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: 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."

Your use of terms such as "sky fairies" and "imaginary friends" tells me you are not really one to engage in an objective discussion with. Try to simply look at what I've previously written and come to understand it even if you don't agree with 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."

Pedro apparently hasn't learned his lesson and needs to eat a huge piece of humble pie. He makes all atheists look bad.

"Best: the fact that you believe something is no indication of it being true . . .."

And do you honestly think I think anything different? I've been doing nothing but arguing from a position of reason, logic and evidence. Believing something doesn't make it true. That includes atheism. Facts are all that matter.

"God, you're frustrating. Get something wrong then pretend you never said it in the first place."

I don't do that, Ellie. As I made clear, I was talking about modern science in the West. There is obviously some truth to both of our views. But if it makes you feel better I will retract my statement about creationists inventing the scientific method and say you were right and I was wrong.

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.

I'm not sure what else needs explaining. If I choose to not have free will, which I would be entitled to do with my god given free will, then I no longer have free will. This then contradicts the position of everyone having free will. It's hardly a free choice if you are given it.

I'm also not sure why not wanting free will would make one an atheist. I'm also certain that I do think deny responsibility for my actions, nor do I believe that I have a supernaturally given free will.

"1: The man who sequenced the human genome doesn't really understand evolution?"

Did I say he didn't? No. I said I disagree with him because he puts his science above God's Word.

"2: Dawkins' & Collins' understanding of evolution is identical....and Dawkins references Collins frequently as an expert."

I understand it the way they do too. And that's exactly why I disagree with it.

"3: No, I don't understand that either. But at least they're not denying the evidence that's under their own noses to support their beliefs - which is what you're doing."

I'm not denying any evidence. I am interpreting it differently as I have so often pointed out. Are you denying all the evidence for God that is right under your nose or are you merely interpreting it differently? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say the latter. Why won't you extend the same courtesy to me?

"And, by the way, every atheist on this thread understands evolution better than you."

Apparently not every atheist. But those few who possibly do, like ICBINEG, I am willing to learn from.

I like your joke, Sabrina. What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah's Witness? Somebody who knocks on your door for no reason. :^)

Pedro apparently hasn't learned his lesson and needs to eat a huge piece of humble pie. He makes all atheists look bad.

I was unaware that there was a lesson for me to learn.

I present the facts as I see them. And those are:

1. Your understanding of science in all areas is astonishingly poor.

Evidence: if any of the astonishing claims you make had any weight you would have a Nobel prize by now.

1. You use examples of things you don't understand, probably because you found them on a creationist site and they looked good.

Evidence: The speed of light. You presented it as evidence to back up your earth age theory, its accuracy was challenged, you back tracked and claimed you don't really use it as evidence. Later in the thread you assert its accuracy again. Again it is challenged and you say its not relevant anyway. This has happened a number of times and you fail to realise that despite dismissing it, the speed of light demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the universe is more than 6000 years old.

1. You are deluded

Evidence: you repeatedly claim that no one has ever pointed out an error which you have made or a logical fallacy, despite exactly that being pointed out to you regularly throughout, often in direct response to you asking for it to be pointed out.

1. You cherry pick quotes from scientists which you think support your view without checking the source and context (or without expecting anyone else to do)

Evidence: All the quotes you have pulled out which others have demonstrated are examples of quote mining and explained the context to you and/or provided links to the source.

1. You are incredibly arrogant.

Evidence: You seem to think that because you tell us that you used to believe in evolution but now you do not because of your studies, that anyone else who does not follow the same path is not open to new ideas or being 'scientific'. Quite the opposite in afraid. I've read your evidence and it has not convinced me. I still believe that the evidence demonstrates a 4.5 billion year old earth. Not because I'm unwilling to change my opinion through contrary evidence, but because the evidence still fits this model better.

"As with most conspiracy theories, isn't THE most important question here WHY?"*

God is not a conspiracy theory.

