BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:24 PM

in other words, what Don said. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:36 PM

Don - "It is perfectly good science put to extremely bad uses."

Don, you are absolutely correct about that. ;-) I agree with what you said 100%, I just did not elaborate quite far enough in my previous postings. So...what I really object to in science is two separate things, then:

1. bad science. (invalid or misleading theories and conclusions)

and...

2. good science that is devoted to an extremely bad use.

Those are the two areas of science that concern me. I am totally in favor of good science that is devoted toward a positive use.

Same deal with religion: I am in favor of religion that is put to a positive use. I object to religion that is put to a negative use. I don't particularly mind people using various mythological tales...if they use them in a positive way that doesn't hurt anyone. Most cultures have been enriched by their inherited mythos, and it has also been very beneficial to the world of creative art.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:50 PM

"God is an artist and the universe is his creation"

I remember a Star Trek episode, where the core troublemaker of the episode was a spoilt child who was mostly omnipotent, but was about equivalent to a 3-5 year old. The infant's 'creation' was a jumbled inconsistent mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 05:57 PM

I don't think Kent is delusional. I just think his heart has checkmated his mind in this particular case.

False dichotomy. Amounts to the same thing.

And how do you know its only "this particular case? An idiot who believes the 6000 year nonsence will embrace any absurdity, however preposterous.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 06:05 PM

"at least darwin acknowledged the possibility of conclusions opposed to his own[origins"

Creationists deny any other possibility, and declare that they will pray to their own Magical Sky Fairy to help brainwash any doubters to be converted to the Only True Position, without needing to do any further research . They then, as per the convoluted mind games of proponents of 'The Law of Fives' will do any rationalising necessary to keep their beliefs, unlike followers of Science, will will discard things and start research again.

Recent research on aging, for example, has rejected 'oxidative stress' and other ideas as not relevant - in spite of the 'faith' of some of the very researchers that these things really DO work ... :-)

In any lab research on animals, the test animals will do as they damn well please, in spite of what the prejudices of the researchers are.

See this graphic - a picture is worth a thousand words.

Science Vs Faith

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 06:26 PM

I haven't heard of the Magical Sky Fairy before, Foolestroupe. What a great idea! ;-) What does she look like? I'm envisioning something along the lines of Kate Blanchett, dressed in medieval robes and holding a magic wand. I could definitely go for that. If she looks like Shirley Temple, though, I'd be a bit disappointed, and if she sang "The Good Ship Lollipop", I'd be totally disillusioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 06:50 PM

that was a wordy denial of my point jack.
i am not denying that scientific creation models may change.
so do evolutionist models.
and i dont believe they are any more objective ; because they are committed to their own belief in evolutionism.
how do you suppose creationist scientists can publish in peer reviewed journals when evolutionism is jealously guarded.
the best they can do is offer debate on equal terms,which is often declined on the grounds[?]that creation might be seen to be taken seriously!.

so the literal creator is not nice penny?well the god you posit presumably;uses deep time and death and suffering over aeons to get things going?
he dont look very pretty either.
and it dont add up theologically either .cf other thread.
best wishes though.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:02 PM

penny-ijust looked on creation.com.todays article expands what i just posted to you.dont suppose you would read it?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: BanjoRay
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:03 PM

The world was created 6000 years ago by God. However He's not really a very patient being, because after such a brief amount of time
the world's going to end in May.
It was fun while it lasted.......

I wonder how many tunes I can play between now and then?

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:11 PM

Well..it says you get until October...unless you are 'saved' and are 'taken up' on May 21....so I suppose you can get in a lot more tunes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:43 PM

"....i dont believe they are any more objective ; because they are committed to their own belief in evolutionism."

Evolutionism, unlike creationism, is not a belief but a scientific theory supported by tangible evidence - something that creationists refuse to acknowledge because it doesn't mesh with their particular creation fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:49 PM

For the sake of those sensible people who don't hang around on those strangulated, dying threads, Pete, and once and for all, there are no "scientific creation models." And, yet again, you rattle on about creationist scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, etc. You will not respond, I know, because you never do, but all I ask is that you give us the names of these creationist scientists so that we can peruse their publications ourselves. But I won't hold my breath, as I fully expect the usual "you wouldn't understand anyway, even if I told you, Steve" response. Sorry...that should have been "steve."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 07:53 PM

Evolution is true. There are gaps and there are uncertainties for sure, but, in its general thrust, it is true. I know this will hurt certain persons, but they are simply going to have to live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 08:26 PM

The article "http://creation.com/naming-the-animals-all-in-a-day-s-work-for-adam"

is of course non-science.

QUOTE
Today we divide the animals into those we call tame (mostly herbivores), and those we call wild (both herbivores and carnivores), but this distinction did not apply before Adam sinned.

1:31, 'And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.' From these we conclude that animals did not kill each other for food pre-Fall, and they had no reason to fear man.

This means that we can regard them all as being tame at the time Adam named them. It also means that they would not have eaten each other, while taking part in any naming procession!

The animals which Adam named are specifically described in Genesis 2:20. They were the 'cattle', 'the fowl of the air' (birds), and 'every beast of the field'. This classification has no correlation with today's arbitrary system of man-made taxonomy (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, insects), but is a more natural system based on the relation of the animals to man's interests.

If we compare this naming list with the creation list in Genesis 1:20–25—birds and sea creatures (created on Day Five), beasts of the earth, cattle, creeping things—we see there are several very significant differences.2 Adam was not required to name any of the sea creatures, or any of the creeping things. And as the beasts of the field were not specifically mentioned in the creation list, we can regard them as being a subdivision of the beasts of the earth. That is, Adam was required to name only some of the total land animal population of his own day.

There is no suggestion that the naming was meant to be comprehensive. From this it follows that Adam's task was not to provide a scientific taxonomy, but a set of general names of a selection of the animals, for the benefit of average human beings who would come after him.
UNQUOTE

This is typical of the tortuous squirming of the 'Law of Fives' philosophy followers...

"From these we conclude that animals did not kill each other for food pre-Fall ... we can regard them all as being tame at the time Adam named them. It also means that they would not have eaten each other"

So all the carnivores were vegetarians! Or they magically did not need food before Man Sinned! Nonsensical gibberish!

QUOTE
a more natural system based on the relation of the animals to man's interests
UNQUOTE

The Bible commands man to go forth and trash the Earth, without needing to study ecology, or take care of it, as everything is just for Man's benefit! And when it runs out, the Big Magic Shy Fairy will magically take away his mindless slaves to some far away Magic Place.

Shy? that is a laugh ... er... Sky!

And this paragraph reveals the real motivations of Creationists
QUOTE
Why?

Adam had been given dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:28), and God now provided him with the opportunity to exercise this responsibility in a way which established his authority and supremacy—in ancient times, it was an act of authority to impose names (cf. Daniel 1:7) and an act of submission to receive them.

This exercise also shows that Adam was not an ape-man, and indeed it was intended by God to show that he had no ape-like siblings among which to find fellowship or a mate (cf. Genesis 2:20b: 'for Adam there was not found an help meet [i.e. helper suitable] for him').

Contrary to the wishful thinking of evolutionists, the first man was not some stooped, dimwitted, grunting hominid, separated from his ape-like ancestors by a genetic mutation or two. The Bible portrays Adam as being essentially different from the animal world, because he had been created 'in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27).

This term refers primarily to man's God-consciousness—his capacity for worshipping and loving God, his ability to understand and choose between right and wrong, and his capacity for holiness.10

A secondary meaning includes such things as man's mental powers, reason, and capacity for articulate, grammatical, symbolic speech. In Adam, before sin, these capacities may have dwarfed anything we know today.

God in His omniscience would have foreknown the rise of humanistic naturalism in the twentieth century. This episode, way back in the Garden of Eden, highlights for those who have an eye to see it, the false and unbiblical nature of the evolutionary theory of human origins!
UNQUOTE

"In Adam, before sin, these capacities may have dwarfed anything we know today."

The typical Golden Times of Mythology!

QUOTE
Was Adam equal to the task?

We learn language by association, but Adam, from the moment he was created, had language. Therefore he (and then Eve) must have already had built in 'programs' in their memory banks, so that when God said, 'Don't …' (Genesis 2:17), they immediately knew exactly what this meant. It seems that they must also have known what it would mean to die, even though they had never seen anything dead.

