BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 05:09 PM

The Seven Stars is a pub just off the A20, just inside Greater London, where folk sing on a Monday. Including Pete.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 04:28 PM

"I challenge you to prove that He exists! If you can do that I promise not to be mean to you again!"

If I accept that challenge, will you promise not to be mean to me again? If so, I'll need a day or two to consider the proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 02:50 PM

pete, I've read your answer several times and I still don't really understand it (thanks to Paul Burke and Bill D for pointing out that it might have something to do with Pascal's Wager).

What I was getting at is, do you believe that humans are superior to the rest of Nature (note how I avoided the word 'Creation'!)? And do you, and your fellow creationists, believe that God has given us humans the right to destroy the other living things that we share this planet with? If your answer is "yes" - that's one of the main reasons why I am opposed to religion(s); if your answer is "no" what has your religion done to oppose the appalling destruction of biodiversity that is going on all around us?

And by the way, I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. As I've written many, many times it's not possible to prove that God does not exist because, logically, no-one can prove a negative. Therefore it is the RESPONSIBILITY of 'theists' to prove that God exists. If you believe in God so fervently, pete, I challenge you to prove that He exists! If you can do that I promise not to be mean to you again!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 02:17 PM

Paul Burke is exactly right. Pascal's wager only allows 4 possible situations.

Even IF there is a god, he may not be as all the different religions 'define' him...(if fact, how could he?) ...why, as the above mentioned Walter Kaufmann notes, he may reserve a special spot in Hell for those who go to mass!

Almost ALL religious positions make unwarranted assumptions about the basic truths, then adapt everything else to fit.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 01:26 PM

why would you want to believe God created you if there is a possibility that you are answerable to him.

I think what our somewhat hard-of-thinking friend is getting at is Pascal's wager. If you believe in God and there is a God you go to heaven; if there isn't you don't notice. Conversely, the unbeliever if right will not notice, whereas if wrong will face eternity in hell. Which works (for cowards) if there is only one possibility of the identity of God.

But if you spend your life pleasing the wrong god you are no better off than the atheist. So you spend your time in fear of Jesus or Ahura Mazda, and it turns out Allah was the boy all along. Or one of ten thousand others.

All in all, if you only have one life, and you waste it living in fear of a bogeyman, that's it, it's gone.

So an agnostic might reason that he's as well off living without the specific prescriptions of any one presumed deity, and hope that if a god actually exists he/ she/ it will be amenable to reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM

Pete,

I'm mystified, what is 'Seven Stars' - is it a pub?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 12:58 PM

atheists have to believe in evolutionism to deny a God and Creator
Not really, pete. It depends a certain amount what you mean by 'evolutionism', but there were plenty of athiests before Darwin, and indeed plenty of atheists today whose knowledge of Darwin's original proposal and its developments is more than a little shaky. If you simply mean not believing in a creator god or gods they need some other mechanism for how we came to be, then yes, I'd agree. But it is probably not a good idea to lump every other possibility than creationism under a single heading. And there's no logical reason why a person might not deny creationism and deny Darwin's theory [mind you, they would be rather an odd sort!]

i am aware that some christians claim to believe genesis and darwinism but i leave that to them to reconcile
But you are willing to regard them as Christians? I think that was Don's point. If I understand your phrase correctly, you are willing to accept them, but don't want to put words in your mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 12:11 PM

shimrod-i dont normally reply to you but as this seemed a civil enquiry ,i am.
i suppose there is no reason why you as an atheist[?]should be concerned that [rather if] you evolved from bacteria.why would you want to believe God created you if there is a possibility that you are answerable to him.
if you mean;why i think the YEC position is important,then it is what we read in the bible; which i believe is authoritative.dawkins commended darwin for making him "intellectually fulfilled atheist".
atheists have to believe in evolutionism to deny a God and Creator.
as a YEC i see darwinism as an ungodly philosophy that bolsters unbelief.
i am aware that some christians claim to believe genesis and darwinism but i leave that to them to reconcile.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 11:48 AM

Here is the one man who most influenced how I think today... everyone concerned with the issues in this thread might get some insight from this short article.

Walter Kaufmann

I heard him live at Washington U., in St. Louis, MO in 1959, bought his books, and modeled most of my philosophical studies on the attitude he infused me with.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 10:24 PM

"The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D. The Essenes are mentioned by Josephus and in a few other sources, but not in the New testament. The Essenes were a strict Torah observant, Messianic, apocalyptic, baptist, wilderness, new covenant Jewish sect. They were led by a priest they called the "Teacher of Righteousness," who was opposed and possibly killed by the establishment priesthood in Jerusalem."

