Ask a Young Earth Creationist.

[Elrohir]

Sorry to jump in here, but I have a quick question:

Read 1 Timothy 2:11-12


Do you believe that women should not question their husbands then? Do you believe that women are not aloud to teach the word of God? What do you think about Angela Merkel?

What does that have to do with YEC? Don't you think Classical Hero has enough questions to answer when (if) he get's back, without adding off-topic questions to the pile?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

What does that have to do with YEC? Don't you think Classical Hero has enough questions to answer when (if) he get's back, without adding off-topic questions to the pile?

because if he says the reason creationism is true is because we should follow the bible word for word, then he should believe that women should be treated like that.

 

[LucyDuke]

Unfortunately I have been busy at work and now I am sick. I will try and get to answer as many question as soon as possible, but things have conspired against me so far. That is what happens living in this fallen world we live in. I wish I could do better, sorry about that.

Ah, okay, cool. It was reality keeping you away. Without knowing that, one could guess you were chased away by the onslaught. No need to apologize for being a real live human being rather than a basement-dwelling internet-addicted automaton.

 

[Harbourboy]

Did we ever get an answer to the question of how Noah managed to fit all of the world's thousands of animal species onto one boat? And just what did the lions eat during that time?

 

[classical_hero]

How are you going to find time to answer all these questions?

This is the toughest question. That is the main reason that I do not post in the Creation/evolution, since means that I have lots of time on hand to get into the debates. Which is why such the great delay in replying to this thread, which I do try to get as often as I can. It takes a great deal of time to intelligently research the answers so that I am giving a good answer, rather than a faulty answer. This does not come to me by chance.

How do you explain, without evolution, the fact that our antibiotics don't work as well as they used to?

When was that ice age?

1. Sigh. Do you know that they have found antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria in samples of bacteria discovered before the advent of antibiotics?
Superbugs, not super after all.

So here is the summary of that article by a Creationist MD who himself was under attack from a superbug.
"1. ‘Supergerms’ are actually not ‘super’ at all. They are generally less hardy, and less fit to survive outside of the special conditions in hospitals.

2. There are many instances in which germs become resistant by simple selection of resistance which already existed (including that ‘imported’ from other bacteria).

3. Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the survival advantage is almost always caused by a loss of information. In no case is there any evidence of an information-adding, ‘uphill’ change.

4. ‘Supergerms’ give no evidence to sustain the claim that living things evolved from simple to complex, by adding information progressively over millions of years."
2. Considering the catastrophic conditions after the flood it would not have been much later than a few hundred years after the flood, but to give an exact date is impossible.

Hey, could you explain what you mean by 'information loss'? And that all mutations result in it? Why are the examples of DNA being added via mutation ignored when we use it to protest the concept?

The problem that you have is getting mutations that add new information, not just simply duplicating thing, such as the Hox Gene.
Hox (homeobox) Genes—Evolution’s Saviour?
This is from a non creationist, BTW.
‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’ (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167–177).

This is not a very good thing to happen and yet I have seen so many times that this very gene is used as an example of why evolution is true. So are you guys saying that having monstrosities is a good thing? This actually helps the creationist cause because it shows that even though there is additional info (but not new info) that is causes problems rather than makes the creature better. Also you need to remember that extra information does not mean that thing will be more functional. I could repeat the word "spam" until I reach the word limit for a post and yet I have added extra information to the post but it is does not increase the function of the post and it is a such a bad post that the moderators will rightly warn me for spam, since I am just wasting their time. Increasing information really does not cut as you need to increase the amount of new information and there has been no example of new information being increased. And that is the whole issue, getting the additional information to be totally different from what they had before and meaning that the information be useful. So far we have not seen enough sample to make the genetic leaps between the various creatures to make evolutions possible. Getting millions of example would be needed to make evolution even remotely possible.

1.) Do you keep an open mind and accept that you might be wrong, or are your beliefs set in stone?

2.) Do you read the entire Bible as literal truth, or only parts?