It is therefore reasonable for us to conclude that, at the 'naming parade', Adam could speak a precise language, using one or two words in place of a long description, just as our one word 'elephant' refers to 'a large, big-eared, trunk-nosed, tusked quadruped'.

It also means that he did not need to ponder each decision. His naming of each different kind of animal could therefore have been both quick and appropriate, and also without confusion, for he would have had the capacity to recall the names he already had allocated with a pre-Fall memory that was crystal clear and voluminous.
UNQUOTE

More 'Law of Fives' rationalizing - including just making more things up out of nothing to explain away problems, caused by making up previous things! 'Leaps of Faith' - with no need to 'prove/document' anything said! No deduction, no induction, but 'abduction' - ie Fantasy!

"separated from his ape-like ancestors by a genetic mutation or two"

Ah - so the Creationists can now insist they are smarter than The
Other People ! :-)

Poetry, perhaps Art, but NOT a 'branch of Science'!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 08:37 PM

Where can I find some Loose Christians? - They can give me all their property and I will let them live rent free till May .... OK it's a gamble and I may be wrong ....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 08:45 PM

I have no time for the creationist part of the discussion, as it has been beaten to death and I feel debunked to death.

However, I am curious how this YEC claim gets around the ample evidence (geological and other) that the world, the solar system and the Universe) is very old and that it is only 6,000 years young? I am certainly not a proponent of this claim, but was, and still am, curious as to how the claim proponents gets around this really big barrier, for it to be considered reasonable by anyone (including those who want it to be true).

Kent, How can it be so?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 09:21 PM

"how this YEC claim gets around the ample evidence (geological and other) that the world, the solar system and the Universe) is very old and that it is only 6,000 years young"

Ed - it's all to do with Einsteinian Time Dilation. Unless you just ignore that claims of 'older than 6,000'

After all

2 Peter 3:8 New International Version
"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. "

Don't ask me, mate, I'm not a believer in this stuff... after all, it's 'beyond all human understanding'....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 09:39 PM

I appreciate the thoughtful posts above. There are some attempts to disprove my supposed claim that YEC is scientific. I think YEC is TRUE, but I have made no claim that it is SCIENTIFIC. The scientific method is the best method I know to investigate continuing phenomena, but it is not the only fount of truth.   Experiments are great for telling us what happenS, but they are lousy at telling us what happenED.

If we were to place 1,000 ex-Marines in 1,000 warehouses along 1,000 parade routes, could we thereby discover whether Oswald killed President Kennedy? Of course not. We could, of course, determine what happenS when ex-Marines are in warehouses along parade routes, but we can never (by this method) determine what happened in Oswald's particular case. Both AEN and YEC have the same problem is this regard. One cannot experimentally create a universe.   We can certainly search for evidence of the Big Bang, but we also can search for evidence of the creation of light on the first day. Cosmic background radiation has been considered evidence of each.

Below are are some more beliefs which are common to most Ancient Earth Naturalists (AEN). Following them is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) response to those beliefs which, I hope, will further explain this point.

8. An organism that is more fit to survive is more likely to survive, especially if "fit" is defined as "more likely to survive".

9. An organism that is more fit to reproduce is more likely to reproduce, especially if "fit" is defined as "more likely to reproduce".

10. The descendents of an organism tend to resemble that organism.

11. Though the descendents of an organism tend to resemble that organism, they are not identical to it.

12. Because the descendents of an organism are not identical to it, populations which share a common ancestor may diverge from their common ancestor, and may diverge from other populations.

13. The differences between populations which share a common ancestor tend to increase as the number of generations from the common ancestor increases.

14. The differences between populations which share a common ancestor tend to increase as reproductive selection increases. In other words, in a population, the degree of divergence from the common ancestor is inversely related to the proportion of successfully reproducing organisms in the population.

15. In a population, the traits of the organisms with the greatest reproductive success will tend to increase, and the traits of those with the lowest reproductive success will tend to decrease.