From the www, and easily found with a Google of that paragraph.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 06:13 PM

I repeat the question I asked above:

"Do you believe that it is possible to question, doubt, or disbelieve some of the contents of the Bible and still be a Christian?

"If not, why not?"

So far, from Iona and pete, thundering silence.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 01:57 PM

What needs to be said, here, is that forcing young children to believe in Young Earth Creationism is a form of child abuse.

No one can live long enough in geologic time to observe the changing or the origin
of species firsthand. For this, we rely on scientific tools such as carbon dating,
tree rings and geological strata and the cross referencing of these tools without
relying on any one exclusively.

The bible has gone through so many changes starting with the copying of ignorant scribes to the Constantinian agenda of domination by newer authors and the appropriation of
wild interpretations by those who claim to know all about it.

None of the apostles wrote any of the so-called "books". If they existed, they would have
died before the inception of this tome. Even the "dead sea scrolls" make no mention of Jesus.

Conclusion: We are dealing with folklore and mythology.

I agree with Joseph Campbell, that the mythology of Christianity makes it a Pacifist
religion (The Sermon on the Mount). It has been appropriated by that scoundrel,
Augustine in his propagandistic "just wars" doctrine. The Crusades were a complete hi-jacking of the intent of early Christianity which I now call Cristia-insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 08:41 PM

By the way, on the idea that Christianity, which got it's start in the first century A.D., is "retroactive" to the creation of the earth and the Garden of Eden in 4004 B.C., I have a number of Jewish friends and acquaintances who would have some fairly tart things to say about that idea!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 07:26 PM

A serious question for Iona and pete. This question demands an answer.

There were sixty gospels altogether, including the Gospel of James, Jesus' brother. Yet only only four were included in the Bible.

There are Bible scholars, made up of clergy and laity of all denominations, who have gone through these excluded gospels and compared them with the included four. One of the products of this extensive study is that they have made up a general breakdown of the quotations of Jesus in the included Gospels and gave each quote one of four ratings:

Definitely said.
Probably said.
Probably did not say.
Definitely did not say.

I won't go into detail about how they came up with these ratings, but they discussed, argued, and debated each quote long and hard before they drew these conclusions. Partial criteria were, how closely did the Gospels, included and excluded, agree, and how consistent is a particular quotation with the general views that Jesus expressed?

So, Iona and pete, even your "red-letter editions" of the Bible leave a great deal to be desired when it comes to Jesus' teaching.

The Bible is a book of mythology. This does not mean that it is all lies and fluff. Far from it. Nor does it mean that some events described in the Bible did not actually happen, if not necessarily exactly as described.

Oftentimes mythology can tell you a great deal, and express great truths. In fact, that's what a myth is all about. But the mistake is in taking a myth as historical fact, which is what fundamentalists and Biblical literalists insist on doing—often obscuring the real truth that lies within the myth. By nit-picking over such things as the details of Noah's flood—where did the water come from, did it cover the whole earth, or was it just a very large local event, etc., you miss the whole point of what the myth is trying to impart.

Instead, you writhe and twist trying to make meteorological, oceanographic, geological, zoological, and ship-building impossibilities fit in order to prove the reality of a whole string of impossibilities.

The story of Noah's flood, the ark, and the animals is a myth. Or at the most, it was based on a local event that has subsequently been mythologized.

The process of evolution is an established fact. The only arguments about evolution (apart from the ones that Creationists make because they find it inconvenient) is in the nuts-and-bolts details of how certain specific things took place.

By the way, evolution is STILL going on!

Did it ever occur to you that evolution is the mechanism by which God did it?

But to cut to the chase:   I know people who are scientists and who have no doubts whatsoever about the size and age of the Cosmos, and the age of the solar system, including the earth, and who do not doubt evolution--AND who would merely shake their heads over the attempts to rationalize the details of the Noah's flood myth—who are regular, church-going Christians. I know Christian ministers, including a couple of bishops, who can give you chapter and verse on where the Bible obviously goes off the rails as a book of moral instruction, and who certainly don't look to it for accurate historical facts. Yes, Christians, including clergy.

Answer this question please:   Do you believe that it is possible to question, doubt, or disbelieve some of the contents of the Bible and still be a Christian?

