Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess it’s fair to say your failure to answer these questions from my previous post

“How is a biologist’s competency in applied science diminished by denying that life on earth evolved from microbes? Can you give me an example?”

means you can’t. But don’t fret, I’ve been asking evolutionists for years to cite a practical use for the “information” that life evolved from microbes and none of them can.
Immaterial
Click to expand...
Really? I think it’s a very reasonable argument, and one which is pivotal to the meaning of the text.
Gorgias said:
To make the claims you’re making, you have to insert a creation (of the earth) prior to verse 3… which means you’re reading into the text.
Click to expand...
Er … I don’t have insert the creation of the earth prior to verse 3 - the
Scripture does that for me … in verse 1.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
I’m not qualified to answer this question.
Click to expand...
Splendid. You make a statement beginning “It is clearly a scientific impossibility …”, but also that you are not qualified to say whether the statement is fallible or not. So it is not ‘clearly’ anything. Do you agree?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
make a statement beginning “It is clearly a scientific impossibility …”, but also that you are not qualified to say whether the statement is fallible or not. So it is not ‘clearly’ anything. Do you agree?
Click to expand...
It is a “scientific impossibility” if I am correct.

Is it a scientific impossibility for a car to build itself?
 
Glark said:
It is a “scientific impossibility” if I am correct.
Click to expand...
To claim that something is a scientific impossibility if it is a scientific impossibility is not very enlightening. Besides which, as you don’t know whether you are correct or not, the statement means nothing at all.
Is it a scientific impossibility for a car to build itself?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, yes; but I don’t think this has any bearing on evolution. It is not a scientific impossibility to build a machine whose purpose is to build more, identical machines. It is also not a scientific impossibility to construct such a machine which could adapt its ‘offspring’ to changed conditions. Interesting? Certainly. Relevant? Nope…
 
Aloysium said:
The issue is whether that first machine would have come about through the random activity of matter.
Click to expand...
No, of course not, but then nobody thinks that the activity of matter is ‘random’. It is carefully and precisely governed by the laws of physics, which permit certain degrees of randomness within strict constraints, rather like a board game which uses dice. As such, the first self-replicating machine would be designed, built and switched on by people, each whom had only a minute chance of existing, given that they were the fortuitous meeting of a single, almost random, meeting of gametes, and the descendants of countless other such meetings, the first of which was a lucky assemblage of appropriate chemicals and energy, on a planet which could easily have had quite a different assemblage of chemicals and been a different size, in a different orbit. And so on. In that sense, a car, as well as “that first [self-replicating] machine” would indeed come about “through the random activity of matter”.

The definition of chance and randomness is a real difficulty for Creationists, who usually cling to a rather simplistic version without really understanding much about it.
 
semper_catholicus said:
If we’re persecuted a lot, that’s a sign that we’re on the right track!
Click to expand...
According to that rule, all the heretics of history were on the right track.
semper_catholicus said:
A simple google search will demonstrate that.
Click to expand...
A simple confirmation-biased search will “demonstrate” that, yes.
semper_catholicus said:
Pretty much all the Church Fathers and Doctors were unanimous in believing that Genesis 1
Click to expand...
They lived 20 centuries ago. When there was no science, and most people back then couldn’t even read.
 
Curious11 said:
40.png
BlueMaxx:
I believe in the seven day creation, the flood and the story of Noah. That God did exactly what He said He has done…
Click to expand...
The lack of any archaeological evidence doesn’t trouble you?
Click to expand...
Nope, because there is archeological evidence…😎
 
Glark said:
“How is a biologist’s competency in applied science diminished by denying that life on earth evolved from microbes? Can you give me an example?”

means you can’t.
Click to expand...
I already have: “It isn’t diminished.” Engineers create applications; scientists do science. Glad I could clear that up for you. 😉
Glark said:
40.png
Gorgias:
Immaterial
Click to expand...
Really? I think it’s a very reasonable argument, and one which is pivotal to the meaning of the text.
Click to expand...
No, it really isn’t. While holding to a claim of strict literalism, you’re also trying to insert into the text something that’s not there. You can do one or the other – either you claim that we must go strictly by the letter of the text (in which case, your claim here fails), or you claim that we can interpret the text in other ways than strictly literally (in which case, your demand that we must look at Genesis 1 solely as literalistic historic narrative fails to hold) – but, you can’t do both while requiring us to adopt your literalistic interpretation. Sorry. 🤷‍♂️
Glark said:
Er … I don’t have insert the creation of the earth prior to verse 3 - the
Scripture does that for me … in verse 1.
Click to expand...
That depends on the particular translation of Scripture that you’re using, doesn’t it? In any case, it creates more problems for you than it solves. It’s a neat trick you’re attempting, but to say that, between verse one and two, billions of years elapsed – let alone that you must then turn around and say that “light” (i.e., stars) didn’t exist, even though the earth did – really marginalizes your argument. But, just making that argument requires you to add information where the text is silent. Sadly, you’re leaving the literalistic fold to make that argument, so we’re justified in abandoning literalistic interpretation, too! 👍
 
BridgetN said:
There is scientific evidence of the flood. Google it.
Click to expand...
There is scientific evidence of a flood. Big difference. 😉

(The claims @BlueMaxx made were “I believe in the seven day creation, the flood and the story of Noah” and “there is archeological evidence”. That’s the evidence that we’re interested in seeing.)
 
And if I can contact the Rev Prof Adam Sedgwick, I will. He’d be interested to hear about it.
 
I think I won’t answer, I’d run serious risk of being suspended if I engaged in this conversation
 
That’s not the issue. Jesus lived 2000 years ago and raised the dead instantly. That’s what God can do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top