Young Earth Creationists agree with all the above. This is what they are talking about when they refer to "microevolution". There is plenty of evidence that microevolution is happening all around us. Darwin did not discover these principles. Robert Bakewell (1725-1795) was systematically applying them to agriculture before Darwin was born. As you may know, Genesis 30:31-43 is an account of how Laban tried to use these principles to cheat his son-in-law Jacob, and of how Jacob used the same principles, along with some miraculously induced mutations, to prevail. (Please don't get "hung up" on the miraculously induced mutations. Whether you believe THEY occurred or not is beside the point. The point is that, at the time Genesis was written, the principles listed above were understood.)   What Darwin did was to suggest that these principles could, given enough time, transform a single population into both daffodils and donkeys (i.e., "macroevolution"). Young Earth Creationists are divided about whether or not this COULD happen (given enough time). The more important question, perhaps, is whether it DID happen.   The ideal way to determine that would be with an eyewitness. Obviously, that is exactly what the Torah, the Koran, and the Gospels claim that we have, a divine eyewitness. You certainly don't have to accept that claim, but that is the claim. Science can help us look for evidence for or against that claim but, ultimately, the question of what happenED is a question of history, not a question of science.

Kent
____________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 09:58 PM

QUOTE
8. An organism that is more fit to survive is more likely to survive, especially if "fit" is defined as "more likely to survive".

9. An organism that is more fit to reproduce is more likely to reproduce, especially if "fit" is defined as "more likely to reproduce".
UNQUOTE

In Formal Logic, this is called 'circular reasoning' and Real Science avoids this, when it is detected. Also falls under 'Law of Fives', because what is to be proved is defined as existing at the start.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:01 PM

QUOTE
What Darwin did was to suggest that these principles could, given enough time, transform a single population into both daffodils and donkeys
UNQUOTE

Bzzzt!

This is NOT what 'Darwin did'! He said that one organism could, over time, evolve into many differing descendants - remember the finches? They originated from outside the area from a single species, and changed on each island.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:03 PM

"One cannot experimentally create a universe."

You obviously do not understand what scientists do with their mathematical universe creation models.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:04 PM

Penny S and Smokey,

I appreciate your comments. Smokey, I've been regretting using the term "straw man" all day. I am truly sorry I used it because it could have been taken as implying dishonesty on your part. That was not my intention at all. That is not what I think. What I should have said is this: "I've got my hands full explaining what Young Earth Creationists actually think. I can't also take time to explain what they might think, but don't really think. They don't think that the universe was created Monday. If you know anyone who thinks it was, ask him about it. I know no one who thinks that. I don't think it. It is not consistent with what I think and hope I know about God."

Penny S, I respectfully disagree that a "backstory" in someone's creation raises a question of honesty. As long as the creator makes it clear when the "artifact" and the "idea" begin to coincide, the creator is being honest. When MOBY DICK begins, Captain Ahab has already lost his leg. Is this dishonest? Did honesty require that, before MOBY DICK was written, Herman Mellville should first have written DUDE, WHERE"S MY LEG?

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:04 PM

"The scientific method is the best method I know to investigate continuing phenomena, but it is not the only fount of truth."

The problem with this statement is that you use two opposedly different meanings of the word 'truth' as if they were the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:30 PM

Foolstroupe,

I admire and appreciate your contribution to many threads, especially those related to science. I wonder if perhaps your irritation with me caused you to respond a bit hastily. I know perfectly well that the reasoning in items 8 and 9 is circular. It is, of course, a tautology. That is precisely the point. The point is that it is not the concept of "survival of the fittest" which differentiates YEC from Darwinism; "survival of the fittest" is merely a tautology, a truth that is true by definition.

Similarly, that all organisms, daffodils and donkeys, clams and cows, mushrooms and men, derive from a single population is precisely what Darwin did claim. I know you know that. Perhaps the word "single" threw you. Sorry if it did. Obviously, the single population would have to eventually divide for speciation to occur. But it was, Darwin said, originally a single population and, indeed, ultimately a single ancestor, from which we all descend. That, in his view, was the "origin of the species".

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 10:59 PM

I appreciate your comments. Smokey, I've been regretting using the term "straw man" all day. I am truly sorry I used it because it could have been taken as implying dishonesty on your part. That was not my intention at all. That is not what I think. What I should have said is this: "I've got my hands full explaining what Young Earth Creationists actually think. I can't also take time to explain what they might think, but don't really think. They don't think that the universe was created Monday. If you know anyone who thinks it was, ask him about it. I know no one who thinks that. I don't think it. It is not consistent with what I think and hope I know about God."