If not, why not?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 05:03 PM

"the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem." (Louis Slichter, evolutionary scientist)

As you'll find if you look it up, Slichter's simplified model gave him an age for the moon of about one and a half billion years.

That's close enough to 6000 for me, I haven't got my calculator handy to check it accurately.

So here's the bottom line of this evolutionary assumption. You're trying to tell me that man lived for ninety hundred years doing nothing but scavenging for food?! It doesn't make sense. Doesn't it seem more likely that someone would go "hey, look--food, he grow from seed! Ogga, lookie!" (pardon the play-acting)-? I mean, NINETY HUNDRED years without knowledge of farming.

A farming expert too I see. Farming's not difficult is it? just round up the animals and keep them in one field, and grow asparagus and avocados in the other.

What's more, for EIGHT THOUSAND years after they started planting, they had no steel to make their ploughs with. Like, come on, you want this field to grow something? And you mess about with WOOD? Then another three thousand before they realise that they need tractors. As though Ugg woundn't have said "Why me dig pathetic hole in ground with stick? Me go hunt big green John Deere!"

And as if Adam wouldn't have said "You want me to live by the sweat of my brow? Well give us that flaming sword to cut some trees down with then!"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 12:44 PM

If I had any hair left I'd pull it out!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 07:42 AM

PS Penny - another good example of what a rational argument looks like. You keep leaving me nothing to do! (But I'm not complaining.)

I have to say Iona did somewhat better in style this time - far less Blytonesque than the first attempt. Unfortunately the substance is no better.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 07:30 AM


If you believe that AND you believe Genesis 8:4, then there's another contradiction - could you explain please?

Well, here's how I think it goes. "The world was flooded" - "But there's not enough water". "Oh. Then the earth must have been much smoother so there was enough water to go round." - "But then where did Mt Ararat come from?" "Oh. Then there must have been mountains raised AFTER the flood".

Otherwise known as 'making it up as you go along.'

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 06:57 AM

As a non creationist Christian (I believe the man and the message, but not the mythology), I have an image in my mind of Judgement Day, when people like Iona (willfully ignorant) and Pete(woefully misled) will face whatever God they believe in (there's probably only the one, but hey....?) and hear his judgement.

He will say ""I put you on this Earth with the advantages of both intelligence and free will. How then can you be so stupid as to believe that a concoction, BY MEN, of fable myth and legend driven by a desire to control others, could possibly be the inerrant expression of my will. How could you worship a God whose inerrant word was so full of contradiction, cruelty and vengeance, when the only direct instructions I gave were "Love one another" and "Go forth and multiply"?

I hope they have a very good answer ready.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 06:10 AM

it occurs to me that Iona and Pete may say what they wish, but by stating their views on evolution, they are actually proving it exists!

Here's my logic. Evolution infers by its very terminology that things evolve, rather than instantly occur. Well, bear with me, their stance proves it.

Many years ago, we were all superstitious and assigned anything we didn't understand to a God. Our brains have evolved to the stage where we don't need such tosh, but as it is an evolutionary process, some have evolved further than others. Hence Iona, Pete and many others, sadly.

In the words of the late, lamented, fully evolved Douglas Adams; "Keep banging those rocks together guys!"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 05:58 AM

"There's the silt on the sea floor, for instance. If the earth was millions of years old like you say, the silt on the ocean floor should be much, much thicker than it is, because of the rate it collects from rivers and such."

Brilliant - this gave me a belly laugh. If you think that the sedimentation of ocean basins is the result of the dumping of terrestrial sediment by rivers then you don't know what you're talking about. Go and learn.


Also, the earth's shape is round. If it were really millions of years old, and the moon were closer to it to begin with (as evolution requires), then the earth would be kind of oval--bent out of shape. But it's not!"

The earth is an oblate spheroid and not round at all. Pretty basic stuff you're getting wrong here. Again.

"Another question: If evolution is true, then when did man begin to keep a record of history? Evolutionists say that it was only 5,000 years ago."

You're getting confused between archeology and evolutionary biology, mixing your hopeless little arguments. This is really fucking simple stuff. I mean basic. Just say you reject all science, turn your computer off, unplug it and sacrifice a cow or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 05:24 AM

Here we go again. (I was guessing about where you live - obviously. But I still think you have a problem with the scale of the Earth.)

"Evidence from lack of minerals
There's the silt on the sea floor, for instance. If the earth was millions of years old like you say, the silt on the ocean floor should be much, much thicker than it is, because of the rate it collects from rivers and such."

