A few questions for creationists

As a person who accepts Evolutionary Theory, I want to understand the Creationist position a bit better. I want to understand exactly what it is that creationists believe. To this end, I have a few questions that I hope some of you can answer, and give YOUR opinion, and if you don’t know, saying you don’t know is a valid answer. Some of these questions are relevant only to “young-earthers” and some only to “old-earthers”, so I am breaking the questions out into groups, so you don’t need to answer questions that are not relevant to your beliefs.

I know there are a number of these types of things on various websites meant to be “stumpers“, but that is NOT the intent of this post. These are questions I honestly want to hear answers for from the “other side”, so I can better understand that position.

Also, I am giving a typically understood definition of creationists, and their two main sub-types, if you disagree with these definitions, please let me know why.

All Creationists (you believe that “god” create “types” of animals, and that species do not evolve into other species through means of natural selection. You may accept micro-evolution [breeds of dogs can evolve from a single dog type] but you reject macro evolution [dogs, cats, apes, humans, birds, reptiles, etc all evolved from a common ancestor]):

  1. How old is the earth (roughly)?
  2. And how old is the universe?
  3. How much have you yourself read or studied the Theory of Evolution?
  4. Of that reading/studying (if any), how much was reading or studying the works of evolutionary biologists or others who accept evolution as valid (such as Charles Darwin, Steven J Gould, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, etc) as opposed to reading anti-evolution sources (such as the Discovery Institute)?
  5. What is the BEST evidence in your opinion that supports the idea of creation? I’m not asking here for “holes” that you feel exist in evolution, but for specific evidence that positively supports creationism.
  6. What would it take to convince you that evolution is the means by which all species were “created”, over the course of billions of years (this could be as simple as “god” telling you personally, or some amount of evidence you’d require)?

Old Earth Creationists (you believe that Genesis is not a historical account and accept the age of the universe as being 13-15 billion years old):

  1. What is about evolution that you believe is inconsistent with “god” using it as a means to create new species over millions over years?
  2. If you accept the age of the earth in billions of years, then do you think that there was one “creation” of animals, and that mankind walked with dinosaurs hundreds of millions of years ago, or were there multiple “creations” and every so often “god” creates a new “type” of animal, with humans being created long after many other species had gone exinct (such as the dinosaurs)?
  3. If there was ONE creation millions (or billions) of years ago, why does our recorded history only go back a few thousand years (i.e. if we’ve been this “smart for so long, why did we only start writing things down so recently)?
    If there were multiple creations over time, how does a “creation” happen, does a new “type” just appear where before there was none (let’s use dogs as an example, at some point there were no dogs, but there were many other animals, and then there were dogs, what happened in that moment where dogs were created (were just two created, or many, were all different breeds created at once, or did dobermans and chiwawas, etc come from a single ancestor, etc)?
  4. Do you find the claims of “young-earthers” to be valid and reasonable claims based on your understanding of holy books and science?

Young Earth Creationists (you believe that Genesis is a literal account of history, and the earth is roughly 6-10 thousand years old):

  1. Why does the evidence of geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc all make it seems as if the earth and the universe are much older than your beliefs say they should be? Is it a “test” or “joke” of some sort from “god”?
  2. Why, if the earth is as young as you claim, would so many branches of science (geology, physics, astronomy, biology, cosmology, anthropology, chemistry, etc), and scientists claim otherwise? Are they intentionally lying, or deluded, or does “god” want to hide the truth from some people, or is there some other reason?
  3. Other religions than yours (whatever yours may be) have different accounts of creation than your religion does, and these accounts are not based on science, or evolution, etc. Why do you think there are so many accounts of how things came to be that differ from your own view?
  4. What type of evidence would you require to accept the age of the earth and the universe as being billions of years old, as opposed to thousands of years old (as before, this could be as simple as “god” telling you personally, or some specific evidence you’d require)?

Also if there is anything else you have to say on the subject of evolution and/or creationism, feel free to add it, as I’m sure that my questions may not cover all of your specific thoughts on the subject.


For those interested in following more opinions on this subject, I have also posted this question at a few other forums, including:
JREF: A few questions for creationists.
Amazon: A Few Questions For Creationists.
EvCForum.net: A Few Questions For Creationists.
YouDebate.com: Few Questions For Creationists.

As I post this question (or a link to this question) in more forums, I’ll try to keep this list up to date, in order to enable people to keep up with the answers as they come.

