Why do YECs believe the universe is only about 6000 years old?

LiveFreeOrDie · Dec 3, 2002

Ugh. Hovind again. Before anyone swallows his snake oil, please read these:

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html

doone128 · Dec 3, 2002

Kent Hovind acknowledges these websites on the videos. Of course Evolutionists are trying to dis-credit him. We come from Monkeys remember!! (Or at least that's what all those 'clever' scientists tell us, so it must be right)

Watch the vids and judge for yourself.

Mechanical Bliss · Dec 3, 2002

Originally posted by doone128
Of course Evolutionists are trying to dis-credit him.

Of course Christians are trying to discredit evolution. Many seem to think of it as some sort of conspiracy to rid the world of Christianity when it actually does no such thing.

 We come from Monkeys remember!!

Strawman.

If this is actually what you think the theory of evolution teaches, then perhaps you need to look at it again and educate yourself on the topic. If you don't even know what the theory of evolution actually postulates and if you don't know what the evidence is, then it's hard to simply dismiss it.

Basically you dismiss it because people like Hovind tell you that Christians must not believe in evolution to be True Christians--not that you actually studied evolutionary biology and came to the conclusion on your own.

 (Or at least that's what all those 'clever' scientists tell us, so it must be right) 

Considering those "clever scientists" have a better education than you do on the subject, I'd be far more inclined to believe them than you or Hovind.

Secondly, if evolution is so obviously wrong and such a fantastic fairy tale, then WHY is it accepted as a valid scientific theory along with gravity, plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, etc.? Why would scientists promote something so obviously wrong? They have nothing to gain by lying. Perhaps you should examine the scientific method as well.

doone128 · Dec 3, 2002

Originally posted by Mechanical Bliss
Of course Christians are trying to discredit evolution. Many seem to think of it as some sort of conspiracy to rid the world of Christianity when it actually does no such thing.

Strawman.

If this is actually what you think the theory of evolution teaches, then perhaps you need to look at it again and educate yourself on the topic. If you don't even know what the theory of evolution actually postulates and if you don't know what the evidence is, then it's hard to simply dismiss it.

Basically you dismiss it because people like Hovind tell you that Christians must not believe in evolution to be True Christians--not that you actually studied evolutionary biology and came to the conclusion on your own.

Considering those "clever scientists" have a better education than you do on the subject, I'd be far more inclined to believe them than you or Hovind.

Secondly, if evolution is so obviously wrong and such a fantastic fairy tale, then WHY is it accepted as a valid scientific theory along with gravity, plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, etc.? Why would scientists promote something so obviously wrong? They have nothing to gain by lying. Perhaps you should examine the scientific method as well.

Evolution negates the need of God as we just evolved and were not created. That is what I call negating Christianity, wouldn't you?

For your information I am highly educated on the subject of evolution as I was taught it at school and studied it later in life. I believed it and fought the evolution corner as I didn't know what Christianity was about and I didn't want to know as I had been warned about these 'religious weirdo's'. However, I was lucky enough to find the truth earlier this year and I have not looked back since. I cannot believe the stuff that I was taught as fact, and I actually believed it.

As for the 'clever scientists' remark, you do not know my education and I would question ANY science which involves assumptions that cannot be observed or measured. I know evolutionary biology so don't even bother trying to make me look like an idiot on this forum, ok?

Evolution is not science. Science is something that we can observe and study and see around us. Maybe YOU should examine the scientific methods and the flawed assumptions made with this proposterous religion known as evolution.

There are no facts, only theories. People are desperate to find our origins, as long as it doesn't include God, as this would mean we have someone to answer to for our actions when we die.

In Christ.

Smilin · Dec 3, 2002

Originally posted by doone128
Kent Hovind acknowledges these websites on the videos. Of course Evolutionists are trying to dis-credit him. We come from Monkeys remember!! (Or at least that's what all those 'clever' scientists tell us, so it must be right)

Watch the vids and judge for yourself.

Evolution doesn't theorize we came from monkeys.  Study the theory before you ask us to study you're videos.

Scientist bashing huh doone?...you get that one free..next one...brace yourself.  Don't insult those who have studied, sacrificed, and worked very hard to make your life much easier.  Before you make another uneducated, insulting remark over what scientists state...I'd suggest you do your research on what science sais on the particular subject you're commenting on.. say...

Don't bother 'labeling' me either...at least not until you've read every single comment I've posted on evolution and religion.

Some of us don't fit 'neatly' into the labels so freely tossed around in here.

