• Jeff B

    And I will do just that: “KEEP CALM AND DENY EVOLUTION”

    I’ve studied Creationism for over 2 decades. Recent discoveries (within the last few years) in Genetic research has solidified my rejection of Evolution and acceptance of Young Earth Creationism.

    Allow me to highlight two recent articles I’ve just read, both out of the Journal of Creation, volume 28, 2014:

    “Human genome decay and the origin of life” – The numbers don’t lie. Belief in perfect human genes from around 4k years ago (Adam, Eve, and yes, Cain and his wife), followed by 6k years of genetic
    decay is starting to match the evidence. Belief that humans have been surviving for millions of years IS becoming untenable, all based on MODERN genetic research!

    “Beneficial Mutations – real or imaginary” – Confirms what I’ve been suspecting lately: This notion of ‘beneficial mutation’ bringing about ALL the variety of life we see is nothing more than truly speculative imagination. The sufficient data to support it ISN’T THERE.

    Based on all my research, I am certainly glad I’m a YEC and NOT an evolutionist. In fact, my two most favorite things to read are 1) arguments AGAINST YEC, and 2) arguments FOR evolution. BOTH come up short with just a little research, and EVERY time I walk away even more encouraged in what I believe. Willingness to seek out arguments against your belief is quite an indicator of confidence. I have yet to meet one evolutionists willing to do that.

    Tyler Francke: Although YEC has had a rough start, and fringe individuals, you are going to have to come to grips with the fact that recent discoveries, particularly in genetics and microbiology, are convincing people like me that evolution is a joke. Mark my words, you WILL see more YECs in the future. Eventually you might be the last hold-out.

    • So you have made a study of creationism for over twenty years, with particular focus on arguments against it. All right, then what are the three strongest arguments against young-earth creationism? And please cite your research.

      • Jeff B

        “All right, then what are the three strongest arguments against young-earth creationism? And please cite your research.”

        My, I haven’t been assigned homework in quite a while.

        You come across a bit confrontational there. I stopped defending myself a long time ago, and certainly don’t waste my time with confrontation. However, I will make an exception here and will honor your first request.

        I’d name the two biggest challenges to YEC as 1) radiometric isotopes 2) stellar process and time: (starlight travel & processes that appear to take longer than 6k years).

        It’s a little more difficult to name a third, because beyond those two are a litany of minor challenges that are definitely a lot less significant than evolutionists think: Ice layers, varves, chalk cliffs, choral reefs, bio-dispersion, all the animals-on-the-ark issues, etc. I’m thoroughly familiar with those. Elaborating on those with me would waste your time.

        As for the 1st: Radiometric dating, although it raises questions for YEC, it’s certainly not as big challenge as it was 20 years ago, and does pose unique problems for old-earthers. (BTW, spare the debate, you won’t get it). I’m willing to admit that one problem, and the biggest challenge evolutionists can make would be the heat-issue in response to the proposed accelerated decay solution. After that one challenge, everything gets REAL easy for the YEC.

        Regarding #2: Star-light/time. I’m sure you’re familiar with this one yourself. As YECs, we know there’s a variety of ways God could have implemented what we observe. Not knowing the exact means He chose certainly wouldn’t cause us to want to abandon YEC, and take on old-universe ‘baggage’: Horizon problem, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, galaxies too young, blue-stars, solar system bodies that are too warm, comets, planetary magnetism, faint young sun. It’s rough being a Big-banger. I fell for them.

        Sorry, my list of references (I do have btw) are on my other computer. I’ll have to take a ‘C’ on this homework assignment.

        BTW, although I didn’t mention it, I have spent considerable time researching challenges to evolution. They are numerous, serious, and growing! Not kidding in the least. Makes me quite content with me ‘heat problem’.

        I feel sorry for evolutionists.

        • I am really not sure how you managed to infer a confrontational tone where none existed. The most I can do is assure you that none existed.

          It was merely a request. I have extensive experience with young-earth creationists who say they have studied such-and-so for a great many years, only to discover through engaging them on relevant issues that they really haven’t. They surely did study evidence against creationism and for evolution, evidence supporting an old evolving world and a young created one, the evidence in cosmology, astronomy, geology and so forth—but it was all from young-earth creationist sources (books, journals, magazines, debates, web articles, blogs). When I would ask them about best-selling authors who are not young-earth creationists, they might recognize the authors and what they’re known for but they demonstrated no familiarity with the literature itself when asked about specifics (except for material quoted and reviewed in creationist sources).

