I recently had an interesting discussion with a friend who is a young earth creationist.
She believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old. She also believes that Noah’s flood is responsible for several things about world geology. She also believes that oil is composed of the decayed remains of humans who lived before the flood and were wiped out in the flood.
I did some reading around the net (the usual suspects… wikipedia, it’s references, and a few others) and I’m really genuinely interested in understanding more about this set of beliefs.
I would like to hear from anyone who is a young earth creationist about these ideas.
I must admit, I am not a creationist. Honestly, I’m not looking for a debate about this, I just want to hear what young earth creationism, and particularly flood geology, teaches.
If you don’t feel you can post here please feel free to PM me.
i’d share my view on the matter but i’m affraid insulting people and cursing are not allowed here…
Basicly its a “war on science” started by religious freaks and fundamentalists and the fact that your friend believes that crap comes from the need to have both, science and “the biblical god” in her life.
Personally i feel very sorry for your friend because she’s the victim of child abuse and poor education; coming ofcourse from well intended parents who they themselves cant tell fact from fiction and dont have a rational and logical way of thinking.
It’s ofcourse religions’ fault for contaminating the human mind with superstition and blind faith in the face of authority. I believe its up to us to make sure that the next generation of children get a better education.
I feel that educating and raising children should be taken away from parents who hold any fundamentalist faith; otherwise they in term will pass on the virus to their children.
I don’t think I need to tell you just what I think of this or the person who wrote it. I don’t think I need to tell you that it would be less than polite. There are plenty of other people here who are capable of tearing this to shreds.
This is obviusoly a touchy subject; but for example all religious terrorism could have been avoided if those people got a good education; we as a civilisation should carefully distinguis what is and what is not child abuse.
Usually when you hear the notion of “child abuse” you think of sexually abused children or domestic violence. I believe wrong, imposed, education is just another form of child abuse. Parents want their children to continue their legacy and alot of times that legacy is “evil”.
Yes and no. I just know that it isn’t going to be very pleasant for you.
A good education and being secular bear no necessary connection - this is your presumption - what you mean is if they were indoctrinated with secular ideas rather than religious ideas that they’d be secular rather than religious. Firstly, this is self-evident and barely worth mentioning and secondly it proves nothing about the relative merits and demerits of the religious vs. secular beliefs and therefore doesn’t justify your ‘ethical’ conclusion.
Islamic fundamentalism, particularly in it’s terrorist formation, has been encouraged, funded and equipped by Western intelligence services including the CIA and MI5.
Yep, and I think that your beliefs on this subject are grossly contradictory and hypocritical.
You might. It’s your assumption that I do.
Yet you are in favour of force-educating secular propaganda into children and preventing the religious from procreating…
Why the fuck are you putting the word ‘evil’ in apologetic quotation marks? Do you mean evil, or do you mean “evil”?
‘in fact’ - oh right then, I’ll just go along with everything you say because you assure me that it’s ‘in fact’.
The order of letters in my name is not difficult to type…
Wow, like, some pictures of kids praying at school (I did that because my primary school was C of E but I’m not a religious maniac or a terrorist and I’ve never committed a violent crime in my life) then a bunch of kids talking about spreading the gospel (which to date has, in and of itself, never harmed anyone and much of it is ethically sound stuff if you ignore the metaphysical justification) then a kid saying ‘it doesn’t matter what nail polish you have, what shoes you have, what skateboard you have’ which is something I’d endorse wholly and I think the majority of intelligent people would too, and some rather tedious editing and a predictable soundtrack. Not something to get too worked up about, unless you are one of those religious atheists who seek to rid the world of religion because someone on a website told you that if you think like that then you’re an individual and a freethinker and rational and yadda yadda yabba dabba doo…
lol, indocrination is almost by definition religious… i’m sorry that doesnt make sense; how can you indocrinate someone to think in a rational manner ?
“grossly contradictory” and “hypocritical” have the same meaning;
And i don’t see how that is… please explain.
I got nothing against religious people having children; i’m not in favour of force-educating secular propaganda - i don’t see how you can “force” someone to have an open mind and think rationaly.
The only thing i do have against procreation is that the number of world population should be kept under control because as history shows, overpopulation ALWAYS leads to war once people are eating more than they are producing.
Well because sometimes even something considered good, is actually bad .
“Reevaluation of all values” - F. Nietzsche
I’m sorry i wasnt paying attention.
Remember now, those children have no ideea who Jesus is, they don’t understand what the notion of “god” means, they’re not tought anything else but religious crap.
