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!

"Science happens when we dont make assumptions."

January, the very pursuit of science itself is based on the assumption that the universe is rational and operates according to laws. It is a theistic assumption and the reason modern science arose out of Christianity. You have Christians to thank for the science you love so much. Best of luck to you and your family.

"I'm pleased at least that the word 'arrogant' was all you picked up on from my facts and evidence."

Yes, Pedro, when I think of you, "arrogant" is definitely one of the words that will come to mind. Until you learn to humble yourself before the God you know exists, you will continue to lead a sad and lonely life. I will pray for you. It's not too late to repent. God loves you.

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

Yes, Islets, I could lose - and would happily do so. All it would take is some valid arguments and evidence. (Seems like OCBINEG might be the only one up to the task.) Truth always prevails over blind faith. Good luck and God bless.

I have PEOPLE to thank for the science I love. People are not purely definened by the religion they practice.

Oh and some of modern science came out of Christianity because the Vatican were the onle people rich enough to fund it.

ICBINEG. His speed of light argument wrnt something like this:

To see an object 13 billion light years away we are seeing the light it produced 13 billion years ago.

Oh light must have been faster at some point then because it only took 6000 years to get here.

SERIOUSLY he is havig a dig at MY mental capacity!

Best - thanks for enlightening us about how YECs think. It's interesting, scary and depressing, since Creationism and its offshoots have such an influential stranglehold in some parts of the world.

You have demonstrated here how engagement of the skills of a double glazing salesman can make arguments sound persuasive to those who don't really know the subject.

You've been unlucky on this thread to come up against so many intelligent and well-informed posters (hats off to all of you).

Perhaps you're just honing your double glazing salesman skills - who knows? I hope so for your sake - otherwise you're wasting phenomenal amounts of your own time and emotional energy pursuing a load of damaging nonsense.

Until you learn to humble yourself before the God you know exists, you will continue to lead a sad and lonely life. I will pray for you. It's not too late to repent. God loves you.

I'm not sad or lonely thanks. And there's no god whom I know to exist so I have no need to be humble to him. So you are wrong. See that, I'm pointing out your wrongness, again. But you don't listen anyway.

You still haven't refuted any of the other assertions I made about you, you just keep telling me how arrogant you think I am. Honestly, I couldn't care less how arrogant you think I am. I've provided evidence that you have a lack of understanding of science, you are deluded and you are inconsistent. Others have post out plainly that you are an outright liar too and that you own arrogance is astounding given all the above.

It's also interesting that when all else fails you've reverted to God and the bible for your evidence. Well that just says it all doesn't it.

Oh and for the record, science doesn't start with the assumption that the universe works to set laws. You have again demonstrated a catastrophic failure in your understanding of science. It is in fact science which has made observations about the universe and concluded that there are sets of physical laws which are followed.

If you really have spent the last 6 years reading proper science books then I propose that one of the following is true:

1. You're a slow reader and didn't get through much.
2. It's too advanced for you to actually understand.
3. You haven't read books which cover a wide enough selection of sciences or don't go into enough depth.
4. Your predetermined assumption of the existence of god prevents you from actually changing your mind.
5. You lied and don't read many or any actual science books but take everything off creationist websites (all of your arguments, incidentally, can be found on creationist websites and all have been refuted elsewhere by real scientists).

At least one of these must be true, although I suspect several.

Well spotted LizzyDay, BV is a salesman, according to his (liberally quote-sprinkled) website

ICBINEG, Pedro said above that we were nearing the thread limit. I didn't know there was one but I assume it's 1000. Since we were making progress, I want to learn as much from you as I can in the short time we have left. I will no longer try to persuade you of my view but just ask you questions about yours.

"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)."

Nothing. I never intended it as a serious argument. New evidence has come to light that the speed of light has changed in the past and could still be changing. Should it ever become accepted, the people on here will never acknowledge that I might have been right. I'm not even making the claim. I am just following the evidence where it leads. But let's drop that one. Time is too precious.

"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?)"

Fair enough. If you call that NEW information, I will accept that you see it that way. I don't. According to information theory, it is not "information" unless it makes sense. It's noise.

In the movie Contact based on the book by Carl Sagan, Jodie Foster and her team at SETI discover the prime numbers coming through space amidst radio waves. THAT is information. Mutations in the DNA that merely scramble what is already there are noise until they actually make sense. But if you call that "new information" (although I believe you are accepting a faulty definition of information) I will have to accept that that is what you believe. But to me it is like saying "macroevolution is just microevolution over time."

What it has to do with YEC is that if evolution is false, millions of years are not needed and the Bible is right once again. It would not "prove" YEC with this one evidence but there are many more. It's a cumulative case.

"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...."

No, if you read further you'll see that I remembered what you were saying and admitted that I forgot. We all make mistakes. Remember that I am responding to 10 people or so while each person is only responding to me. It gets hard to keep straight after 2 weeks. I'll always remember you as the most rational, helpful and respectful one on here. (I think we all know who the least rational one is.)