1. Are your beliefs set in stone, or do they change when ever new information comes to light?

Generally my view is based upon what the Bible says because there have been so many cases in the scientific community where they have been plain wrong on a certain issue often because they just do not have all the available facts and as a result as something new come to light that will destroy the previous scientific views of the day. Also there have been case of outright fraud in trying to prove evolution, by some people who are so zealous for their beliefs that they will do almost anything to prove it to be true. Often as a result that much of the latest news on this issue has to be filtered to see what exactly was found and often what is hailed has a major breakthrough is absolutely nothing when you see through all the hype.

2. No one does believe the Bible is literal. You have to interpret according to the method it is written. No one would every read a book of poetry literally. AN example is from the 23rd Psalm. "The LORD is my shepherd." So if someone would you take that literally that would mean that The LORD is literally a shepherd, but clearly that is not the case. Clearly the author was using a picture to explain who God protects his people. The best way to describe my position that I take the Bible a a factual presentation of the history of the world, right from the beginning to the end of the world.

There are these general ways of how the Bible is written. It is either done in Poetry, Prophecy, Parables, Letters, (Auto)Biographies, or Historical documents. So we look at each passage of scripture and see if they fit into any of these categories and that is how we interpret scripture.

Were you raised this way?

I was generally raise to believe the Bible to be true. It is only when I got older that I have become a very strong YEC. I think I am one of the strongest at my church, but that is mainly due to the fact that I have gone into greater depth than the average person at the church.

So you interperate the Bible very literal? Strange cause I see the Bible as more of a collection of Epics, Stories, Poems, and Teachings. Not something to back up with science itself. I myself only take the Creation account as a poetic story and expand the time span in Millions or Billions of years, knowing God's time is way different than our time.

If your interperatation of the Bible is only a 1000 years in a time span, how do you explain Dinosaurs, Prehistoric life, and Prehistoric Man?

Have you given to any consideration that the Old Testament, espeicaly with the Creation stories found in Genesis could be an amalgamation from other Creation stories from the Mesopotamia region? Since I myself cant see the Bible as accurate as what it says when it contains Epics from the Mesopotamia region, Zoroastrianism, and Jewish Epics.


Since Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution can co-exist with science. How do you feel Young Earth Creationism is compatible with Science?


So you reject the scientific method despite that the radiological testings have been shown to be accurate?

1. See above as I explained that we believe the Bible as being factual. If you have bothered to read the you will not see any form of poetic language as all. Do you see any passages that makes comparison to one another with the usage of the word "like" to show out those difference? FI you can show one reading from the first two chapters that reads like a poem them I would like to see it, because I do not see any poetry in the creation account. Also from a simple reading of the creation account you can only ever get a time period of seven days in total. It is impossible to get a vast period of time in the Genesis account. It even says that each day (the Hebrew word is "Yom", and there are absolutely no occurrences in the Bible where it can mean more than a 24 hour period, but I have discussed this fact many times and I am not going to go over old ground again, especially with the sample people I have done the explaining to before,) and after each day just to make it perfectly clear it even adds this phrase, "morning and evening", which clearly means a 24 hour period, no ifs and buts.

2. i have already explained that in a previous post and a s such I will not go over old ground. Look at the bit after the third El_Mach quote in that post for my answer to that question.

3. IF you compare the accounts of the various creation accounts and flood accounts you will see that the Genesis accounts are the more realistic of the lot and do not delve into fantastic and often impossible details. An example if the differing shapes of the arks. In the Genesis account we have a large oblong box and yet when we compare the most famous flood account outside of the Genesis account and we get a ship that is shaped like a cube. Now tell me, which is the better shape for a ship?

4 and 5. For some scientific evidence for a young earth see this post.

PLEASE! Can we get a SINGLE peer-reviewed piece on any of this?

Are you refering to a secular journal?

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem that you have is getting mutations that add new information, not just simply duplicating thing, such as the Hox Gene.

Thanks. I think that your viewpoint on this topic is rather skewed from my viewpoint, and that explains why you have difficulty with the topic. It seems that the idea of a non-used buffer (with which to contain 'useless' additional information) that is then mutated into usefulness is not considered.

However, I don't know if I have a better understanding of what you mean when you say 'information', sadly. If a mutation adds nonsensical DNA without an adverse affect, is this considered 'adding information'? If nonsensical DNA mutates to provide a service to the organism, is this considered 'adding information'?

