psychology of Young Earth Creationists

[Kuznetzova]

If we compressed the entire history of the earth to a 24-hour timespan, then homo sapiens have been around only since 11:57 PM.
In the all the turbulent history of this planet, humans have occupied its surface for a whole 3 minutes of its 24 hours.

Outside of the woah-dude-Carl-Sagan aspect of the observation, there is also the philosophical thorns hiding underneath. That is to say, most of the stuff that has been happening on earth does not involve humans at all. When we consider the number of stars in the galaxy, and the number of galaxies in the universe, human beings look more and more like a footnote in the appendix of the universe, if that. More like a period at the end of a sentence.

We can paint a clearer picture now of the psychological and emotional atmosphere within the mind of a Young-Earth creationist. We have three plausible explanations for a grown adult who adheres so tightly to the idea that the earth is only 10s of thousands of years old.

• The person is woefully ignorant of science, and in their ignorant bliss, believes "Evolutionists" invent stories about origins but don't possess any actual evidence for them.
• The person has a commitment to biblical literalism. Six days means six days.
• Psychologically, the person requires the biblical God be responsible for creating and designing earth, because that act justifies God's authority (so they think).

I say these are superficial only. We need to go a little deeper to really reveal the core of the Young-earth creationist psyche. I assert that it is the stinging philosophical thorns mentioned at the top of this post that are what is really at stake. Basically, from an emotional standpoint, the YEC requires that the ultimate meaning and purpose of the universe is human beings. They need it. They need that to be true. Their whole psychology requires it. They need the universe to be created specifically so that human beings would be placed inside it.

We must concentrate clearly on the very real, supportable possibility that the ultimate purpose of the universe does not involve humans at all; that humans are marginal players in a realm that is too large for their own minds to comprehend. I will repeat the hook from earlier. The vast majority of what has been happening, even on planet earth, took place without humans being present. Indeed, in the universe at large, billions of years passed prior to the earth even existing at all.

To the young earth creationist, this possibility is simply too terrifying for them to consider. It is in this terror that they latch so tightly onto their adherence to a young earth. Their psyche demands that the ultimate purpose of the universe be something about themselves and their own morality; to be something about their own lives; about their own decisions. They self-censor their own minds from other possibilities. Consideration of them in a public, objective manner is terrifying to them.

[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 myths i mean species')

We can paint a clearer picture now of the psychological and emotional atmosphere within the mind of a Richard Dawkins sheep. We have three plausible explanations for a grown adult who adheres so tightly to the idea that nothing caused nothing to yield the universe.

The person is woefully ignorant of science, and in their ignorant bliss, believes "Young-earth creationists" invent stories about origins but don't possess any actual evidence for them.
The person has a commitment to biblical (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species') literalism. Life 'evolved' means life 'evolved'.
Psychologically, the person requires the biblical god (Charles) be responsible for creating and designing earth, because that act justifies god's authority (Darwins corpse) (so they think).

Thank you for your ignorance of science, life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin).

"Evolution"=The lie and you fell for it HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

[reasonvemotion]

“It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

[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 myths i mean species')

We can paint a clearer picture now of the psychological and emotional atmosphere within the mind of a Richard Dawkins sheep. We have three plausible explanations for a grown adult who adheres so tightly to the idea that nothing caused nothing to yield the universe.

The person is woefully ignorant of science, and in their ignorant bliss, believes "Young-earth creationists" invent stories about origins but don't possess any actual evidence for them.
The person has a commitment to biblical (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species') literalism. Life 'evolved' means life 'evolved'.
Psychologically, the person requires the biblical god (Charles) be responsible for creating and designing earth, because that act justifies god's authority (Darwins corpse) (so they think).

Thank you for your ignorance of science, life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin).

"Evolution"=The lie and you fell for it HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Something from nothing, or the idea that nothing caused nothing to yield the universe is not part of the biological theory of evolution. In other words, evolution has nothing to say about first causes.