Advertisements

About Rodibidably

Jeff Randall is a frequent volunteer for free-thought organizations, including the Center For Inquiry – DC. Having been blogging since January 2008, he decided that a community of bloggers would be an interesting new experience (or at the very least a fun way to annoy his friends into reading his posts more frequently). Since finding out about about the existence of, and then joining, the atheist/skeptic community in 2007 he has been committed to community activism, critical thinking in all aspects of life, science, reason, and a fostering a secular society.
This entry was posted in Debate, Religion, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to A few questions for creationists

  1. janebrock says:

    Since I was a young teen and chose to acknowledge that God was not obligated to share His details, only those revealed in His Word, I have still been trapped in many useless arguments that went nowhere. A wise young minister told me years ago that if he were able to lay out irrefutable facts to someone who did not believe, he would not be able to convince that person.

    People who do not want to believe in God will not be convinced by a video of the creation.

    I’ve also listened to a student of history that there very well could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, maybe the millions of years constantly discussed.

    My final statement after 50+ years has allowed me to relax in God’s wisdom and His privilege to not tell me details and that is: I will take His Word for it that He created the earth as we see it, animals and man et al, in His own way. Therefore, I don’t want to waste this precious short life on a God who can’t speak the earth into being with His spoken Word as He said.

    If He can’t what’s the point? He isn’t big enough to be God. If He didn’t do it in a way I could understand, I guess that’s His business.

  2. Rodibidably says:

    God was not obligated to share His details, only those revealed in His Word
    The issue I have is that many people claim much which is in contradiction to the best science available, and expect others to accept their views uncritically.

    I’m totally fine with somebody saying “I don’t know”, however I have issues when people make scientific claims with no evidence other than their own readinbg of a book written by bronze age men.

    People who do not want to believe in God will not be convinced by a video of the creation.
    My first question would be HOW was a video camera available ot film the creation, since supposedly nothing existed before that point (including cameras). I’d start wqith the assumption that the video was faked, and probably made AFTEWR the invention of cameras, and not 14 billion years ago (or even 6000 years ago).

    I’ve also listened to a student of history that there very well could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, maybe the millions of years constantly discussed.
    I’ve heard that the earth is flat, that doesn’t mean I accept that as a valid view. Based on what YOU have heard, read, studied, etc, I’m curious about YOUR views, not those which you may or may not believe, buit have heard about.

    I understand that there are questions that we don’t know the answer to yet, but we can make educated guesses based on the current available evidence.

    All I am asking for here is people best guess based on the information thay have seen, heard, studied, read, etc..

  3. jar says:

    I am a creationist and also fully accept that the universe is old and that the TOE is the best explanation to date of how life became the diversified wonder we see around us.

    Honestly I see no reason that I should tell GOD that She may not use a system like Evolution to create the varieties of life that exist today and have existed in the past, or those that will exist in the future.

  4. Rodibidably says:

    jar,
    I understand that some segment of the population accept evolution and yet use the term “creation”, but that use of the word “creation” is not consistant with the typically understood defintion of “creation” in the debate about evolution of species.

    For instance the cathlolic church, at least under the last pope, accepted that evolution was the means by which species (including humanity) came to be. Essentially the idea that the church accepts (officially) is that the bible is not a literal account (i.e. the flood did not acctually happen, eve was not made out of adam’s rib, etc), but a series of stories to make certain points about morality (love thy neighbor, go to church on sunday, etc).

    While I understand that they may refer to themselves as “creationists”, by the typically understood meaning of that work in regards to this debate, they are in fact evolutionists.

    But I do have a few questions for you if you don’t mind:
    Do you believe that all humans have souls?
    How about other animals (such as dogs, cats, chimps, etc)?

  5. jar says:

    Well, that didn’t work.

    Try again.

    If you look at the basic ‘I believes’ that are outlined in the Nicene Creed as one example you will find…

    I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

    That is a pretty much inclusive definition of a Creator.

    As to souls??????

    I happen to believe that all living things have souls. However, that is a personal belief. Could I be wrong? Of course. Can it be tested? Of course not.

  6. Rodibidably says:

    jar,
    That would be evidence of a creator, but is it any better evidence than Harry Potter is as evidence for the existance of wizards, or Star Wars is for the existance of life on other planets?

    The type of evidence I’m asking about is scientific evidence (for creationism, an actual irreducably complex organism might be an example if such a thing really existed).

    I’d like to get into the soul idea further, but I think I’ll save that for another post, so as not to derail this one from it’s original intent before it even gets going.

  7. jar says:

    I gotta disagree with you kinda.

    It is NOT evidence of a creator, it is simply a definition of one; “That which created all that is, seen and unseen.” It is a statement of a belief, a foundational assertion, but nothing beyond that.

    There is no scientific evidence in support of Creationism and as a matter of fact, any such evidence that was brought forward would simply diminish the stature of the Creator.

    Feel free to stop by the home if you want to and we can get into the nature of Mythos versus Science. Subjects such a magic and such, even life on other planets would certainly be welcome.