And please consider extolling on your idea that a boat brought anacondas and ocelots to South America; I've never heard this idea before your input. Do you think Noah sailed around, dropping off all the animals? Was it someone assigned by him? I really don't know what your theory is.

 

[Perfection]

Organisms getting more information:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

And again:
So, what's with all them galaxies we see billions of lightyears away?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

IF you compare the accounts of the various creation accounts and flood accounts you will see that the Genesis accounts are the more realistic of the lot and do not delve into fantastic and often impossible details.

Ummm... I'd say fitting two of every animal on the planet onto a manmade structure + feed for forty days is pretty damn impossible. I don't think we could do that with modern technology. I don't even think you could get all the insects let alone the land mammals. Just two elephants + feed for forty days would be a miracle with such tech as they had.

And what of plants? Plants can't survive a month completely submerged in water. How about freshwater fish which DIE when exposed to a salt water environment. Why are there freshwater lakes if all the world was flooded wouldn't there be salt content in them? Do you know what happens to an animal if its population is reduced to two?

Why didn't the Egyptians hear about the flood? The Indians? The Chinese? How come only cultures that rose up around the middle east took note of this world wide flood?

I could go on and on because the flood is the most scientifically ludicrous thing espoused by any modern religion.

How much biology have you taken?

Are you refering to a secular journal?

Unless there is a peer reviewed religious journal which applies the scientific method, yes. Give us a shred of evidence not from a clearly biased source and we might start taking the topic seriously. As is, all your information comes from people who start with the assumption that creation is true and have a vested interest in proving these assumptions. This extreme bias makes all of it highly suspicious. Peer review is the process used by modern scientists to eliminate bias by exposing research to the rest of the community.

 

[GenMarshall]

I dont buy into this YEC nonsense .

See above as I explained that we believe the Bible as being factual.

To me, it's a falicy to believe the entire Bible as being factual without questioning it. Have you ever question the validity of the Bible?

If you have bothered to read the you will not see any form of poetic language as all. FI you can show one reading from the first two chapters that reads like a poem them I would like to see it, because I do not see any poetry in the creation account.

I however see it as poetry and not of an actual account.

Also from a simple reading of the creation account you can only ever get a time period of seven days in total. It is impossible to get a vast period of time in the Genesis account. It even says that each day (the Hebrew word is "Yom", and there are absolutely no occurrences in the Bible where it can mean more than a 24 hour period, but I have discussed this fact many times and I am not going to go over old ground again, especially with the sample people I have done the explaining to before,) and after each day just to make it perfectly clear it even adds this phrase, "morning and evening", which clearly means a 24 hour period, no ifs and buts.

So you believe the world was made in seven days? I'm sorry but I am going to have to disagree with you on that. On that note, how do you reconcile the fact that other Christian Denominations, especialy the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions state that the "day" in the bible refers to a long period of time ranging from Millions to Billions of years with scientific evidence that the Earth was around far longer than the YECs placed?

IF you compare the accounts of the various creation accounts and flood accounts you will see that the Genesis accounts are the more realistic of the lot and do not delve into fantastic and often impossible details. An example if the differing shapes of the arks. In the Genesis account we have a large oblong box and yet when we compare the most famous flood account outside of the Genesis account and we get a ship that is shaped like a cube. Now tell me, which is the better shape for a ship?

I would disagree, and I have taken comparative religions course to know that the Genesis accounts are not realistic but instead a conglomerate of flood stories of the Mesopotamian region. It does not matter if the ship is shaped like a cube or an oblong box. An oblong box would be a better shape for an ocean going vessel, but do we know that the people werent sweap away in some storm? I'm sorry but I just find the idea that the Genesis story to realistic to be silly IMO.

Also, can you back your sources up that is not linked to creationist sites and back your sources up with secular scientific journals? Personaly, I am very suspicious about sources comming from a YEC site since I place importance on Science and do question the validity of the Bible when scientific fact proves that the event in the Bible did not happened and create a new interpretation for that passage to be more inline with science.

 

[Fifty]

Simple question:

When you consider all the various debates you've gotten into with Carlos, Perf, TLC, etc., do you seriously think that you've won them? Seriously? Seriously?