[attofishpi]

Something from nothing, or the idea that nothing caused nothing to yield the universe is not part of the biological theory of evolution. In other words, evolution has nothing to say about first causes.

...mmm and biblical doctrine has fantasy in the same regard.

[Ginkgo]

Something from nothing, or the idea that nothing caused nothing to yield the universe is not part of the biological theory of evolution. In other words, evolution has nothing to say about first causes.

...mmm and biblical doctrine has fantasy in the same regard.

Biblical doctrine is very big on first cause. Science, on the other hand doesn't deal with first causes. Another way of saying it is that Biblical doctrine deals with PURPOSE while science deals with FUNCTION

[Arising_uk]

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 myths i mean species')

Looks like I'm in the 1%, are you? Or are you like the other godbotherers who talk about what they haven't read.

We can paint a clearer picture now of the psychological and emotional atmosphere within the mind of a Richard Dawkins sheep. We have three plausible explanations for a grown adult who adheres so tightly to the idea that nothing caused nothing to yield the universe.

Could job Dawkins, et al, say no such thing then. As they are biologists not physicists and the physicists say no such thing either.

The person is woefully ignorant of science, and in their ignorant bliss, believes "Young-earth creationists" invent stories about origins but don't possess any actual evidence for them.

Pray tell us this evidence?

The person has a commitment to biblical (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species') literalism. Life 'evolved' means life 'evolved'.

What are you babbling about?

Psychologically, the person requires the biblical god (Charles) be responsible for creating and designing earth, because that act justifies god's authority (Darwins corpse) (so they think).

No person who thinks the theory of the evolution of species the best explanation of species so far, thinks Charles Darwin was responsible for evolution nor creating and designing the earth as its biology not physics nor geology and they just explain that no 'God' is needed in such creations.

Thank you for your ignorance of science, life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin).

That you think Darwin was an idiot says much for your mental capacities.

"Evolution"=The lie and you fell for it HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

I think you mean MUHAHAHAHAHA!!

Like most fundamentalist godbotherers you ignore that Science is no threat to your beliefs as long as you just keep dropping the unsustainable ones, in the light of scientific progress, and saying that your 'God' started that process. Of course you can't do this as you wish your 'God' to be active in this material world as you need 'it' to bolster your fragile ego and spare you an existential crisis. Which is why its laughable that you talk about Science as if an active 'God' existed then Physics would be nonsense as would Science. Your post shows you have little understanding of science nor its philosophy and epistemology. If I was you I'd stick to your fundamentalist godbothering sites as you're an idiot here.

[jinx]

Like most fundamentalist godbotherers you ignore that Science is no threat to your beliefs as long as you just keep dropping the unsustainable ones, in the light of scientific progress, and saying that your 'God' started that process.

Please do no conflate science (observable phenomena) with making up myths about a process that has never been observed (written history goes back 6,000 years, no one, in 6,000 years of written history has observed a fish bring forth something other than a fish, a dog bring forth something other than a dog etc etc). You and your fellow delusional sheep are welcome to believe such a process by religious faith (usually by the height of blind ignorance to the point it is not even realised) but it is NOT science. Like most fundamentalist Darwinbotherers you ignore that Science IS a threat to your beliefs (every observed law of nature in written history shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be baseless) as long as you just keep dropping the unsustainable ones, in the light of scientific progress, and saying that your 'god (Darwin)' started that process.

Of course you can't do this as you wish your 'god (Darwin)' to be active in this material world as you need 'it' to bolster your fragile ego and spare you an existential crisis. Which is why its laughable that you talk about Science as if an active 'god (Darwin)' existed then Physics would be nonsense as would Science. Your post shows you have little understanding of science nor its philosophy and epistemology. If I was you I'd stick to your fundamentalist Darwin bothering sites as you're an idiot here.

Genesis predicts animals bring forth after their 'kind'. Fish bring forth fish, dogs bring forth dogs, cats bring forth cats, birds bring forth birds. This is science. This is observable. Thank you for your utter ignorance of science, life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin).

[Ginkgo]

Like most fundamentalist godbotherers you ignore that Science is no threat to your beliefs as long as you just keep dropping the unsustainable ones, in the light of scientific progress, and saying that your 'God' started that process.

Please do no conflate science (observable phenomena) with making up myths about a process that has never been observed (written history goes back 6,000 years, no one, in 6,000 years of written history has observed a fish bring forth something other than a fish, a dog bring forth something other than a dog etc etc). You and your fellow delusional sheep are welcome to believe such a process by religious faith (usually by the height of blind ignorance to the point it is not even realised) but it is NOT science. Like most fundamentalist Darwinbotherers you ignore that Science IS a threat to your beliefs (every observed law of nature in written history shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be baseless) as long as you just keep dropping the unsustainable ones, in the light of scientific progress, and saying that your 'god (Darwin)' started that process.

Of course you can't do this as you wish your 'god (Darwin)' to be active in this material world as you need 'it' to bolster your fragile ego and spare you an existential crisis. Which is why its laughable that you talk about Science as if an active 'god (Darwin)' existed then Physics would be nonsense as would Science. Your post shows you have little understanding of science nor its philosophy and epistemology. If I was you I'd stick to your fundamentalist Darwin bothering sites as you're an idiot here.

Genesis predicts animals bring forth after their 'kind'. Fish bring forth fish, dogs bring forth dogs, cats bring forth cats, birds bring forth birds. This is science. This is observable. Thank you for your utter ignorance of science, life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin).

No one can observe the process of cause and effect. Science doesn't operate on the premise that cause and effect is observable.

Written records may or may not be relevant to science. The majority of science deals with information that is millions, if not billions of years old.

Darwin's theories are falsifiable, as indeed are all scientific theories.

[Arising_uk]

... Thank you for your utter ignorance of science, life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin).

We do no praying nor worship to Darwin, what we do is note fossils and rock strata and note that the method of inheritance Darwin inferred must exist was found. As such we think the TofE is, so far, the best scientific explanation we have for the existence of the variation of species but since we know that science is open and questionable, unlike your religious dogma, we hold no blind faith such as you do. Or do you not believe that a 'God' made all of creation, including the animals, and did it in six days as is written in your book and that the world as calculated by your biblical scholars is approx six thousand years old? If you don't then what value the Bible as the word of 'God' and what point your faith?

Do you believe your 'God' still acts in the world? If so what value your claim to Science as you make Physics redundant.

[Ginkgo]

... Thank you for your utter ignorance of science, life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin).

We do no praying nor worship to Darwin, what we do is note fossils and rock strata and note that the method of inheritance Darwin inferred must exist was found. As such we think the TofE is, so far, the best scientific explanation we have for the existence of the variation of species but since we know that science is open and questionable, unlike your religious dogma, we hold no blind faith such as you do. Or do you not believe that a 'God' made all of creation, including the animals, and did it in six days as is written in your book and that the world as calculated by your biblical scholars is approx six thousand years old? If you don't then what value the Bible as the word of 'God' and what point your faith?

Do you believe your 'God' still acts in the world? If so what value your claim to Science as you make Physics redundant.

I'm not sure what jinx is getting at. He seems to be saying that science is like religion in that it requires a creator or a first cause.

As you point out science is falsifiable while religion is not falsifiable. This has always been the important difference.

[jinx]

This is for the 1% and not the other 99%.

We do no praying nor worship to Darwin, what we do is note fossils and rock strata and note that the method of inheritance Darwin inferred must exist was found.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768

In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

As such we think the TofE is, so far, the best scientific explanation we have for the existence of the variation of species but since we know that science is open and questionable, unlike your religious dogma, we hold no blind faith such as you do.

'Evolution' is not a 'theory'. Hypothesis-observation-theory. The myth i mean claim that a fish can produce something other than a fish is an untestable conjecture/hypothesis (the official myth is the (delusional) process started and stopped happening pre 6,000 years of written history). Again please do not conflate myth with science. Darwins myths have putrefied every area of science. 'Evolution' has 0 explanatory power because it never happened and no, 'evolution' is NOT open to questioning (have to protect a process that never happened from critical analysis and thought, or else no one would believe it).

Or do you not believe that a 'God' made all of creation, including the animals, and did it in six days as is written in your book and that the world as calculated by your biblical scholars is approx six thousand years old? If you don't then what value the Bible as the word of 'God' and what point your faith?

Yes.

Do you believe your 'God' still acts in the world? If so what value your claim to Science as you make Physics redundant.

Physics is not redundant though in the 'evolution' worldview there is no point to the study/observation of nature (why should one mistake (mankind-homo sapiens in the 'evolution' worldview) be able to understand another mistake (nature)). Science is inherently a YEC enterprise. Once again thank you for your ignorance of science life and yada yada yada

[Ginkgo]

This is for the 1% and not the other 99%.

We do no praying nor worship to Darwin, what we do is note fossils and rock strata and note that the method of inheritance Darwin inferred must exist was found.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768

In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

As such we think the TofE is, so far, the best scientific explanation we have for the existence of the variation of species but since we know that science is open and questionable, unlike your religious dogma, we hold no blind faith such as you do.

'Evolution' is not a 'theory'. Hypothesis-observation-theory. The myth i mean claim that a fish can produce something other than a fish is an untestable conjecture/hypothesis (the official myth is the (delusional) process started and stopped happening pre 6,000 years of written history). Again please do not conflate myth with science. Darwins myths have putrefied every area of science. 'Evolution' has 0 explanatory power because it never happened and no, 'evolution' is NOT open to questioning (have to protect a process that never happened from critical analysis and thought, or else no one would believe it).

Or do you not believe that a 'God' made all of creation, including the animals, and did it in six days as is written in your book and that the world as calculated by your biblical scholars is approx six thousand years old? If you don't then what value the Bible as the word of 'God' and what point your faith?

Yes.

Do you believe your 'God' still acts in the world? If so what value your claim to Science as you make Physics redundant.

Physics is not redundant though in the 'evolution' worldview there is no point to the study/observation of nature (why should one mistake (mankind-homo sapiens in the 'evolution' worldview) be able to understand another mistake (nature)). Science is inherently a YEC enterprise. Once again thank you for your ignorance of science life and yada yada yada

If there is no point to the study/observation of nature then there is no science. Are you suggesting that the methodology of science needs to be changed to account for first cause arguments?

Are you also saying that everything was created 6,000 years ago, include the ability of humans to write?

[reasonvemotion]

"There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing".

So where does this leave evolution. It is a "wish" theory.

How we came into existence. The revelation was that the earth and the universe were created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago (Genesis 1:1-2:1). Because violence and corruption became widespread, most of life on earth was destroyed by a worldwide flood about 4,300 years ago (Genesis 6:5-7:24). This can be seen in geological and fossil evidence and is consistent with a catastrophic flood. As to how we came to be, science really has no explanation.

[jinx]

Are you also saying that everything was created 6,000 years ago, include the ability of humans to write?

This is the YEC position (yes my position) Genesis 1:1-31 took place ~6,000 years ago in 6 standard days. Everything was 'very good' originally (6 times God said 'and God saw that it was good'). Adam and Eve disobeyed God which brought death/pain/suffering etc etc into the world. As Reasonvemotion said Noahs flood was ~1,656 after creation (~4,300 years ago). Then Jesus came 2,000 years ago because of what Adam and Eve did/ to save mankind. Now mankind can be reconciled with God by accepting Jesus and admitting you/me are sinners and Jesus was God and asking forgiveness of sins. Then the myth of 'evolution' might become quite obvious. 'Evolution' =the lie to get mankind to disqualify themselves from seeing Jesus as God/being saved. Very VERY effective.