"Why would God give us all of this overwhelming evidence that the universe is more than 6000 years old if it isn't."

He didn't. Much of the evidence indicates the universe is young. For every dating method which says the earth is old, 10 more say it is too young for evolution to happen. Ultimately, God asks us to trust what He has told us in His word. If your husband comes home smelling like perfume and a few other evidences seem to indicate he might have had an affair, but he denies it, do you trust his Word or do you accept his explanation?

"Why would he make a fossil record that appears to date back millions of years.?"

"Appears" is the operative word. If you start with bad assumptions, you get bad results. As links I have posted indicate, those same dating methods can be explained to show that the earth is young.

"Why would he show us light from objects that appear to be billions of light years away?"

More bad assumptions. Adam was created mature. If you'd seen him on Day 7, he would be 1 day old but you might think he was in his 20s. God did not deceive us because He told us what He did in His Word.

"Why would he give us dating methods that seem so testable and reliable if they werent?"

The method of discovering the ratio of parent-to-daughter atoms is extremely accurate. But you get a number that from there is plugged into formula which contains unprovable assumptions about the past. Bad assumption, bad results.

"Why would we seem to fit so well with evolution if we don't?"

We don't. The genetic code specifically has all the hallmarks of having been designed for a purpose.

"Why would he make it look like dinosaurs died out before humans came to be around if they didn't (and what did happen to kill them all off that didn't affect humans)?"

It doesn't look like that. They are lower in the geologic column. That is all we know. Much evidence says they co-existed with humans including cave drawings, fossils and historical records. I believe they died out partly because the environment had changed dramatically after the global flood. That affected humans as well. Life spans dropped off drastically according to the genealogies in Genesis. Ultimately, I think they died off because humans were hunting them. I'm not invoking miracles here or suggesting anything other than natural processes and natural selection for their extinction.

"Aren't famine, flood, war, disease tragic accidents, evil in the world and the fact that God doesn't directly communicate with us all, enough of a test of faith?"

Why are those things a test of faith? Many people find faith in the face of adversity? You couldn't have courage if you didn't have fear. Besides, logically consistent atheists like Dawkins deny the very existence of evil.:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, NO EVIL and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." [Emphasis mine]

• Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden

So the problem of evil is more the atheist's problem than it is the theist's. The theist has a rational explanation for it. The atheist has to deny it exists and then acts logically-inconsistent when he complains about it. David Hume said, "You can't get an OUGHT from an IS." When you behave as if the world OUGHT to be different from the way it IS, you unintentionally assume God exists.

Pedro, arrogance is someone who shakes his fist at his Creator and claims to know more and be more moral than He is. It's what children do to their parents when they are young. Fortunately, most grow out of it eventually. I'm sorry that you must have been hurt my Christians in the past and that is why you are seemingly so angry with them (and with God). But we still love you regardless of your attitude. I hope you find peace with yourself. I really do.

Did I say he didn't? No. I said I disagree with him because he puts his science above God's Word

YES YOU DID. Stop lying. I am becoming rather disgusted with the flagrant dishonesty you are displaying every damn time you post. You said:

1. Most of them, in my experience, don't even really understand evolution.I think many of them claim to believe it because they just don't want to rock the boat. But they often can't explain natural selection it when asked

I understand it the way they do too. And that's exactly why I disagree with it

No, you don't. And it's laughable for you to suggest you understand evolution to the same degree that the man who sequenced the human genome does - the man who has spent an enormous chunk of his life devoted to the study of this. You've picked up a creationist book, agreed with it and claim it's now made you an expert. Delusion doesn't quite cover it. You know fuck all about the subject. Yes, I swore. I'm going to do it again....YOU KNOW FUCK ALL ABOUT EVOLUTION. The problem is, you understand the subject so poorly, that you're incapable of seeing just how badly you're getting things wrong.

I'm not denying any evidence. I am interpreting it differently as I have so often pointed out. Are you denying all the evidence for God that is right under your nose or are you merely interpreting it differently? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say the latter. Why won't you extend the same courtesy to me?

