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!

[BestValue]

"Here we have a person who genuinely believes that the Earth itself is thousands of times younger than the fossils, diamonds, and coral reefs."

CoteDAzur, "fossils, diamonds, and coral reefs" (including dinosaur bones) all still have carbon left in them which strongly indicates that they are only thousands of years old, not millions.

"Forget the "argument". Look at the facts . . . Argument cannot be intelligent if it makes no sense in light of the facts."

My arguments are based on facts. You evidently have swallowed some "facts" that, as it turns out, aren't really true at all. Science doesn't really like to deal much with facts. As Eugenie Scott once put it, "facts aren't really very interesting." Science traffics in scientific theories which are meant to explain those facts. By way of example, the FACT of gravity is that if I drop a pencil it falls toward the centre of the earth. Because it does this every time it's been tested, we call it a law. (That doesn't mean it's unbreakable. Laws are descriptive not prescriptive. They describe how things are, not how they should be.)

Now, why do things fall toward the centre of the earth? Because masses have an attraction and the greater the mass, the greater the attraction. This is the known as the THEORY of gravity. What I'm doing is putting forth a scientific theory based on the Bible which explains the facts. (All other scientific theories rule out God and the Bible from the start. This is not meant as a denigration of science. It's just how science woks.) My claim is that my theory explains more of the facts than evolution does.

Perhaps you can show me two or three examples of where you think I have run aground of the facts. Understand that none of the radiometric dating methods generate factual dates. The fossil doesn't come out of the machine with a date stamped on it. Radiometric dating gives a number - a measurement of an amount of a radioactive isotope - and that number is plugged into a formula which contains many unverifiable assumptions about the past. Change those initial assumptions and you get completely different dates for your fossils.

[BestValue]

A scientific fact is something that is has been tested, repeated and verified in the present - typically a laboratory. Because the majority of the process of evolution takes place in the past, it can never rightly be called a scientific fact. (Perhaps a better word to use is that you believe it is TRUE. I used to as well - that is until I looked at the facts.)

But, you say, hasn't evolution been demonstrated in the laboratory with bacterial resistance to anti-biotics? Yes and no. That is microevolution - small changes below the species level. Even the most ardent creationist in the world has no problem with this (nor with natural selection). But the grander claims of macroevolutiion and common ancestry have very little factual support. What apologists for evolution like Dawkins must do is claim that macroevolution is just microevolution over time. That's a nice belief but I don't have that much faith. Further, the "evolution" we see in bacterial resistance is not the kind of change we need in order to turn an amoeba into a man over millions of years.

[Sunnywithshowers]

How and when did Christians invent science?

[PedroPonyLikesCrisps]

"fossils, diamonds, and coral reefs" (including dinosaur bones) all still have carbon left in them which strongly indicates that they are only thousands of years old, not millions.

Ummm.... Diamonds are made of carbon, they are not radioactive, they don't decay. I think you have seriously misunderstood something here. The oldest diamonds ever found have been estimated to be 4.25 billion years old. Forget a few thousand years, you're a few thousand orders of magnitude wrong.

[PedroPonyLikesCrisps]

Further, the "evolution" we see in bacterial resistance is not the kind of change we need in order to turn an amoeba into a man over millions of years.

Every one of us grew from a single cell to a full human in 9 months.

[BestValue]

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

Ria, all of the major branches of modern science were invented by Christians. Most were Bible-believing young-earth creationists like me. Men like Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, Galileo, Pasteur and dozens more. Historians of science (and even Dawkins) acknowledge that modern science developed in the West because scientists believed in a rational universe which operated according to laws - because it was designed by a rational law-Giver. They believd they were "thinking God's thought after him."

Science did not arise in the east in places where they practiced Hinduism, for example, because Hindus believe the universe and the world is an illusion. Why study something that doesn't really exist?

Take a course in the history of science or just read a book about it. I don't make this stuff up. Remember that, in my worldview, it is wrong to lie. :^)

[CoteDAzur]

I could take apart your posts sentence by sentence, but what would be the point of that? It would be like kicking a puppy.