With respect, I didn't say it for you to use as a straw man either; we both know that no-one thinks that, and that it doesn't matter. I'm trying to ascertain why you believe the universe was created 6000 years ago, when it apparently could have happened at any time under the conditions you describe. If our understanding of fossils or carbon dating, for example, can be illusory, then so can our understanding of the Bible and its history.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 11:32 PM

Kent
I'm not irritated with you.

When one is presenting 'matters of faith', then one should be clear about what is assumed at the start, what one can deduce from those assumptions, and what is just 'magically' dragged in 'holus bolus' - sadly many 'matters of faith' are an incredible jumble of confusing and contradictory statements, and include many logical fallacies.... :-)

Inserting a tautology in a chain of logical reasoning is effectively a 'null step', and thus meaningless, cause it adds nothing to any 'proof'. If you (or whosoever's views you are presenting - you don't have 'to believe' - I did debating societies for some time!) want it as one of the 'starting assumptions', then it should clearly be represented as such, not mixed in with other concepts.

And if it is a 'starting assumption', then it cannot be a tautology (by definition!)...

"You can't just post this stuff and expect no-one to try to refute it"

Yep ...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 11:45 PM

"trying to ascertain why you believe"

In 'matters of faith' WHY WE BELIEVE is totally irrelevant, for we have already been told all that we ever need to know, and that there is nothing new to ever find out, so we never need to change our mind. It is only science, which says that if we look and use our senses, we will find out new things, which will often cause us to change our minds.

There were two schools of Ancient Greek philosophy - one said that the gods told us what we needed to know and that we should not question, and the other said that we should use only our sense to investigate the world around us and ignore what any gods were supposed to have 'revealed. The followers of one philosophy sentenced to death followers of the other, guess which of the two paths in the paragraph above is which?

Kent, I have no intention or desire to try to get you to change your mind (or insult or belittle you) - it is only you who can do that, and only if you undergo a 'Road to Damascus' style mental change - or as some may call it a 'mental breakdown', and start building up a new and different way of thinking.

I do appreciate you trying to lay out the philosophy. I don't need to to agree, unless you plan to kill me for not agreeing.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 05:10 AM

"Single population" is misleading and will get evolution scientists bristling. Better to stick to "common ancestor."

14. The differences between populations which share a common ancestor tend to increase as reproductive selection increases. In other words, in a population, the degree of divergence from the common ancestor is inversely related to the proportion of successfully reproducing organisms in the population.

Your second sentence is a non-sequitur, not "in other words." Also, it isn't a corrrect assertion. It's nothing to do with what proportion of the population is reproducing. It's to do with natural selection acting differentially on heritable traits, some of which will increase because of their advantages to the population. The rapidity of divergence may depend on changes in the environment or the appearance of advantageous factors by mutation (which itself may have environmental causes). In addition, generation times will have a huge effect on the rapidity of divergence as well. Fruit flies have a huge advantage over elephants in this regard, for example. Incidentally, I don't know what "reproductive selection" is supposed to mean. Something's getting garbled here.   

15. In a population, the traits of the organisms with the greatest reproductive success will tend to increase, and the traits of those with the lowest reproductive success will tend to decrease.

This is off-beam. Traits which confer advantages will increase over time because they confer advantages, not because of relative rates of reproductive success (whatever that is). Darwin was at pains to point out that natural selection acts on heritable traits within a species and not on individual organisms, still less between species.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 07:06 AM

Well Pete, I was addressing Kent's posts rather than your own, but since you so kindly addressed your last post to me I'll respond.

