Why are there still Young-Earth creationists in the world?

[Debater Slayer]

You have to ignore the herd mentality, they believe they know everything.

They think that there is other life out there somewhere but are too stupid to be able to find it.

They think that science is so superior, but yet they cannot create life from nothing.

Not all people who accept science believe that there's life elsewhere in the universe. At the very least, I know I'm not certain about such an assumption due to the lack of definite evidence, even though I personally lean toward there being life on other planets.

Also, I honestly don't see how "accepting modern science is a more rational stance than rejecting it" logically leads to "we must be able to create life from nothing." Accepting modern science doesn't mean one has to view it as capable of achieving everything we can think of.

 

[InChrist]

Since no one at present was around in the beginning to observe how life began and how it continued one must come to a conclusion concerning the past by historical science rather than observational science. It does not matter whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist. The same type of science (historical) must be used by anyone. The difference in one's historical science occurs between evolutionists and creationists because of a foundational difference in one's worldview or initial premise. My foundational premise rests upon a belief in an eternal Creator God (who says He was there at the beginning) so my historical science is based on His revealed word concerning creation, life and a relatively young earth. Others have a foundational premise based on a belief in eternal matter so their historical science determines that all matter...creation, life, and the earth etc. is very old, taking billions and millions of years to evolve or get to what we have today.

Eternal God or eternal matter?

My belief is in an Eternal God and that is the reason I am a young earth creationist.

 

[outhouse]

You have to ignore the herd mentality, they believe they know everything..

NO and you kow that is not true.

I think you just have a hard time accepting the reality of the world you live in.


The difference is I have a open mind and I want to learn, I dont have the conclusion down pat first and try and fill in the blanks around it. Just the opposite, I enjoy adding new knowledge surrounding our reality.

They think that there is other life out there somewhere but are too stupid to be able to find it.

Isnt this rather ignorant?


There probably is life out there, but the sheer distance that is required and time restraints, make it more of a impossibility, then one of stupidity.

They think that science is so superior, but yet they cannot create life from nothing

It only took nature some 400,000 years to create life, yet certain theist expect us to create it in 5 minutes.


Science is superior to ignorance. Science is what will keep you alive the day you have your first heart attack or stroke. Science is what bought your parents a few more years so you could know them longer.

Science is what keeps you alive today so you can bad mouth those who understand the reality of science.



Love you brother. But sometimes it is better to place science before mythology.

 

[outhouse]

Is that not itself a closed minded opinion?

No its not.

When one shuts out the entire worlds knowledge, its sad, and a bit embarrassing with all the knowledge we have at our fingertips in this modern age.


For anyone to say colleges are all teaching stuff that isnt true, and higher education is all wrong, geology and scientist of every method are all incorrect. Dont you really tink they should be known as wrong?

 

[fantome profane]

.
My belief is in an Eternal God and that is the reason I am a young earth creationist.

non-sequitur

 

[fantome profane]

No, it says he was created a man. I would say if this is true, it would therefore be possible to create billions of year old rocks as well.

You are not the first person to bring up such an idea, but lets look at it for a moment. If we are going to consider the idea that Adam was created as an adult male we can imagine a very good reason for "God" doing this. Being the first human, there would have been no one to take care of an infant Adam.

But what possible reason could you come up with for "God" to create rocks with the appearance of being 4.5 billion years old? And why such a specific number? Why do all these different rocks have such a specific appearance of being 4.5 billion years old? It is not like young rocks would have needed somebody to take care of them like a infant Adam would. In fact nobody would be able to tell the difference between young rocks and rocks that are 4.5 billion years old (not until "six thousand years latter"). So why? Unless it was a deliberate attempt to deceive humanity.


If you hypothesis an omnipotent deity then literally anything is possible. It is possible that the entire universe is only 10 seconds old. But frankly I think this is nonsense. And the fact that you need to resort to this kind of nonsensical reasoning only illustrates how ridiculous young earth creationism is.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You have to ignore the herd mentality

Oh dear... Another poster completely tone-deaf to irony.

They think that there is other life out there somewhere but are too stupid to be able to find it.

Extraterrestrial life doesn't really have anything to do with evolution v. creationism... But you're right, I'm sure the problem is that we're "too stupid" (seeing as we're technologically incapable of exploring more than a miniscule fraction of the universe)... What a joker.

(BTW, I counted about 7 strawmen... What do I win?)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

non-sequitur

Not necessarily... There are certainly charitable readings in which this could be a valid inference- of course, the premise is unacceptable, but the inference could be valid. You can't really say one way or the other without more information.

(for instance, consider the following- valid- argument; God is infallible, and God has revealed that the universe is six thousand years old; therefore the universe is six thousand years old... This is valid, but based on a dubious premise)

 

[Kenny]

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

I do find this interesting on multiple points.

1) The are correct in that "when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time,"--this is a scientifically proven fact yet…

2) "After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up,"

So point one is directly in opposition to point 2.

As they said in point 3) “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens."