I think I may have mentioned the age of ocean floors. They are young, the silt is not so thick as it would be if the oceans remained as they are over the age of the Earth. But they have not. Ocean floor spreading, which is observable in action, is the responsible mechanism for this. In fact, the depth of silt can be found to increase the further from the mid-ocean ridge the ocean floor is. River silt, BTW, tends to accumulate close to the continents, because when the fresh water hits the salt, the silt flocculates and drops quite quickly. You can test this out by stirring up some soil in a jar of water, making some salt solution separately and adding it to the soil mixture.

"Evidence from the presence of earth's magnetic field
The earth's magnetic field is deteriorating rapidly, and if the earth really is billions of years old, as Evolutionists claim, then there would be no magnetic field at all by now!"

I think I have also mentioned the frequent magnetic reversals, which involve deterioration of the magnetic field as at present, followed by a restoration with the north magnetic pole at the south, and vice versa. These can be confirmed by studying the rocks in such places as the Deccan Traps where there are multiple layers laid down over many years, but are also traceable in oceanic crust. (I posted a link to a map showing this.)

"Evidence from the earth and moon
The moon and the earth must be young or they could not exist today. The moon is gradually pulling away from the earth, but it also could never have been too close to the earth (the Roche limit). The present recession rate of the moon, multiplied by millions of years, would result in the moon being extremely farther from the earth than it really is. Also, the earth's shape is round. If it were really millions of years old, and the moon were closer to it to begin with (as evolution requires), then the earth would be kind of oval--bent out of shape. But it's not!
There are tons of different problems for evolutionists in this thing....in the words of one of them:
"the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem." (Louis Slichter, evolutionary scientist)"

First comment here - an evolutionary scientist, one assumes, is a biologist not an astrophysicist. Not since the 19th century has science been something that one person could know everything about. But is appears that this person was, in fact, a geophysicist and an expert in planetary physics. So is he an evolutionist, or simply someone who doesn't follow creationism?
His work on the Earth Moon system and the problems it poses was published in 1963, and has been dealt with since. Here's a heavy duty page on the issue, a tough read (and I already know a lot of it) but worth it because it directly addresses the creationist view. (You have not mentioned Barnes, 1982 as the source of your arguments. Is he? References to his work are given at the foot of the page, along with all the other resources. )

Earth Moon link

"Evidence from agriculture
Evolution says that man split from the apes about 3 to 8 million years ago. About a hundred thousand years ago, man was unable to farm. They hunted and gathered for their food, just like their primate cousins. Then, about ten thousand years ago man learned to plant seeds and farm (the latter claim is based on archeological evidence).

So here's the bottom line of this evolutionary assumption. You're trying to tell me that man lived for ninety hundred years doing nothing but scavenging for food?! It doesn't make sense. Doesn't it seem more likely that someone would go "hey, look--food, he grow from seed! Ogga, lookie!" (pardon the play-acting)-? I mean, NINETY HUNDRED years without knowledge of farming."

Oddly, there are still definitely human groups who manage by hunting and gathering - it isn't scavenging, it's foraging, and requires sophisticated knowledge of plants, their properties and their growth, as well as animals and their behaviour. Or they manage until the civilised agricultural groups destroy their territory. In addition, there are many animals who manage quite well without farming. Foraging lifestyles are a lot more relaxed than farming - especially for the men! Farming is hard work. It would take need to make the change, perhaps from climate changes or population pressure.

"Evidence from archaeology and historical documentation
Archaeology has found lots and lots of sites and show the intelligence of these early peoples. For example, they constructed huge monuments, drew amazing cave paintings, and kept records of lunar cycles (these are the people didn't know how to farm, remember. Instead of fitting with the rather disjointed evolutionary interpretation, it fits beautifully with the Bible, that man was smart from the start."

Interesting ideas here. I don't think anyone has ever suggested early people weren't smart. That is, if by early people you mean homo sapiens, and include neanderthals. (In fact, I think a lot of modern people know quite well that they don't have the ability to survive if they had to in the conditions that early people lived in.) BTW, there are arguments about the lunar cycle records and exactly what they record - there is an alternative in some cases. Back before them, all the other versions of humans that have been found in Africa did take a long time to develop. How do you explain them?

