Log in

The Young Earth [entries|friends|calendar]
Young Earth Creation

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Anyone out there? [20 Sep 2007|03:24pm]

I'm just curious if anyone is still around because there's not been any activity since the beginning of the year. I do hope some of us are still here.
read 1 replies Post Reply

Review of an SBS-aired (in Australia) 'science' documentary... [29 Jan 2007|04:14pm]

Last night (28/1/07), SBS aired the documentary: ‘Intelligent Design: A War on Science.’

Despite the blatantly biased title, I was impressed by the impartial presentation for the first part of the program. However, there were a few somewhat absurd comments made and misrepresentations were left uncorrected.

Towards the beginning, the documentary featured Phillip Johnson (Emeritus Professor of Law at University of California – Berkeley) who has written a number of books on the issues of ID and evolution. Also, interviewed for the ID side were biochemist Dr Michael Behe, Dr Stephen Meyer and mathematician Dr William Dembski. All seemed to be portrayed fairly (except they were not given the chance of rebuttal).

The main arguments put forward were as follows:

Irreducible Complexity – A bacterial flagellum is ‘a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint, and other structures…’

Behe argues that the mechanisms involved could not ‘evolve’ in gradual steps because unless all components were present (and assembled correctly) to begin with, the flagellum would be useless.

Numerous examples of such irreducible complexity are found in nature. These include:

Bombardier beetles’ defence mechanisms, the eye, human biological systems, the flight of insects, birds and bats, blood clotting, the adhesiveness of gecko’s feet and insect legs and the ATP synthase motor are just a few examples.

Another argument (put forward by Dembski) is the probability of evolution occurring. Using statistical mathematics and DNA analysis, Dembski provides another weapon against Darwinism.

The program continues to discuss these and other scientific arguments put forward by ID theorists before beginning the inevitable science vs. religion slant.

Richard Dawkins (well-known evolutionary scientist and atheist) begins the avalanche with the following quote:

‘What this does to science is it wastes a lot of time of scientists who could be getting on with their work.’

His other ignorant contributions on the topic of Intelligent Design include:

‘It [ID] is getting a hold only among those parts of the population who don’t know anything.’

Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Russell Grigg in their review of the program:

‘Notice the abusive ad hominem—anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.’

Dawkins proceeds (towards the end of the documentary) to imply that if ID is taught in schools and American scientists begin to disagree with Darwinism, then the nation will lose it’s scientific ‘soul.’

He is obviously ignorant of the fact that between the Scopes Trial (1925) and Sputnik (1957) a time which evolutionists lament the expunging of the concept from the education system:

‘American schools produced more Nobel prizes than the rest of the world combined. America produced twice as many as all other countries—this was especially pronounced in the biological field (physiology and medicine), supposedly one that can't do without evolution.’

World renowned biomedical expert, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu put it this way:

‘But the greatest difficulty Richard Dawkins has is to prove (first) that his brain is sharper than mine, and (secondly) that those of us who were taught by the best brains in the world and who have now revised our evaluation of Darwinian Evolution to concur with that of Cambridge University Professor Fred Hoyle FRS have suddenly gone round the bend.’

Hoyle had this to say:

‘How has the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection managed, for upwards of a century, to fasten itself like a superstition on so-called enlightened opinion? Why is the theory still defended so vigorously?’

‘Personally, I have little doubt that scientific historians of the future will find it mysterious that a theory which could be seen to be unworkable came to be so widely believed.’

Getting back to the program, David Attenborough puts forth his view on Darwinism:

‘…nobody has yet demonstrated a failing.’ (Is he blind?)

Dawkins continues to boost his evolutionary ego with part of his closing statement:

‘Evolution has a massive amount of evidence in its favour, and it explains, let’s say, 99% of what we know about life. The remaining 1% remains to be discovered.’

He remains at odds with the thousands of creationist and ID-believing scientists around the world and many on his own side who recognise how little we know about nature and it's supposed 'evolution.'

Sarfati and Grigg add:

'Presumably the remaining 1% covers such things as the vast gulfs between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, invertebrates and vertebrates, pterosaurs and non-flying reptiles; the origin of many complex inter-related structures, consciousness.'

During the program the bacterial flagellum argument is supposedly refuted. Dr Kenneth Miller (along with the narrator) provides an example of a ‘bacterial syringe’ within the flagellum that operates completely on its own. He proposes elsewhere that the components could have evolved separately before they combined to form the flagellum.

The show’s narrator states:

‘For Miller, the prediction of Irreducible Complexity was disproved—the flagellum could be broken down into other simpler biological mechanisms.’

Sarfati and Grigg analyse his claim:

‘Miller again manages to misconstrue irreducible complexity, that is, that the flagellar motor could not function unless all the parts were coordinated. This still fails to account for 80% of its parts, most of which ‘are unique to the motor and are not found in any other living system’, according to Dr Scott Minnich, of Idaho University, the world’s expert on this motor.

Sarfati (in his book Refuting Evolution 2) adds to the discussion:

‘Actually, what Behe says he means by irreducible complexity is that the flagellum could not work without about 40 protein components all organized in the right way.’

This misrepresentation was not corrected. Miller also attempts to dispose of Dembski’s mathematical argument. Basically, the probability of life evolving can not be calculated backwards, because it always seems to be impossible. He does nothing to replace this idea or disprove it mathematically; rather he decrees that because it shows that evolution is statistically impossible, the calculation must be wrong.

So, again the media has biased itself against ‘yapping terriers’ who ‘know nothing.’

Apart from Miller’s failed and flawed attempt at discounting Behe’s work, the highly credentialed, yet obnoxious, opponents of ID completed their appraisal by using only ridicule and references to religious association.


Dr Konotey-Ahulu’s response to a recent Dawkins’ interview here.

All quotations were either taken from the SBS program or the articles mentioned above.

The term ‘evolution’ when used by myself, refers to the concept of chemicals-to-man evolution and not natural selection.
Post Reply

Open Invitation [09 May 2006|12:29am]


I've noticed that no-one has posted to young_earth for a few months so I thought I'd give it a go. I joined young_earth not that long ago, but it's nice to know that there are other Creationists out there.

If anyone is interested, I update quite often (on my own LJ) and most of the time it relates to Christianity and/or Creation. There are only a small number of people that ever reply to these posts. 2 Atheists, 1 Theistic Evolutionist and another Creationist like me. It would be nice, if anyone is interested in joining in such discussions that they do so. You're more than welcome. We may have small differences of opinion (who doesn't) but we are united in the fundamentals.

This is also an indication by myself that I'll try to post here on a semi-regular basis. It's often a blessing to discuss certain ideas with other like-minded people. (I have one Christian in my group of friends so this type of discussion is valuable to me.)

Anyone interested in finding out more about me or would like to just talk about anything can look at my info page.

Ash (From Adelaide, Australia - Adelaide has a Population of about 1 Million people for those who know nothing about Australia)

PS. No we don't ride kangaroos to school/work, we don't have them running around our streets (other than country areas) and no we don't all wrestle crocodiles for a living.
Post Reply

To the evolutionists that see this community [12 Feb 2006|05:51pm]

[ mood | curious ]

I have been informed by my dear friend, and creator of this community, that many evolutionist apply to become a member of this community. I was curious why? Other than to debate, why would you want to join such a community? I don't go looking for evolutionist communities.
I just don't see why, when you have your mind made up as much as I have about my beliefs, why you would want to do nothing but argue. I'm open minded. I looked at the evidence that evolution presented. For a long time I just accepted it as true. But then I heard about creation and it made sense to me. The evidence pointed to a created young earth. I saw Lucy, bacteria, bones up the wazoo and nothing that I have been shown has answered questions. In fact it actually causes more questions for me. But when I have had a question about creation, I get an answer. Ok so it may be satisfactory to me because I already believe in creation but it does answer my questions. I have many questions, very legitimate questions, for any evolutionist who is willing to answer them. Really answer them. Not answer my question with another question or totally avoid the subject by giving an answer that has nothing to do with my question.
If there are any evolutionists that see this and have a response to why they want to be part of this community or would like to try to answer my questions please let me know in my personal journal.
Thanks all :)

Post Reply

A Creationist's Confession [12 Jan 2006|10:32pm]

I recently was asked in a forum this question:

“If evolution was proved true, would this destroy your faith in any way?”

Here is my answer:

Ultimately my faith is in God, not in creation. I don't believe that evolution could ever be proven true, however you can present all the evidence for it you want and it wouldn't shake my faith in Jesus. Faith can not be disproved. I will always hold the infallibility of God over the fallible theories of man. Even where men may perceive a flaw in God or his plan, it is not a flaw on God's part, but on ours because we are the imperfect ones.

The Bottom Line is that I believe in God and therefore in creation, so no evidence for evolution could ever injure my faith.
read 2 replies Post Reply

Creation Videos [04 Jan 2006|04:06pm]

[ mood | peaceful ]

While perusing some of my old bookmarks that I don't look at regularly I found that Northwest Creation Network has at some point in the last six months updated their website. They have a section with free creation videos that you can watch online or download. You may need a high-speed connection to view them or download them efficiently, but check it out http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/.

Post Reply

[01 Jan 2006|12:24am]

[ mood | bouncy ]

I hope that everyone had a safe and happy new year. and that the coming year is wonderful and joyful.

Post Reply

Why Do You Believe in Creation? [27 Dec 2005|12:05am]

I would like to pose a question to our members here just for friendly discussion.

Why Do You Believe Creation is True?

I personally have as long as I can remember believed the Bible, including the creation account. I had long thought that evolution was wrong and that it didn't make sense. Over the last few years I have studied scientific support for creation.
read 1 replies Post Reply

MERRY CHIRSTMAS!! [24 Dec 2005|02:08pm]

[ mood | Yippie!! ]

Merry Christmas, Everyone!

He is born, the holy Child,
Play the oboe and bagpipes merrily!
He is born, the holy Child,
Sing we all of the Savior mild

Through long ages of the past,
Prophets have betold His coming;
Through long ages of the past,
Now the time has come at last!

O how lovely, O how pure
Is this perfect Child of heaven;
O how lovely, O how pure
Gracious gift of God to man!

Jesus, Lord of all the world,
Coming as a Child among us,
Jesus, Lord of all the world,
Grant to us Thy heavenly peace.

Post Reply

Court Ruling [20 Dec 2005|09:36pm]

Article from Answers in Genesis.

What I note about the ruling is the key word "require". The school can not require the teaching of intelligent design. I personally agree that a school should not require the teaching of ID or creation, however it is important to note that a teacher has the ABILITY and AUTHORITY to teach these if they wish to. I also don't believe that a school should require the teaching of Evolution. I don't think that a school should be allowed to teach evolution, given that all evidence for it is either fabricated or disproved.

We should not be surprised by the bias against Creation and Christians. As Jesus said
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." John 15:18-19

The last few months have been rather hectic for me, but hopefully things will calm down going into the new year and i will be able to post here more often. All of you feel free to post any thoughts, questions, news, or ideas that you may have here also.
read 7 replies Post Reply

Question [11 Dec 2005|03:23pm]

Does anyone know of any other good YE forums? I like this group but am also kinda looking to expand, but it's hard to find active forums that aren't debate-style groups.
Post Reply

If Noah's flood were just a local flood, then God is a liar [22 Sep 2005|08:25pm]

"I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life."  Genesis  9:13-15

We see devistating floods all the time.  We see pictures from around the world showing homes, streets, entire towns underwater.  Now if God sent a rainbow as a sign of His promise that He would never again do what he just had done, then he broke His promise.
read 4 replies Post Reply

New [16 Sep 2005|02:33pm]

I was happy to have found this group because although between here and Yahoo I've seen some groups that looked promising, they still turned out to be debate oriented rather than devoted to Young Earth like this one is. I look forward to a lot of discussing and maybe even making some friends.
read 1 replies Post Reply

Some Changes [14 Sep 2005|04:23pm]

[ mood | busy ]

I meant this community to be a place for those who believe in creation. A place for us to share information, experiences, encouragement, and ask or answer questions. I did not want it to be a forum for debate. There are numerous places you can find debates on the subject of origins, I wanted to make a safe haven, so to speak, for creationists without having to worry about an argument.