So when the Young Earth Creationists hijack it, the report from Science and Nature says:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data,

Yet they do not offer any explanation as to why we find those blood cells but simply say the Creationists hijacked it.

I don't see why they are afraid to address this question. Science should be impartial and just look at the facts and question the current facts until they find out why. If science does its job, science will correct itself. I would hate to see science become the new flat earthers just because a current find contradicts previous positions.

 

[outhouse]

I do find this interesting on multiple points.

1) The are correct in that "when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time,"--this is a scientifically proven fact yet…

2) "After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up,"

So point one is directly in opposition to point 2.

As they said in point 3) “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens."

So when the Young Earth Creationists hijack it, the report from Science and Nature says:


Yet they do not offer any explanation as to why we find those blood cells but simply say the Creationists hijacked it.

I don't see why they are afraid to address this question. Science should be impartial and just look at the facts and question the current facts until they find out why. If science does its job, science will correct itself. I would hate to see science become the new flat earthers just because a current find contradicts previous positions.

There is no debate here. Just YEC hijacking and quote mining.

The key knowledge here that is bypassed by all creatioist who question this is the fact, the bones are demineralized first.

There are many such examples and this is actually quite common. Not just in Trex fossils.

 

[Kenny]

There is no debate here. Just YEC hijacking and quote mining.

I guess this is as good an answer to not debate as any. I quoted from the article. If quoting an article is quote mining--then all quotes are quote mining. Are you creating a different issue?

The key knowledge here that is bypassed by all creatioist who question this is the fact, the bones are demineralized first.

why did you bypass the question? Scientifically, blood does not last millions of years but bones do

There are many such examples and this is actually quite common. Not just in Trex fossils.

BINGO!! So, unless a good explanation is given, something is wrong when bones who are supposed to be millions of years old is still has blood cell in it. I'm open for an explanation… but the question is are you?

 

[ruffen]

This thread has really made an accepting environment for dialog.

Willfully ignorant stupid YEC's, why don't they just die and go away.

You cannot take the Bible literally 100% of the time, but that would take all the fun out of your hate fest.

HA! Hate fest?? For asking how anyone can believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

You say that you cannot take the bible literally, but that is what YEC's do and the part that makes them YEC's is that they believe the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old.

The evidence for the age of the Earth and the Universe is overwhelming. But it's a typical response to claim that it is a "hate fest" instead of being able to argue how the biological, geological, cosmological, astronomical, radiological, chemical evidence must all be wrong.

I will say this, does the Bible say that Adam was born a child and became a man later?

No, it says he was created a man. I would say if this is true, it would therefore be possible to create billions of year old rocks as well.

And he created related species on different continents that slowly drift apart, along with fossils. The DNA of current species, the fossils and the geology all agree that those continents were connected millions of years before the Earth was created?

Did God plant photons coming toward us from fictional galaxies in deep space, more than 6,000 light-years away, complete with fake supernova explosions that are planted in such a way that they seem like they must have happened before the creation of Earth?


Why would God go to such lengths to create the world in such a way that it would look totally un-created?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really, I in the general since, I don't even see why it matters. People's beliefs are their beliefs, and as long as they aren't harming another then I see no reason to care except to insist people should be able to believe what they want. It bothers me none, and it certainly is causing me no harm if my neighbor is a YEC or not. Of course it is a problem when it starts to be pushed in politics, public school curriculum, and is very foul when it has an agenda.

 

[ruffen]

Since no one at present was around in the beginning to observe how life began and how it continued one must come to a conclusion concerning the past by historical science rather than observational science. It does not matter whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist. The same type of science (historical) must be used by anyone. The difference in one's historical science occurs between evolutionists and creationists because of a foundational difference in one's worldview or initial premise. My foundational premise rests upon a belief in an eternal Creator God (who says He was there at the beginning) so my historical science is based on His revealed word concerning creation, life and a relatively young earth. Others have a foundational premise based on a belief in eternal matter so their historical science determines that all matter...creation, life, and the earth etc. is very old, taking billions and millions of years to evolve or get to what we have today.

Eternal God or eternal matter?

My belief is in an Eternal God and that is the reason I am a young earth creationist.

But why did God create the Earth complete with large continents drifting slowly apart, make their shape so that they seem to have fitted together millions of years ago? Why did he plant fossils of the same exinct species on both continents, that can be radiologically dated to roughly the same amount of millions of years ago? Why does the DNA of modern species on both continents show similarities indicating relation closer than species living on contintents that have been separated for a longer time?

Why did he create photons coming to us from galaxies billions of light years away to indicate a large and old universe?

 

[Looncall]

Since no one at present was around in the beginning to observe how life began and how it continued one must come to a conclusion concerning the past by historical science rather than observational science. It does not matter whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist. The same type of science (historical) must be used by anyone. The difference in one's historical science occurs between evolutionists and creationists because of a foundational difference in one's worldview or initial premise. My foundational premise rests upon a belief in an eternal Creator God (who says He was there at the beginning) so my historical science is based on His revealed word concerning creation, life and a relatively young earth. Others have a foundational premise based on a belief in eternal matter so their historical science determines that all matter...creation, life, and the earth etc. is very old, taking billions and millions of years to evolve or get to what we have today.