"so the literal creator is not nice penny?well the god you posit presumably;uses deep time and death and suffering over aeons to get things going?
he dont look very pretty either.
and it dont add up theologically either .cf other thread"

I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm not positing any god, but no god. The aeons of death and suffering you refer to are actually replete with the the wonder and diversity of life, not some parade of death, in my opinion. It's the natural cycle of the universe and not controlled by some omnipotent creator - to suggest the universe is the work of one being trivialises the wonder and simply incredible nature of where and how we live.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: theleveller
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:24 AM

Before creationists and religious fundamentalists begin to spout theories about the creation of the world, they should go back and look at the creation of the Bible on which they base their ideas. How and why was this illogical and disparate medley of writings put together in the first place and peddled as the word of god in a single volume? What was the original editorial policy that included some writings and consigned others to the Apocrypha? How much has it changed by copying and translation errors and amendments for political and theological reasons over the millennia (assuming they believe it to be millennia old)? Why is it any more 'the truth' than the Koran or other religious tomes?

I could, for example, claim with equal justification that the writings of J R R Tolkein are the word of god and put together a convincing and closely argued theory of creation based upon them. Quite simply, in these matters, you pays your money and takes you choice of source material to believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 09:48 AM

I just want to see if I have got one bit of this "theory".

The stuff that we can measure to be n million years old, by using pretty consistent things like radio-carbon decay, are not proof that the earth is older than that, because they were made by a divine being merely 6 thousand years ago, and faked up to measure n million years old.

Do the YECHs believe that?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 10:59 AM

I know a "reformed" Christian fundamentalist who expressed a measure of pride that he believed that the fossil record may well be older than 6,000 years.

baby steps baby steps.

When a fool is in for a penny, he will go in for a pound.   People who have a linear mind tend to feel that if any one part of the gospel is contested, the whole gospel is challenged.
From my POV I respect the cafeteria christians who can pick and choose.

Today in Pakistan if anyone should question a single part of ISlam they are considered enemies of Islam and are legally exeduted under the BLASPHEMY laws.
In fact a sectarian Govenor of Pakistan was murdered this week under the Islamic blaspheny laws. The wave of fear and executions will sweep across Pakistan with more horror and tradgedy than the cultural revolution in China.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 12:53 PM

It is fear that causes such things to happen. Fear is, in my opinion, the greatest enemy of both life and truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 01:03 PM

how the claim proponents gets around this really big barrier

Easy! Ignorance, denial, delusion & general fuckwitism. Imbeciles can perform these wonders on a regular basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 01:50 PM

Richard ~~ Remember Philip Gosse, whose son Edward Gosse wrote the famous turn of C19-20 memoir of their relationship "Father & Son". He was a Plymouth Brother and zoologist, who sincerely postulated the age of the world as about 6,000 years, and explained ancient fossils as having been placed there by God at the Creation for the express purpose of tempting the unrighteous to blasphemy.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 03:50 PM

steve-one of your co atheists kindly made a link on another thread listing creationist scientists.did you miss it?

richard-no christian that i know thinks God faked anything to look millenias old.as i understand it, recent things are sometimes dated as ancient.

jack-apologies for unclear post.pt 2 was meant for penny.

foolestroupe-    article re adam naming animals was response to doubt that there would be time/ability to do so on one day.i do not think it was intended as a scientific piece as such.but pick a branch of science.i think you will find something on that site on the subject,though you would probably disagree.

leveller-jewish scribes were very meticulous, and dead sea scrolls of old testament were very similar ,i understand.
we have many NT ms with very little significant variations

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 03:58 PM

claim with equal justification that the writings of J R R Tolkein are the word of god

CRIKEY!! You mean they're NOT???

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:09 PM

"...recent things are sometimes dated as ancient."

If you understand what radio-carbon dating is, and how it works, you cannot rationally go on to believe that false or faked dating of any significant magnitude can occur.
The "Iceman" found in Austria lived about 5300 years ago, and he was nowhere near the Biblical lands.

Woolley Mammoths have been found in ice that were dated to 35,000 years ago. This was not faked, nor was it bad science. The decay of certain carbon atoms simply happens at a fixed rate, and if certain conditions are met, can be dated very accurately. To disagree with this 'because' you already have the 'authority' of counting vaguely described generations in Genesis is simply closing the mind to sound evidence.

You are free to assert that "God started it and planned it this way", but you cannot rationally assert that "it has all happened in only 6000 years or so."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:09 PM

Fortunately, Greg, we have all been relieved of having to grapple with that particular issue, due to the simple fact that Tolkien himself never asserted in any way that his writings were the Word of God.

