people, ignore young earth creationists

gamespotter10 · #1 20th August 2007, 07:16 PM

alright. I was recently engaged in an online debate with a young earth creationist, that venomfangx guy on youtube.
so, anyhow, you really got to ignore young earth creationists here's why.

I pointed out a flaw in the hydroplate theory of where the flood waters came from. anyhow, I said that the there coulden't be a hydroplate because the earth's crust doesn't float. he said "you're forgetting to add God to the equation".

so, basically, they wont accept scientific evidence because they can just say that any holes in their ideas can be solved by an omnipotent being who can do anything.

I think another problem with this guy is he believes that it takes the same amount of faith to believe in science as it does to believe in a god.

sad really

Loudmouth · #2 20th August 2007, 07:22 PM

Nothing like an ad hoc miracle to flesh out those supposed scientific explanations for the flood.

If you have to add in miracles then why have the hydroplate theory to begin with? Why not have God poof the water in, poof it out when he's done, poof all of the fossils in discreet strata, and then poof away all of the evidence for the flood? Bing, bang, boom, you have a new shiny creation science theory ready for high school classes across the world.

Pete Harcoff · #3 20th August 2007, 07:22 PM

Yeah, the ardent YECs simply fall back on three things:

1. "Flooddidit"
2. "Falldidit"
3. "Goddidit"

That's really all you need to be a creationist and from those three simple responses, you can make up any ol' thing you want.

However, don't worry. Creationism will likely never be anything more than a grass-roots religious movement (at least in this side of the world).

Nithavela · #4 20th August 2007, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

Nothing like an ad hoc miracle to flesh out those supposed scientific explanations for the flood.

If you have to add in miracles then why have the hydroplate theory to begin with? Why not have God poof the water in, poof it out when he's done, poof all of the fossils in discreet strata, and then poof away all of the evidence for the flood? Bing, bang, boom, you have a new shiny creation science theory ready for high school classes across the world.

You can't make a book out of that which you can sell to finance your 6th car.

On the other hand... they can. I'm still waiting for the creationists book that has goddidit from one cover to the other.

Dannager · #5 20th August 2007, 10:02 PM

Those who do not live by reason cannot be conquered by it.

ChordatesLegacy · #6 21st August 2007, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by gamespotter10

alright. I was recently engaged in an online debate with a young earth creationist, that venomfangx guy on youtube.
so, anyhow, you really got to ignore young earth creationists here's why.

I pointed out a flaw in the hydroplate theory of where the flood waters came from. anyhow, I said that the there coulden't be a hydroplate because the earth's crust doesn't float. he said "you're forgetting to add God to the equation".

so, basically, they wont accept scientific evidence because they can just say that any holes in their ideas can be solved by an omnipotent being who can do anything.

I think another problem with this guy is he believes that it takes the same amount of faith to believe in science as it does to believe in a god.

sad really

You are right the crust does not float on liquids, although it could be said to float on the mantle. This is because the mantle rocks are more dense that crustal rocks.

We know the crust does not float on water (or any other liquid) because of seismic waves. There are several kinds, but for analysis of the Earths deep interior we use two. Firstly primary waves (Pressure-waves), which can travel through solids and liquids, and secondly secondary waves (Shear-waves) which can only travel through solids.

P waves and S waves

Therefore we know the Earth is solid down to the outer core which is molten; beneath the outer core is the solid inner core of iron-nickel. There is defiantly no water beneath the crust in volumes that could supply the water for Noah’s flood. If such water did exist in would lower the solidus of the lower crust and upper mantle, resulting in extreme volcanism of an acidic nature.

Creationists just make things up to support their ridicules ideas. It just shows how indoctrinated with religion they are. Not to mention the fear they have for their own mortality. What’s even more ridicules is that these ignorant creatures thing they are the centre of the universe.

gamespotter10 · #7 21st August 2007, 05:38 AM

now, Im no theologian, but im pretty sure you're not supposed to take the bible literally. im pretty sure that when you read stories, you're supposed to find the deeper spiritual meaning. but hey, like I said, im no theologian

simpletrust · #8 21st August 2007, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by gamespotter10

alright. I was recently engaged in an online debate with a young earth creationist, that venomfangx guy on youtube.
so, anyhow, you really got to ignore young earth creationists here's why.

I pointed out a flaw in the hydroplate theory of where the flood waters came from. anyhow, I said that the there coulden't be a hydroplate because the earth's crust doesn't float. he said "you're forgetting to add God to the equation".

so, basically, they wont accept scientific evidence because they can just say that any holes in their ideas can be solved by an omnipotent being who can do anything.

I think another problem with this guy is he believes that it takes the same amount of faith to believe in science as it does to believe in a god.

sad really

Well, I'm no young creationist, but I do believe that it takes quite a lot of faith to believe in science. It would especially be so if you grew up in a society that promoted creationism and told you that anything that contradicts creationism is the "Devil talking". Suddenly deciding to go against that upbringing would take a HUGE step of faith into the arms of science.

Chalnoth · #9 21st August 2007, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by simpletrust

Well, I'm no young creationist, but I do believe that it takes quite a lot of faith to believe in science.

This is just plain wrong. Faith is anathema to science. Whenever a scientist has faith in any particular theory, that faith obstructs progress. So scientists work very, very hard to ensure that they only believe things to the degree that the evidence justifies (in their field, anyway: many scientists manage to be quite irrational in other areas of their life while still doing good science). Tentative conclusions based upon evidence are the exact opposite of faith.

atomweaver · #10 21st August 2007, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by simpletrust

Well, I'm no young creationist, but I do believe that it takes quite a lot of faith to believe in science.

As Chalnoth says, most of science can be learned (at least cursorily) by analogy to the simple exercise of "follow the bouncing ball". It doesn't take faith at all, but it does take hard work, and the application of some brain power, along with the occasional verification of lab results by repeating an experiment. Part of the beauty of what you learn in science is that anytime you've got doubts, you can always run the associated experiment yourself, and verify what is being told to you. In that sense, faith doesn't need to play a role, you can prove to yourself the truth of what you're being told.