Best Definition of Young-Earth Creationism Ever

Best Definition of Young-Earth Creationism Ever December 4, 2014

Creationism Defined Kirk Cameron

HT Chris Code on Facebook

"I kind of vaguely knew about the dependency on the Tyndale bible (not sure I ..."

Challenge to Fundamentalist Bible Readers
"Hopefully there's not a lesson there for me :-)I suppose comedies aren't about well-adjusted, high-functioning ..."

A Teeny, Tiny Possibility You’re Wrong
"The English translations of the New Testament and the Pentateuch and Jonah by William Tyndale ..."

Challenge to Fundamentalist Bible Readers
"At one point Phoebe dates a psychologist who assesses the group of friends much as ..."

A Teeny, Tiny Possibility You’re Wrong

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Amanbymany

    Well, just like Hammy he has this book. I thought you guys knew this?

  • I must disagree with the headline. The captioned picture (I refuse to denigrate the word “meme” in this fashion) is funny, but it really devolves into an ad hominem attack. The falsity of young-earth creationism does not follow from the relative intelligence of well-known proponents for each view. Scientific theories are judged by their power to explain observable phenomena, not by “how much” authority figures “know.” We’re always hearing that religion involves appeals to authority, while science involves appeals to evidence. (Well, except for theories that aren’t theories, but models that somehow get dubbed theories, like M-theory. And we wonder why Christians still buy the “evolution is only a theory” line? But I digress.) Even Amanbymany’s comment on this very post snarkily makes this point. Yet the image in the post does exactly the same thing, appealing to a kind of authority investing in Hawking by virtue of his intelligence relative to Cameron’s (as opposed to, say, a more able apologist). Does that mean that if we could find a young-earth creationist with a higher IQ than Hawking’s, young-earth creationism would therefore gain credibility? Of course not, because young-earth creationism is scientifically indefensible and exegetically/theologically unnecessary (to use the mildest term I could think of).

    There’s also the related problem that knowledge is field-dependent. I propose this test: suppose that Hawking came out in favor of Jesus-mythicism. Should we all then conclude there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth, because Steven Hawking knows more than James McGrath? (I’ll grant you that James McGrath is smarter than Kirk Cameron.) In the case of the picture above the obviously relevant field is astrophysics, and yes, it is absolutely right to give dramatically more weight to what Hawking says about the implications of astrophysics for the age of the universe than what Cameron has to say about the same topic. But that’s not because Hawking is smarter than Cameron (though I bet that’s true), but because he has expertise in the physics of space-time and evidence to support his observations.

    • Androb

      I don’t know Kirk Cameron, but if he knows God he does know more than Hawking
      .

      • Den

        Beware of false prophets.

    • TomS

      Think about what it says to the creationist: We’re smarter than you, so shut up. And what response would they have? “Evolutionism means thinking that you’re smarter than Jesus.”

      • Richard Daniel

        Evolutionism is not a word rational people would seriously apply to themselves or their understanding of the way the world works.
        Evolution is a theory, in the real sense of the word. It is verifiable, it is testable, and it encompasses a vast array of processes that do not need faith.
        Science is about verifiable facts. It is not a belief system.

      • Bebop

        Pretty sure that I actually HAVE gained more knowledge in my lifetime that Joshua of Nazareth ever did. School systems were for sucks in occupied Israel a la 3 BC.

    • Realist1234

      He is an expert that others disagree with. Would suggest you read John Lennox’s book ‘God and Stephen Hawking’. One cannot help but come to the conclusion that many people believe whatever Mr Hawking says primarily because of a single popular book and his own personal situation, rather than the science.

      • It is a fair point that the issue is expertise and not intelligence. I think this meme image, however, gets at the heart of one of the more diabolical and anti-Christian aspects of young-earth creationism in a really succinct manner. Young-earth creationism is a way that Christians are duped into abandoning Christian values and embracing sinful pride, persuading themselves that, instead of humility, the defining feature of a Christian is believing that one can see without study what people who have dedicated their lives to study cannot.

        • Christopher R Weiss

          An absolutely spot on point. I have asked people who believe proponents of YEC like Cameron if they would listen to their mechanics about orthopedic surgery or to their plumbers about open heart surgery. Giving credence to the beliefs of someone like Cameron about important scientific theories like the Big Bang or modern evolutionary biology is the equivalent error. Cameron is simply unqualified to comment as are other YEC supporters.

    • Richard Daniel

      No one has ever said that Evolution is true because smart people said so.
      The narrative of this meme is that Y.E.C. is a belief system that demads acceptance with no testable proof, while science requires no faith at all. Yet, Kirk Cameron would argue that his perception of reality is somehow clearer than that of a man who has provided proof that can be tested by anyone with the willingness to undertake that task.

      Put another way, saying that Hawking said it is a nice shorthand, but it has never seriously been put forward as proof in and of itself.

      • David Hill

        It is with a lot of people learning it in schools. Richard Dawkins said this, now we can make fun of Christians for believing something else. They’re not basing it on anything other than someone else said so.
        Let’s be honest. The earth was created 4.5 billionish years ago and most people on this site believe that, but I doubt 5% of the people here have actually done the testing. We accept that the fossil they found the other day was 400 thousand years old for the same reason children believe in Santa Clause. Someone we respected told us it was true.

