we do make decisions. No-one else makes them for us, do they? Well, they might, but we can tell them not to or vote them out office Smile.

BestValue · 22/04/2013 22:32

Yes, if ICBENIG succeeds, I will be honest enough to admit it. I'm looking forward to being wrong. It happens so rarely, I forget what it feels like. (Now, that's just a joke. Don't crucify me. Oops! There I go again.)

The question remains if she doesn't succeed will YOU be honest enough to admit it? Even though you might disagree with my objections of evolution at the genetic level, can you at least understand where I'm coming from? And can you explain to me why they are invalid?

SolidGoldBrass · 22/04/2013 22:37

Best: religious morality is and always has been pretty dubious. The basics of morality are what works best in evolutionary terms, which is a balance between competition and co-operation, quite irrespective of any sky fairies. It's also worth remembering one of the reason gods are so unpleasant is because they were invented by people who weren't all that nice, and who wanted power over others, so dreamed up a special invisible all-powerful Big Sibling to have their back and duff up their enemies. So all these imaginary friends are capricious, egotistical and irrational, because their purpose has always been to benefit the people who invented them rather than the people they imposed their inventions on.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 22/04/2013 22:38

Regarding my bad form about asking Pedro not to post nonsense on his own thread, I abhor political correctness. I care little about form and much about truth. Pedro, is more interested in arguing, finding fault and mocking rather than understanding someone else's point of view or discovering truth. When he respectfully asks valid questions, I will answer them. When he makes good points, I will commend him. And when he is right and I am wrong, I will humbly acknowledge it.

Regarding my bad form about pointing out the absurdness of best's ideas, I abhor political correctness. I care little about form and much about truth. Best is more interested in cherry picking science and scientific quotes which appear to fit his predetermined views and finding fault with evolution and mocking those who 'still believe it' rather than understanding some actual science and discovering truth. When he respectfully realises that he hasn't a clue about science in anywhere like the depth he requires to make the arguments he does, I might consider asking questions which are likely to get sensible answers. When he makes good points, I will commend him. And when he is right and I am wrong, I will humbly acknowledge it.

BestValue · 22/04/2013 23:02

I don't believe I AM wrong about the speed of light and I didn't brush it aside. But since it was NOT one of my main evidences, I thought we could just agree to disagree. My main evidence against evolution is that mutations cannot generate NEW (not just more) genetic information. The fossil record and everything else are side issues and I believe they don't support evolution. They are what lead me to question it, but they are not by themselves good enough reason to reject it.

Regarding the soul, perhaps I should have been clearer. I assumed that everyone knew what I meant when I used the word. A soul is traditionally thought of as an immaterial entity which survives death and lives on consciously. The Bible does not teach this. Does it use the word soul? Yes. Does it mean what most people think it means? No. A soul in the Bible - and in fact in old English as I demonstrated with the SOS example - means a living, breathing creature or being. Animals are souls as well. But they do not HAVE souls. I have not contradicted myself.

BestValue · 22/04/2013 23:11

Starting observation for what, Ellie? For my belief in God? In the Bible? What? If we want to get to the most basic observation of all perhaps it's the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Or perhaps even more fundamental - I think therefore I am. You have to begin with existence itself. Hindus believe reality is an illusion. If you want to have a philosophical discussion, I'm up for it but I'd rather stick to the scientific evidence.

BestValue · 22/04/2013 23:16

Oh, yes, ICBENIG. I do remember that now. You were right and I was wrong. It's been a long thread.

BestValue · 22/04/2013 23:20

Excellent and thoughtful questions, January. The kind I love to answer. I will do so later when I get home.

BestValue · 22/04/2013 23:33

ICBENIG, chill out. I just read your post and I will get back to you later tonight. I respond to them as I read them. If I fail to respond to one, give me the benefit of the doubt by assuming I either overlooked it or haven't read it yet.

SolidGoldBrass · 23/04/2013 00:30

Best: the fact that you believe something is no indication of it being true, given that you have demonstrated a determination to believe in any amount of complete cock.

BestValue · 23/04/2013 00:43

Okay . . . home for a bit with time to answer a few quick questions and then back out again.

"Ah thats the infinite ruller stuff. Still a finite amount of stuff in it though."

Yup, January. Has to be according to the laws of mathematics. And a finite amount of energy according the laws of thermodynamics.

"You appear to assume that atheists think that they aren't responsible for their own actions. I believe that I am, I just don't believe I was given free will by a supernatural entity, because that in itself is logically impossible. What if one doesn't want free will? How would that work in your world?"

Atheistic materialists believe that we have no free will - that is is merely an illusion. See the video I posted earlier by neuroscientist Sam Harris and the link below:

phys.org/news186830615.html

Thank you for the respectful question, Pedro. I think I know why you say it is logically impossible and I have an answer but I'll let you explain first. I suppose if you don't want free will you become an atheist and simply deny that you have it. Most pretend they have it when their evidence says they do not. Psychology Today tells us we SHOULD pretend to have it because those who do are more successful.

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-work/201005/is-free-will-real-better-believe-it-even-if-its-not

BestValue · 23/04/2013 00:45

"Good job he loves everyone then...."

Yes, Pedro, just like you still love your children even when they do bad things.

BestValue · 23/04/2013 01:02

"Why?"

Thank you for the question, Verlaine. As for my indefatigability (good word, by the way) I am doing this, first because God asks me to and second, because I truly love these people and hope to reach an understanding and mutual respect with them. My best friends are atheists. Me and many Christians don't seem to get along. Too much blind faith and dogmatism on their part for my liking.

"I suppose it could be an argument about semantics, but I, as an atheist, certainly don't think that morals are inextricably linked to religion."

I don't think so either - and neither does God. But if morals come from culture or evolution than must accept other cultures who don't share our some values. Thus, in China where mothers are strangling their infant girls, the consistent atheist is forced to say, "I don't like it but it's not objectively wrong." I respect logical consistency from atheists - even when I disagree with them.

"I think that morals can be linked to society and humanity and civilisation. " Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character ". to quote one of the on-line dictionaries."

Not to help you make your case, but I were you, I think a better case can be made for morals coming from evolution. But they are still somewhat arbitrary as Dawkins admits.

"If we live in a community we make judgements about the goodness or badness of human action and character. WE make the judgements, and as an atheist, I make a judgement (which I might or might not make public) without reference to God or Gods."

Yes, but on what basis do you make those judgements? CS Lewis, who was an atheist-turned-Christian due to this very argument, "Said how can man know a line is crooked unless he knows what is straight."

"And "no free will"? What is your reasoning for that statement? Surely we do indeed have free will. We make decisions which will be influenced by our culture and upbringing and possibly our genes, but we do make decisions. No-one else makes them for us, do they? Well, they might, but we can tell them not to or vote them out office."

I have posted links above. A logically consistent atheist would say that all of our choices have been predetermined from the beginning of time. Recent lab experiments indicate our brain reacts a few seconds before we are conscious we made a choice. And here is a quote from atheist William B. Provine:

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and NO FREE WILL for humans, either." [Emphasis mine.]

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.