Also as Richard Dawkins’ study shows children are biologically set, for very good evolutionary reasons, to believe everything their parents/adults tell them. There’s no way for a young child to protect himself/herself against lies.
If you tell a young child that he wont die if he jumped off a cliff he will believe you without questioning anything you say because there is simply no time for children to put everything they are tought to the test.
Hi Gemty. I hope all is well You said, â€I would like to hear from anyone who is a young earth creationist about these ideas.â€
A worldwide ecological catastrophe struck the earth thousands (not millions or billions) of years ago. It was a “water based†event resulting in, among other things, a vast fossil record, worldwide in scope, the existence of which would be impossible unless the fossilized specimens had been rapidly buried (often in sedimentary rock). Otherwise, natural oxidation and decomposition would have claimed the specimen long before it had the chance to fossilize.
The idea that the earth endured a worldwide catastrophe is not dismissed by others. But they insist that it was something other than a water based catastrophe that caused it; some claiming that it was an “asteroid†striking the earth that caused it (no proof, just guesswork and speculation believed by faith).
Tellingly, the vast fossil record has yet to produce the scores of “missing link†fossils that should naturally exist in the fossil record but doesn’t: so-called missing link creatures in the process of evolving, in the intermediate of stages, should be far more abundant in the fossil record than the source creature itself. Yet, not even a single example of a legitimate “missing link†fossil has surfaced ever since the dawn of Darwinian dogma over a century ago. Instead, species appear suddenly in the fossil record as separate and distinct. There is no so-called “gradual evolution†seen anywhere in the fossil record because it never happened and therefore doesn’t exist.
Darwinists have been insisting for over a century that scores of “missing link†fossils would surface in time. We are still waiting. After a century it is still: Nada! More sad is the historical chronology of Darwinist phony “missing link†paleontology which reads like a who’s who of Enron style accounting (i.e. Piltdown Man, etc). The earth is young. Your friend is right. passion
If you are believing Dawkins then I just can’t be bothered right now - the argument is beneath me. That may sound arrogant, but I’ve outlined this stuff time and time again, just check my post history in this forum.
hilarious mate… all you people ever do is try and fine little tiny holes in science which are yet to be filled… and you claim THOSE are the proof that what your little book tells you is true.
I pitty you because future generations will look back and laugh at all your theories… thats ofcourse supposing that religious fundamentalists dont put an end to human civilisation.
siatd… what can i say; well there’s nothing i can say, i’m just sitting here thinking of what to type.
I feel that you’re trying to keep an objective and skeptical view on all theories which i find wonderful and i salute you for doing that. However if that is a very healthy way to begin your life it comes a time when using your rationality and intellect you must choose, we need to keep the good theories and jettison the rest.
One of the things i look for when someone is trying to proove the validity of an argument or a theory is sincerity; yes it may sound strange but its very effective. Always ask yourself what does this person have to gain by trying to “convert” me to his/her point of view.
Dawkins has nothing to gain but a better world set out to investigate the world and explore the universe.
Religious clerics stand to lose: their jobs, their way of life, their sovereignty and their authority… + alot of other financial benefits.
Also you need to notice how the church has changed and shifted to better suit the population, to be able to survive.
First with Copernicus, then Darwin and now WITH THE CONDOM !!
Yes, the church (Vatican) accept that: the earth goes around the sun, they accept the FACT of evolution… and now after 100 years, 25 years after AIDS(people in Africa were dying everyday because their “new found” religion told them NOT to use condom because they were “sinfull”) which so far killed 25 million people.
Dawkins is a self-promoting egotistical moron. To say that he’s interested in making the world better when he seeks to use one set of beliefs to destroy another is a joke. He isn’t even worth discussing in detail, in my view.
Hi Carpathian. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your suggestions. You said, â€â€¦hilarious mate… all you people ever do is try and fine little tiny holes in science which are yet to be filled… “
I understand your point carpathian. But the lack of evidence by the Darwinists are not “little tiny holes yet to be filled.†Rather, it means utter doom for Darwin’s theories. Isn’t over one hundred years long enough for the Darwinists to have shown their evidentiary hand? Would you at least admit that Darwinism has been a preposterous failure even if you don’t believe in the “young earth†scenario?
â€â€¦and you claim THOSE are the proof that what your little book tells you is true.â€
These are simply the facts of the fossil record evidence Carpathian. The honest study of fossils is connected with science. The fake fossil hoaxes of history put forth by the Darwinists (i.e. Piltdown Man) is connected to the religious zeal of Darwinist disciples. There are scores of fossils everywhere across the globe (a fact that requires conditions that can only be explained through rapid burial in pressure and a water environment) yet not a single missing link has been discovered among them since Darwin unleashed his false religion on the world over one hundred years ago.
