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!

"Re your 'equilibrium' problem with carbon dating, this might explain your issue"

NG, the link you provided was a bit disingenuous. It mentions Henry Morris and other creationists as if they invented the idea themselves. They don't even mention that it was Libby himself who made the calculations. I have Libby's quote right in front of me. He might have been wrong but it can't be dismissed as easily as you think.

"Perhaps you can present the evidence which you have."

Pedro, that's a little unreasonable don't you think? I've written a book you can read and I've been on national TV and you can watch those shows online for free. It would take hundreds of hours for me to present all the evidence I have. My typing sucks and I'm doing the best I can but you could help to narrow it down by telling me what kind of evidence you'd accept rather than me typing for hours and using up bandwidth only to have you say, "Nope, sorry. What else ya got?"

I think you want to argue not to understand and I'm not interested in that.

"You seem to have many conspiracy theories about the scientific community. What agenda do you think the whole world of science has to prove evolution true if it is not?"

Pedro, I have no conspiracy theories about the scientific community. In fact, I am very pro-science. Christians invented science for Pete's sake

"Perhaps individual scientists have agendas to make money or gain funding or fame, but the community as a whole is interested in the truth."

I totally agree 100%.

"First, what they at Rensellar call "young earth" is 500 million years old."

Of course, Mummytime, I didn't mean to imply that the article would support a 6-10,000 year old earth. You won't find that in any secular peer-reviewed journal. Ever.

"Second they don't talk about it having more Oxygen than today"

True. My bad. I was unclear about that. It is true that when they drill into amber (like in Jurassic Park) the air bubbles contain 50% more oxygen but this article isn't about that.

"just having Oxygen at all which is contrary to traditional scientific teaching"

Right. That was my point. Evolutionists predicted what they call a reducing atmosphere - one without oxygen. Creationists predicted the earth always had oxygen. Creationists were right and evolutionists were wrong.

"This finding if confirmed by others would actually explain evolution and the creation of life more easily."

No. Oxygen prohibits life from coming from non-life. This is why they have pinned their hopes on life being seeded from Mars. I predict they won't find it. But will my prediction count as a win for creationists? Not a chance. They'll have some other rationalization and pick a different planet life must have come from. Mark my words. It might take a few decades but it'll happen. When it does, remember this conversation.

"Thanks for answering my question best"

You're welcome, SingingSands. Any time. Thanks for your interest and for being respectful. If you're cute, I'm single. But if you're a guy forget it. LOL!

"No. Oxygen prohibits life from coming from non-life. This is why they have pinned their hopes on life being seeded from Mars. I predict they won't find it."

Well my reading was that some of the Chemistry is actually easier to explain if Oxygen was present.

However if you are right that life can't come from non-life except under reducing Chemistry; then that is no problem as there are lots of places on earth today, which have a reducing environment. From deep sea vents to water logged soil.

"She told me in all seriousness that the reason that people in the Old Testament lived to such an old age was because before The Flood it never rained and so it was very cloudy and this filtered out the harmful ageing rays of the sun."

Hey NG, I just wanted to respond to this. While some creationists claim it didn't rain before the flood, I believe they are in error. They get it from Genesis 2:5 which says:

"Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground"

This is before God created Adam on Day 6 (a literal 24-hour day). The flood was 1,656 years later. There is no reason to think the water cycle was different for that long and it's not necessary any way. Some think that's why people scoffed at Noah because they'd never seen rain. But we've seen plenty of rain and gigantic local floods but even today if someone were predicting a global flood we'd think he was nuts.

I do believe in the long ages though but not exactly for the same reason. Adam and Eve were created perfect and were intended to live forever so genetic mutations did not begin until after they sinned. They died at a very old age (Adam was 930). But life-spans dropped off dramatically after the flood because the environment had changed (the whole world was destroyed).

Over time, mutations have built up (what is called genetic load) to the point where we only live to be 70 or 80 years old. Of course, many diseases like cancer are due to mutations. Yet modern medicine is starting to discover how to fight the damaging effects of these mutations and scientists now predict that someone who is alive today will live to be 1,000 years old. (Hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar.) :^)

"However if you are right that life can't come from non-life except under reducing Chemistry; then that is no problem as there are lots of places on earth today, which have a reducing environment. From deep sea vents to water logged soil."

The problem is that they don't think there has been enough time. From the time the earth cooled down 4.6 billion years ago till the first appearance of life is something like 800 million years - the blink of an eye geologically speaking.

Do some research on the Miller-Urey experiment for more on making life in the laboratory and the reducing atmosphere. It was hailed as a ground-breaking experiment in 1953 but it was actually a colossal failure. As one guy put it, there were only 3 things wrong with Stanley Miller's experiment: he started with the wrong conditions, he used the wrong materials and he got the wrong results. Everything else was perfect. :^)

Mummytime, listen to what Carl Sagan says here. Don't believe me. Believe him.

Did I miss the bit where you said the name of your book?

There really are all kinds on MN.

"Did I miss the bit where you said the name of your book?"

I didn't mention it, NG. I'm not here to promote myself or to sell books. I want to answer honest questions from nice people who are genuinely interested in learning.

Honestly there are much better resources than my book anyway written by real scientists - biologists, geologists, astronomers, astrophysicists, chemists etc. - all who believe based on the scientific evidence (as well as the Bible) that the earth is 6-10,000 years old.

I would recommend some if I really thought anyone would care to read them. Truthfully, if you're an atheist and want to stay that way, you'll never entertain this view. But in your pursuit of tolerance, you should learn about it. And if you're already a Christian, you should study it carefully. There is a world of information out there and you don't have to continue to live your life by blind faith.

hi I am fascinated by this view point. My personal thoughts are that even if you disregard much external evidence, the evidence for evolution exists simply within the human body.

The appendix. We have evolved from needing it but not evolved far enough to be born without it. Surely that alone proves that while evolution happens it takes a blooming long time?

By the way, I just realized that my book has nothing to do with young earth creationism any way which is the topic of this thread. It's only about the evidence against evolution. And I've learned way more since I wrote it. (Maybe it's time for a second edition.) :^)

oh btw I am neither Atheist nor Christian. But I would genuinely love to find an astrophysicist who really thinks the world is 6000 years old, as I have met several and none support tthis pov, so please do point me in their direction

"My personal thoughts are that even if you disregard much external evidence . . ."

I don't disregard any evidence at all. I might often have a different interpretation of the evidence. Evidence never speaks for itself. It is always interpreted in light of a paradigm. I have all the same evidence you have. I just interpret it differently - and I would say better.

"The appendix. We have evolved from needing it but not evolved far enough to be born without it."

I'm afraid this is another myth. It's been well-known since the 1940s that the appendix is an essential part of the immune system. A doctor I interviewed told me if you take it out, you shorten your life span by about 5 years. Sure you can live without it. You can live without both your arms, both your legs and both your eyes too but that doesn't mean they don't serve a function.

Besides, if we ever evolved to the point where we were born without an appendix, that would be de-volution. To evolve from an amoeba to man, evolution needs to explain how we acquired all these parts in the first place. Evolution has utterly failed to explain that.

"Surely that alone proves that while evolution happens it takes a blooming long time?"

An article just came out this week which shows evolution (in the micro sense) happens very quickly. This is an essential prediction of my model but it was a huge surprise to those who thought it took a long time.

There's very little evidence you can name that my model doesn't explain and explain better than evolution.

"But I would genuinely love to find an astrophysicist who really thinks the world is 6000 years old"

Your wish is my command. His name is Dr Jason Lisle and he's brilliant. Here's a brief introduction:

And then a longer presentation on logical fallacies. Anyone who wants to learn how to argue more logically should watch this:

Besides, if we ever evolved to the point where we were born without an appendix, that would be de-volution. To evolve from an amoeba to man, evolution needs to explain how we acquired all these parts in the first place. Evolution has utterly failed to explain that.

The appendix clearly isn't essential to our digestive system as we can cope without it.

But in any case, the appendix isn't used for what it used to be. Plus there are countless examples of ways in which parts of the human body are not as you would expect them to be of they were created but are exactly as they would be when you look at how they have evolved from being used in our ancestors.

If we moved towards having no appendix though, that would jot be devolution. Devolution cannot other happen, everything is evolution. You clearly don't understand the concept at all.

Evolution also explains very clearly how we acquired all our parts so you obviously don't have the same evidence which everyone else is looking at.

Reading with interest - science isn't my thing at all, but always interested to hear different viewpoints. I've never been a YEC, was brought up a Christian from fairly young and I remember my mum teaching me about evolution as a child and saying that in her opinion evolution and creation were not mutually exclusive. I've since been of the same viewpoint, having read round for myself - but I'm no expert at all, in fact the whole area confuses me a lot - give me theology and literature any day

Not convinced, Best, but it's great to hear a YEC argue their case with intelligence rather than just saying 'the bible says so' (it doesn't)

"great to hear a YEC argue their case with intelligence"

LOL. Here we have a person who genuinely believes that the Earth itself is thousands of times younger than the fossils, diamonds, and coral reefs. I can't say I see "intelligence" anywhere in his/her argument at all.

You may not see it as an intelligent argument, but that's different to it being argued with intelligence, I think - at least Best has sources to back up his arguments and has obviously studied it in a lot of depth - it's just refreshing to hear when compared to usual YEC arguments.

As I say, I'm not convinced, it does not make sense to me, but no harm in acknowledging someone's efforts.

Forget the "argument". Look at the facts.

Argument cannot be intelligent if it makes no sense in light of the facts.

Oh yes, no harm in acknowledging his efforts.

Here, have an A for effort

I'm sorry, 'Christians invented science' - is this a joke?