 

[Kozmos]

I'm sorry hero but the speed of light pwns your little pedo Earth cult.

 

[ironduck]

This thread is getting similar to other creationism threads.

It would probably be more interesting if the creationists here could explain stuff about their perspective rather than just copypaste the same old things from the same old websites.

Questions such as:

Were you brought up believing this way?

Did they teach you this at school? Did you go to school?

Have you studied any physics/biology/geology etc? Do you think the creationist stories are compatible with what we learn in these fields?

Do you sometimes find flaws in the creationist explanations? If such, does that make you sceptical about their truthfulness?

Do you think your belief in your god would somehow be diminished if you found creationism to be wrong (if you got evidence that convinced you that the earth is several billion years old and that there was no global flood etc)?

I would love to have an actual chat with a creationist about stuff like the age of the earth and the global flood and all that, but I've found that to be impossible on these forums. So instead it would be nice to get more personal questions such as the above answered.

 

[Veritass]

If we can say that "The Lord is my shepherd..." is a metaphor, why can't we say that "On the first day..." is a metaphor? And the "global" flood is just a metaphor for a flood that affected "the known world"?

 

[Samson]

What do you understand the word evidence to mean? I ask because you seem to use it to refer to things I would not.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Classical Hero, what made you decide to become, or what made you realise you allready were, a Young Earth creationist?

(Sorry if this has been asked allready, must admit I didnt read the whole thread)

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Exrtraneous posts deleted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[the oob]

Classical_Hero: you may find this article interesting. Basically it's a computer simulation of evolution... instead of deliberately creating a program to perform a function, they encourage random programs to 'evolve' into what is wanted. Unlike with biological organisms, the process of macroevolution can take place in less than a human lifetime, so we can see the end result. So, at least in the field of computer science, macroevolution has already been demonstrated.

Where in nature survivability is the determinant of what prospers, in this case it's success at specific computational functions that does the same. In any event, it will be interesting to see evolution being used to create programs in future... in fact NASA has already used a similar process to create an efficient antenna.

Not trying to change anyones mind here btw, it's useless to try. The only thing I find more irrational than religious beliefs (yeah, I'm an atheist) is trying to talk people out of them. All I will say further, and this applies to everyone, is to be most sceptical of those beliefs you hold dearest. Personally, I deliberately take a pessimistic outlook on life to 'cancel out' the human tendency towards optimism.

 

[Stapel]

The most important one is that we defend the Bible's veracity right from the first word to the last. We believe that the first few chapters in the Bible are talking about history.

Apart from trying to debate this from various scientific issues, there is, imho, a more important questions:

-What makes you think the Bible has (100&#37 veracity from the first word to the last? Most modern day Christian scholars will defend that the first few Bible books are the result of many years of amendments and transscriptions, before they were written down as we know them in 2500BC or so. Do you disagree with that?

-Even we we assume, for the sake of arguement, that this world is indeed the result of the creation of the Biblical God, wouldn't you agree that the (first chapters of the) Bible is the work of human beings who have flaws? To me it appears as if the writers were:
-either not in touch with God at all, but genuinely believed they were
-either not in touch with God at all, but deliberately added God to gain some trust form their audience
-or actually were in touch with God, but failed to write down the words the way God meant it to be
What's your idea about it?

-How come that not one single non-Christian scientist think the world is about 6000-7000 years old? Like it or not, but most scientists do NOT seek evidence to prove either God or the Bible is wrong. They simply start research without even thinking about what the Bible makes of it. From a totally religious-neutral point of view, scientists come to the conclusion that the earth is old, not young.

 

[ybbor]

When talking about an ice-age:

2. Considering the catastrophic conditions after the flood it would not have been much later than a few hundred years after the flood, but to give an exact date is impossible.

That seems fairly important. How come the Bible makes no mention of it?

 

[Disenfrancised]

The problem that you have is getting mutations that add new information, not just simply duplicating thing, such as the Hox Gene.

Duplicating things is adding information, you have more pieces of information than before, even if some are identical.

Question: What is the creationist explanation for this

In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.

and this

Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO) but still present.

There are explanations for both these facts from an evolutionary, what is the argument from YEC? Does god hate us?