psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by Ginkgo »

jinx wrote:
Yes, but that's the whole point of the apriori. No amount of observational data can prove the truth or falsity of the apriori argument.
Everyone brings a priori starting points to data. The atheists/evolutionists (usually taken by the height of blind ignorant dogmatic faith to the point it is not even realised) is 'evolution did it'. The YEC's is: Genesis 1:1 is accurate and took place 6,000 years ago. I know my a priori starting point.

That's good you have a apriori starting point. This is why you have a good metaphysical theory.


Ginkgo
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by tillingborn »

jinx wrote:'Evolution' is the myth that mankind is 'evolving' and getting better and better and better and one day with enough knowledge will 'evolve' to the level of gods.
I don't remember this bit in the Origin of Species. I don't think Darwin claimed anything more than that some adaptations will make life easier for the carrier, which will improve their chances of breeding.
jinx wrote:It is the lie started by the serpent on the garden of Eden and MILLIONS have fallen hook line and sinker like gullible fish for it.
Another of the books I have read is the Bible. I don't remember the serpent mentioning evolution. One of the problems I have with Christianity is this notion that we are born sinners. I was there at the birth of my children and the idea that they had done anything wrong, to me is disgusting. Frankly, it's a pretty useless god that allows a child's first achievement to be wickedness.
jinx wrote:Mankind is decaying and the lie is things are going in the opposite direction. Sheep to the slaughter. Zombies with no clue what lay ahead of them.
When you say that mankind is decaying, do you have any evidence that we are any worse than the lot that God decided to eradicate with the flood?

Why do you think you are so angry at people who disagree with you jinx? What is it about science that you want to claim for your literal interpretation of Genesis?
jinx
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 10:32 am

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by jinx »

Your starting point is an assumption that the book of Genesis is the literal truth. Given that our souls may be at stake, it would be nice if you could explain why this is a reasonable assumption to make.
After reading Darwins bate in my mouth garbage and 4-5 of Richard Dawkins books it came apparent to me Dawkins was hiding something (i knew he was lying as soon as i started reading his books). I found out what after watching interviews on youtube with the filthy snake for hours on end day after day (him failing to answer some pretty basic questions (not failing to account for existence of DNA)) and my brain almost exploded, i realized in one thought 1) 'Evolution' is the greatest myth EVER 2) Genesis is literal 3) Science is amazing.
Another of the books I have read is the Bible. I don't remember the serpent mentioning evolution. One of the problems I have with Christianity is this notion that we are born sinners. I was there at the birth of my children and the idea that they had done anything wrong, to me is disgusting. Frankly, it's a pretty useless god that allows a child's first achievement to be wickedness.
Everyone on earth is fallen because of what Adam and Eve did. Hence why 'evolution' is :the lie. If someone believes all life 'evolved' then Adam and Eve wernt real, they did not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, man isnt fallen, Jesus wasnt God.
When you say that mankind is decaying, do you have any evidence that we are any worse than the lot that God decided to eradicate with the flood?
I could link literature of mutation rate but 99% of atheists cant read scientific literature. I may not bother wasting my time linking anything more after this (throwing pearls to swine)

http://austore.creation.com/catalog/gen ... ii1dgph8r2
Why do you think you are so angry at people who disagree with you jinx? What is it about science that you want to claim for your literal interpretation of Genesis?
Animals bring forth after their kind. Fish produce fish, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, worms produce worms, possums produce possums. This is science. This is observable.

That's good you have a apriori starting point. This is why you have a good metaphysical theory.


Ginkgo
You fall into the 99% of atheists who has not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species').
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by tillingborn »

jinx wrote:Everyone on earth is fallen because of what Adam and Eve did. Hence why 'evolution' is :the lie. If someone believes all life 'evolved' then Adam and Eve wernt real, they did not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, man isnt fallen, Jesus wasnt God.
Why do you think God holds newborn children accountable for something done by their ancestors?
How did an all powerful god let that happen?
What have you done that requires Jesus to save you?
jinx
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 10:32 am

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by jinx »

Why do you think God holds newborn children accountable for something done by their ancestors?
How did an all powerful god let that happen?
What have you done that requires Jesus to save you?
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Six times God said 'it was good' and one time 'it was very good'. Is death 'good'? Is sin 'good'? Is pain. mutations, disease and suffering 'good'? No.

Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Things started out 'very good' then Genesis 3 took place. Jesus was Gods sacrifice for mankind for the sin he (mankind) introduced into the world (Adam and Eve). Mankind is fallen and creation cursed all because of our (mankinds, including atheists/evolutionists) common ancestors (Adam and Eve) disobedience to God.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by Ginkgo »

jinx wrote:
That's good you have a apriori starting point. This is why you have a good metaphysical theory.


Ginkgo
You fall into the 99% of atheists who has not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species').
No I am not an atheist ( for the third time). Would a letter from the Assistant Bishop of my diocese suffice? That aside all you have presented is an adhominem fallacy.
MGL
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:58 pm

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by MGL »

jinx wrote:
After reading Darwins bate in my mouth garbage and 4-5 of Richard Dawkins books it came apparent to me Dawkins was hiding something (i knew he was lying as soon as i started reading his books). I found out what after watching interviews on youtube with the filthy snake for hours on end day after day (him failing to answer some pretty basic questions (not failing to account for existence of DNA)) and my brain almost exploded, i realized in one thought 1) 'Evolution' is the greatest myth EVER 2) Genesis is literal 3) Science is amazing.
This seems to be a narrative of how you came to the belief that Genesis is literal, but it is not clear to me from this why this belief is a reasonable one. The only clue seems to be your reference to Dawkins inability to account for DNA, but I don't understand what you mean here, so if this is relevant, perhaps you could expand on this a little?
jinx
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 10:32 am

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by jinx »

This seems to be a narrative of how you came to the belief that Genesis is literal, but it is not clear to me from this why this belief is a reasonable one. The only clue seems to be your reference to Dawkins inability to account for DNA, but I don't understand what you mean here, so if this is relevant, perhaps you could expand on this a little?
Abiogenesis (obv) has never been demonstrated nor observed. It is religion vs science. Science vs abiogenesis/'evolution' religion. Science wins (again).
MGL
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:58 pm

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by MGL »

jinx wrote:
Abiogenesis (obv) has never been demonstrated nor observed. It is religion vs science. Science vs abiogenesis/'evolution' religion. Science wins (again).
Your definition of science seems to disallow the reasoned inference of unobservable phenomena ( eg abiogenenis ) from observable phenomena ( eg organic chemistry\molecular biology ). As you seem to stand by this view of science, could you now explain why you think this is a sensible view?
jinx
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 10:32 am

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by jinx »

Your definition of science seems to disallow the reasoned inference of unobservable phenomena ( eg abiogenenis ) from observable phenomena ( eg organic chemistry\molecular biology ). As you seem to stand by this view of science, could you now explain why you think this is a sensible view?
It is a religious belief NOT science. I can 'infer' Carl Sagans dragon if i want (this is analogous to the myth of abiogenesis/spontaneous generation/neo-darwinian evolution). There obv is no law of chemistry that says matter left alone will spontaneously generate into the genetic code through natural processes. Natural origins of life are ruled out. This only leaves aliens (which just pushes the problem to another planet) and obv supernatural creation (Yec/Genesis). Atheists who hate God would prefer to believe (based on obviously NOTHING) in aliens than Genesis.

http://austore.creation.com/catalog/gen ... c4edpcc7g4

http://imgur.com/NJpoOeJ
MGL
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:58 pm

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by MGL »

jinx wrote:
There obv is no law of chemistry that says matter left alone will spontaneously generate into the genetic code through natural processes
You are correct that there is no law of chemistry that says matter left alone* WILL spontaneously generate into genetic code through natural processes.

There are laws of chemistry that says matter left alone CAN spontaneously generate into different more complex forms and structures through natural processes.

What I would like to know is why you think genetic code is somehow immune from assembly by natural processes while other forms of organised matter are not.

My impression is that the only reason you object to this is because such an event had never been observed and that one cannot infer the possibility of such an event from different events that have been observed.

In case my confusion with your position is unclear, imagine two bags of different coloured balls ( red, blue, yellow ) that have the property of sticking to each other forming more complex bundles of balls.


In one bag we see that there are two combinations of balls - red balls with yellow balls, and blue balls with yellow balls.

In the other bag the balls are not combined, but if we randomly shake the bag, we find that red balls combined with yellow balls, but no blue and yellow balls.

You seem to be suggesting that as we have not observed the process of blue and yellow balls combining after being shaken, those that were found in the first bag must have been put together by some powerful creator.

You seem to reject the possibility that blue and yellow balls are harder to stick together but could eventually combine from a much more prolongued period of bag shaking. If I have understood your position correctly, please explain why this possibility is ruled out or is considered less probable than presuming an interfering creator.

It is also as if you are claiming that some things that have been assembled by an intelligent designer or creator could not have been assembled by random processes. As if a sequence of cards in a pack organised intentionally by a card dealer could not possibly be repeated by any possible random shuffle, no matter how many times a pack is shuffled randomly.



* By "left alone" I a presume you mean "not interfered with by an intelligent designer".
chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by chaz wyman »

jinx wrote:
After reading Darwins bate in my mouth garbage and 4-5 of Richard Dawkins books it came apparent to me Dawkins was hiding something (i knew he was lying as soon as i started reading his books). I found out what after watching interviews on youtube with the filthy snake for hours on end day after day (him failing to answer some pretty basic questions (not failing to account for existence of DNA)) and my brain almost exploded, i realized in one thought 1) 'Evolution' is the greatest myth EVER 2) Genesis is literal 3) Science is amazing.
I afraid you have not got a leg to stand on. On the one hand you attack Dawkins for not saying a thing he cannot speak of, such as the origin of DNA, then you make idiotic statements such as God made the world.
To me that is absurd. You cannot know any better than Dawkins how DNA came to be, and to suggest 'god' as some kind of answer is laughable.
Rather than attack Dawkins for saying what he actually can, you offer a bunch of out of date nonsense devised by A bunch of semiliterate goat herders; Cite: "
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
How absurd!!

When your 'brain exploded', it left you with very poor skills at cognition and discrimination of basic reason.
jinx
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 10:32 am

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by jinx »

You fall into the 99% of atheists who has not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of a lie i mean species'). Dawkins depends on his sheep having not read that book. I say this so atheists consider ( i know a long LONG shot) reading it.

The public school indoctrination system is so so sick. Get the kids when they are young, destroy their ability to think critically. My teacher brainwashed me in year 2 or 3 that the dinosaurs died millions of years ago because a comet hit the earth They died in Noahs flood ~4,300 years ago. Dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve created on day six of creation.

Genesis 1:25

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
What I would like to know is why you think genetic code is somehow immune from assembly by natural processes while other forms of organised matter are not
Lack of evidence for something=evidence for something. This is the anti-thesis of science. No one one earth would answer 'yes' to the question 'If i got every biomolecule in a living person and put it in a beaker, would you expect to come back 3.5 billion years from today and find life'? But when the process is reversed into the past it is taken as an axiom (based on NOTHING) that it happened. There is another model.

Genesis 1:26-28

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

I afraid you have not got a leg to stand on. On the one hand you attack Dawkins for not saying a thing he cannot speak of, such as the origin of DNA, then you make idiotic statements such as God made the world.
You fall into the 99% of atheists who has not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of a lie i mean species'). Dawkins depends on his sheep having not read that book. Atheists believe 'god' (the concept of 'billions and billions' of years/ evolution) made life and the universe.

Neodarwinian evolution says mutations (MISTAKES) built DNA. Hence why atheists cult leader #1 failing to give an example of a mistake that adds ONE (just ONE) new gene means something. He runs a tight ship. His cult minions are blinded by his myths.

One of them never happened (evolution/creation). One is a lie. Which one is it?
chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by chaz wyman »

jinx wrote:You fall into the 99% of atheists who has not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of a lie i mean species'). Dawkins depends on his sheep having not read that book. I say this so atheists consider ( i know a long LONG shot) reading it.

You brain is sick; once again you make statements that you cannot possibly support. But I'd expect that from a religion nutcase.
I have read both Testaments, and much of the Koran too. I have also read On the Origin of Species, from cover to cover, have you?


The public school indoctrination system is so so sick.

I did not go to 'public school', and did not learn about evolution in school.

Get the kids when they are young, destroy their ability to think critically. My teacher brainwashed me in year 2 or 3 that the dinosaurs died millions of years ago because a comet hit the earth They died in Noahs flood ~4,300 years ago. Dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve created on day six of creation.

You are talking bollocks. You are not fooling me. You don't believe this shit one bit.
Not even the highest members of the Christian churches worldwide take the words of the Bible literally. Even the Pope accepts evolution and the age of the earth.

?
MGL
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:58 pm

Re: psychology of Young Earth Creationists

Post by MGL »

jinx wrote: ...But when the process is reversed into the past it is taken as an axiom (based on NOTHING) that it happened.
The axiom that life emerged as a frozen accident from random natural processes is not based on nothing, but simply on the truism that it is one of two mutually exclusive logical possibiities, the other being that life was intentionaly created by an eternal intelligent designer. Your claim to have reached the second option by realising the impossibility of the first, but have not really explained why. Lack of direct evidence for abiogenesis might be an argument if there was direct evidence of creationism, but as far as I can see there is none. Please remember that you cannot point to the book of Genesis as evidence, because it is not direct evidence and you seem to have ruled out the validity of indirect evidence.
Post Reply