        • I am sure that is true for some people. But I hope that for most, the reason is different, namely that they accept the expertise of those who do the research, and recognize that a consensus of scientists or other experts is more likely to be correct than they are.

  • Realist1234

    Its a pity that creationism is understood by most as the belief that God created the universe in literally 6 days, 6000 years ago. I would call myself a creationist, but I believe God created the universe billions of years ago via the Big Bang, as that is what the evidence says. I have serious problems with the standard theory of evolution but I have no particular theological objection to it. John Lennox has raised these issues in his book ‘God’s Undertaker’ and I find his arguments compelling. I have yet to see an effective response to these problems from an evolutionist.

    • Dorfl

      Could you clarify what these problems are?

      • Realist1234

        I would suggest you read the book as it would take too long on a blog.

        • Dorfl

          Fair enough. But if you can find the time, I really suggest that you try to find a biologist and run Lennox’s arguments past them. Very often, arguments against the theory of evolution are actually against a theory of evolution that only exists in the arguers mind.

          • Realist1234

            Unfortunately I dont personally know a biologist. Or perhaps you could point me in the direction of a scientific response to the problems he has raised in regard to evolution in his book, on the web? The distinct impression given by Lennox, is that whilst he is a mathematician by trade, he has read widely around the subject, including well-known evolutionists’ work. If you are convinved of the truth of macroevolution (microevolution has been shown to be true by observation rather than backwards iteration), then I would encourage you to read his book. I would be genuinely interested in your view, particularly in regard to evolution. Im always surprised at how many ‘lay’ people just accept macroevolution without actually knowing anything about it, and the assumptions made by evolutionists. Im sure Im not the only one who didnt realise that the beaks of the finches that Darwin observed adapting to specific environmental changes actually reversed when the environment changed back – the adaptation was not permanent. Funny how that is left out of so many textbooks on evolution!

          • Richard Forrest

            If Lennox is claiming that there is a difference in terms of process between micro- and macroevolution, he is either ignorant of evolutionary theory or lying. Those terms were coined by evolutionary biologists to refer to evolution below and beyond the level of speciation, and as numerous observed instances of the evolution of new species are recorded in the scientific literature, it is a fact that we have observed macroevolutionary events.

            Perhaps you should read one of the several excellent and accessible books on evolution, such as Steve Jones ” Almost Like a Whale”, Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish” or Richard Dawkin’s “The Selfish Gene” so that you understand what evolutionary biologists write about evolutionary theory.

            Nobody expects you to accept uncritically whatever those authors write, but at least it will allow you to recognise misrepresentation of what they write so that you can evaluate the validity of Lennox’s assertions/

          • There have been a number of good responses to the claims that math disproves (macro)evolution. And here is a blog post by someone who is not without a measure of appreciation for Lennox when he feels he is right about something: http://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/theologian-pwns-physicist-but-at-what-cost/

          • Guest
          • TomS

            Here are three good books which should appeal to conservative Christians:

            Karl Giberson
            Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in evolution
            New York: HarperOne, 2008

            Darrell R Falk
            Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the world between faith and biology
            Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004

            Davis A Young & Ralph Stearly
            The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological evidence for the age of the Earth
            Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008

          • Realist1234

            Could you supply me with the specifics on this – provide examples of the ‘new species’ that have been observed; what exactly do you mean by ‘macroevoluntionary events’ that have been observed; provide references to the scientific literature you refer to. Thanks

          • Richard Forrest

            There is a good list of them here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

            more here:
            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

            By “macroevolutionary events” I am referring to evolution beyond the level of speciation. That is how the term is defined by those who coined it. The wikipedia entry is pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution. It was introduced as a term in biology (in English at least)) by Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1937. [Theodosius Grigorievich (1937). Genetics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.]

            Why should the term be used in any sense other that that for which it was coined by the people who coined it?

            By the way, all this (and much more) information is freely available on the internet from reputable sources such as university sites and those written by evolutionary biologists. Why not take the time to learn for yourself what those terms mean?

          • Dorfl

            If Lennox’s argument is that ‘microevolution’ has been observed but ‘macroevolution’ is not, then any textbook covering the basics of evolutionary biology should do. I can vouch for The Selfish Gene being a good choice, but since I realise many Christians are unwilling to read books by Dawkins, Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True is a nice alternative.

          • Realist1234

            To be honest, given the very anti-Christian agenda both of these writers have (as evidenced by Mr Coyne’s website etc), I would feel I was not reading an unbiased account of a scientific theory.

          • Dorfl

            Fair enough. Then pick some other author you like better. Richard Forrest gave two more recommendations above.

          • I think that Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God is still the best Christian biologist to have written on the claims of YEC and ID. Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala are also to be recommended.

          • Richard Forrest

            Anti-creationism is not synonymous with anti-Christian. Some of the most vigorous opponents of creationism are Christians who are unhappy with the bad impression the persistent dishonesty of the movement has given of their faith.

