I keep posting this and so far not one substantive answer:
Your Open QuestionShow me another » Young earth creationists, could you please answer a few questions? I need some help understanding your point of view. I will really read and contemplate any substantive answers. I am truly asking you to share your point of view. Many of you claim creationism IS science (i.e. creation science). OK I am willing to listen. Can you show me a bit of the science in creation science:
1. I need a specific definition for what a 'kind' is? Do you mean species?Genus? Order? Family? Phyllum? Kingdom? What exactly is a kind?
2. Since you think the earth is only 6000 years old, you obvioulsy distrust all dating methods (potassium argon, uranium lead, etc.). That would mean you do not believe science has an accurate understanding of radioactive decay. So can you a) show me experiments being done that show radiactive decay rates are NOT constant and the ones we have are in error? b) since you think radiocative decay rates are not constant, aren't you scared that nuclear weapons and power plants might spontaneously explode?
3. Since you believe in mutation 'within a kind' but not to new 'kinds', can you explain to be the mechanism (even a hypothetical one) that puts a barrier on genetic change? What makes DNA change..but only within a kind? What prevents it from chaning enough to be a new kind?
Thank you in advance to those to take the time to give substantive answers.
To those of you who will undoubtably simply post bible verses, you must realize that is a de facto admission that creationism is NOT science and has no place in the science classroom don't you?
Anonymous2009-01-30T11:38:19Z
Favorite Answer
/highfive
they have no answers. They simply do not understand and assume that science is wrong.
The fact is that Radiometric dating is very accurate.
I think that most of them think that scientists date materials based solely on how deep they are buried in the earth (at least I had one tell me that awhile ago). A lot also claim that since "God" is all powerful, he can make new things that are already old, which to them somehow doesn't seem like a ridiculous and pointless thing to do...
And mutations do happen, and don't follow set specific rules as to how extreme or subtle they are.
I've also heard them say that mutations do happen but cannot form a new species, which seems to me at least a partial admission of defeat on their part.
a well organized and thought out question. Since nobody's answering, I'll take a shot.
1. We probably mean 'genus', but we really don't know what your definitions mean. We don't have a problem telling the difference between a bird and a crocodile, and understand that they can't mate.
2. There are a few ways to look at this. It's not that scientists aren't smart (although many have agendas), but they can be easily fooled by an omnipotent deity. Perhaps god set up the world just to look this way. Yes, we are scared of nuclear weapons and power plants. Aren't you?
3. Hey, when you've only got 6000 years to work with, there's really no time for speciation to different kinds. Limited time (in and of itself) is the limiting factor here. We just can't imagine 'billions' of years. It makes no sense to the human brain or human condition.
I answered this the last time you posted, and honestly it was very substantive. If your not willing to accept the answers given then why keep posting.
In short: 1. No scientist has a definition of that Look at Wikipedia under species. 2. a)Since decay rates would have changed slower than recorded science then it's an impossibility. Just like rocks forming. Look at Wikipedia under radiocarbon dating b)no that would be silly. 3. Yes. Normal breeding. Mutations occur, but when those with Mutations interbreed with the ones who don't the DNA sequence is partially restored. it takes many generations of constant mutations to create an alternate trait of that animal, but the point is that any mutation that occurs must interbreed with their "kind" thus eliminating the likelihood of a species "jumping"
Unfortunately, if a Christian can remove God from creation, they can anything they want to the rest of scripture. THIS is precisely what has happened in the liberal churches of today. By taking God out of Genesis and claiming Genesis is an allegory or just a story, you can easily take God out of any other part in scripture. This I place at the feet of Augustine. It is really interesting that in the way he interprets scripture he interchanges allegory and literal interpretation. The Bible reads just like any other book because it is a book but a book that was inspired by God. It doesn't but more than a handful of times in the Bible where the author says that what came before or after is an allegory. Then and only then should we take that area as an allegory. We do not need to try to read it in any other way than the way the author wrote it. Do we reinterpret what an author writes in a novel or a biography? Then we should not do so for the Bible.
Why would someone dispute that the earth is billions upon billions of years old? do they think dinosaurs are hallucinations? What about those new rocks which were found to be 40 billion years older than we first expected earth to be? I am so confused by such ignorance? 6000 years is all they actually think this planet to be? That's just like believing all of mankind came from two people. I am more willing to believe we came from sludge in Africa as science tends to lean towards. um why can't scientists believe in God too? geesh you automatically throw us into a group of athiests. I don't believe your bible but, I do believe in an great creator. sorry I do believe I am arguing on your side instead of what you asked....to dispute your facts. LOL