Eternal God or eternal matter?

My belief is in an Eternal God and that is the reason I am a young earth creationist.

This is arrant balderdash. There is objective evidence for an old universe which is consilient among many lines of enquiry. The arguments for a young earth are founded on mere superstition, not on observation of things as they are.

This presupposition stuff is a con, invented by villains to fool the gullible. The observations available do not support a young universe. Even committed creationists have found it necessary to change their minds when faced with real data rather than religious fantasies.

 

[Kenny]

But why did God create the Earth complete with large continents drifting slowly apart, make their shape so that they seem to have fitted together millions of years ago? Why did he plant fossils of the same exinct species on both continents, that can be radiologically dated to roughly the same amount of millions of years ago? Why does the DNA of modern species on both continents show similarities indicating relation closer than species living on contintents that have been separated for a longer time?

Why did he create photons coming to us from galaxies billions of light years away to indicate a large and old universe?

I can go either way on the subject and it not change what is mentioned in Genesis. Letting science figure those things out is what science is about and it is always exciting when we discover something new.

The problem comes when science thinks it has figured it all out when it hasn't.

For an example, one measures the distance of the stars in measurements of light years. Have we learned all there is about light? Was there a time when things were being moved and created faster than light?

As this report says, speed of light may not be constant.

Speed of Light May Not Be Constant : Discovery News

So, whether one believes in a younger universe or not, couldn't we agree that we don't know it all and that we all could be wrong? Maybe it isn't old and it isn't young but it is rather in the middle.

 

[outhouse]

I
why did you bypass the question? Scientifically, blood does not last millions of years but bones do




BINGO!! So, unless a good explanation is given, something is wrong when bones who are supposed to be millions of years old is still has blood cell in it. I'm open for an explanation… but the question is are you?

I posit the only thing wrong here, Is your knowledge of what is at hand scientifically.


Many bones millions of years old will not become as mineralized as others. Bones in say Madagascar left in certain clays are not completely replaced by MINERALS the way most all fossils are that turn to rock. Bones in Montana on the other hand do turn to rock.

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy.

Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says.

“They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”


Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine


After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.

What it comes down to is that the chemical reaction in the bones is different depending on when and how they were fossilized.

I see it as different decay rates depending possibly on anaerobic environments as the tissue mineralizes and is preserved in stone. Just my guess.

 

[Kenny]

I posit the only thing wrong here, Is your knowledge of what is at hand scientifically.


Many bones millions of years old will not become as mineralized as others. Bones in say Madagascar left in certain clays are not completely replaced by MINERALS the way most all fossils are that turn to rock. Bones in Montana on the other hand do turn to rock.

What it comes down to is that the chemical reaction in the bones is different depending on when and how they were fossilized.

I see it as different decay rates depending possibly on anaerobic environments as the tissue mineralizes and is preserved in stone. Just my guess.

I did some further reviews on this subject matter. It is important for everyone to accept science. May I also note that regardless of the mineralization location, after 50 millions of years, blood cells should not exist… period.

Were actual red blood cells found in the T. rex bone as young-earth creationists claim? The data says “no.” The objects may be the remnants of blood cells—residual products resulting from cellular breakdown—but they clearly lack cell walls and other structures to claim they are red blood cells.

Interestingly, Wieland seems to admit as much in his 2002 exchange with DeBaun where he says: The immunological reaction was the factor that, coupled with the histological appearance, made it more reasonable to claim these were actual red blood cells (i.e., their remains)

What is significant about this statement is, for the first time, Wieland seems to clarify that what he and other young-earth creationists are calling red blood cells are, in fact, cell remains. The problem is, regardless of the spin one puts on it, cell remains are not “real blood” and “morphologically intact red blood cells.”

As it said… "regardless of the spin". Whether it is YEC or not, we should not spin but just say what it is and let science correct itself and correct erroneous religious thought. If you are not correctable… you are either a flat earth scientist or a flat earth religionist. (LOL - is that even a word?_

 

[outhouse]

I did some further reviews on this subject matter. It is important for everyone to accept science. May I also note that regardless of the mineralization location, after 50 millions of years, blood cells should not exist… period.

So 49 million years is OK?


And what kind of a case do you have that there actually were cells or blood cells?

Do you a replacement hypothesis?

If you are not correctable… you are either a flat earth scientist or a flat earth religionist. (LOL - is that even a word]

Agreed

 

[Kenny]

So 49 million years is OK?


And what kind of a case do you have that there actually were cells or blood cells?

Do you a replacement hypothesis?

The answer was in the last part of the last post.

I'm not a scientist but a good place to start is to find out how long these cell remains can last in the conditions given and then adjust the lifespan of dinosaurs accordingly.

Agreed

This is the beauty of debate. One can still find opportunities to agree on.