Comments on YEC experience on this board


And yet … somehow … ID proponents talk about “mutations that must have been designed”.

But they never really explain what they mean by this. This is actually what we should be spending more time discussing … how ID proponents imagine mutations over time, and how “i.d.” (< no capitals!) is different from “I.D.” (< all caps!).

I think the best we can do is discuss whether a conclusion is scientifically supported. The discussion could then turn to whether science is the best method for determining truth (with a little “t”). I have seen some creationists lean towards the position that an old Earth is scientifically valid, but they think that science is still wrong.

Perhaps another path for these discussions is to focus on methodology. We could ask creationists what criteria they use to judge evidence, as one example. For example, how do they determine if a fossil is transitional or how old a rock is?


If this is the best we can do … then all we can do is say:

science does not support the de novo creation of Adam & Eve
science does not support the resurrection of Jesus .

Since PS spends an AWFUL lot of time discussing the de novo creation of Adam (and intentionally so!) - - - I wonder if you shouldn’t re-engineer “the best we can do”.

The best we can do is figure out how to discuss the de novo creation of Adam and Eve!

Not all IDers are YECs and not all YECs are IDers. So I’m not sure what the relevance of bringing up IDers is to this conversation.


IDers come up because they dominate so much of the Peaceful Science bandwidth!

No, that’s not the cause. The actual cause is a difference in epistemology. You think the only guide to truth is scripture, and empirical data can be ignored. I think the only guide to truth is empirical data, and scripture can be ignored. Having no common ground, neither of us can make an argument to the other.

Oddly enough, you attempt to deal with data occasionally, despite your proclamation that it’s meaningless. It’s been pointed out before that creationists commonly want the cachet of science but are, by their basic axioms, rendered incapable of actually doing it.

  1. I’d argue that PDPrice, r_speir & thoughtful have between them dominated a fair few threads recently.

  2. Even if IDers are dominant it seems odd to bring them up on a thread about YECs, in response to a comment specifically about YECs (and about an issue for YECs that doesn’t affect IDers).

Oh, that’s a very nice, peaceful and non-polarizing response to my honest opinion.


That’s because in science people base their acceptance on the physical evidence. You base your beliefs on your religious indoctrination. You could easily get people to change their acceptance by supplying scientific evidence to support your YEC claims but you don’t. You post links to long discredited Creationist nonsense from your place of employment and dodge all the evidence which directly contradicts your claims. That won’t change anyone’s mind.

What would it take to get you to accept a scientifically verified old Earth and evolution?


If I believed I’d be roasting in Hell for all eternity if I believed in gravity, I’d be denying gravity with my every breath.

But I can’t imagine what would persuade me to believe such a thing, so that doesn’t really explain YEC’s.

I would like to addt that we currently have much better YEC representation on the forum than ever before. I don’t just mean that we have more YECs (that too) but they are also much better representatives of their group as a whole.

1 Like

I’m a recent but now former YEC. I came here a couple of years ago, after spending many years in internal conflict. Believing the Bible taught YEC, but that there was little evidence( and eventually concluded no evidence) in science for a YEC position.

I arrived seeking to understand how other Christians, who believed in an inspired Bible, were able to reconcile the Bible and evolution.

These forums and associated articles, along with much other studying (often based on books or sources mentioned here) have been very helpful to me in seeing where I was reading interpretation into Bible verses that was probably incorrect. Essentially I’ve realized my underlying hermeneutics were incorrect.

This has led to a non-YEC view of the Bible, while still being entirely committed to it’s full inspiration, and to being able to reconcile an non-YEC view with a roughly “reformed” theology that I believe the Bible teaches.


By “better representatives” do you mean “more typical” or “more capable”?

1 Like

(facepalm) How many descriptions with links to the published research in the primary scientific literature have we provided to PDPrice in the last year? Twenty? Thirty? More? I counted ten in the last “Flood geology” thread alone. Yet he has the nerve to make a blatantly false claim no one ever provides him with citations. :roll_eyes:


I believe providing citations is his very definition of “elephant throwing”.


I don’t mine others’ religious beliefs and I don’t mind if they disagree with the scientific conclusions. I just can’t stand the flat out lying about what has been presented. :rage:


I would rephrase as “science can neither confirm nor falsify . . .”

More typical, not necessarily more capable, but better able to interact without leaving a negative personal impression. Not trolls.

(No disrespect to our resident Ogre!) :wink:

Hey @ho_idiotes, thanks for starting that conversation! It will be good for non-YEC people to read what YEC participants think and feel about the forum.


@cdods They do exist elsewhere, but until a just few years ago it was very hard to find them. There are several Facebook group I could recommend, THIS ONE is managed in part by @sygarte, who occasionally comments here.