Just a question, though: What do you think it means that we can see a star that is a 100 million light years away?

[BestValue]

"Every one of us grew from a single cell to a full human in 9 months."

If you think that has anything whatsoever at all to do with evolution, Pedro, you are sadly misinformed and, I would dare to say, too far gone for me to help you. Unfortunately, the problem is that most people who believe in evolution don't really understand it. I understand evolution exactly the same way Dawkins does. I just start with different assumptions than he does so I reach different conclusions.

[Isabeller]

BestValue I'm interested in what you're saying and have some distant relatives I think would agree with you.

I do however feel compelled to say that the science I know most about is maths and that wasn't exclusively invented by Christians.

[RiaOverTheRainbow]

Not sure what the Ancient Greeks were doing then, predicting the world was round and discovering that the planets move. Or the Medieval Muslims, inventing algebra.

[PedroPonyLikesCrisps]

If you think that has anything whatsoever at all to do with evolution, Pedro, you are sadly misinformed and, I would dare to say, too far gone for me to help you.

Hahaha! That was clearly tongue in cheek but perhaps you're a bit uptight for that right now.

I was hoping you might have more to say about the diamonds though.

[BestValue]

"I could take apart your posts sentence by sentence, but what would be the point of that? It would be like kicking a puppy."

Go ahead and try. I'm one tough puppy. If sentence by sentence is too difficult a task, name just one error of fact or logic.

"What do you think it means that we can see a star that is a 100 million light years away?"

Understand that a "light year" is a distance, not a time. I believe those distances are real. The speed of light has been slowing down for the past two centuries we've measured it. And Harvard University has slowed and even stopped light in the laboratory 13 years ago. So maybe the speed of light is not a constant. If it were faster in the past, the light could reach earth in less time.

Also, there is a theory based on Einstein's theory of general relativity called gravitational time dilation. Time is affected by gravity. A clock at the top of a mountain ticks faster than one at the bottom. The big bang model contains two arbitrary assumptions: that the universe has no centre and no edge.

In the creationist's theory of cosmology, if the universe had an edge and the earth were at or near the centre, earth would be in a "gravitational well" and time would tick slower here than at the edge of the universe. Thus, 13.72 billion years could pass out there while a mere 6,000 years passed here on earth. Sounds crazy but such is science. If you want really weird stuff, try studying quantum mechanics.

See the brief video below for an explanation of the time dilation model:

[BestValue]

"Not sure what the Ancient Greeks were doing then, predicting the world was round and discovering that the planets move. Or the Medieval Muslims, inventing algebra."

The Bible said the earth was round (actually a sphere suspended in space on nothing) before the Greeks did and thought it was supported on the backs of turtles. And algebra is math, not science.

[RiaOverTheRainbow]

Maths is unequivocally science.

[PedroPonyLikesCrisps]

In the creationist's theory of cosmology, if the universe had an edge and the earth were at or near the centre, earth would be in a "gravitational well" and time would tick slower here than at the edge of the universe.

So show me the evidence that a) the universe has an edge, b) the Earth is near the center and c) anything that would suggest that the center of the universe would necessarily be a gravitational well.

In any case you've already pointed out that a light year is a measurement of distance not time, so the time dilation is irrelevant.

Also, you asked for just a single instance when you have not used a fact. Well, I'm sorry to say that the speed of light has not decreased over time. This is one of the most insane creationist myths invented to explain the short age of the earth and you have been sucked in by a big fat juicy lie. Hope you enjoy trying to prove that one!

[Redbindy]

I though the bible tends towards a flat earth, I don't remember any description of a sphere suspended in nothing. I do remember a description of Jesus being shown the whole world from the top of a mountain. I'm not sure who witnessed this event though. Are there any contemporary witnesses to Jesus at all?

[PedroPonyLikesCrisps]

Redbindy, that's a good point. Can we have a chapter and verse please best

[piprabbit]

Carbon dating is generally used to date samples which are relatively young (I'm thinking human archaeological remains dating back into pre-history here)

But I would love to hear how you explain away evidence from ancient samples analysed using potassium or uranium isotope dating? Geological samples from earth rocks have been dated as old as 4.5 billion years using these techniques.

[PedroPonyLikesCrisps]

Oh, and don't forget the diamonds, best, you got them wrong too.

How many errors do you want pointing out?

[BestValue]

"Maths is unequivocally science."

Ria, your lack of understanding is truly astounding. We get PROOF in mathematics and logic. We don't get PROOF from the scientific method. This fact alone shows that math and science are inherently different.

[BestValue]

"So show me the evidence that a) the universe has an edge, b) the Earth is near the center and c) anything that would suggest that the center of the universe would necessarily be a gravitational well."

Pedro, the first two are starting assumptions. The big bang arbitrarily starts with the opposite assumptions. All are unprovable. Every scientific theory begins with unprovable assumptions. It is a reasonable assumption to concluded that the universe has an edge since we know the universe is finite. And galaxies appear to be evenly distributed in the cosmos in every direct we look, implying we are near the centre. For the answer to your third question, watch the five-minute video I posted or just read a physics textbook.

[BestValue]

"I though the bible tends towards a flat earth, I don't remember any description of a sphere suspended in nothing."

The entire flat-earth myth began in the 1800s by two guys who wrote a book to discredit Christianity. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was round by looking at the shadow of the earth on the moon during an eclipse. No one in Columbus's day thought the earth was flat. Read "Inventing the Flat Earth."

Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth ..." Circles are round. And the Hebrew word here translated as circle is best rendered as "sphere." (If you search the Internet, you'll find people who disagree with this but they are not Hebrew scholars. Plus, you'll find people who believe in evolution too. ;^))

Job 26:7 - "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing."

[BestValue]

"Carbon dating is generally used to date samples which are relatively young (I'm thinking human archaeological remains dating back into pre-history here)"

Of course it is, Pip. I already explained that. And I'm glad you understand that. Most creationist do, but most lay evolutionists do not.

All the radioactive carbon should be gone in about 50,000 years. That's why if you find any fossils with carbon-14 still in them (that haven't been contaminated), it is a good bet they are less than 50,000 years old. This is why they generally refuse to carbon date dinosaur bones. They assume they are too old. Yet, every dinosaur bone that has ever been carbon dated still has carbon-14 in it. Oops! But evolutionists aren't known for their adherence to the data.

"But I would love to hear how you explain away evidence from ancient samples analysed using potassium or uranium isotope dating? Geological samples from earth rocks have been dated as old as 4.5 billion years using these techniques."

I don't "explain it away." I explained earlier how all radiometric dating methods are based on several unverifiable assumptions and how those methods don't provide an age. I can't keep repeating myself. New questions only, please. And don't ask questions that are already answered by links I provide.

[BestValue]

"How many errors do you want pointing out?"

You could start with just one. You haven't pointed out ANY yet. They are not errors of fact but different interpretations of facts. This is how science works. The Bible aside, that's how it is possible to have several competing scientific theories. Just look at how many theories there are about what killed the dinosaurs. Probably hundreds. They all have factual and evidential support. The reigning theory about a meteor hitting the Yucatán Peninsula just seems to have the most support right now. If another theory receives more support in the future, they will modify the theory.

I hope you guys are at least learning a lot about how science works. Much of what I'm saying in this thread is uncontroversial within the scientific community. Try to separate claims I make based on my theory and those which are based on the scientific method and on fact. Before posting, think critically and ask yourself, "How do we really know this? Has in been observed in the laboratory or in the field and thus w can justifiably call it a fact? Or is a part of theory intended to explain several facts?" You'll go a lot farther in your understanding of science if you learn how to do this.

[Sunnywithshowers]

I hope you guys are at least learning a lot about how science works. Much of what I'm saying in this thread is uncontroversial within the scientific community. Try to separate claims I make based on my theory and those which are based on the scientific method and on fact. Before posting, think critically and ask yourself, "How do we really know this? Has in been observed in the laboratory or in the field and thus w can justifiably call it a fact? Or is a part of theory intended to explain several facts?" You'll go a lot farther in your understanding of science if you learn how to do this.

How patronising.