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!

Oooh "Mommies" such and insult. Because, as we all know, once a woman gives birth her inferior little brain loses what little logical reasoning power it already has

Ah - I love a bit of misogyny in the morning

I'm always after an excuse to link to this

"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."

If you read the entire thread, I have had to explain it multiple times. It is something creationists used to say that I never took seriously - until this past January. If the speed of light were not a constant and actually slowing down (as new evidence indicates) it would mean that light traveled faster in the past. I've never used it as an argument, don't think it has ANY relevance and wish I'd never brought it up.

"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..."

I've explained it all before and posted a 5-minute video about it but I'll explain it quickly again. Just so long as you know that this has absolutely nothing to do with why I believe in a young earth - so it is as irrelevant as the speed of light issue.

The big bang model starts with two arbitrary assumptions: the universe has no centre and no edge. Creationist cosmologists have developed a theory of a bounded universe with earth near its centre. This would put us in a gravitational well where time would pass slower. So theoretically, 13.72 billion years could pass at the edge while only 6,000 years have passed on earth. Much work still needs to be done on the equations.

You can comment if you want but, since this theory is irrelevant to my thesis, our time would be better spent talking about mutations. If I accept evolution, I will be compelled to accept an old earth. You'll kill two birds with one stone - and probably make me an atheist in the process. But it's a small price to pay to know the truth.

"Also I have responded on mutations."

I have not seen it but I will look up-thread. Not sure how I missed it.

"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."

It wouldn't - and didn't - convince me either. I believe it based primarily on God's Word as I laid out in my second post on this thread.

He'll be telling us we all need a good seeing to next - that's what the YouTube creationists usually resort to when they find out I'm a "she".

Best - your techniques have been pointed out, is all.

Adopt a martyred stance if you like, it doesn't make you any more persuasive.

again I give you Januarymadness Bsc (hons) Ma.

Bsc gained before I became a Mum the Ma after. My childbearing bears no relevance to the debate. But please dont question my intelect. I may not claim to be an expert on many things but I still have a more basic grasp of the concepts than you.

ICBINEG, I have checked the thread and you did not reply to what I asked regarding mutations. See the post on: Sun 21-Apr-13 00:46:02

I said:

"If you can show my 10 confirmed real-world examples of this being observed either in nature or in the laboratory, and demonstrate how each step of the way was neutral or beneficial, I will likely be convinced that genetic mutations are a viable mechanism to cause macroevolution. Even just one example for now will do. Anxiously awaiting your reply. Thanks."

Best - on your FB page you mention that you have no doubt that you would be in serious danger of losing your life if you were to meet the people on this thread face to face. Really? Happily I can reassure you that - once again - you are sadly misguided in your assumptions.

Obviously I can't speak for everyone on the thread, but atheist doesn't generally = potential murderer.

bitching about people behind their backs. Not good form really is it

Randy Ruggles debunked. Hilarious read.

He's already produced one book of quotes Pedro.

He's obviously searching for new material.

Oh fantastic! If he didn't get royalties I'd be buying that! Mind you we can probably get it free somewhere!

Oh, bad form, Best.

I've no interest in killing you by the way.

Hands up who does want to kill him? Anyone?

lol noblegiraffe.

I'd be a rubbish murderer - what with the low IQ mommybrain and atrophied muscles from sitting on the laptop all day while I watch my kids.

I think it's really low when people come on MN, completely take over a thread, and then 'report back' to their FB page, or blog or whatever. They always claim 'mob mentality' and that they are called names and whatnot - when really they have been out debated by posters with a passing grasp of science.

Randy - what you wrote on your FB page was disrespectful and I don't believe your assertion 'that you love us' Nor am I particularly bothered whether you do or not.

Agree Sabrina. Ironically, some of Best's 'followers' are complaining about people (people on 'mom boards' in particular) who slag off other people online. lol.

Great article Ellie.

"I bet Hitler was on mommy boards"

I call Godwins.

He calls us "inherently evil" - I expect he's praying for our souls.

I'm liking Dave though

Yeah, Dave is luverly

Who me? Creeping out someone's FB page? The very idea.

Nice hat, Robin .

OK, OK. OK.

Well, if we didn't look at his Facebook page then he'd be talking about us behind our back, and that wouldn't be very nice, now would it?

Sounds like Randy has stopped giving his opinions because he knows we're watching him. That sounds a little bit like he's unwilling to back up how he actually feels about us mummies (of which I'm not one, incidentally).

Lots of opinions being flung around by people who are taking Randy on his word and not even reading the thread. I can understand of course, Randy clearly never lies or misleads (honesty in sales is very important don't you know).

Mind you, they wouldn't be convinced by our arguments any more than he is, they can't even come up with their own ideas, they hang on his every word.

Wait.......

Is he god?

MNHQ - Can I nominate this thread for Classics? Because it so is, isn't it?

For goodness sake, claiming his life is in danger to garner sympathy? I think Randy is also confusing 'ugly turn' with 'people repeatedly coming back with logical arguments'.

This whole debate and ensuing debacle is a great study in contradictions.

I've never liked Richard Dawkins much but now have a massive amount of sympathy for him if he has to deal with this sort of individual on a regular basis. He must have the patience of a saint

Awww, look, I even got my own shout out on the 18th for pointing out that you can't predict things which already happened.

"The bible predicted the big bang" said Randy.

No it didn't R-Rug. If there indeed was a big bang, it happened over 13 billion years before the bible was written.

Of course you meant that the bible predicts that we will find evidence to support the big bang theory (you have to be ever so careful with how you word things or people will get the wrong idea you know). If that's really the case then please quote me the chapter and verse where the bible says this. And by this I mean where the bible specifically mentions a precise measurement which we could take and the results we'd expect to get and then also the experiment which demonstrated this evidence being found. You know, like scientists do.