"Another question: If evolution is true, then when did man begin to keep a record of history? Evolutionists say that it was only 5,000 years ago. Does that sound logical to you? I mean, after all, if early man could do all these wonderful things like I listed a minute ago, then don't you think it'd occur to them to write it down?"

There are a variety of sources about the reaction of people to the development of writing. For instance, the Druids in Britain are reported as refusing ot use it. The reason being that the keepers of history believed, with what has turned out to be prescience, that the art of memory of the oral tradition would be lost. It is known, from recent studies in still oral societies (poetry in the Balkans, for example) that preliterate people can learn huge amounts of material and reproduce with without error. In ancient Greece, a poet could be expected to recite the whole of the Iliad and the Odyssey from memory, plus other matter which unfortunately did not make it into the written record. We have lost these skills. (Most people in the clubs I sing at now use sheets of paper to remind them of the words and chords!) (I use a PDA some of the time!)

Sadly, the development of writing had, at first, nothing to do with recording history, but everything to do with the tax office - possibly another reason for people to dislike it.

"Again....the facts fit the Biblical account."

Again, they don't.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM

the world didn't have huge mountains like we have today

Iona,

If you believe that AND you believe Genesis 8:4, then there's another contradiction - could you explain please?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 04:34 AM

The moon and the earth must be young or they could not exist today.


Eh??

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 04:07 AM

It really is a pain that since we live in different parts of the world your posts arrive when I'm at work, when I can't give them the attention they warrant. I will say your post is heavy on assertion and short on actual evidence, though. For example I don't know why a long time without farming strikes you as impossible or absurd. Why shouldn't it be so long? There are severe costs to farming, primarily the need to stay in one location [i.e. where the farm is] and that restricts your feeding opportunities from other sources [eg migrating animals] dramatically. Farming only becomes viable and cost-effective when the benefits outweight the disadvantages.   In fact we know of an example in very recent times [a vague memory puts it at 11c, but that might be wildly out, and isn't too crucial; I will look it up if you want]. A modern-style farming community set up on the cost of Iceland and pretty much sneered at the 'primitive' nomadic indiginous people. Come a series of hard winters, the farms were ruined, and all the incomers died whereas the nomadic people coped without any problems at all. Farming is not a wonderful thing in itself - it is a solution to a particular problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 03:52 AM

"What is your measurable evidence that the earth is young?"

Evidence from lack of minerals
There's the silt on the sea floor, for instance. If the earth was millions of years old like you say, the silt on the ocean floor should be much, much thicker than it is, because of the rate it collects from rivers and such.

Evidence from the presence of earth's magnetic field
The earth's magnetic field is deteriorating rapidly, and if the earth really is billions of years old, as Evolutionists claim, then there would be no magnetic field at all by now!

Evidence from the earth and moon
The moon and the earth must be young or they could not exist today. The moon is gradually pulling away from the earth, but it also could never have been too close to the earth (the Roche limit). The present recession rate of the moon, multiplied by millions of years, would result in the moon being extremely farther from the earth than it really is. Also, the earth's shape is round. If it were really millions of years old, and the moon were closer to it to begin with (as evolution requires), then the earth would be kind of oval--bent out of shape. But it's not!
There are tons of different problems for evolutionists in this thing....in the words of one of them:
"the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem." (Louis Slichter, evolutionary scientist)

(this is more of a side note), the term 'young earth' should be used by evolutionists; Because evolution says that the universe is older than the earth, so in comparison to the universe, the earth is 'young'. In Biblical history, the Bible was one of the very first things created ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", Genesis 1:1), so we should consider the earth to be the oldest creation in existence. So really, we have our terms backwards, but since 'young earth'=literal Bible history and 'old earth'=evolutionary worldview are general terms that people recognize as identifying the opposing worldviews, they can still be used, even if they aren't really consistent. :)

Evidence from agriculture
Evolution says that man split from the apes about 3 to 8 million years ago. About a hundred thousand years ago, man was unable to farm. They hunted and gathered for their food, just like their primate cousins. Then, about ten thousand years ago man learned to plant seeds and farm (the latter claim is based on archeological evidence).

So here's the bottom line of this evolutionary assumption. You're trying to tell me that man lived for ninety hundred years doing nothing but scavenging for food?! It doesn't make sense. Doesn't it seem more likely that someone would go "hey, look--food, he grow from seed! Ogga, lookie!" (pardon the play-acting)-? I mean, NINETY HUNDRED years without knowledge of farming.