 

Caedmon · Dec 3, 2002

Originally posted by doone128
Evolution negates the need of God as we just evolved and were not created. That is what I call negating Christianity, wouldn't you?

In the Hebrew of Genesis, there are two words for "spirit". The first is used in the creation of all life. The second is used with man. It is quite possible to take the interpretation that man was an animal that had a human soul breathed into it once it had reached the desired level of advancement.

There are no facts, only theories. People are desperate to find our origins, as long as it doesn't include God, as this would mean we have someone to answer to for our actions when we die.

I'll have to disagree with you. I know many devout Christians that view evolution as a plausible theory. And notice I said "theory", not fact.

Smilin · Dec 3, 2002

Originally posted by doone128
Evolution negates the need of God as we just evolved and were not created. That is what I call negating Christianity, wouldn't you?

Evolutionary theory doesn't address religion.  Why do you claim the Creator and evolution do not or cannot coexist?

Originally posted by doone128

For your information I am highly educated on the subject of evolution as I was taught it at school and studied it later in life. I believed it and fought the evolution corner as I didn't know what Christianity was about and I didn't want to know as I had been warned about these 'religious weirdo's'. However, I was lucky enough to find the truth earlier this year and I have not looked back since. I cannot believe the stuff that I was taught as fact, and I actually believed it.

Care to elaborate for us?  What were you taught, what do you consider to be the truth..and what part of evolutionary science do you not believe? and what courses have you studied?  (your teachers/professors failed to educate you)

Originally posted by doone128

As for the 'clever scientists' remark, you do not know my education and I would question ANY science which involves assumptions that cannot be observed or measured. I know evolutionary biology so don't even bother trying to make me look like an idiot on this forum, ok?

You're actually stating that plant/animal evolution can't be observed or measured?... Am I reading you right...is this your stance?

Originally posted by doone128

Evolution is not science. Science is something that we can observe and study and see around us. Maybe YOU should examine the scientific methods and the flawed assumptions made with this proposterous religion known as evolution.

ahhh...I answered my own question..you ARE stating that evolution isn't science and can't be studied or observed... Alrighty then..explain the following:

1. Drug/chemical Resistant strains of bacteria, algae, etc.(Selective Reduction?)

2. Hybrid Speciation...(most of the fruit you eat, or the bushes and landscaping in your yard are results of this)

3.  New breeds of cattle, horses, cats, dogs...(selective reproduction)

Now...still want to stand by your claim that Evolution isn't science and can't be observed?

Originally posted by doone128
I know evolutionary biology so don't even bother trying to make me look like an idiot on this forum, ok?

You don't know as much as you're claiming...that's obvious.  As far as making you look like an idiot..noone here's trying to do that...you're succeeding very well on your own.

Regards,

Smilin

Mechanical Bliss · Dec 3, 2002

Originally posted by doone128
Evolution negates the need of God as we just evolved and were not created. That is what I call negating Christianity, wouldn't you?

Uh, no, I wouldn't. Considering the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life itself, but rather the origin of diverse species, the door is left wide open for those who need to believe in God to do so.

Furthermore, science doesn't strive to "negate" Christianity. It strives to discover the truth--whether it conflicts with your religion or not. Your religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

For your information I am highly educated on the subject of evolution as I was taught it at school

Click to expand...

Secondary schooling or an actual university education on evolutionary biology? There is a large difference.

 and studied it later in life.

Click to expand...

It seems like your idea of studying it later in life means watching Hovind's videos and having him tell you what to think in order for your religious beliefs to remain intact.

As for the 'clever scientists' remark, you do not know my education and I would question ANY science which involves assumptions that cannot be observed or measured.

Click to expand...

Evolution is the change in genetic material over generations and has been observed and measured.

I know evolutionary biology so don't even bother trying to make me look like an idiot on this forum, ok?

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't I if you've made no effort to explain your educational background and just claim to know it all and then turn around and say evolution states we come from monkeys when it makes no such claim?

proposterous religion known as evolution.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but evolution's not a dogmatic religion. This has already been debated and settled on this forum.

There are no facts, only theories.

Click to expand...

A scientific theory is composed of facts. That's what a scientific theory is.

It is a FACT that genetic material changes in populations over time. It is a FACT that the geologic record is stratified according to the complexity of organisms over time (this is merely one prediction that the theory of evolution makes that is true). The theory of evolution BEST explains the evidence. It is not a proveable fact, but neither is plate tectonics. However, those theories are the BEST explanations of the FACTUAL evidence. That is how science works.

People are desperate to find our origins, as long as it doesn't include God, as this would mean we have someone to answer to for our actions when we die.