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

My point in posting that, ICBINEG, is that I have frequently made the claim on here that things scientists think take a long time, actually happen quickly. I see it every day. It matches my predictions and it falsifies theirs. When you constantly makes predictions based on the Bible that turn out to be right and evolutionists constantly make predictions that are wrong, a reasonable person starts to question it.
That's all.

So can you give me those examples I asked for that would convince me evolution is true? Even just one? Or if not, tell me why my request is unreasonable?

jan ahh thanks for filling the gap. So why is it interesting to best that light can be slowed in the lab? That doesn't apparently help? It can't be sped up at all in the lab or elsewhere?

We know what space contains very accurately so we know what the speed of light in 'space' is....certainly for the surrounding 6000 light years...shit that doesn't even get you out of the galaxy...let alone out into the wider universe!

Gosh. Well I guess that it enough by itself for me to dismiss the theory of the young earth.

People have stopped writting papers on how rainbows are made because we KNOW.

Most people have stopped writting papers about the earth being old. Because we KNOW. The only people still writting arguments against this are YEC because their bias means they have to. Ethically that amount of bias leads to an un peer reviewable, completely invalid, paper.

Maybe the next book you should read should be one on reseach ethics.

Best - your writing style does give you away you know. All that stuff about 'I'd LOVE to be proved wrong' (yeah right), for example.

"ICBINEG. His speed of light argument wrnt something like this: To see an object 13 billion light years away we are seeing the light it produced 13 billion years ago. Oh light must have been faster at some point then because it only took 6000 years to get here. SERIOUSLY he is havig a dig at MY mental capacity!"

ICBENIG, don't listen to Janauary. She is lying. I never said any such thing and I don't believe that. Check the thread yourself. I endorse the gravitational time dilation model. I wish I'd never brought up the speed of light in the first place. But people who have no good arguments must twist the words of others.

Best says his next book will be 'How to Debate an Atheist'. I suspect that he will be quote-mining this thread to demonstrate his 'expertise' in this.

Right so one last punt at this information / DNA coding for functional bits business.

Mutations can and do lead to entirely new never before seen strings of amino acids. Some of those strings will not have a meaningful function. Some will have harmful function. But some will have novel new function.

One possible example of this is a mutation in a metal ion binding protein that enables it to bind a different metal ion. (eg. a copper receptor that is mutated and now binds cobalt).

I must also pick you up on the use of information theory here.

If the sequence IAALKQEKLIAAQ exists in a protein strand and is mutated to IAALKQEKLICAQ the information content has gone up. This is because 'C' is a far less common amino acid than 'A'. Incidentally this would tally with the functional ability of the sequence increasing, as 'C' is capable of all of the interactions of 'A' but additionally can form a metal ligand.

So by the information theory definition this mutation has lead to an increase in information content. By the laymen definition it has lead to an increase in information and usefulness of the sequence. A new function has been added via the mutation.

Thanks for the link bore this is gold!

My name is Randy Ruggles.

I started selling early. At 5 years old, I made snowflakes out of paper and sold them to the local pastor.

Wow! That's impressive, those pastors are well known for being difficult to sell to. Especially if it means pleasing young boys.

My first real job (when I was 17) was selling vacuum cleaners door-to-door.

Didn't finish High School then?

I later proved to be adept at telemarketing. I've sold everything from coupon books for restaurants and premium golf courses to business packages for luxury hotels. All by phone.

So you're a cold caller? Or did they ring you?

Then, I progressed to the telecommunications industry. Long distance plans and cellular phones were my specialty. Eventually, I became Head Trainer for Sprint Canada. My trainees broke company sales records.

Yep, I've worked in telecoms too. Easiest thing in the world to sell cheaper phone packages and I'm not a salesman.

As an entrepreneur, I've developed various marketing programs and successfully sold them to local business owners.

Did you do this alone or as part of a company? Genuine question.

And over the years, I've even dabbled in retail sales.

You worked in a shop.

All in all, I've had over 20 years of selling experience. So, you see - I know how to SELL.

Shame you don't know how to do science or this thread would have been much more productive!

Best - maybe you'd have more luck with a book entitled 'How To Make Yourself Look Uneducated and Irritate People'?

"Gosh. Well I guess that it enough by itself for me to dismiss the theory of the young earth."

Come on, ICBINEG you were my last hope on this thread to encounter someone with rationality. Don't fail me now. Stick to the evidence for mutations generating new information. Even one example and I will be much closer to accepting evolution again. Don't undo all you've done thus far by joining the mob mentality.

best well I asked you what relevance the speed of light had and you didn't answer...I currently only have others version to go on.

By all means let me know what relevance you actually think it has.

BTW I also subscribe to the time dilation in the presence of mass view of things...again I would be interested to hear what you think that has to do with anything...

Also I have responded on mutations.

I wasn't resorting to mob mentality just noting that the evidence in favour of the universe being larger than 6000 ly is enough by itself to convince me that a model of the universe which is less than 6000 years old is not a good model of reality.

He's already produced one book of quotes Pedro.

He's obviously searching for new material.

According to his facebook page, we're a bunch of insane mommies!

Really, Islets?

I do hope that, when this thread finishes, he will have a look around the rest of the board - FWR perhaps? I'm sure Randy has interesting views on wimmin, being as how we were created from Adam's rib and all.