    However there is a fundamental issue in your post. You say “That would be evidence of a creator, but is it any better evidence than Harry Potter is as evidence for the existance of wizards, or Star Wars is for the existance of life on other planets?”

    Those two examples refer to books. Books cannot be evidence of much beyond the fact that someone wrote something. Just as Harry Potter stories are not evidence of Magic (which I happen to think is very real) or Star Wars evidence of life on other planets (and I will be shocked if that is NOT the case), the Nicene Creed (or the Bible or the Koran or the Tanakh or the Vedas) are not evidence that there is a God or a Creator. The Nicene Creed is a statement of Personal Beliefs”. The begin “I (or We) believe …”

    The other thing you mention is “irreducible complexity”. Honestly, that seems to be an even bigger joke as presented by the CCOI and CoBH. I think it might be possible to build an argument for ID at the very simplest level, at the basic forces and at the systems level such as Evolution, but find it hilarious when the ID, CCOI, CofBH and Biblical Creationists try to apply it at the product level.

  8. Rodibidably says:

    It is NOT evidence of a creator, it is simply a definition of one; “That which created all that is, seen and unseen.” It is a statement of a belief, a foundational assertion, but nothing beyond that.
    Some would argue that the fact that anything exists is all the evidence needed of a creator.
    Many of those same people would also argue that our questioning the existence of this creator somehow proves their version of the creator (I’ve never understood this leap myself, but I’ve certainly heard it on a number of occasions.

    Those same people would use the nicene creed as “evidence” of not just A creator, but their version of the creator.

    In my view, using something along those lines as evidence of a creator, is the same as me using Star Wars as evidence of alien life or Harry Potter as evidence of magic.
    Sure magic may exist, but if Harry Potter is your only evidence, then you have NO evidence. And sure alien life may exist (personally I’ve be surprised if our planet is the only life with roughly 7 x 10^22 stars in the known universe), but I’m not taking George Lucas’s word on it, and nobody else should either.

    There is no scientific evidence in support of Creationism and as a matter of fact, any such evidence that was brought forward would simply diminish the stature of the Creator.
    I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of this.
    The second however I’m not sure I agree with. If this creator has some sort of interest in the affairs of life on this planet, it would be obvious that one of mankind’s traits is curiosity. I think that a creator who put that curiosity into mankind and then refused to allow mankind to learn about the nature of the universe is a bit of an ass.

    he other thing you mention is “irreducible complexity”.
    Personally I think the idea of irreducible complexity is killing the creationist position. Every time they have come forward with something they claim as irreducibly complex (the eye, bacterial flagellum, etc) their followers have oh’d and ah’d, and then soon after scientists have shown unequivocal evidence of transitional forms leading towards that end.
    If I was a believer in creation, and saw this happening on a regular basis, I’d begin to ignore those claims of irreducible complexity, so not as to embarrass myself further.

  9. jar says:

    “Some would argue that the fact that anything exists is all the evidence needed of a creator.
    Many of those same people would also argue that our questioning the existence of this creator somehow proves their version of the creator (I’ve never understood this leap myself, but I’ve certainly heard it on a number of occasions.”

    Yup, while God may have placed a limit on how smart folk can be, there is no limit on stupid. Ray is a great example of both of those positions.

    But there is gold in mining them Christians. And the way to that Gold is through ignorance and creating threats. It doesn’t matter if the threat is real or not, all that matters is if you can get the CCOI to believe there is a threat.

    “The second however I’m not sure I agree with. If this creator has some sort of interest in the affairs of life on this planet, it would be obvious that one of mankind’s traits is curiosity. I think that a creator who put that curiosity into mankind and then refused to allow mankind to learn about the nature of the universe is a bit of an ass.”

    It would also show just how dumb the Godlet they created was. The God they create is really not all that bright. They make a big deal over their assertion that mans general nature is to disobey but their God was not bright enough to understand that man would go ahead and figger it out anyway.

  10. dijonaise says:

    1. A Young Earth Creationist believes the Earth to be approximately 6,000-10,000 years old. As do I. This is based on the genealogical record found in the Bible. To use this method as a baseline for belief, one must first confirm the validity of the Bible as an accurate historical record of origin to a degree suitable to the individual. This, of course, takes a certain amount of faith, (and, as with believing that the planet randomly formed, and life “just happened” that belief cannot be explained nor proven). Most creationists will not deny the fact that there are accurate dating methods used to date certain things on the planet. These methods can place an age in the thousands, millions, or even billions. The creationist stance, though, is that these items were created as being aged (God created a “mature” planet and universe).
    2. I don’t know how old the universe is, and I’m not sure that it matters in the event of proving one side or the other. It’s almost like asking how old God is. Sure, if we can show that the universe is expanding, and we assume that the expansion has a place of origin, we can determine the age by the rate of expansion. But to me, I don’t see it as being important to the topic. It doesn’t prove either side to be correct in the matter.
    3. Not a lot, honestly. Although, I am quite interested, and I am not at all against learning more in order to add light on the subject.
    4. Not much. Just a few of the basics. I’ll admit that I need to read more in order to develop a better educated stance.
    5. Proving creation scientifically is not possible. One would have to prove the existence of the creator. And, as far as I know, the only way to do that is to find Him/Her /It and discuss the matter. And, I digress, we can only speculate as to how to go about doing that—and that’s a completely different argument all together. As far as scientific evidence to “back” the creation theory goes, well, all we really have are the “holes” in the theory of evolution. Take, for example, Darwin’s statement concerning what we now refer to as irreducible complexity: “If there was ever found a complex organ that could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
    Then we look at something like bacterial flagellum, and it seems that a machine that complex and efficient could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, and this, as well as others, is a system that simply could not, at any moment in history, have worked without being in it’s present state. Now, this isn’t to say that science will not ever explain how the bacterial flagellum or the other complex parts inside a cell came to be. But, for now, it doesn’t seem possible that these parts simply came to be all at once in order to function within a cell. Believing that would be harder than believing in a creator. These things must have been created by someone or something intelligent at some point.

    6. I really don’t know what it would take. I’m really not looking at the issue that way though. I simply want to review ALL facts and try to make the best educated decision. I currently feel like evolution COULD be possible, but that life came from nothing: impossible.

  11. Vekamovamoge says:

    well done, dude

  12. Oliver says:

    Before I answer your questions, I have some things to point out:

    A. I can never convince anyone that I’m right or they’re wrong. That’s God’s job. My goal is just to defend/explain my beliefs in such a way that you *might* actually be led to trust in our God. The choice is ultimately up to you.
    B. You mention that all creationists will reject the evolution “into other species through means of natural selection”. That’s not necessarily true. I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of natural selection. It’s hard to argue with the idea that unfit organisms will die in the wrong environment. And it is also quite logical to say that there may be some variations caused by environmental differences over time. I have no problem with natural selection causing new species as long as they are similar. It’s when you go from a bacteria to frog that I have problems. Lion to tiger? It’s still a big cat. Nothing too dramatic has changed – just some sizes, coat patterns, etc. It didn’t grow wings or anything.
    C. I do not want to give the impression that I speak for all creationists. The previous poster somewhat did and some could be offended. I do think that many will share my views, but I realize that there are multiple creationist branches, some of which will disagree.
    D. When I refer to evolution, I typically mean not just biological evolution, but also old-earth geology, big bang cosmology, etc.

    OK, so now answers to your questions:

    GENERAL

    1. How old is the earth (roughly)?

    Approximately 6,000 years old. This value is obtained primarily from the geneologies outright given in the Bible. Though there’s a little ambiguity involved, I don’t think you can add much to it. Maybe 7,000 years. (Creationist sites I look at usually say 6,000-10,000.)
    And I do NOT agree with the previous poster who stated that “the creationist stance, though, is that these items were created as being aged (God created a “mature” planet and universe).” That may be his opinion, but it is not “the” creationist stance. There are multiple groups with different views. Mine is that the science is being applied wrong due to wrong presuppositions. When applied through a different worldview the results will turn out very differently.

    2. And how old is the universe?

    Same. Plus or minus up to four days depending on the exact definitions of “universe” and “earth” used.

    3. How much have you yourself read or studied the Theory of Evolution?

    Actually, I have a pretty good knowledge of the theory of evolution.
    Although I have not done extensive reading by choice on evolution, I have done a lot of creation reading, and most of it is at least somewhat reliable. So evolutionary ideas get picked up along the way.
    Additionally, I have been in the public school system for four years of high school.
    I am now in a secular university being further indoctrinated with evolutionary ideas.
    I went through a dinosaur phase a few years back. There’s not that much creationist literature on the topic so you wind up memorizing Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous if nothing else.
    I’m quite interested in particle, relativistic, and quantum physics. Here it’s more big bang/cosmology ideas, but these go hand in hand with evolution.
    Overall, I’d say that I actually have a better idea of what scientists believe regarding the universe, earth, and life than a good chunk of the population. It’s not perfect, and is biased toward creationist literature, but I am prepared to discuss the matter with knowledge of the evolutionary model.

    4. Of that reading/studying (if any), how much was reading or studying the works of evolutionary biologists or others who accept evolution as valid (such as Charles Darwin, Steven J Gould, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, etc) as opposed to reading anti-evolution sources (such as the Discovery Institute)?

    I basically combined that into #3. As biology is not a topic of interest to me, I haven’t actually read any of the famous people mentioned. But neither does that mean I am ignorant of the ideas presented.

    5. What is the BEST evidence in your opinion that supports the idea of creation? I’m not asking here for “holes” that you feel exist in evolution, but for specific evidence that positively supports creationism.

    Interesting question. It would fundamentally be the belief that we have an eyewitness account (given via Moses) of the creation of the universe from Someone who I’d consider a very, very reliable source.

    Leaving Biblical accounts aside, it would be one of the following:
    the sheer improbability of life and evolution by chance
    the diversity/creativity seen in the universe
    the mere existence of something rather than nothing
    (and the knowledge of the issues with secular theories)

    6.What would it take to convince you that evolution is the means by which all species were “created”, over the course of billions of years (this could be as simple as “god” telling you personally, or some amount of evidence you’d require)?

    One of the following:
    A. A theologicallly-sound demonstration of how the inspired account in Genesis works with evolutionary ideas
    B. Discovering that the Bible is NOT inspired. This would rock my faith in a whole lot more than evolution vs. creation, and is unlikely.
    C. God directly telling/showing how he created.

    YOUNG-EARTH

    1. Why does the evidence of geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc all make it seems as if the earth and the universe are much older than your beliefs say they should be? Is it a “test” or “joke” of some sort from “god”?

    I think science is currently looking at the evidence and coming up with a good theory to support it. However, the “nonscientific” evidence that YECs bring to the table (ie. Genesis) forces a completely different view of that evidence. Science does this sometimes. A decent comparison would be with the geo/helio-centric models of the solar system. Only a few known facts (like retrograde motion) didn’t fit the geocentric model, but they did fit the heliocentric model. Another example is the orbit of Mercury. The established theory of gravity had to be modified by Einstein’s relativity to give accurate predictions. In the same way, the evidence of Genesis doesn’t nicely fit into evolutionary models and requires a different perspective entirely. So, no, I do not think it is a test from God. Rather, it is a failure on the part of science to examine all available evidence. Even without Bible passages, there are problems with evolutionary theory that must be addressed.

    2. Why, if the earth is as young as you claim, would so many branches of science (geology, physics, astronomy, biology, cosmology, anthropology, chemistry, etc), and scientists claim otherwise? Are they intentionally lying, or deluded, or does “god” want to hide the truth from some people, or is there some other reason?

    Mostly see #1. Beyond that I believe that science has blinded itself. Scientists are not conciously lying, or deluded, but in many cases they subconciously hide behind science to avoid what I believe the Bible teaches to be true – that there is a real, personal God who created the universe and is concerned about you and your actions, specifically your choices about Jesus Christ. It’s a lot easier to pretend he doesn’t exist than to confront the issue of needing salvation. Most of this is subconcious, and exceptions exist, but I believe that science has come up with evolution to avoid having to deal with God.

    3. Other religions than yours (whatever yours may be) have different accounts of creation than your religion does, and these accounts are not based on science, or evolution, etc. Why do you think there are so many accounts of how things came to be that differ from your own view?

    I believe that Satan is a real and powerful being in our universe and is out to trick and deceive. Call me intolerant if you want, but I believe all other religions are wrong and have been deceived.

    4. What type of evidence would you require to accept the age of the earth and the universe as being billions of years old, as opposed to thousands of years old (as before, this could be as simple as “god” telling you personally, or some specific evidence you’d require)?

    Exact same answer as for #6 above.

  13. wisp says:

    You posted in http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=29687&page=1

    It would look much better if the actual questions were copypasted to your post, instead of just a link to this page.

    And if you’re never going to answer in the forum, it would be nice to state it in the same post.

    Thanks.

  14. Arthur Sevalho says:

    1. How old is the earth (roughly)? and 2. And how old is the universe?
    I have no idea. I believe it doesn’t really matter to know how old the earth or the universe is, because in truth the attempts to measure this are not really trustworthy in the sense that we can believe in them blindly. The Bible is not about telling us how old the earth or the universe is. Maybe the 7 days thing is a metaphor, maybe it is literal, for if you believe in God it is actually possible.
    So… I guess I’m a new type, I’m a “I don’t know-earther” (and of course this is not a very good joke)

    3. and 4. how much have I studied evolution.
    I have read some of those guys, like Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. I guess that’s it. And I had the normal evolution classes in high-school and I come across it in some books and classes in my med school, although not extensively.

    5. What is the BEST evidence in your opinion that supports the idea of creation? I’m not asking here for “holes” that you feel exist in evolution, but for specific evidence that positively supports creationism.

    I like the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), but I believe the BEST evidence is the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which I find to be very, very convincing. If you believe in Christ it follows that you believe in Creation, however it was.

    6. What would it take to convince you that evolution is the means by which all species were “created”, over the course of billions of years (this could be as simple as “god” telling you personally, or some amount of evidence you’d require)?

    Anyone would believe it if God told this person, but besides that I think there would have to be a series of good evidence for me to believe it. To illustrate I would want to know how spontaneous mutations would be able to increase the genetic information in order to generate a new species, for as far as I know mutations equals cancer everywhere I see. Another thing I’d like to know is how can a big living being, like me, for example, would generate, with my wife, a being from another (new) species, and how would his species survive with nobody for him/her to make children with.

    Old earth 1. What is about evolution that you believe is inconsistent with “god” using it as a means to create new species over millions over years?

    I believe that the problem with that is in the fact that would make it really hard to define where did humans as we are start, and as to the fact that where would Adam be. Jesus speaks of Adam as being historical, and it is really hard for me to conceive a one Adam in the evolutionary hypothesis.

    Old earth 2. and 3.
    I believe that the problem with these questions is that it assumes that creation is something that must happen “over night”. The ‘one creation of animals’ doesn’t have to occur in a relatively short period of time as the question states, but rather the process of creation can take a long time. The passage from genesis shows us a conception of creation as a process rather than something that blinks into its final form. It’s like when an artist creates a sculpture. It takes a long time to create it, but he only created it once.
    So, I guess this also applies to number 3 in the sense that the creation could have started long long ago but we only “got smart” not so long ago.

    4. Do you find the claims of “young-earthers” to be valid and reasonable claims based on your understanding of holy books and science?

    Well, it always depends on what claims. As I already said, I have no idea exactly how old earth is, and I do not intend to make my own guess about it. They are certainly reasonable because they are committed to the Bible (or so I hope) rather then on their own interests or traditions.

    Young earth 1. Why does the evidence of geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc all make it seems as if the earth and the universe are much older than your beliefs say they should be? Is it a “test” or “joke” of some sort from “god”?

    I believe that this ‘evidence’ that points towards the age of the earth and etc do not really point towards a specific age. We use some mechanisms to try to guess how old those things are based on some patterns we find in nature nowadays, but we can’t really be sure that these patterns were maintained over time. For example: we calculate the age of rocks from the irradiation that some atoms in these rocks emits. That calculation is made based on the time it takes for half of the element to degrade to another isotope (which is the new atom after it emits the radiation). This time is called half-life. Now, we assume that all of the elements work just like that in the same way forever, without taking into account the fact that maybe external factors may interfere in this decay over time, factors such as temperature, pressure, exposure to other types of radiation etc. Of course we would never be able to know which factors affected these rocks, nor when they did. Just for curiosity, the half-time of the uranium-238 (an atom frequently used to measure the age of rocks) is estimated to be of 5 billion years. Who has ever seen 5 billion years go by? How do we know these atoms would behave exactly the same way throughout all this time? And how about the next 5 billion years? And how do we know how much uranium-238 there was on the rock to begin with, so that we can calculate its age?
    I guess we just don’t know it, although we should keep researching.
    As to whether this might be some kind of ‘test’, I think it surely isn’t one. If we make mistakes it is surely because of our failure and lack of understanding. But I think there is enough evidence to confront anyone REALLY open to hear the news of Jesus, fascinating evidence indeed, and Christianity is all about Jesus, not evolution or how old the earth is.

    Young earth 3. Other religions than yours (whatever yours may be) have different accounts of creation than your religion does, and these accounts are not based on science, or evolution, etc. Why do you think there are so many accounts of how things came to be that differ from your own view?

    Well, anyone can make up myths about anything, and the beginning of things is always something that people want to try to explain because it gives us answers to those basic questions of “Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where will we go?”. We want answers to these questions and so we make it. Wanting to know these answers so badly is evidently present in the rushed attempts of science to explain things like this.
    To summarize, I think there are many accounts because humans are very creative and also very thirsty to find out about truth.

    I won’t bother to answer questions 2. and 4. for “young-earthers” because I’ll just waste your time in doing that. I think you can guess my answers already and you know i’m not actually that much “young-earther”.

    I’m sorry for my extensive writing and thank you very much for attention.
    If interested in making more questions just go ahead and fire.
    Thanks.
    God Bless.

  15. The Old Wise Man says:

    Hi Rodibidably, I’m glad to see you are asking these questions with an open mind, few too people do I’m afraid. As an old hand in this area, this first piece of advice that I give to people is that creationism can answer more questions than you would initially think. Anyway, here are my answers to your questions (I’m a Young Earth Creationist btw), and I apologise in advance for the lack of brevity in this post, but unfortunately this topic is not conducive to brevity!

    All Creationists:
    1) YEC’s like myself generally answer this question with a date range of 6000-10,000 years.

    2) There is no excepted date for the universe, but following the geocentric cosmologies of Humphreys and Hartnett; our solar system is around 6000 years old and the further you go from the centre the older it gets. These cosmologies are quite sound and explain the universe much better than the Big Band model, believe it or not.
    http://creationwiki.org/index.php/White_hole_cosmology
    http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1616/

    3) No professional qualifications. I have studied and debated the issue for many years now. I have found that the best way to learn the strengths and weaknesses of theories is to study them and then debate then on the many forums available, many professional scientists debate the issue on the net. One will soon find if one’s arguments are valid or not in a debate.

    4) I read probably 1 anti-creation book to every 3 creationist/ID/evolutionary sceptical books.

    5) *Carbon 14 ‘dating’ demonstrates that the earth is only thousands of years old;
    http://icr.org/article/117/
    http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

    *Dinosaurs (T-Rex in particular) lived only thousands of years ago, this is proven by bones which still contain soft tissue and blood cells; http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042/

    *The decaying strength of the earth’s magnetic field proves that the earth is only thousands of years old;
    http://www.icr.org/article/371/

    *The creationist model of planetary magnetism has made many correct predictions of other planets magnetic fields. The evolutionary theory, on the other hand, has been WRONG on EVERY prediction it has made. Thus the creationist model for planetary magnetism is far superior.
    http://www.icr.org/article/329/
    http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

    *Our solar system is at the centre of the universe, Evolutionary theory can not accept the universe being at the centre, thus creationism is the only theory that can accommodate this observation;
    http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4716

    *Various geological features can only be explained through Creationist Flood Geology. Uniformitarian and even Actualism can not explain formations such as: Fluidization Pipes;
    http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1647/
    Flood Transported Quartzites;
    http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_76-90.pdf

    The lack of transitional fossils, especially emphasized by the supposed dino-bird evolution. Because of this all pervasive stasis, very few evolutionists claim that the fossil record proves evolution (unless they are talking to the public who don’t know any better), this is because all species remain the same throughout their presence in the fossil record; T-Rex was always T-Rex, turtles were always turtles and birds were always birds, they show no transition to-or-from what they are.
    http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3832/

    all life shows continual decay of the genome. Humans themselves accumulate 100-600 mutations each generation!
    http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

    6) If the fossil record showed smooth transitions from one form to another, and if the vast amount of genetic mutations in life resulted in increase in genetic information. These two would carry a lot of weight for me.

    YEC’s:
    1) As the saying goes “statistics can be manipulated to show anything, 85% of people know that!” The same goes for many ‘scientific’ theories, most evolutionary theories pick and choose the data that suits them and ignore the data that refutes them, I have seen this so many times that it fails to be funny. And I have found that the ignored evidence outweighs the favoured evidence.

    2) It’s called the herd mentality. Everyone says that everybody else believes in evolution so it must be true, they just follow the herd, and just because everybody else believes it doesn’t mean it’s true, take the case of Galileo for example! And only 50 years ago the vast majority of climate scientists believed that the earth was set for an imminent ice age, and look how the majority has turned around now!!!

    3) Creationism is based on mountains of scientific evidence and no others are, they are *pure* religion.

    4) As I stated before, I believe that most of the universe is billions of years old. As for the earth itself, the dating systems that produce dates of billions of years old are extremely unreliable and contradictory. Dates of millions of years have some evidence going for it, but results of a recent research project shows that ‘accelerated nuclear decay’ can explain theses dates in a 6000 year old earth quite smoothly.
    http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/547

    Any questions and I would be happy to answer.

  16. arichardiii says:

    Most of my answers to your questions would fall under the “I don’t know and yes, sometimes I wonder.” category.

    I have a counter question. Scientifically, is there not a falacy (sp?) when building a theory with the assumption that…floating protoplasm + a # of years with a lot of zeros and anything can happen.

    I would argue “Not consciousness.”

    But that is beside the point that both belief systems have, at their core, assumptions which require leaps of “faith.”

    The assumptions in creationism (called faith) are NO different than the assumptions in evolution (called faith). I have faith that a “god” created everything and you have faith that, given enough time, trillion-celled organisms will evolve from single cell organisms.

  17. Mary says:

    I’m a zoologist who never really accepted evolution because it is seriously flawed with ad hoc arguements. I read Darwin first in the 7th grade. He made more sense then then he did as I matured in thought. De Duve’s work on RNA-world still fails to explain both the ‘viability’ of the fragile RNA chain in the hostile early earth environment (without protective cell) and have discussed the selective pressures on non-living material to cause it to replicate.

    It is irrelevant the age of the earth. After all, time is reletive and when you’re talking about the vast ages assumed for evolution there is no accurate way to prove the premise. For example, we may assume isotopes K is liniar, but it may well be more like a wave or otherwise geometric. Furthermore, regardless of the age, it is well accepted that the conditions of the earth 3-5 billion years ago would not be able to support life.
    (Crick’s work, Life Itself, has a wonderful chapter on this.)

    Best evidence for ID? Biogenesis, entropy, Newton’s First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

    Furthemore organisms possess systems that would have killed the animal before it evolved. Example: blood-sponge of giraffe’s brain – or the deconstruction of a catipillar and reorganization into a virtually new organism (e.g. butterfly), yet the DNA remains the same.

    Also, the amazing accuracy of the biblical account made by people who had little/no scientific knowledge. Be it the order of the organisms appearing or the conditions of the early universe, it is supported by the research.

    I’m open to both Creation/Evolution and believe both should be open to public discussion. To do otherwise is bad science – and bad for educating students to be critical thinkers.

  18. Jay says:

    This is a response regarding your questions to Young Earth Creationists. I am not trying to be rude, so please do not take it that way. You seem to be very ignorant of creationism, so it is good that you are at least taking some effort to get answers.

    I believe the earth and universeo to be roughly 6,000 years old. I feel I have an excellent knowledge of how evolution works. I have read a little, but not much of the authors you asked about, but that is beside the point, and I will explain why in a minute. The evidence for evolution and creation are virtually the same. This is very important to understand. The evidence is the SAME!

    The difference lies within the interpretation of the evidence based on our presuppositions. I believe the supernatural is possible (and necessary) and you believe in only the natural. That is the only difference. If there becomes undeniable evidence that the earth and universe are billions of years old and evolution occurred, I will believe it. The problem is, all evidence (as of now) for those things can also be interpreted to support creationism. On the other hand, some evidence that supports creationism or God cannot be interpreted by naturalism.

    The main problem I have with evolution is that there is no mechanism for it. I understand how natural selection, mutations, and genetic drift work. Unfortunately, when you truly understand and unbiasly evaluate these “mechanisms,” fish do not turn into people. Mutations are random and then natural selection acts upon them. Unfortunatly, we do have never observed mutations adding genes that add to the phenotype. We observe mutations that are beneficial, but we do not observe a worm growing functional arms after a mutation.

    For this to happen, a duplication mutation must occurr to add to the genome, then the duplication must be kept (which usually doesn’t happen after a few generations), then one fo the copies of the duplicated gene must mutate again, but into something beneficial, which is also very rare. On top of that, this beneficial mutation must add to physical features of the animal. To my knowledge that has never happened.

    I will admit that this is potentially possible, but the odds of it happening are almost laughable. Then one must consider that evolution calls for millions or billions of these mutations is simply absurd. The reason it is so easy to believe is because we see the apparent results of evolution everyday, but that is relying on circule reasoning. Basically says evolution has happened because evolution happened.

    There is also the problem with origins of everything. Life, universe, everything. Naturalism cannot explain these coherently, no matter how hard atheists try. I contend they never will be explained naturally either.

    As far as other religions are concerned, I have investigated them and they do not hold up to scrutiny the way Christianity does. Just because they are a religion or rely on a god, does not make them all equal, unless you automatically discount them all.

    Why do so many scientists subscribe to naturalistic explanations? There are many explanations for that. The agenda of the founders of these ideas for one. They wanted to explain things without God. They were not considering truth, but only naturalism. Also, religions have people who can become clergymen. Atheism does not have this, so many of them become scientists, or naturalism clergy, so to speak. God is not trying to hide the truth, but I do believe He is trying to give us free will. He is not trying to deceive us, but allowing us to interpret the facts or evidence however we choose.

  19. jonathanwaldroup says:

    I grew up in a creationist household and went to an elementary/middle school that taught creationism, but I now accept evolution. So while I cannot answer your questions about what I believe since I no longer believe in creationism (though I do still believe in a God and simply hold Genesis to be figurative), I did want to let you know that I just started a blog concerning the evidence for and against evolution and creationism with the aim of showing that the Bible and evolution are not incompatible. Check it out if you are interested at evolvingthought.wordpress.com

  20. Faggot32 says:

    When Christ achieves his final victory, we will be victorious as well because we are united with him. ,

    • Rodibidably says:

      “Christ achieves his final victory”
      Victory over what exactly?
      Over the devil? Which according to your religion god created…
      Over mankind? Again, your religion teaches god made man.
      Over evil? Once again, if god created everything, by definition god created evil.

      What EXACTLY is this victory?

  21. Alex27 says:

    I felt they were making fun of, if anything, "wannabe white boys" you know? ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s