Evidence from archaeology and historical documentation
Archaeology has found lots and lots of sites and show the intelligence of these early peoples. For example, they constructed huge monuments, drew amazing cave paintings, and kept records of lunar cycles (these are the people didn't know how to farm, remember. Instead of fitting with the rather disjointed evolutionary interpretation, it fits beautifully with the Bible, that man was smart from the start.
Another question: If evolution is true, then when did man begin to keep a record of history? Evolutionists say that it was only 5,000 years ago. Does that sound logical to you? I mean, after all, if early man could do all these wonderful things like I listed a minute ago, then don't you think it'd occur to them to write it down?

Again....the facts fit the Biblical account.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 03:50 AM

Ah, but the difference is you claimed you did know that the water came [in part] from the reserviors. The step from "Yes I know" to "Maybe I don't" is the important one.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 03:42 AM

DMcG:
The fact that I don't know every single detail of the flood doesn't mean that I don't have a good case for it. I don't have to know as much as God in order to know the truth of God's word! You wouldn't claim that you know every detail of evolution, do you?? ;)

Now, onto my next post.....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 03:24 AM

Iona, I may have been doing you a disservice: When you said 'Underwater reservoirs were most likely a factor, yes' I thought you were avoiding committing yourself. I suddenly realised you might be saying "I don't know" and that would be a real breakthrough. Is that it? Were you finally admitting that you don't know?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 05:31 PM

Oh, HORRORS!!

My great-grandparents on my father's side were Scottish!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 04:59 PM

I'm still puzzled as to why I, or anyone else, should be concerned about the fact that we are all evolved from 'simpler' life-forms ("pond scum" - or rather, as Paul Burke has pointed out, bacteria)?

To me it's no big deal - but it's obviously important to the creationists and, I suspect, lies close to the heart of the matter. I wonder if Iona and pete would care to explain?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 04:56 PM

I had to laugh at the relevance of some of this to that short thread "Dawkins criticized for ancestors's faults."

As pointed out in the thread, the whole story about Dawkins has been satirized:

"Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has been hit by fresh scandal today after it emerged his ancestors were single-celled organisms who metabolised sulphur.

New findings have shown that the outspoken atheist is the direct descendent of a primordial soup-dwelling thermophile – a particular variant of extremophile which clung to hydrothermic vents just 3.5 billion years ago.

Adam Lasher of the Telegraph said of the shock findings:

"This comes after I found out that someone in Dawkins' family did something three hundred years ago which we now consider bad – so these latest revelations finally put paid to the belief that Dawkins comes from an infinite line of human beings with an exclusively 21st-century moral code."

"That nobody has at any point ever held that belief is neither here nor there. All we really know is that this definitely proves that Dawkins is wrong about God".

To many it appears clear hypocrisy that Professor Dawkins – who has spent much of his career talking up the benefits of being a multi-cellular organism – is directly related to a single-cell organism.

It's not apparent at this time how Dawkin's justifies this relationship, beyond the dozen or so books he's written about the evolution of life."

You know... I think *I* might have some explaining to do... some of my own ancestors were pretty strange! ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 04:30 PM

I shall answer [Penny's] (biggest) post soon.

Unless you can reach a much higher standard, there's little point.   But one should always strive to do better. Take the advice I gave before and read up on 'Two Column Proofs" before composing your response.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 04:24 PM

Just curious, Iona... are you willing to give a brief summary of how you grew up and/or became Christian and came to these viewpoints?

(Somewhere back up there I mentioned my basic history and how it changed over the years.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 04:05 PM

Absolutely right, Don F. I said a lot of posts ago that the greatest commandment of Christ involves using your full mind. A lot of Christians try; they should not be judged by those who subbornly refuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 02:42 PM

Not to poke fun at the state, but I feel if your horizon is at the same level as you are, it could be hard to understand the size of things. Even if not, seeing the curvature of the Earth over water (see above re Dover and Calais, or any loch in the Great Glen)could give the impression that it is smaller than it actually is.

If you're speaking to me....I'm not from Texas, so you needn't worry. Where I live there is no horizon because there are too many trees! *grin* But since I've done a fair bit of traveling cross-country, I know just how big a horizon can be.......not that it applies in any way, shape or form to this debate!

I shall answer your (biggest) post soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 02:36 PM

"I think she's just making it up as she goes along!"

If someone has a non-negotiable belief...such as "the Earth was created wholesale less than 10,000 years ago, with people and animals much as they are today" they have little choice BUT to "make it up" in order to fit all the scientific facts they are confronted with into their pre-determined format!