Bearing this in mind, I have made a couple of changes to the settings of the community.

  1. All current members now have unmoderated posting access. (Members joining after this point will receive unmoderated access when they make their first post.)

  2. Only members may comment on posts. (It would have been this way from the beginning, but I just found out last night that LiveJournal has this option.)

I do not wish to offend anyone, nor am I afraid of debate (as the short ones below will show). I just want this community to be a place we can come and share with like-minded people, relax, and be encouraged.

With that said, I want to encourage all of the members to post thoughts, experiences and/or questions. You don't have to worry about contradiction or arguments here.

Post Reply

Two Quotes [12 Sep 2005|04:09am]

[ mood | busy ]

"If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed … "
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Patterson, Colin, letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89). Dr. Colin Patterson was, during his lifetime, the Senior Palaeontologist of the British Museum of Natural History.

I'll let you put the two together.

read 11 replies Post Reply

How much of a news article do you read? [08 Sep 2005|11:00pm]

[ mood | busy ]

Most people only read the headline.  If that intrigues them, they may read the first paragraph.  Rarely do most people read beyond that.  Some do, but most do not.

Given this, what would you think if you clicked on yahoo (like i did) or saw in your local paper this headline:

“Genes Show Signs Brain Still Evolving”  (link)

This caught my eye, so I read the article.  About halfway through is this statement:
Still, the findings also are controversial, because it's far from clear what effect the genetic changes had or if they arose when Lahn's "molecular clock" suggests”

The are several reasons to doubt the findings, which the writer places at the end of the article, a place few people read to.

Just the typical way in which evolution is proclaimed without actual science or proof.  There is no way to tell when a variation occurred in DNA, what effect it would have, or that it actually is a mutation at all without knowing the before and after.

Post Reply

The Probability of Evolution [07 Sep 2005|03:44pm]

[ mood | busy ]

Anyone know what the odds of evolution happening are?


Answer: 1 in 1057800!  (That would be a 1 with 57,800 zeros after it).  If you wrote out this number using the standard format of inserting a comma to separate every three places (for example: 1,000,000,000 and so on), you would use 19,266 commas.

To give you an idea of how big that is: In the entire universe there are an estimated 1080 electrons.

read 8 replies Post Reply

Poll Results. [02 Sep 2005|02:57pm]

[ mood | thoughtful ]

The Pew Research Center released a poll concerning, among other things, origins on August 30. The results were very interesting. The results show that 42% of Americans believe in Creation while 64% favor teaching creation along with evolution. Isn't that interesting? The majority of Americans favor teaching Creation in schools! The interesting thing about this poll is that it was conducted in July, before Bush made his comments about Intelligent Design and the Evolutionists went nuts.

Evolutionists outnumber Creationists 48% to 42% but that's not a very wide margin. Also consider that of the evolutionists, many of them are theistic evolutionists. In total, 78% believe that God created life on earth. Another 5% believe that a higher power or universal spirit created life. This leaves only 17% (minus the unsure) for the Atheists and the Humanists. Why then do they have such a strong say?

We can actually learn a lot from polls like this, but they can be awfully dry and boring as well. I'll post a link below if you want to read more about it.

Read the poll

Post Reply

[02 Sep 2005|11:45am]

mrpsychouk's entry made me remember this page, which is highly recommended reading for YECreationists interested in actively debating proponents of Evolutionism.

What not to say when debating.

Sorry, mrpsycho--Mr. Darwin's 'eyes' quote is listed there (and yeah, I do know you weren't trying to debate. :) The eye is much more difficult for Evolutionists to explain than they like to let on--usually a YEC will quote Mr. Darwin, and opponents will jump all over it, precisely because (as mrpsycho found out), Darwin himself felt that the eye could have evolved, and said as much not three sentences after the usual quote. Another popular argument is that 'the eye is built backwards--how could that be by design?'

AIG has useful answers to both of these: {the eye is backwards} and {What Darwin didn't know about the eye}.
read 2 replies Post Reply

oops [02 Sep 2005|12:00am]

I didn't realise it was a community opposed to intelligent design theories!


I managed to start a bit of a cafuffle there...
read 13 replies Post Reply

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]