You said, â€â€¦I pitty you because future generations will look back and laugh at all your theories…â€
Well, for the time being the laughing would be better directed at the duplicitous cult of Darwin and its “missing link” theories. After one hundred years of opportunity, after seducing the hearts and minds of so many with it’s proof-less fantasy, and with its numerous trumped up fake and phony “discoveries,†the honest ones in academia are starting to pay attention to the facts of the scientific record which demonstrates that: the various species appear suddenly in the fossil record, separate and distinct, and that there is no so-called “gradual evolution†seen anywhere in the fossil record even after more than one hundred years of fossil study and exploration. The science is on our side carpathian. The religious dogma is on the Darwinist side.
You said, †…thats ofcourse supposing that religious fundamentalists dont put an end to human civilisation.
The religious fundamentalists that we need to be concerned about are the Darwinists. Many of Darwin’s disciples have a blind faith and zombie commitment to a “science†(so-called) without offering the kind of proof and evidence that real science demands. Worse, they continue in their false belief even after the fossil evidence flatly refutes their dogma. In other words, Darwinists believe by FAITH not by sight. Religion! Thank you again for your comments Carpathian. I appreciate your input. passion
passion,
thanks for your input, and my apologies for another in this thread that has tried to turn it into an attack on you.
I have a couple of questions about young earth creationism and creation science in general… apart from the specifics of the belief, why do you think mainstream science is so dismissive of these claims?
And, why do people feel they need science to prove the existence of god - you already believe, so why do you need science to back it up?
Thirdly, how do you see the relationship of science and evangilism - both in creation science and in non creation science?
Thanks for your opinions, I really do appreciate having someone to bounce these questions off of.
Hi Gemty. Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your comments. You said, â€â€¦thanks for your input, and my apologies for another in this thread that has tried to turn it into an attack on you.â€
Not at all Gemty. I’m thankful for the opportunity to exchange ideas with everyone. Dialogue is useful because from it we can learn, grow and heighten our understanding. John Stuart Mill believed in the full and unfettered exchange of ideas because none of us has a monopoly on truth (least of all me).
You said, â€â€¦apart from the specifics of the belief, why do you think mainstream science is so dismissive of these claims?â€
The intelligent scientists are becoming less dismissive of them as more and more evidence mounts against the Darwinists. Yet, too many scientists take a knee jerk reaction against anything “different” because they are indoctrinated themselves by other Darwinists. Also, in the real world most rank and file “scientists†could care less about fossils, evolution, or anything else beyond the struggles of their daily lives including: career pressures, meetings and deadlines, their students (if they are teachers which many of them are), paying bills, and putting braces on their kid’s teeth. Have you ever tried to have a conversation about weighty science with a scientist? Most of the rank and file scientists don’t know the difference between a sedimentary rock and an igneous rock.
And then, there is the “identity crisis†that goes along with a scientist having to admit that everything he has been taught by other Darwinists when he was at university was wrong, everything that he has taught to his students as a teacher was wrong, and the hassle and pressure of admiting that all of this “wisdom” he has obtained over a lifetime was all wrong. Jung might say they run the risk of developing an “inflated anima.”
You said, †And, why do people feel they need science to prove the existence of god - you already believe, so why do you need science to back it up?â€
A believer is not able to do anything to make another person believe in the existence of God (including themselves). Only God can cause a person to believe - to take the “leap of faith” commitment to truly believe.
As for myself, I do not dismiss Darwinism because I believe in God. Rather, I dismiss it because the scientific evidence of the fossil record refutes it: revealing that the Darwinist promise of “missing links†- tangible evidence of the theory - does not exist even after more than one hundred years of opportunity to produce it. The fossils that have been discovered (and there have been many) reveal everything that is opposite of what the Darwinists insisted would occur.
You said, â€Thirdly, how do you see the relationship of science and evangilism - both in creation science and in non creation science?â€
Ideally, each should compliment the other. This happens when scientists and teachers, theologians, evangelists, ethicists and philosophers bring wisdom and integrity through their respective fields. Unfortunatley, there are many dysfunctional burnouts operating in these areas and the truly enlightened ones are few and far between. In the end, a philosopher, teacher or believer can only “water†a tree, but only God alone can make that tree grow (or not) by His will. Thank you again Gemty. I do appreciate your input very much. passion
Creationism is not science, never was and it never will be. Its just a bunch of silly theories which appeal to you and all other religious people because it connects science and god. I’m sorry but thats just what it is.