One....more...time..

"From false premises, anything follows!"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 02:28 PM

Bulletin:

It is neither necessary nor mandatory to believe in Creationism, OR that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God, to be a good Christian.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 02:12 PM

""We see Texas rains--they can flood a place pretty fast. Multiply that by a hundred and you've got Noah's flood.

Not if you multiplied it by a hundred million Iona. You simply cannot extrapolate from an local event, however extreme, to the kind of global catastrophe you posit.

There simply isn't sufficient water over, on, or under the Earth's surface, and there never was.

The Earth, has from its first cooling, contained a constant quantity of water, which cycles and recycles from sea to atmosphere to land and back to sea.

There is no physical or chemical process which is currently producing extra water as an end product.

That process took place before the cooling of the planet and before the existence of any but the most basic beginnings of life, extremes of temperature and pressure producing results which could not and cannot take place without those conditions.

Supposing you were correct in your statement that water welled up from underground, then without its support that ground would collapse into the void. Result?..........same surface level with the water now on top, but plenty of land masses a boat might reach, aalways provided that the collapse was sufficiently gentle and gradual.

Nothing remotely like your flood though. That is a complete and utter physical impossibility.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 01:51 PM

I said I'd get back to you, Iona, in around 12 hours so this is it.

As I said, I think Penny has done a sterling job of producing a critique of your post, so to add anything to her comments would, I think just make things more confusing. There's plenty of things to get to grips with there and giving more would be more of a hinderance than a help.

In the interests of helping you state things more clearly, I did write a long scribe which would assist you in formulating your arguments better, but then I thought, why bother? But if you want to do so youself, I suggest you read about 'Two Column Proofs'.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 07:34 AM

GUEST,Shimrod

I think she's just making it up as she goes along!

Don't feel alone with that impression, mate!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 07:33 AM

Even if not, seeing the curvature of the Earth over water (see above re Dover and Calais, or any loch in the Great Glen)could give the impression that it is smaller than it actually is

While on that point, it's worth remember that any seafaring nation, and certainly the ancient Greeks, knew that boats 'disappeared over the horizon' quite slowly (boat first, mast last, for example) and the Greeks at least realised that meant the earth was not flat. In fact we know they had surprising good estimates for the size of the earth given they had such limited means of measuring it. So forget any of this nonsense about everyone believing the world to be flat ... where did that come from? Oh, yes, I'll treat myself to a cut'n'paste' from The history of the flat earth society

The modern age of the Flat Earth Society dates back to the early 1800s, when it was founded by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, an English inventor. Samuel Rowbotham's Flat Earth views were based largely on literal interpretation of Bible passages.


Now, who know's whether a site that purports to represent Flat Earthers is official or not? I certainly don't. But there's that literal interpreation of the bible rearing its head again ...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 06:27 AM

Thanks Shimrod and DMcG.

While hurrying to finish before going to the doctor (tiny ganglion on finger, feel guilty for bothering him) I missed the reference to Texas. I had made a private prediction to myself and placed Iona a bit further north, somewhere flattish with no beaches and geology largely buried and invisible. It's much easier to understand it in areas which have been the battleground of plates on several occasions and are still mobile, even if only slightly. Texas fits, though.

One of my geology lecturers told a story about Texan senses of scale, in which some Texan students were certain that their desert was the largest, and he had to cut out Texas from a map and put it over the Sahara on a map of the same scale.

Not to poke fun at the state, but I feel if your horizon is at the same level as you are, it could be hard to understand the size of things. Even if not, seeing the curvature of the Earth over water (see above re Dover and Calais, or any loch in the Great Glen)could give the impression that it is smaller than it actually is.

I think the arguments of Delugians have somehow traded a size scale along with the heaven-knows-its-hard-enough-to-get-a-grip-of geological time. The Earth has become less massive, and the energy involved in the turbulence of their projected interpretation has become far, far, less, so that a comparison with a localised flash flood can make sense.

Homer has a passage in the Iliad in which he describes Apollo destroying the Greek defence walls as a child wrecks the fort he has built on a beach. Along with casting an interesting light on the continuity of children's activities, it also, and I suspect is designed to, casts light on the expression on Apollo's face. I don't think Homer is entirely convinced about Apollo's status as worthy of worship.

