Monday, November 22, 2010

Young Earth Creationist

Sunday Morning Live on the BBC featured a Young Earth Creationist. Oh my it was painful to watch. I'm not taking him as representative of all such belief holders, but I'll take on his 'arguments'.

First off he explained his beliefs and stated himself as a Creationist, to be exact a Young Earth Creationist, that is he both believes that Genesis is a factual accounting of the creation and that it's a lot younger than science states. I don't recall him providing a figure, but generally it's held to be around 6000 years ago.

His first statement - there's no reason not to accept Genesis as an historical accounting. Oh dear, now I could be snide and suggest there's no reason not to accept Little Red Riding Hood as an historical accounting, but I'll stick to religion. Why just Genesis? Why can't other religions creation 'accounts' be the real deal. In fact shouldn't those accounts that pre-date Judaism be more accurate given a Young Earth as rather than be the transcription of God be written memories of the event itself? Oddly enough that's not addressed - the Abrahamic accounting is the true accounting because.. um well because.

Next that Darwinists believe we all derived from a single celled organism through natural selection. Yet to have selection you must have something to select from where did this new information come from? Again oh dear - we all still derive from a single celled organism egg plus sperm which then divides. To take this to the same simplistic level consider the contribution from man and women to this creation. Women are XX men are XY. These are split and one from each combine to form a new being. Now those of you you who've followed my statistics entries or know some basic math should spot there are only four combinations available. That means a couple who have two boys and two girls should, with a fifth child, produce one identical to one of the previous four otherwise "where did this new information come from?".

Finally his last argument attacks radiocarbon dating. How can we trust a measurement that can't even accurately place in time known artefacts let alone unknown ones? I'm not even going to look this up but suggest margin of error. Consider a tracking device. It is used to locate someone whose position is unknown it states they stand next to the Bull Rung in Birmingham. It is then used to track a known location - mine own on Stourport Bridge. Yet the device places me at The Swan Hotel. How then can we just this device? Because I'm within the margin of error of 1 mile. Our unknown person may well not be standing directly outside the Bull Ring, but they're definitely in Birmingham. Even at the limits of this margin carbon dating provides dates that are well before 6000 years ago.

We then hear from a scientist. Gosh a biologist taking a stand against Darwin? Nope he's a professor of thermodynamics. Oh and he's trotting out the old 'look at this feather it can't occur by nature it must have been designed' argument yep the watchmaker argument that everyone else thought had been put to rest 40-odd years ago.

Our YEC appears as a guest along with two others and constantly interrupts not only the sceptic but the Christian. He's had his uninterrupted VT to camera, but won't afford the courtesy to anyone else.

So no arguments beyond belief yet we're supposed to overturn the wealth of evidence that continues to support the Darwinian theory.