In Christ.

Click to expand...

Here we go again with the conspiracy of scientists to overthrow religion...

Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with the origin of life and wasn't constructed as a device to exclude God. God is not even in the realm of science in the first place. Furthermore, the argument that people just don't want to be held accountable and responsible is getting old. Quite frankly I see atheists dealing with the consequences of actions within their lifetimes rather than counting on some supernatural being to do it for them.

Smilin · Dec 3, 2002

To add to the discussion...

The only ones guilty of bringing God into science...are the 'YEC movement' group.

True science deals with observations. Granted, scientists study religous beliefs associated with different cultures...but strictly from a 'fact finding' point of view.

Sinai · Dec 3, 2002

Uh, folks.....

Although I am enjoying this discussion, I would still like to find out why young earth creationists believe the universe is only about 6000 years old......

Homie · Dec 5, 2002

There are no facts, only theories. People are desperate to find our origins, as long as it doesn't include God, as this would mean we have someone to answer to for our actions when we die.

This is so true. I am not saying that most scientists go out of their way to dismiss God (although some do), what I'm saying is that evolution won't be replaced in the text books before another more plausible theory that excludes God is made. Until then, evolution will be taught as absolute truth in schools and society overall.

The funny thing is that evolution doesn't exclude God, it actually describes the world as a place where God constantly changes life. Let me explain: You have all seen those posters (they probably showed you in school) where it shows maybe 10 pictures of an animal gradually changing into another. They say that evolution is a gradual process that takes millions of years. At the same time they claim that it is mutations and natural selection that breeds new species. If it is just random mutation that creates new species how can it be a gradual process? The transformation would happen in one generation, it should be called revolution. If it is just random mutation, then why would a being need to change from state A-B-C-D-E-F-G instead of just from A-G (like picture A, B, C etc...on an evolution poster). This gradual process is either false, and the theory should then be called revolution, or correct which means that someone/something (dare I say God) is changing the species gradually, as it is portraited as a planned, logical (sentient executed, although they prefere to say 'nature' did so instead of God) transormation from one creature to another.

Either the gradual process is wrong, then it should be called revolution.

Or it is correct - And then you cannot deny 'nature's' (God's) part in this sentient planned transformation.

Please refrain from using the "you don't have a university diploma so therefore we cannot discuss evolution with you" argument.

Douglaangu · Dec 5, 2002

Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.

"Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years."

Well how ****ing scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?

"That's right."

Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?

"Uh-huh."

Dinosaurs.

You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the ****ing Bible at some point.

"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big ****ing lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.

"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat ****ing families and their fat dollar bills.

"And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."
-Bill Hicks

notto · Dec 5, 2002

Homie,

Your description completely leaves out the natural selection component of evolution which is anything but random.

This is what cause the gradual changes. A small random mutation leads to better fitness and reproductive survivability. This small change is passed on to more individuals in the next generation. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

This "survival" of the fittest also leads to the observation that each step is a better fit for the environment in which they live but does not require an intelligence to create the change. We don't see the results of the failures (bad mutations), because they don't survive long.

These small changes are no mystery and this cycle can be observed. This is a God of the Gaps argument that has been closed.

sandyb · Dec 5, 2002

Where can this cycle be observed? Please give us some examples.

In reference to the question about dinosaurs, there are animals in the Bible such as the behemoth which have all the characteristics of dinosaurs. In addition to that, carbon dating of dinosaur bones has on several occasions found them to be only thousands of years old, not millions at the guesswork in looking at their position in the geological column would have us believe.

lithium. · Dec 5, 2002

Where did you hear there is fossils of dinosaurs that's only1000's or years old. People will always say science and scientific finding are wrong cause it goes against there beliefs.

notto · Dec 5, 2002

Originally posted by sandyb
Where can this cycle be observed? Please give us some examples.

One of the more interesting examples that shows how a small genetic difference can increase survivability in response to an animals environment and cause a change in the structure of a population in future generations. The tone of the article is a little misleading because the elephants don't "decide to lose their tusks. A random genetic difference caused that. It just becomes a fact that elephants without tusks survive better in an environment that includes poachers.

What makes this particularly interesting is that an elephants "tusks" were most likely the result of a similar genetic difference. The mutation that allows for tusks would have caused the animals that had it to be better fit for survival in an environment that required digging for food and water and fighting for territory and mates. As generations passed, the tusks became larger and larger.