          Hence my question to you. Twenty years is quite a long time, and you exhibit remarkable boldness. So my assumption is that you are familiar enough with best-selling authors who aren’t young-earth creationists that you could cite their arguments from the literature itself. (And I say “best-selling authors” to increase the chance that my extensive library contains the material you will cite.) See, when you said that one of your favorite things to read is arguments against young-earth creationism, I wanted to explore what the source material was. Having you cite three of the strongest arguments against your view would demonstrate your sources. For example, you may have spent considerable time researching the numerous, serious, and growing challenges to evolution, but my suspicion is that it was from creationist sources.

          But you do not have access to your other computer, so your claim will have to remain unsubstantiated for now.

          • Jeff B

            Yes, you are correct, it was not overtly confrontational. My apologies. I suppose I’ve heard too many “Oh yeah, prove yourself” comments in the past (to which I always respond “No”).

            Credible sources are certainly valuable when stating claims. It sure is easy for someone to make a bold claim, but not have a sufficient source to back it up.

            But I do find your request a little odd. You asked me to list challenges to my OWN belief system, THEN require them to be backed with sources? And if I don’t, then my ‘claims’ (problems with my OWN belief system) are unsubstantiated? Well that’s easy: Yep, you got me, I don’t have valid sources; therefore my claims of there being challenges to YEC are unsubstantiated…which means there really aren’t any challenges to YEC.

            Sorry, couldn’t resist on that one. But listen, I DO understand what you are getting at. There are number of Creationists who only read Creationist material, and you’re curious if I’m one of them. Before I respond, a little background: Although I did mention 20 years, much of that was a hiatus. In the early 90s I got initially interested in Creationism. However, the material wasn’t very good and I lost interest. About 4 years ago I got interested in it again, and was amazed at what had changed, especially with Young Earth Creationism. I was very impressed! But, I am NOT one to accept one side only. I made me start researching challenges to Creationism. The more I read, the more solid YEC became. I really have done a lot of searching out for arguments against YEC. And continue to. I always walk away encouraged. Speaking of, why don’t YOU send me your greatest arguments against YEC, if you have some. I promise I’ll read them.

            So to (perhaps) answer your underlying question: No, I don’t just focus on creationist’s material.

            BTW, I have to assume you believe in evolution. Just curious, have read the arguments creationists make against evolution?

          • I’ve heard too many “Oh yeah, prove yourself” comments in the past (to which I always respond “No”).

            That is a difference between you and me, then. I always respond, “Why?”

            Unlike many creationists—including you, evidently—I’m always willing to demonstrate how I arrived at the conclusions I hold, although I prefer doing so in a way that most effectively addresses their concern, hence the reason I ask “why” they want me to prove myself.

            But I do find your request a little odd. You asked me to list challenges to my own belief system, then require them to be backed with sources? And if I don’t, then my ‘claims’ (problems with my own belief system) are unsubstantiated?

            Cute, but no. What is unsubstantiated is your claim to have studied arguments against creationism for 20 years, wherein two of your most favorite things to read were arguments against creationism and for evolution. That claim is now partially refuted by you coming clean that maybe it wasn’t 20 years exactly but more like six or eight. And since you don’t have access to your other computer, myself and others are denied knowing the bibliographic data of your studies. For all we know, it was mostly or entirely creationist material. You claim that you didn’t just focus on creationist material, but that is unsubstantiated.

            What were you reading in the early 1990s that “wasn’t very good”? I was a young-earth creationist in the 1990s (up until 2003) so much of the creationist literature I own dates from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. I’m wondering if we have any of the same books. And what happened four years ago (c. 2010) that got you interested in young-earth creationism again?

            Why don’t you send me your greatest arguments against YEC, if you have some. I promise I’ll read them.

            Listen, the greatest argument against young-earth creationism is scripture, which does not support it when interpreted literally.

            I have to assume you believe in evolution.

            Nobody “believes in” evolution, just like nobody “believes in” heliocentricism or gravity. You either understand and accept it, or you don’t. And I do.

            Have [you] read the arguments creationists make against evolution?

            I have read young-earth creationist material extensively, particularly when I was a young-earth creationist (and still do, although only free online material). I also have a number of creationist books still in my library. They don’t make arguments against evolution, Jeff. What their arguments target is unrecognizable to those who understand the science of evolution—which I was not able to realize until I decided to understand evolution (c. 2013), not only scientifically but also historically, the development of theories and the players involved (from pre-Darwin to post-Darwin). When you read the history and science of evolution from sources outside creationist circles—for example, Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design (2003), Ronald Numbers, The Creationists (2006)—you realize creationists are upset about a straw man of their own making, as they pretend atheists somehow define science.