Perhaps you could elaborate on how you’ve come to the conclusion that:
It’s just that I’ve heard so many different versions of the fossil stories (one of the reasons for my own scepticism about evolutionary theory, or aspects of it) and so I’d like to know if you’ve got a specific example or two of a prediction made or implied by Darwinism that was contradicted by a fossil discovery.
Gemty,
I imagine that one factor that we’ll look back on when we’re studying this historically (in a century or two, should we still be alive) is the ongoing politics of this struggle. You’ve got one group going so far as to try to get ID theory or Creationism or something between the two (as they are quite different, though people like Carpathian fail to understand this) onto science syllabuses and you’ve got another group trying to ban all talk of creationism from schools, even on religion syllabuses. I ever heard a wholly incompetent person on the radio objecting to the use of creationism on the science syllabus as an example of an old idea that evolution has superseded. To be honest, such an objection smacks of fundamentalism and thorough stupidity.
Carpathian,
That’s because you don’t see that to you ‘open minded’ and ‘rational’ mean ‘not religious’ and are therefore very limited and subjective. You have bought into the popular myth that being rational and being secular are necessarily related and that religion is somehow this old thing that we no longer need because we’ve got rationality and ‘open mindedness’.
That you would claim to be open-minded when you advocate the removal of children from religious families (i.e. most families) - one of the most fascistic policies I’ve heard in my time on ILP - is an absolute joke. If you can’t see the gross hypocrisy then it isn’t up to me to explain it in any more detail.
We produce more than enough food to feed the world’s population; the issue is fair distribution.
That’s like me saying ‘Categorical Imperative - Kant’ i.e. it is not an argument
This is entirely your own speculation - how the fuck can you tell from a brief clip what someone does or does not know or believe? Given that you are obviously not a Christian and therefore probably don’t know the first thing about Jesus, it is immensely arrogant (not to mention ‘narrow minded’) to start legislating on what other people may or may not believe.
Again, this is your own speculation for which you have no evidence. Some children are remarkably perceptive, far more so than their adult counterparts. I thought that you believed in evolution (sic)…
That you consider it ‘crap’ shows just how basic and immature your opinions on this topic are
This is, once again, your speculation for which you have no evidence
For someone who claims to be open-minded and rational you certainly have a massive fucking chip on your shoulder and an obvious intolerance for people who don’t believe the same things as you
The existence of ODD easily and simply refutes this claim. Dawkins is a moron.
Really, did you miss the point at which you lost the plot? No one can put EVERYTHING they hear to the test, child, adult, male, female, gipsy, Jew, gentile, atheist, whatever. So what? So we all take things to be true as a matter of faith because otherwise we’d live in perpetual fear and confusion. You’ve leapt from ‘a child can’t put everything to the test’ to ‘a child believes everything you tell it’. I know from my own experience (which is irrefutable) that this is not the case.
How very, very ironic that you’d say this to me given your own positions.
Hardly. I’m a fiction writer - the more stimulation and sources, the better. Cultural diversity (and this includes diversity of metaphysical belief like religion, science, foreign languages and so on) produces more stimulation.
You quoted Nietzsche above. I suggest that you actually bother to read him - he has some very interesting things to say about the status of science and he’s one of the greatest advocators of cultural diversity (though not quite in the late 20th century sense of liberal politics).
I’m not trying to be objective, I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of militant atheism.
How can you be so single-minded? Can you not see that Dawkins is subject to the same pressures of trying to maintain sovereignty, authority, financial security, way of life, reputation, respect, frequent media appearances and so on?
Likewise ‘truth’ ‘rationality’ ‘knowledge’ ‘science’ and so on.
Are you aware that most religious people in the world do not consider the Vatican an authority? Or, due to your cultural-political-geographical circumstances do you conceive of the Vatican as the apotheosis of ‘religion’? If so, then your claim to being rational and open minded is, once again, highly suspect.
Money makes the world go round - the Copernican astrology will last only as long as capitalism (I’m deadly serious)
For political reasons - they still believe and tell all their followers to believe that God created the universe and life in it
Wow, 25 million. So, about the same as the secular fundamentalist Stalin killed in his attempt to purge Russia of Christianity. Well, a few more I suppose, but who’s counting?
By all means criticise specific policies and beliefs of specific authorities, but don’t claim the moral high ground of ‘rationality and open mindedness’ unless you are CERTAIN that you’re justified in doing so. As I’ve demonstrated, that is far from being the case.
.