You are not free to interpret evidence any damn way you please, and then claim your conclusion is as valid as anyone else's. How many times are we going to have to point this out to you? Science doesn't work like that - if it did, science wouldn't work!

What evidence for God, exactly? In spite of being asked continually to provide this you have not bothered to do so.

You are getting more courtesy from me than you are displaying towards anyone else on this thread, most notably Pedro.

In the course of this discussion you have lied (frequently), quote mined shamelessly and unapologetically, said one thing and then contradicted yourself mere sentences later, demonstrated an embarrassing lack of basic scientific knowledge and then, when all else fails, simply gone back on what you've said and claimed you didn't say it to begin with.

You claim you want to talk science, but until your tiny mind can grasp exactly how science works, then this is a hopeless endeavour.

I gave up on this thread because I know something about geology and bests theories were so ridiculous that it wasn't worth arguing with someone who displays such a huge lack of understanding.

I see that those with knowledge about other branches of science are feeling the same.

Pedro, Ellie et al, I admire your perseverance.

This is why experts won't generally debate creationists - it's beneath them, frankly. Like expecting Stephen Hawking to debate Mystic Meg on Cosmology vs Astrology.

1. Your understanding of science in all areas is astonishingly poor.
Evidence: if any of the astonishing claims you make had any weight you would have a Nobel prize by now

Pedro said this - and I think it's worth reiterating for those (hopefully few) people following this thread thinking that Best is making good points.

People - he's truly not.

If a single one of his claims were actually true, the entire scientific community would be rocked to it's core. Best would not just be reduced to posting crap on YouTube - every news station in the world would be clamouring to get him on.

If light speed were varying, this would overturn the very bedrock of modern physics. Remember what happened when the OPERA team seemed to have found neutrinos travelling faster than light? You read about it in the newspaper. Marcus du Sautoy (I think, or it might have been Brian Cox) went on record saying that he'd eat his boxer shorts live on TV if it turned out to be true. It wasn't - physicists know their stuff.

As do geologists and chemists who would have to go right back to the drawing board if it were found that a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago caused the world to look the way it does, or that radiometric testing can't be trusted because of atmospheric equilibrium.

And as for evolution - this is considered the greatest, best attested scientific theory in history. Since Darwin EVERY SINGLE piece of evidence collated from every scientific discipline - biology, chemistry, physics, geology, archaeology and so on - has supported the theory. It's a fact. Undeniable and indisputable. Are we seriously expected to believe that one little man, reading creationist websites (science books, my arse) has pointed out flaws that have failed to come to the notice of every single scientist of the last 200 years? Or if they have noticed them, they are two dishonest to admit them? Nah. No way.

No - he might be articulate, he might write well. But he's talking utter bullshit. And not only that, he's being deliberately dishonest & deceitful - he's NOT searching for answers at all.

I am bowing out. There's only so much stupid I can take - life is too short.

Pedro, arrogance is someone who shakes his fist at his Creator and claims to know more and be more moral than He is.

That would be one example, yes. I'm supposing you are assuming this is what I'm doing? But since I have no reason to believe that I have a creator, it's impossible for me to do this, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Arrogance is also as I put it above and you demonstrate this in abundance.

It's what children do to their parents when they are young.

Perhaps some do. I never did. I have and always had a healthy respect for my parents because actually they are the ones who brought me into this world and nurtured me.

Fortunately, most grow out of it eventually.

It's a shame you haven't yet, but you'll get there.

I'm sorry that you must have been hurt my Christians in the past and that is why you are seemingly so angry with them (and with God).

I haven't been hurt by Christians. Strange assumption to make. And since I don't believe in God, there's nobody to be angry at.

But we still love you regardless of your attitude. I hope you find peace with yourself. I really do.

Can you please define what you mean by love? Because I genuinely don't believe you love me. And please don't concern yourself. I'm quite at peace.

I'm pleased at least that the word 'arrogant' was all you picked up on from my facts and evidence. Given the evidence of the way you usually dismiss parts of posts you can't refute, I can only suppose that you accept everything else I said which is great! You are making a valuable step forward.

I am with Ellie (despite some of our disagreements). Everyone of your answers to my questions shows an astonoshing lack of understanding of both the science and the theology.

The thing about overwhelming evidence is that it is obvious to see. Every branch of science overwhelmingly shows you to be wrong. The only people who agree with you are YEC amd they may have some kind of vested interest.

I could probably find some viable evidence that I am actually a warewolf if thats what I set out to find evidence for.

Science happens when we dont make assumptions. Occams Razor. When we dont make assumptions
your ideas are overwhelmingly outnumbered and to fundimentally deny that is unbelievably dishonest.

I'm going to disappear too. I've got too absorbed in this debate assuming it was with someone willing to listen to reason. I've pointed best in the direction of evidence that contradicts his statements, which were met with a polite "I'll look at that later", only for it never to be mentioned again. I've also pointed out the massive amount of arrogance required to assume you deeply understand several sciences and can pull apart multiple scientific theories after 6 years of reading textbooks/googling/quotemining. It's all too frustrating for me.

I have, however, learnt a massive amount about the creationist movement and how appalling they are misquoting and misunderstanding science, so thanks for opening my eyes further to that.

I found the talkorigins website yesterday - very illuminating with regards to quote mining and creationism.

I'm guessing best will always 'win' his debates in his mind. He cannot do anything otherwise can he?

Well, I guess we're close to hitting the thread limit anyway.

Thanks everyone for your contributions to this thread. It's been... urm.... interesting!

I'm off back to a rational world now too, see you all on the other side

best

1. what has the 'variable speed of light' hypothesis actually got to do with YEC? (I might be able to tell you if your mistake actually makes any difference to your argument).
2. Mutations regularly lead to sequences that have never previously existed in the history of DNA. This is new information! (again what does this have to do with YEC? - maybe your mistake here doesn't make any odds either?)

January and people interested in BB theory

There is a misunderstanding here that a finite amount of material was present at the big bang. This is not required by the theory.

Space-time and the amount of stuff in it may have been infinite from the beginning.

If the universe is infinite in size, then it is expanding only by the definition that the things in it are getting further apart. It is not expanding INTO anything.

Human beings have to have a great sense of local space geometry in order to not walk into trees and to escape from bears etc. Unfortunately this 'picture of the world' we carry around with us is not at all helpful when trying to deal with reality at either end of the length scale spectrum.

In other words when you are used to discrete blocks of space and everything being embedded in a 3D space of some sort, it is difficult to imagine that this isn't true for the universe itself (finite or infinite - in neither case is it expanding into anything!).

When you are used to snooker balls and Newtonian collisions it is hard to drop all that and get anything right about sub atomic particles.....

islets I actually got as far as 'oh yes I understand what you are saying' which then later got recast as 'we haven't spoken about that' and reasserting the original false point of view....

This is getting way too easy, folks. New observations come in daily that match my model but not yours.

Stars Forming Much Faster than Predictions Thought Possible

"Seen when the universe was less than a billion years old, it is forming stars at a much faster rate than should be possible according to existing predictions."

www.spacedaily.com/reports/Early_Galaxies_Were_Ahead_Of_Their_Time_999.html

I don't have a model of star formation...and I doubt you do either...

"What evidence for God, exactly? In spite of being asked continually to provide this you have not bothered to do so."

Ellie, I've provided it many times on this very thread. I even posted the links directly to you. I'm sorry that you have to distort my claims and lie about my character. But that is always what it comes down to when someone has no valid arguments to support their blind-faith position. Good luck to you.

"Pedro, Ellie et al, I admire your perseverance."

VBisme, you can admire their perseverance but I certainly hope you don't admire their lack of logic, their bad attitudes or their potty mouths. Best of luck to you.