            But what I’m more interested in is scripture and theology. (Evolutionary creationism is not a scientific theory but a theological position.) So I’m interested in not their arguments against evolution but their arguments for a young-earth interpretation of scripture, including their presuppositions and hermeneutics.

          • Jeff B

            I respond “no” when I detect someone merely interested in nit-picking my words and carrying on long-winded debates. And to THEM I respond:

            Good day…

        • Wow, it must be so frustrating for you, knowing of the existence of all this amazing scientific evidence and fact-based argumentation that supports the young-earth model, and yet still somehow failing to convince, I don’t know, 99 percent of the actual scientists in the relevant fields of study?

          Keep your sympathy. We’re the ones who should be feeling bad for you.

          • Jeff B

            99% of scientist believe in evolution?? I have a feeling you made up that number. Especially when I hear comments like the following from a molecular biologist regarding the complexity of the human genome:

            “George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved.”

            You can read the full article here: http://www.icr.org/articles/view/760/296/

            Without going into details, I’ve studied the history behind evolution, and it makes sense why it’s gained the popularity it has. I know believe evolution is popular among most people, simply because it’s popular. But now that genetic research is FINALLY able to really put it to the test, it’s starting to loose traction. We’ve been told for decades (since R.A. Fisher the 30s) that ‘beneficial mutations’ brought about all the higher life forms we see today, all based on NO data. Today we have data, and it’s not looking good for evolutionists. You really should read that article I mentioned above.

            This wouldn’t be the first time the majority believes something that turns out later to be not true.
            And remember one thing: Wide is the road that leads to destruction and many will find it.

          • 99% of scientist believe in evolution?? I have a feeling you made up that number.

            It’s actually much higher, but I rounded down for you. And I said scientists “in the relevant fields of study.” In 1999, there were more than 340,000 life and related scientists working in the United States alone, and the Discovery Institute found what, fewer than 800 to sign its little “Dissent from Darwin”? And many of them were not from relevant fields. You do the math.

            Especially when I hear comments like the following from a molecular biologist regarding the complexity of the human genome:

            “George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved.”

            You can read the full article here: http://www.icr.org/articles/vi

            Thanks so much for sharing this article. Now, I understand what “evidence” you have come to see as persuasive after your vast experience “studying evolution,” with a supposed emphasis on arguments in favor of it, and against young-earth creationism.

            To sum up, in your view:

            — The opinion of the overwhelmingly vast majority of scientists working in fields relevant to evolution and the age of the earth, and the hundreds of scholarly, peer-reviewed papers published every year that supports the mainstream consensus = absolutely worthless trash.

            — An article published 15 years ago in a small weekly newspaper by a conservative political columnist, purportedly an interview with a scientist, whose identity is unknown and who, therefore, could have been misquoted, misrepresented, or completely made up for all we know = irrefutably and utterly trustworthy testimony.

            It’s true that sometimes the majority turns out to be incorrect. But I daresay it’s also true that the majority is right more often than those who believe in shadowy conspiracy theories propped up by anonymous sources.

    • It’s great to hear how convincing you find the “Journal of Creation.” I imagine most of its audience — which consists of nothing but convinced young earthers — finds it pretty persuasive as well, just as I’m sure the newsletter of the Flat Earth Society has little trouble convincing its readership of the truth of its claims.

      Fact is, science is done by scientists, and it’s done through experimentation and publication in, you know, real science journals. If the young-earth crowd really had anything to contribute to science, and any actual evidence to support their views, they wouldn’t have had to start their own vanity journals where they could self-publish their work.

      As to your prediction, making “more YECs” out of uninformed laymen does not impress me. If your arguments ever start gaining traction with people who know what they’re talking about, let me know.

      • Jeff B

        I’m detecting a little “But that’s written by Creationists” syndrome: Evolutionists coming up with various reasons to not have to read Creationists’ material. And perhaps for good reason; the evidence they have been putting together against evolution lately (within the past decade) has been VERY compelling.

        Here’s why I find all such comments as weak: The more I’ve studied this topic, the more I’ve enjoyed reading arguments against Creation, and for evolution. I don’t nit-pick the information or try and discredit the source, I READ IT. I’ve read the links you’ve provided. I always walk away glad I did, and even more confident in being a YEC.

        Tyler, are you willing to read YEC material? To read information that is compelling more people like myself to not only question evolution, but to reject it (and even ponder why others don’t as well)?