          • Yeah, but I think Realist1234 was referring specifically to the writings of Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, who are both unapologetically of the opinion that religion is harmful.

            I like their writing myself, but then I’m not a believer. Unlike them, however, I’m only opposed to the sort of fundamentalist religion that works to deny science, history, and (most importantly) human rights. Unfortunately, that characterizes a huge percentage of religious people in the world.

          • Realist1234

            That is correct I was specifically referring to Coyne and Dawkins. Re your other point, I personally do not know any Christians who ‘deny science, history etc’. I certainly don’t. Anyone I know, for example, uses medical science. They also generally accept what science has discovered down through the centuries, and make use of it on a daily basis, eg technology etc. And from a historical point of view, many of the key figures in science have been Christians or had other religious beliefs. In my view, belief in a creator ie 1st cause to the universe is perfectly rational and not ‘unscientific’.

          • Richard Forrest

            I suggest that the people calling themselves Christians who deny science are those who demand that their particular interpretation of their particular holy book must be taken as absolute truth and that any scientific findings which contradict that interpretation must be rejected. Or, for that matter, those who claim that ID is a scientific theory whilst at the same time demanding that we redefine the fundamental nature of science to accommodate the supernatural so that their “theory” can be called science.

            Belief in a creator is not incompatible with being a scientist. Many scientists, including prominent evolutionary biologists such as Simon Conway Morris and Robert Asher, are Christians. However, what is unscientific is to demand that religious belief is supported by science and should be taught as science in science classes. If creationists were not demanding this, there would no issue.

            It is the way in which they promote this agenda which casts more doubt on the validity of their claims to be Christians than it does on the science they attack.

          • Well, I certainly wouldn’t aver that Christians (as a group) are science and history deniers. But it’s inescapable that many are. Whether you know them personally or not, you’ve surely heard of Young Earth Creationists, for example. I’m not saying that all Christians should be painted with the same broad brush.

          • Realist1234

            I was refuting your claim that a ‘huge percentage’ of religious believers deny science, history… which is clearly not true. I have indeed heard of Young Earth Creationists but they represent a small minority of believers.

          • Refuting a claim usually requires a bit of evidence. I wish you were right that YE Creationists were only “a small minority of believers”. Unfortunately, I can back my claim with actual data:

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

            42% of Americans are Young Earth Creationists, according to a Gallop poll conducted in May of this year.

          • Realist1234

            Well thats the USA for ye! Us Brits tend to be more sophisticated lol. I looked at the gallup poll. If this is how they conduct polls Im not impressed. They sampled 0.0002 % of the population and deemed that reliable to apply to the whole population! I would also question the sole use of telephone calls for the survey – that does not exactly give respondents very much time to properly think about the questions being asked, but thats by the by.

          • You don’t know very much about polling do you? Gallop has been conducting this survey for decades by the way. This was only the most recent. On the one hand you complain that people aren’t given time to “properly think”; on the other hand you think the sampling is too small.

            How big do you think the sampling would be if Gallop went door to door, sitting in people’s living rooms and giving them time to “properly think”?

            More to the point – the evidence you have provided for the “small minority” of YEC’s among Christians is nonexistent.

          • Realist1234

            I wondered if you had read John Lennox’s book, ‘God’s Undertaker’? If so, could you point out the ‘dishonesty’ in it?

          • Richard Forrest

            Why should I need to read his book?

            If Lennox is claiming that there is a difference in terms of process between micro- and macroevolution, he is either ignorant of evolutionary theory or lying.

            Which do you think it is?

          • Realist1234

            I was only suggesting you read his book. Perhaps I have misunderstood his wording in the book, so it would be good to have your own view on his meaning, rather than taking my word for it.

          • Nick G

            *sigh*

            Really, evolutionary biologists are not obliged to reply to every creationist tract by someone with no relevant expertise – such as John Lennox. Interesting that you expect others to go and read a book by a Christian apologist without relevant expertise, but won’t read books by atheists with such expertise. Try reading something by Francisco Ayala, Kenneth Miller or Simon Conway Morris – all Christians with deep expertise and excellent reputations in evolutionary science. Here’s a review which says Lennox’ book is just a rehash of oft-refuted claims by various cdesign proponentsists – and dishonest in that it fails to reference the extensive refutations of those claims:

            In reality, the core of the book is a rehash of established anti-evolution arguments: the various claims of Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity argument, and various claims about information theory. And what’s really strange is that the obscurity of the presentation isn’t limited to the outer cover: Lennox hardly mentions intelligent design except for a vague expression of dislike for the term. Wells’ name never appears except in the endnotes. Michael Behe is identified euphemistically as the author of “a book that has demonstrated a lot of critical discussion.” Other prominent members of the Intelligent Design movement are cited as authorities without any explanation at all of who they are.