And why am I diverting into pagan behaviour? What has Apollo to do with anything real? Because I believe that by building up an image of a god who wrecks everything he has made because of the misbehaviour of one very small group of creatures (and it was, at the time, very small) they are conjuring up someone who will repel many many people from belief in the real God. In some cases I have met, they have opposed evolution because it depends on death and predation. Ironic, really.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 05:37 AM

Quite right, Sugarfoot.

I don't expect to convince either Iona or Pete, though I have to say I find Pete a little more open to rationality in at least some areas. I'm not certain whether that makes him more or less dangerous in the sense of (4) though.

As I have said before, in so far as I have a goal, it is to make it obvious to third parties just how threadbare the creationist arguments are - they can't even be clear about what they believe as individuals, never mind as a group. For example, most recently we had, in response to the repeated direct question do you believe in these underground reservoirs we had 'Underwater reservoirs were most likely a factor, yes' Weasel words: were they are factor or were they not? If they were, where are they? If they were not, why did you say they were?

And Penny: an excellent summary. I could add more, and maybe will, but I see little point since your critique is so good.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 05:29 AM

They pour scorn on the combined work of millions of talented people who are genuinely interested in the truth.

That's exactly right, yet public religion gets a bye, thanks to the likes of Baroness Warsi et al., for insulting science and for insulting everyone who prefers to live by evidence and reason. When religion is questioned by genuine truth-seekers, they are branded aggressive secularists and waspish and militant atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 05:15 AM

Having been away for a week doing the sort of science that brings creationists out in hives, I've had some time to consider this thread. Here's what I've come up with:

1) You will not convince Iona or Pete.

2) Iona and Pete are either a) deluded, b) ignorant or c) wilfully ignorant (the worse one)

3) The creationist arguments presented here are strewn all over the internet. None are original.

4) People like Iona and Pete are positively dangerous, or worse. If that seems harsh, then consider the fact they would wilfully indoctrinate your children with their brand of superstitious bile to the exclusion of all others; in short they believe they are superior and everyone else is wrong. Full stop. They have no desire or will to accommodate any other belief system, they have no ability to accept other belief systems and accord them equal status. Apart from all other belief systems they also reject science (although they seem happy to use the products of the research they debunk), reason and presumably logic. They pour scorn on the combined work of millions of talented people who are genuinely interested in the truth. This is fanaticism and is inherently dangerous wherever it rears it's ugly head, by whatever religion.

5) The ills of the world will not be healed by any brand of divisive, ignorant and unmerciful religious fanaticism such as this. We need science to cure cancer and dementia, communicate and travel, understand and comprehend. Our moral and ethical codes are born of our common humanity, our connectedness with nature and our natural curiosity. We are the universe made conscious, contemplating itself - and that's a scientific fact no religion can top in terms on profundity or wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 05:12 AM

We see Texas rains--they can flood a place pretty fast. Multiply that by a hundred and you've got Noah's flood.
Wow! I hadn't appreciated you thought Noah's flood was so small! *smile* [And are there any Texas rains that flooded the whole of Texas in the last few hundred years?]

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 05:11 AM

Why are you all trying to explain this flood thing so painstakingly when we all know that God can do what he damn well likes anyway?





Dam well likes? Er...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 04:59 AM

Underwater reservoirs were most likely a factor, yes, but again, that was not the only source for the water. We see Texas rains--they can flood a place pretty fast. Multiply that by a hundred and you've got Noah's flood.

According to Creationist Literature which passed my way as a kid (and still holds some perverse fascination on me to this day) Pre-Flood Earth was a very different place: shallow seas, no mountains, one central land-mass and the earth contained within a thick sphere of liquid. Basically it was a steamy greenhouse - hot, humid, without rain; apparantly all this can be found in the Bible if you know where to look. When God brought the flood, He collapsed in the liquid sphere, flooding the entire planet and creating the seas we know today; after the flood, He tore apart the land-mass, sank the depths, raised up the mountains thus creating the more familiar landscapes pretty much overnight that Geologists insist are the product of billions of years of tectonic shift.

And what about the drogue stones of Noah's Ark that might still be seen in the Durupinar region?

I dare say all this is on-line if you've a mind to look for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 04:33 AM

A very full and eloquent answer to Iona's last (rather ...ahem! ... 'startling')post, Penny - if I may say so?

You wrote: "You either use the Bible as a source and stick to it, or you are doing what you accuse others of, and making special arguments."

I don't think she's making "special arguments" (that's being too kind) - I think she's just making it up as she goes along!