Now that the environment has changed, tusks are a threat to survival and the elephants without tusks are better fit for survival, therefore, more elephants without tusks survive to breed and increase the occurance of the tuskless elephants in the population as they pass the trait on to future generations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/180301.stm

World: Africa Elephants 'ditch tusks' to survive

Elephants are beating the ivory poachers, but at a high price

An increasing number of elephants have no tusks, according to a survey.

Research at the Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda, showed that 15% of female elephants and 9% of males in the park were born without tusks.

In 1930 the figure for both male and female elephants was only 1%.

Genetic accident
Elephants appear to be losing their tusks
Experts say the reason why some elephants are tuskless is a result of a chance genetic mutation.

They say elephants are losing their tusks as a rapid and effective evolutionary response to escape slaughter by ruthless and resourceful poachers who kill elephants for their ivory trophies.

The BBC's Science Correspondent, John Newell, says the continuing change shows how rapidly evolution can react in response to pressures that threaten the survival of a species.

This allows them to live, breed more freely and produce more offspring without tusks.

Growing trend
Evidence of a trend in tuskless elephants has been reported elsewhere.

Mark and Delia Owens recorded an unusual number of such elephants in 1997 while carrying out research in Zambia's North Luangwa National Park.

Published on the National Wildlife Federation's Website, they write: "Our research indicates that more than 38% of Luangwa elephants carry no tusks.

"Other researchers have reported that in natural, unstressed populations, only 2% of the animals are tuskless."

Crippled creatures
Tuskless elephants are paying a heavy price for survival.

Tusks are used to dig for food and water, to dig up trees and branches and move them around, for self defence and for sexual display.

Conservationists say an elephant without tusks is a crippled elephant.

They say that while being tuskless is better than being dead, they hope that less drastic ways can be found to protect elephants against poachers.

notto · Dec 5, 2002

Originally posted by sandyb
Where can this cycle be observed? Please give us some examples.

Another example:
As populations are affected by AIDS, there survivability will be determined by the presence and increasing dominance of a specific genetic difference based on getting two recessive genes.

http://www.hivnewsline.com/issues/Vol2Issue5/newsline2.html
Genetic mutation appears to confer immunity to HIV
Evidence suggests that 1 in 100 is completely immune, and 1 in 5 is resistant to disease progression

" In a report published several weeks ago in Science, an N.C.I. team headed by Dr. Stephen J. OBrien announced the discovery of a mutant gene, CKR5, that appears to confer complete immunity to HIV infection in roughly 1 individual in 100, and confers resistance to disease progression in 1 in every 5 infected individuals. The surprisingly high incidence of partial resistance could explain why some individuals survive for many years with active infection. "

sandyb · Dec 5, 2002

The elephants story is interesting, though I don't regard variations within a species as 'evolution'. They are still elephants genetically. Even if I were to accept that, this is simplification of an animal, not an advancement but a recession. How can more complex things develop through things getting simpler?

I do not appear to be able to post links yet as I am too new a user, but there were unfossilized bones found in Alaska in 1961 (jnl. of paleantology, vol 61 no.6, 1886-7, pgs 198-200)

lithium. · Dec 5, 2002

The elephants story is interesting, though I don't regard variations within a species as 'evolution'.

Then you do not know what evolution is. The Woolly Mammoth used to look almost like an elephant, but it isn't a elephant.

ifriit · Dec 5, 2002

sandyb: The elephants story is interesting, though I don't regard variations within a species as 'evolution'.

Then you're arguing against something which doesn't correspond to the scientific term "evolution."  Evolutionary theory explains why such variations arise.

sandyb: They are still elephants genetically.

So?

sandyb: Even if I were to accept that, this is simplification of an animal, not an advancement but a recession. How can more complex things develop through things getting simpler?

The problem here is how you determine such things as "simplification" and "recession."  As far as I can tell, these are arbitrary assignments you've made, since I do not see this as a simplification nor as a recession.  Further, how do you determine complexity vs. simplicity?

sandyb: I do not appear to be able to post links yet as I am too new a user, but there were unfossilized bones found in Alaska in 1961 (jnl. of paleantology, vol 61 no.6, 1886-7, pgs 198-200)

Okay.  So, that was over a hundred years ago--how much scrutiny did these unfossilized bones withstand?  Were they proven to be dinosaur bones?  How did they make this determination?

Also, I hope these are the bones you were talking about carbon dating, since you can't carbon date dinosaur bone fossils.

Why do YECs believe the universe is only about 6000 years old?

Science Officer

Member

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Member

Spirit of the Wolf

kawaii

Spirit of the Wolf

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Spirit of the Wolf

Well-Known Member

Gods servant

Dance Commander

Legend

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

PRABOB!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency