I am a Christian and I hold to a basically ‘young earth’ position… although I do have many unanswered questions. However, in the Westminster Confession of faith, both ‘Nature’ and ‘Scripture’ are identified as ‘Revelation’ from God. Both proclaim truth and therefore cannot contradict each other. If they appear to be contradictory it is because at least one of the two is misunderstood, possibly both.

Psalm 19:1-2 says, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge”. I submit that the heavens are primarily speaking of God’s infinitude and eternity. They are not speaking primarily of themselves but God and so they appear to be perhaps even eternal.

When Jesus turned the water into wine (though many reject the historicity of this), that wine appeared to be of some age, maybe a year old but in fact it was not. If a ‘scientist’ had compared the alcohol & sugar content, his conclusion would have determined the age to be something other than a few minutes in age. He may have been able to tell you what types of grapes were used and maybe even where those grapes where grown. But all of that would have been erroneous because the wine was created directly by God. So how can I reconcile both what the Scriptures teach and what appears in Nature? By believing both and trying to understand how the two sets of fact blend and harmonize. To make them contradict each other shows that neither are correctly understood.

Of course, all of you are so smart. Why, naturally, physical matter appeared from nowhere and then blew up! Or is this pseudo-science by some other name? And of course life is well-known to have come from non-life! (Remember, life is anything that grows and reproduces!) And if it takes 46,656 throws of a die just to get a sequence of 1 to 6, then its entirely possible for an amino acid or protein to form? Incidently, if the present processes are the key to understanding our universe’s past, why does just about every scientific law including genetics have to be suspended? And where did the laws of physics come from? Why everyone of you are so smart that I’ll bet you think they just appeared out of nowhere! Or should we believe in tooth fairies, also? And how does a genome add add information to itself? And if a genome only survives by a loss of genetic information or a change of it, how do you explain that marvelous journey of molecules to humans? Hmmm…mutations? I haven’t learned of an additive mutation yet, let alone a beneficial one through adding information. I’ve only heard of bad mutations which lesson the opportunity for an organism.

Megacool Blog indeed!… if anyone else has anything it would be much appreciated. Great website Enjoy!…

…unladen swallow.

What do you mean? An African or European sparrow (hang on, shouldn’t that be swallow?)?

Yes. And I can calculate the air speed velocity of an unladen sparrow. Because, you know, one has to know these things.

Yes, indeed Nigel. However, they’ll tell you radiometric dating is based purely on assumptions. Personally, I think the geological sorting of fossils is pretty good evidence against a global flood.

Of course, what you say is true.

However, the argument that radiometric dating (and for some weird reason they usually say “carbon dating” as if that were ever used on rocks) is based on assumptions is a simple lie. It is based on sound measurements.

Fortunately for us, the only assumption that one needs to make in science is that what we observe and measure correlates directly with an objective reality. And this is an assumption that everyone makes every day.

Buy a novelist anyone? Anyone?

Depends. Are you house-trained? And have you ever been bitten by a moose?

Are we not wasting our collective brainpower on this YEC trash? Surely there is something more worthy of our attention.

Are we not just preaching to the converted (so to speak)? Seriously, out of all those who post here those that trust their god over a tried and true system of discovery are not regulars. They come in, distract our attention and then leave. I suspect that they giggle like little schoolgirls while they watch us waste our time.

There is a pretty good reason for addressing the tripe that the YEC fundies / antivaxxers / Moon hoax believers trot out: So that people who do not have the appropriate depth of knowledge can find out how and why the arguments expounded by the lunatic fringe are wrong, and how to show this in a (relatively) concise way.

1. There are many more people that read these posts than actually comment. Look at any post where Phil gives stuff away for evidence of that.

2. Not everyone who has doubts about evolution is a YEC. Some are people who have just been misinformed by YEC lies. If no one responds, it may makes it look like there is something to those lies.

3. Have you ever known a former fundi whose faith was thrown into question when they discovered that the people they looked to for moral guidance are nothing more than dirty, lying con men? I have.

Thanks for that link.

That sort of thinking goes a long way toward explaining why the monotheistic religions, especially, inspire such fundamental(ist) adherents. Monotheism typically presents its god/goddess as a parental figure. Personally, I can’t think of a single one in which the omnipotent being is worshipped as a big sister or brother, let alone a second cousin once removed.

Of course the Christians try to have it both ways with the Trinity, not to mention Mary and all the saints. Jesus is sort of the big brother friendly side of the family, while God himself is the stern father figure. (I’ve never been able to figure out what the hell the Holy Spirit is supposed to be.)

The popularity of the cult of Mary has so many Freudian possibilities you couldn’t walk into a Catholic church (especially in Latin America) without tripping on them. And what insecure person wouldn’t want to go through life knowing mommy is right there, ready to embrace him in her perpetually open arms whenever trouble arises? “Hush, now baby…don’t cry. Mummy’s here…just hang on a sec while I put in an appearance on a Ritz cracker.”

Yes, indeed Nigel. However, they’ll tell you radiometric dating is based purely on assumptions. Personally, I think the geological sorting of fossils is pretty good evidence against a global flood.

However, in astronomy we are actually observing events that happened in the past. From the sun a mere 8 minutes ago, to Andromeda, 2.5 million years ago, through to the most distant obsects that are visible through modern telescopes, billions of years ago. It’s interesting to read the the replies you get back re. Andromeda.

“How do you know the laws of physics are the same everywhere”

“How do you know the speed of light is the same in different parts of the Universe”

“How do you know that time runs at the same speed in other parts of the Universe”

etc. etc. etc.

These are the main arguments I get from YECs when I pose questions on Andromeda (which is of course a naked eye object).

Every time Phil posts something on YECers or (psycho god lovers, as I like to refer to them) one or more show up, but not at the same time oddly, and a flurry of exchanges lasts for upwards of 200 posts.

I believe there is a slight degree of masochism involved. But truly, you cannot let the bastards have the last word, even if it is nothing but their own giggling glee you are cutting short.

And have you ever checked out any of the ufo nutter posts? One of those hit 1200 comments!

@ J/P=?:

I wish SOMEone would hire me for SOMETHING

Heh heh…ditto. Heh. H…er, sighhhhhhhhhhh.

Buy a novel anyone? Anyone? Buy a novelist anyone? Anyone?

John, what’s scary about your parody is it took me a couple of minutes to spot the flaw! The YECists ought to hire you as a copy writer.

I wish SOMEone would hire me for SOMETHING. (I have 3 resumes: Writer/editor, Computer, and Broadcasting)

J/P=?

This comment by one of PZ’s regular commenters, in the Pharyngula thread about the lecture, is relevant here:

It has been suggested by some neurologists and psychologists that religious beliefs seem to involve different parts of the brain than ordinary analytical beliefs, and that they may be part of earlier, more primitive systems of thought formation from our childhood. That could explain why they’re so immune to reason and disconfirmation.

… For a believer, a statement like “God exists” wasn’t processed like factual statements such as “There are penguins in Antarctica” or “my father works in an office.” Instead, areas of the brain lit up in the same way they lit up for “I love my mother” or “my father loves me.” They are literally confusing claims of fact, with claims of emotion.

That might be one reason they seem to be so child-like to us. Young children have this tendency to confuse feelings about facts with the facts themselves, but normally grow out of it as they mature. Apparently, a religious belief system can foster it, retaining it for specific areas involving faith and belief. This is possibly why it feels so natural and normal to them. It is natural and normal for all of us — at three.

There’s more evidence that it may have (I would say almost certainly has) a neurological basis: http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Heilman-neuroscienceandfundamentalism

These are people who have such an overwhelming need for absolute certainty that they are perfectly content to abandon the vast majority of human beings – often, even their own children – to an eternity of unspeakable suffering, as long as they can have the ontological security blanket while here. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from attempting to engage them in any sort of reasoned dialogue. Again, they’re operating at the cognitive level of children – and disturbed children at that. They need to be treated accordingly.

Are we not wasting our collective brainpower on this YEC trash? Surely there is something more worthy of our attention.

Are we not just preaching to the converted (so to speak)? Seriously, out of all those who post here those that trust their god over a tried and true system of discovery are not regulars. They come in, distract our attention and then leave. I suspect that they giggle like little schoolgirls while they watch us waste our time.

Can we not move on and talk about something useful? We know we can trust the scientific method, we know they will never change no matter how much we beat them over their heads with logic and evidence.

I’m just putting this out there, because I have noticed a pattern. Every time Phil posts something on YECers or (psycho god lovers, as I like to refer to them) one or more show up, but not at the same time oddly, and a flurry of exchanges lasts for upwards of 200 posts. In the end we achieve nothing and most of our time goes toward tilting at brick walls. Isn’t it time that we not fall into this habit?

Sorry, that was 4 questions.

As for the age of the Earth, Darwinists insist that the length of time for the creation is billions of years, yet in their physics classes, students learn that time is a relative thing, according to Einstein. Thus, what may be experienced as days by those in one ‘referential frame’ can be years, even millions or billions of years, to someone in another ‘referential frame’, bringing the claim of extremely long times into question according to their own ’science’. This also causes a failure of the claims that radioactive decay is consistent.

John, what’s scary about your parody is it took me a couple of minutes to spot the flaw! The YECists ought to hire you as a copy writer.

The flaw is, of course, that the Earth has remained within just one referential frame for its whole existence. Or, to be a bit more accurate, reference frames in which time dilation could be a substantial factor involve either implausibly high accelerations or gravitational fields so strong that the Earth would have been torn apart by the tidal forces.

Of all the sciences, astronomy is the one which disproves a 6,000 year old Universe the most.

Actually, I think geology gives us the most direct evidence against a 6,000-y.o. universe. We have measured the actual age of many rock samples, both terrestrial and lunar, and found that the Earth and Moon are about 750,000 times older than 6,000 years.

It is a philosophical matter, which is another way of saying that whoever succeeds in making his thoughts completely impenetrable by others has won the debate. So let me have a go, because I am blessed with some talent in this department. Here it goes. Since the Universe had a definite beginning it can only stretch infinitely in one direction of time. Since the Universe has a finite speed of growth of space, whether it be inflation or expansion it’s space can only become infinite when time has reached infinity.

Unless, of course, it was unbounded in space at time zero.

But theoretically, meaning if you could step outside the Universe and look at it from a timeless perspective, in an absolute sense it has a centre, that’s the Big Bang.

But, surely, the BB happened everywhere?