            Furthermore, Lennox generally talks as if there were no established criticisms of these authors, as if the many years of debate over Intelligent Design never took place. It’s as if when Lennox was writing his book, he was deathly scared that a reader somewhere might Google “Intelligent Design” and find out that his claims have been thoroughly refuted by credible scientists. In at least one case, it’s clear Lennox knows damn well his claims have been refuted: he claims that the probability of generating a particular 100 amino acid protein at random is 1 in 10 to the 130. In an endnote, he admits that actually the calculation behind this is based on a false premise, and the correct number is actually only slightly less than 1 in 1000, but hey, they’re both small numbers. This is like promising to make someone a trillionaire 10 to the 118 times over, and then giving them only a thousand bucks, because hey, it’s a lot of money either way.

    • I specifically added “Young-earth” to the title of the blog post because of this. It may be that the battle for the term has effectively been lost, and that we may now need to distinguish “creationism” as the anti-science forms of what we can more broadly call “belief in a Creator.” But it is an important point that it is only a subset of those who believe in creation who think it means rejecting what scientists have to say.

  • I ought to have coupled this meme image with this oldie but goodie from The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/three-eminent-biologists-and-growing-pains-kirk-ca,10466/

  • It’s something to threaten children with: “If you don’t learn how to tell the difference between what’s true, and what you wish were true, you will grow up to become a young earth creationist!”

  • Bailey Nix

    The evidence against evolutionist theories is actually both staggering and the quantitive dismissal of any evidence to the contrary is perplexing.
    Science based upon a predetermined outcome is no longer science but an ideaology,a religion.
    Science is the pursuit of truth no matter what the result.
    With today’s rejection and refusal to accept and review of much of the factual data they leave out many variables simply on the basis that it doesn’t fit the present theory therefore they simply refuse to recognize or acknowledge it period.Science predetermination of evidence actually distorts evidence that is found.For instance the laetoli prints were prescribed to the purported “lucy” ancestry and her feet, length of legs were designed to fit the footprints. .it was a circular counterproductive argument, the same as the fossil rock circular reasoning of the rock is 50 million years old because of the fossil, the fossil is 50 million years old because of the rock.
    “Lucy” after many years has been debunked, yet still on exhibit as evidence in museums To create the illusion of her continued acceptance..
    Every 10–15 years a new model is found , and then debunked, yet still taught as fact.piltdown.nebraska.Even the rebuilding of “lucy” is now an obviously perfect example of the point I make..scientists with a world view distort evidence in a way to continue the position of said world view.
    In addition to circular reasoning and predetermination which is actually bias ,the refusal to honestly review and test all evidence that may suggest any other reasoning distorts the purpose of science itself.
    Science today has become the same ideaology that would label Galileo a heretic.Just because an idea is popular does not mean that it is factually correct, especially considering the massive amount of questions remaining, and the history of its proponents for both error and fraud.
    One great example is the more recent findings of soft tissues in dinosaur bones that is not possible as the material would not last for even one million years..Yet when c 14 testing is done it points to a young earth, which is summarily rejected due to the predetermined preferences towards another theory based simply on circular reasonings.We know dinosaurs are millions of years old because of the rocks, and we know the rocks are millions of years old because of the fossil. .This is not an answer befitting a unbiased scientific community. .
    There are truly many many more questions due to probabilities , improbability, and impossibilities..
    when looked at in a conglomerate picture there is many things that evolutionist themselves that point away from their theories that was already explained. .
    mitochondrial dna we all came from the same woman.
    the sudden explosion of life with so much variation within a too short period of time evidenced in the record itself, which they are finding very difficult to explain.
    Refusal to date bones on the fact that according to their world view, the results would be impossible , thus rejected, yet the times they have been tested they fit within a 100000 year period Which would support a younger earth.
    Even evolutionists now are backtracking to a fast evolution of modern man to a common ancestor to a 100000 year period, why? It is another gradual forced acceptance that the theories they hold are failing, yet they continue to predetermine that they are true.
    Biological cellular data does seem to support the theory, and has shown adaptation and reactions to environmental stimulus, however it does not in and up itself support macroevolution..This is another point where predetermination has polluted modern science.
    In astronomy there are super size galaxy structures in space that are simply too large to be possible according to the big bang models.
    The scientists promoting the Evolution of all life have too many faults , too many unanswered questions, too many previous errors ,the perpetuation of proven errors after they are proven errors, too many outright forgeries to be trusted.
    They have become pseudo-scientific politicians in the promotion of their world view, and have become just as dogmatic and closed minded as they accuse their opponents of being.
    It is Galileo all over again..Rejecting ideas based on prevalence of the biased norms..They cannot even come to a consensus on observable climate issues, yet they claim to know everything else.Truth is we have advanced so much in all areas of science, yet still know so very little.

    • Ironic that you uncritically embrace and then regurgitate false claims of science-denialists, and yet want to claim Galileo for yourself. Instead of turning to charlatans and false teachers who peddle misinformation, why not turn instead to one of the many Christians working in the field of biology, such as Francis Collins?

      • Bailey Nix

        I was pointing out the dogmatic defense of world views then and now..and I am researching everything I can find..And thank you for the suggestion. .I will look up his work.
        I do not claim Galileo as anything other than someone that was rejected because his theories were eventually proven despite the closed mindedness of the rest of scientists of his day. It is an analogy.

        • You clearly have barely begun to inform yourself, if you don’t know one of the leading Christians in biology, who headed up the Human Genome Project and is now director of the NIH.

          A Galileo analogy is unhelpful since all sorts of views are rejected for all sorts of reasons. In the case of young-earth creationism and Intelligent Design, the issue is not scientific dogmatism on the part of scientists, but the dishonesty of proponents of these views and their persistence in maintaining them despite the evidence against them.

          • Bailey Nix

            Actually I do know who he is.just didn’t recognize the name right off.
            And the same can be said for the other side.It is agenda driven, full of holes, and every 5-10 years a new missing link is promoted, models made and then proven wrong. Lucy a great example. .they build them in the most possible way to look human , then only to find a few years later to be another monkey, it has become the Bigfoot of origin scientists. .nobody believes it.
            Truth is science knows very little.why not forget pushing origin and age , simply admit We do not know.
            climate scientists are agenda driven just as much as origin.Now anyone that disagrees with a certain view is called a hater..since when did opinion become hate?The defenders of evolution are doing science a great disservice.
            I am not closed minded , there is evidence both sides can point to.both sides are vehement in promoting their view and both are just as dogmatic. .There is only one side that refuses to fully test the evidence in every way possible.
            Maybe if they would actually test it they could figure out why there are discrepancies and eventually come to the truth and reason why.That would be true science.

          • Nick G

            Lucy a great example. .they build them in the most possible way to look human, then only to find a few years later to be another monkey

            A typical example of creationist ignorance and dishonesty. Whatever its exact place in hominid evolution – which is a subject of entirely legitimate scientific debate – the skeletal remains dubbed “Lucy” are certainly not those of a monkey – my guess from the way you phrase the matter is that you do not even know the difference between monkeys and apes. Nor is there any genuine doubt about the age of the earth – over 4 billion years, nor the fact that today’s organisms, including ourselves, are the end result of a long process of evolution. It is telling that you do not present any evidence whatever for creationism – but not surprising, because there isn’t any. Creationist “scientists” very rarely do any real research; they focus on misrepresenting and slandering real scientists, as you have done. It is also telling that, other than your absurd misrepresentations of the status of “Lucy”, your examples are of “Piltdown Man” and “Nebraska Man” – the first a fraud and the second a simple error, both exposed by evolutionary paleontologists, and both around a century old. Your canards about “circular dating” are absurd: the relative ages of most strata were worked out before radioactive dating methods became available; and there is a massive consilience of evidence for an old earth and evolution from multiple sources – radioactive dating, fossils, biogeography, patterns of similarity and difference between organisms, and the physical arrangement of the strata – confirming each other. Your claim that soft tissue could not have survived millions of years is simply assertion: the evidence is growing that it can, and in some cases, has done so.

            climate scientists are agenda driven just as much as origin.

            Ah, the well-known phenomenon of “crank magnetism”. Let me guess: Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya, the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives planted in them, vaccination causes autism, sexual orientation is a matter of choice and the Rapture is just round the corner. Any hits?

          • Bailey Nix

            Real science? Triceratops soft tissue c14 dated at under 50000 years peer reviewed and published. .the scientist was fired after publishing. Much better method than the circular rock fossil argument. . Georgia lab tested dinosaur bones c-14 and came out between 20k years to 48k years old..yet c14 would not last over 100k the triceratops age was peer reviewed and accepted, confirming no contamination. .
            I do not care what the truth is..IIf creationists were prevailing I would be just as critical. There is a definite agenda involved in both origin and climate scientists. .
            too many variables , too many possibilities, too many improbabilities to really believe either..When you lie, I do not trust you.When you refuse to fully test things in every possible way, you are predetermined to a specific conclusion.Which to me shows agenda..especially with the fallacies promoted previously.
            many things science cannot explain which leaves many variables unaccounted for.
            Forget teaching origins and simply teach scientific methods and modern science until we are better equipped and less agenda oriented.

          • You are reading sites which misrepresent things, and repeating what they say without fact checking them, and then you complain that othets are “agenda oriented.” Can you see the problem?

          • Bailey Nix

            I am stating problems yes.I am pointing out fallacies I see in agenda driven science. Its like Bigfoot , Sasquach, the abominable snowman in my opinion.
            I would be just as critical of creation. .I was taught creation growing up..Many holes in it as well..But also truths..Both sides have some facts on there sides, but both have holes that are huge.
            Men are liars.I am a man and I have lied before.Each has an agenda and bias towards their world view.I do not trust biased theories.
            What I trust is mathematics , and natural law which in and of itself , logic dictates someone put them in order, a programmer, designer, or creator. .Those laws have not failed therefore I trust God’s order of laws and the one I believe set them in motion, however he decided to do it..
            I often wonder if the 6 day creation should read 6 stages of processes , or creation..I do not know..nobody does really.

          • Cecil Bagpuss

            Bailey, you say that you are a critical thinker, which would normally be a good thing, but in this case it seems to involve a paranoid suspicion of the academic establishment. I imagine that your views, and your suspicion, come from doing amateur research on the internet. The internet is a wonderful thing, but there is a real danger in using it to give you the “other side” of the story.

            This is particularly apparent in the case of Jesus mythicism. Mythicism has no standing in the world of biblical scholarship, but it thrives on the internet. And alongside mythicism thrives the paranoid belief that the academic world is trying to suppress it. All of this is facilitated by the internet.

          • Bailey Nix

            my criticism does not come from the internet.I always have been critical. The biggest question I have left to answer yet, the one that started in the 4th grade is what purpose is there in life or in the universe existing at all?
            The closest answer I have come up with is simply for US to find God.
            And no i do not subscribe to mythicism whatsoever. .I believe in logic, mathematics, and the laws of physics and nature..The order of those laws in themselves point to a programmer, a designer, a creator. Yes I am a Christian and follow Christ. .I try to live my according to his.The puzzle of 6 day creation often makes me wonder if it was mistranslated, or should read 6 stages. .I haven’t gotten into truly investigating anything other than what I see as either constant errors or deciept by proponents of evolution.I grew up during the 70s in the days when all the frauds were exposed, and in 99 when that article was written About lucy I was 19..So my criticism has been through many years.. and comes from experience.
            The fact that the main people that support evolution in the beginning were humanists and have an agenda to try and deny God , and the 1963 45 communist goals of America is the exact thing I have seen in our society.
            So yes I do see an agenda. .Especially when data is refused to be tested in every way possible, and other evidence simply ignored and discounted,and some refused to be investigated too many variables remain.

          • Cecil Bagpuss

            I would like to stress that I don’t see any incompatibility between a scientific understanding of the Universe and belief in God. You mentioned an atheist agenda. To the extent that there is such a thing, it involves a false representation of a conflict between science and religion. There should be nothing to fear in the pursuit of genuine scientific knowledge.

            I ask you to consider whether you are really qualified to judge the supposed shortcomings of science. It is good that people research matters for themselves, but we should generally defer to experts. Remember that those who endorse Jesus mythicism also believe that they are qualified to hold an opinion which is at odds with that of the experts, and it usually turns out that they don’t really have a clue.

          • Bailey Nix

            Like I said mythicism is not what I subscribe to..I do believe science and religion can and do coexist obviously. .I truly am open minded , to some extent, I actually care more about where we are headed than where we came from..
            And to me it’s not about gay rights,
            I say let them live their lives.let them do as they wish..But as I try to live as Jesus did, in love and compassion, and live pure (I fail, we all do) I see the possibility ahead that I might be forced to participate in something that goes against the very core of my beliefs.It is not a judgement of others.I cannot do that..To me a lie is the same as a murder.I am a murderer because I have lied..I am no great man , just one trying to live pure, and show love and compassion to others.
            I cannot judge or throw rocks at another person because I am no better.So were I to refuse participation it is not a judgement on them , it is a judgment on myself. .

          • Nick G

            I see the possibility ahead that I might be forced to participate in something that goes against the very core of my beliefs.

            How?

          • Bailey Nix

            There is no compromise on the left.The lessons of the U.S.S.R and 50 million dead.You must submit to the agenda, there is no room to tolerate difference of opinion.There is no room to disagree. Political correctness, then labelled as bigots and haters, then traitors, then terrorists, then reeducation camps.Its been done before, it is in the present, it will be in the future..When tolerance becomes tyranny equality is one sided.

          • OK, this is your last warning. There are other options besides whatever your view is an Soviet-style Communism. If you offer one more false antithesis or straw man of the person you are talking to, you will be banned. This is a place for serious discussion. If you are unwilling or unable to rise to that level then there are other places that will let you post without any concern for evidence or reason, and you can take your comments there.

          • Bailey Nix

            I was asked a question and I answered. .I have heard those very words, from the President and his staff,and members of Congress directed at conservatives ending with terrorists. .
            If you think I am some kind of straw man you should have heard my criticisms of Bush, and his foolish war in Iraq..They were much worse than what I have said here..I speak my mind, but I have not been rude.

          • The issue was not rudeness, it was lack of substance, caricature, and claims made without the provision of evidence – by which is meant actual evidence and not the citation of someone else’s assertions.

          • Nick G

            I disagree here. Not that Christians or other religious believers can’t be good scientists: clearly they can; but nonetheless:
            1) As a matter of historical fact, the influence of religion has waned as scientific knowledge has advanced over the past few centuries. This is partly because science has refuted many beliefs held on religious grounds, partly because it provides an alternative framework in which to understand the world, and partly because it has contributed to making life less precarious for a large number of people.
            2) There is a fundamental conflict between the mental attitudes and institutional systems required by religion and by science. Religion stresses the primacy, in the search for truth, of one or more of revelation, authority, faith and private experience (e.g. of “encountering God”). Science rejects or problematises all of these sources of belief, and relies on systematic hypothesis building, publicly shareable evidence, and empirical testing, and on institutional systems which make it possible – but not too easy – for erroneous hypotheses to be replaced by new ones.

          • Nick G

            .I grew up during the 70s in the days when all the frauds were exposed

            What “frauds” were those? Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud – by evolutionary scientists – in 1953. That’s the only one you have mentioned.

            the 1963 45 communist goals of America

            Exactly the sort of batty conspiracist nonsense I would have expected you to take seriously. This is a reference to a book by Cleon Skousen: The Naked Communist. Skousen was a member of the far-right John Birch Society, a Mormon, and an “End Times” prophet. There is no evidence whatever that his “45 goals” were ever formulated by communists. Among those Skousen cited to substantiate his claims was a former czarist army officer named Arsene de Goulevitch, whose own sources included Boris Brasol, a White Russian émigré who provided Henry Ford with the first English translation of the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and later became a supporter of Nazi Germany.

          • Bailey Nix

            Funny how they match the leftist agenda and much of the society today isn’t it? There is no reasoning with people that deny truth.. scientific observation of the last 40 years of history proves me right…Most of those 45 goals are complete. .

          • Using bogus information about the past to confirm imagined views of “leftists” in the present isn’t how one makes a persuasive argument. I keep this blog troll-free to the extent that I can. When asked to present evidence, or when your claims are shown to be based on falsehoods, please respond with evidence, not just assertions.

          • Bailey Nix

            Bogus? Let’s see..God out of schools yep
            breaking of the traditional family yep
            porn become mainstream yep
            reduced sense of individuality, more dependence upon the state yep
            traditional values seen as obsolete yep

          • Ah well, you had your chance. Breaking of traditional family could include abandoning polygamy, rejecting patriarchy, allowing people of different skin color to marry, and any number of other things. Do you really think that readers here do not know that “traditional family” in the sense of the nuclear family is itself a modern invention?

            People have always been bemoaning the alleged passing of traditional values.

            Perhaps in other corners of the internet, there are people who will mistake your trite assertions for statements of significance. If so, I lament for them as well as for you. Goodbye.

          • Nick G

            What Skousen did was to write out a list of far-right bugbears, then attribute the desire to achieve them to “communists”. Most of them are in fact irrelevant – because the USSR no longer exists, e.g.:

            5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
            10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

            or have not happened, e.g.:

            6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
            13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
            28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools* on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
            35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
            38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
            44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.**
            45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

            or have been reversed (setting up East and West Germany as separate states); or could only be thought to have come to pass by someone completely out of touch with reality (e.g. communists controlling one or both major political parties, the schools, the media, art criticism, the psychiatric profession, the unions, big business, etc.). Those that have happened (e.g. eliminating the House Committee on Unamerican Activities, giving China’s seat in the UN to Communist China) or partly happened (e.g. eliminating obsceity laws) had support far beyond the insignificant American Communist Party, and far beyond anyone who could reasonably be considered sympathetic to communism. But as you say, there’s no reasoning with people who deny truth.

            *Individuals and groups remain free to pray in schools. What has happened is that prayer is no longer part of the official school activiites – which was indeed, judged a violation of the separation of church and state established by the first amendment.
            **It’s been ceded to Panama, across the territory of which it runs.

          • Why not read books by scientists who work in this field? Surely, if humans are untrustworthy, so are you, and so too are those sources from which your claims are borrowed? Surely the best safeguard against our individual untrustworthiness is the collective effort of scientific inquiry, in which everyone is trying to break new ground and would love nothing more than to overturn what is currently accepted, and so there is a higher chance of human error being corrected and compensated for?

          • Bailey Nix

            Read my post two down..sry I am getting tired..I do enjoy discussion.
            I appreciate you taking the time and not just saying , your a freak, lol

          • Nick G

            You’re just confirming your ignorance. Carbon-14 dating has long been known not to be usable for materials older than around 50,000 years, because essentially none of the original C14 would remain – all you are measuring in such cases is levels of contamination. You don’t get to cite C14 dating and ignore what the relevant experts say about it. I notice that you don’t give any actual references that we can check.

            I do not care what the truth is.

            That’s quite obvious.

          • Bailey Nix

            Lol there was no contamination, you are assuming… triceratops was peer reviewed paper..the others were done by the top lab in the country…

      • Bailey Nix

        I do have an idea.but it would actually resolve the conflict Of the two issues..it would also require a huge change of perspective though..
        Change the way we define science..continue the research,releasing all possible data when it has to do with origins.
        For instance test bones tissues with every possible outcome.
        Make pure data available for the researchers of each camp to determine what they wish to release according to their perspectives. You then teach origins not as science, but maybe as a form of philosophy in schools, giving equal time to each camp.there is I believe about 3-4 mainly regarded theories.
        teaching it in that form allows access to the students furthering all knowledge without bias or predetermination.
        That way you can have pure science without trying to prove or deny Deity. Leave that to theologians and philosophers.It satisfies the needs of all religions be it atheistic or deity related.in nature.

        • No one needs to deny God in order to participate in science. But science does not deal with divine action. Do you advocate for theistic meteorology because weather reports deal with natural processes and do not mention God as the one who brings the rains?

    • Cecil Bagpuss

      These are serious, and sweeping, accusations of dishonesty. I am sure you realise that to make such accusations would itself be dishonest if there were not extremely good evidence to support them. Can you provide this evidence? You claim, for example, that the reconstruction of “Lucy” was deliberately distorted so as to make it look as if she could have made the Laetoli footprints. Any evidence for the claim? I would particularly like to know how the length of the legs was altered.

      BTW, was the claim that climate science is also a vast conspiracy made with the intention of enhancing or diminishing the claim that evolutionary biology is a conspiracy?

      • Bailey Nix

        Look at her picture .everything in white is man made..
        look at an orangutan skeleton. .the bones will pretty much match up if you took out the man made parts.
        evolutionists themselves have removed lucy from man’s history. Due to another find.there were over 100 ways to make lucy in an anatomically correct manner, yet they chose the most human like..they said her species is about 3 feet 8 inches tall, yet there was a 1 foot extension on her legs to accommodate the prints.
        I present information I found, I encourage those interested to do it themselves. .iit takes time and hours to filter out the crazy crap spewed by both sides in determining the information. I am not a scientist I am a critical thinker.
        origin science is agenda driven by both sides.science should test everything in every way possible and release the findings.
        it is the same with climate change. .
        nothing should be presented as fact when there are still legitimate questions. .Take God out of it, leave that to philosophy and theologians.
        Present facts to both yets and oets.
        let them sort it out.
        either theory can be possible with or without God.
        I do not trust liars, and both sides have had their share of frauds Lies and mistakes.but it’s the evolutionist in charge and suppressing evidence.
        In Cali one was fired after publishing a peer reviewed report where he had a triceratops soft tissue dated ..it came out at like 43000 years old.
        soft tissue cannot last for 1 million years.that is another example.
        piltdown, Nebraska. Every missing link story I now think of as just another Bigfoot story because they all eventually fail.
        I am not anti science, I am anti agenda supporting science..Give us the truth, all the facts, or nothing at all and stick with modern science that we do know and leave origin alone.
        do your dna mapping and cell research, but quit telling us things that are not absolute.

        • Cecil Bagpuss

          I’ve just had a look on Wikipedia, and the first thing I noticed was that the femur is intact. So how much room for manoeuvre would the reconstructors have had? Remember that you are making a serious accusation of dishonesty. When I ask for evidence you tell me to go and look at a picture. Do you think that you may be overstating your case?

      • Bailey Nix

        Cellular biology has proven adaptation and mutation due to environmental influences.that is accepted and I do not question it.microevolution is a completely different issue than macroevolution, and that I believe may be the misinterpreted or misrepresentation of the entire issue.
        I do not claim to know the answer, just know there are questions and plenty of them to be answered. .
        what I do know is that there is an extremely organized system of natural laws in the universe even if there was a big bang at whatever time, it followed an organized code of laws that governed it’s formation.
        That to me dictates in logic that someone programed that code of laws.you don’t get a Mona Lisa by throwing paint from a can on a canvas..you get abstract random splotches. .The universal system of natural law is not random splotches it is a system of order, just like a government. I believe that suggests a programmer, a designer, or creator.
        Other than that logic I do not care about the age of the universe, I want the truth and I do not believe it is honestly being searched for.If we are but ants in a huge jar with some huge kid throwing things in to confuse us, I want to know the truth, not what any agenda decides it is from lack of or belief in a deity.
        If creation was the prevailing theory I would be just as critical , Even as a believer in God, I would question what about the neanderthals..if there was just Adam and Eve , why is man so spread so early throughout the continents, when did the continents divide and how..why are there so many different races of people. .I would be needing these answers and more.
        I just want truth , not agenda, if it’s maybe this or that, then release both because it is better to say -its either,we think, or we’re not sure than to say it is and be wrong.

      • Bailey Nix

        I watched the nova documentary of lucy rereconstruction.also there have been several statements by evolutionit’s saying Australopithecus apes should be removed. .due to ST W573 discovery.

        • You misunderstood the point. The question is where this distant relative fits on our family tree, not whether there is a family tree and whether they are part of it.

          Do you understand that, thanks to genetic evidence, there are no longer any “missing links”?

          • Bailey Nix

            There have been no genetic testing of these that I have found.And actually mitochondrial dna places all living humans are related to one genetic female within the last 100000 years, that I do know.
            Again, I am pointing to problems , not to an answer. .I do not know nor do I care how the processes of origin took place, if creation was the prevailing theory I would be just as critical.
            My faith in God is based on logic , mathematics , and the organization of the laws of the universe itself..Even if it was an explosion, the laws of physics brought it to order, and that suggests some one made those laws to govern. Which points to God.So basically I believe in science itself, just not man’s interpretation of the facts presented when all possibilities are not even truly considered. .

          • Why not read something by Francisco Ayala, instead of not informing yourself and claiming that you haven’t found anything?

          • Bailey Nix

            I will look into it..We really can’t afford books right now. I been out of work for a year, and my wife has had to work for$I0.00 an hour.luckily we paid of the house when I was working. .just started treatment so hopefully will get back to work soon..
            thanks for the tips on who to look for in reading.
            have a great day., Goin to bed Now.

          • If you cannot afford books, perhaps you can access a library?

            If not, this site may be helpful: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

            You might also want to see some of the older posts on this blog, since many of the points you mentioned or asked about have been discussed before: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2010/02/blogging-creationism-and-intelligent-design-the-highlights-revisited.html