Why do I have to TELL you these things? ;-)

****

pete - Would you be willing to consider the possibility that Adam was a symbolic figure, an archetype, not a literal figure, and that he serves as a symbol of the early beginnings of the human race...or at least of some part of the human race, such as the tribes in the ancient Middle East?

Why not? There are such symbolic founding figures in many religions. The Amerindians had legends about similar symbolic figures who started off their race, or who taught them to grow corn, etc, and it's quite clear that they are all archetypes, and that the stories are not literally about a single person. They are parables intended to describe a very lengthy natural event in simple, dramatic terms that people living a simple, natural life can easily relate to.

Surely it is the same type of thing with the story of Adam and Eve? At least, I would think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:14 PM

Sorry there, LH, but for that matter God never asserted that the writings that comprise "The Bible" were His words, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:19 PM

No, Greg, but a whole bunch of people did, including the authors. And there are statements within the Bible claiming that it is God's word, just as there are in the Koran. There is no statement within Tolkien's books that makes such a claim.

Whether "God" herself has ever said anything about it is a matter of opinion and anecdote...therefore unverifiable. I like to think she is modest enough not to make such claims. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:40 PM

"And there are statements within the Bible claiming that it is God's word"

There are statements within the Bible stating that Jesus is God's Word, and most of the references are to this assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:43 PM

I don't know who wrote the Bible, I wasn't there. Everything I know about who wrote it is hearsay, and is not admissable in the Mudcat court.

"And, dat be dat" (Quote by Little Kim).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:45 PM

As to whether the Bible claims to be the "Word of God":

There are numerous instances in the Old Testament where it is stated that "the word of God came to" one individual or another, "saying" whatever immediately follows. So far as the Bible itself defining the word of God, there is the explicit New Testament
claim that Jesus is the Word of God. The author of Revelation set forth that "book" as word for word inspired by God, in that he warned against altering any bit of it for fear of the wrath of God. The general fundamentalist interpretation has been that, since those are the last words of the Bible, that warning, and that implication, holds for the entire Bible. But John had no way to suspect that what he wrote would, long afterward, be placed at the end of the Bible or any other compendium.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 04:48 PM

(I was composing while Dave M.posted)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 07:45 PM

Er - hang on Pete. Your idea is that the things are not more than 6,000 years old so radio carbon dating is wrong? What is wrong about it? Radio carbon dating is error prone for things over 6,000 years old but accurate on the newer ones? Or the things are younger than their radio carbon date because your god made it so? Or is there a third option that I have missed? (Oh, I have it - you are a wind-up).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:21 PM

It's really very simple: ancient rocks are very old; so, if, 35 years ago, God made an ancient rock, it would be very old, and carbon dating would indicate that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:25 PM

I know I'm going to regret this but...

I get Kent Davis's point in his post of 03 Jan 11 - 11:06 PM that there is a distinction between the artifact and the idea but the trouble is, we are dealing with two different artifacts.

The first artifact is the bible. I'm not sure when this artifact was created, probably over quite a long time starting up to a thousand years BC through to 100 years AD. The "idea" starts (In the King James version) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.". There is no back story. No events are referred to before that moment of creation. The date of this event was calculated by Bishop Ussher in the seventeenth century to be 4004 BC purely from the chronology of the bible story without reference to anything in the real physical world that we inhabit. This is the origin of the idea that the world was created 6000 years ago. Whether the bible is the work of man or God I will leave to others.

The second artifact is the universe, within which the Earth, within which humankind. This is, if He exists, God's creation. Scientific observation suggests that it came into existence, by whatever means, about 13 billion years ago. There is no indication that anything of that magnitude happened in 4004 BC.

The implication of Kent's post is that the world was created 6000 years ago but made to look as if it had been created 13 billion years ago but that is not what the bible says. It says that it was created from nothing 6000 years ago.

Kent, would you care to explain a little further?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: BanjoRay
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 08:33 PM

It's really very simple: ancient rocks are very old; so, if, 35 years ago, God made an ancient rock, it would be very old, and carbon dating would indicate that.

So Thou shalt not bear false witness doesn't apply to God.....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 09:06 PM

So, could Bishop Ussher have gotten it wrong? If so, he would be out by quite a bit?