Why are Young Earth creationists views marginalized, Veeky Forums?

Stephen Gould said better than I could. He rejected the incremental approach of Darwin because there's no evidence for it.

He hypothesized that instead of incremental, evolution is "punctuated", meaning that very large changes take place very quickly at long intervals.

He also does not have the evidence to back up this view of "evolution", a word that means virtually nothing on its own.

Obviously. But for a retard, aka a religious "person", faith is the highest virtue. So to dismiss evolution because it's faith based (it isn't, but I wouldn't expect a retarded person to know that) is as stupid as when retards say "atheism is just a religion!" (so you agree that religions are false?).

>Stephen Gould

Top kek. Try citing someone who WASN'T a proven liar and fraud.

Faith, hope and charity (love).

Love is the highest virtue, not faith.

Faith is useless in heaven, where you can see God, see the angels, see everything you know now to be true.

Hope is useless when you have obtained all that you hoped for.

Only love remains, and abides, and so love is the highest of all.

Please do go on how this atheist scientist is a "proven liar and fraud".

You are aware that that is still evolution?

I am aware that it is another hypothesis created to explain the lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution, yes.

And as I said, it is also false.

"God did it" is a perfectly good answer when God did it. And God telling Moses how he did it, all in six days, and how death did not enter into the creation until after that, belies any hypothesis that involves "millions or billions" of years, random chance, abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, etc.

lesswrong.com/lw/kv/beware_of_stephen_j_gould/

>If Gould had simply stolen Williams's ideas and presented them as his own, then he would have been guilty of plagiarism. And yet at least the general public would have been accurately informed; in that sense, less damage would have been done to the public understanding of science.
>But Gould's actual conduct was much stranger. He wrote as if the entire Williams revolution had never occurred! Gould attacked, as if they were still current views, romantic notions that no serious biologist had put forth since the 1960s.
>Then Gould presented his own counterarguments to these no-longer-advocated views, and they were bizarre. Evolution is a random walk in complexity, with a minimum at zero complexity and no upper bound? But there is an upper bound! Sheer chance explains why dogs are more complex than dinosaurs? But they probably aren't!
>Why did Gould behave thus? Two observations: One, to bring order to a scientific field, it must first be in chaos. Two, plagiarism is a crime that everyone understands.
>Gould undid the last thirty years of progress in his depiction of the field he was criticizing, pretending that evolutionary theory was in chaos, so he could depict himself as heroically bringing order to it. If Gould had also redid the accepted solutions as his own, he would have been caught, tried, and cast out of the public eye. Newspaper editors may not be interested in mathematical arguments about evolutionary biology, but they understand stories about plagiarism and theft. Once Gould's copying had been laid out next to the original, and eminent scientists attested to the identity, it would have been over.

The real problem is that these apostates split from Catholicism, and now they're allowed to believe all sorts of crazy shiznit.

One would think you'd be good at this creationist trolling by now, but you keep at it slugger.

>There's just one problem: It's extremely unlikely that any modern evolutionary theorist, however much a romantic, would believe that evolution was accumulating complexity.

Do you read your own sources?

What is more complicated? The first protozoan, or you?

No, the truth of the matter is that the Darwinian evolutionists have no answer for Gould, because he's one of them. He just didn't drink the "gradual evolution" kool-aid. He just didn't buy the "all fossils are transitional fossils" hoax.

I'll just keep doing what my spiritual father told me to do, and you keep doing what your spiritual father tells you to do.

>HURR

Gould is a nothing, he destroyed his own reputation by lying and committing academic fraud. The fact you cite him as though he is a respected figure shows just how utterly dishonest you are, but this doesn't surprise me in the least because every single christian I've ever met has been a shameless liar.

Genesis has been viewed as metaphorical by a large portion of Biblical scholars ever since Augustine in the late fourth century
the vehement biblical literalism is largely a product of the protestants

So? If you accept that ANY part of the Bible is fiction, then you have NO basis to claim any part of it as true. Gensis is "just a metaphor"? Then maybe "son of god" is "just a metaphor" too!

John Maynard Smith:

>"Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized

>because he is at least on our side against the creationists.

Still think this is a search for the truth?

Then why are there still protozoans?

Yes, by God's children, not the devil's.

Because kind begets kind, always.

It has always been this way.

Only in the delusions of godless men do protozoans turn into human beings. Eventually.

Jesus being the son of God was only agreed upon in like the 4th century as well I'm pretty sure. Like...you only have to read between the lines there.

fiction is not the same as metaphor my friend

Yes, it is. A metaphor is a fiction. If it weren't, it would be a factual description.

It was true before the world was formed, and never up for mankind's approval, consent or vote.

Augustine himself said that Genesis was a history book, and interpreted as much of it literally as possible. Him and the rest of Christendom believed in pretty much everything modern YECs do, and some more, like geocentrism and the existence of the firmament.

And metaphor is not the same as fiction.

Facts are kryptonite to papists.

Protozoans were kinda leftovers in an outdated taxonomical model. They specifically were not animals (or plants or fungi) an they were not the group these kingdoms came from. No evolutionist ever believed men came from protozoans

you're twisting words here despite you being well aware of the meaning

Augustine was a rational man and a scientific one. He rejected the 6 day version and hypothesized it happened all instantly or in some abstract time frame.

But more relevantly he said that because of Genesis' metaphorical nature it should not be taken in favor of reason or scientific inquiry
>It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis
>t. St. Augustine

Think about what you just posted and consider how retarded it is.

>be atheist
>think that consciousness came from rocks

All evolutionists have to believe that mankind developed from the first living being on planet earth.

>you're twisting words here despite you being well aware of the meaning

No, you're trying to claim special pleading for your metaphors being somehow "true" when the definition of a metaphor is that it is a FICTION.

>He rejected the 6 day version and hypothesized it happened all instantly or in some abstract time frame.

Baseless allegations.

Bible says 6 24 hour days, and rested the seventh.

Bible always right.

Mankind always wrong.

No, they don't. Life arose more than once, the Archeans are not directly related to the prokaryotes.

First of all, the Council of Nicea did not determine that Jesus was the living Son of God. They got rid of some gnostics who said he wasn't.

Second of all, it wasn't up to them.

Third of all, it isn't up to you either.

>day and night existed before the sun
>moon described as a "light"

I don't even think most evolutionist believe there is a singular origin of life

Oh, I'm sorry. You're hopelessly autistic. I'm afraid only God can fix that.

Do you understand in broad strokes that something (the universe) had to come from nothing, if there is no God to create it?

Do you understand in broad strokes that living things have to come from non-living things, if there is no God to create them?

Do you understand that conscious beings had to arise from non-conscious beings, if there is no God to create them?

No?

You just like putting labels on things?

metaphor here means it's an allegory for the truth
it's not literally true but it's a representation of the truth

I won't respond to more of this pedantic nonsense

your interpretation is a different one from the one universal church and most protestants m8
Augustine again quite directly contradicts you here for one influential example

First thing God said is "Light, be". And light was.

The sun doesn't put out light for God, nor does it teach God how to tell time.

God put light into the sun, and God set the orbit of the earth to correspond with his timing.

Your "god" is far too small to even contemplate.

Is "moonlight" a word in your language?

Does the moon shine in the night sky?

But it's mankind who wrote the Bible.

It doesn't matter what they believe. They were not there; they did not see it; and the fanciful imaginations they produce have no basis in reality.

I don't care if Augustine contradicts me at all points. I don't worship him.

I worship God, who went out of his way to tell Adam, and Abraham, and Moses, and anyone else who would listen how he created the universe.

I turn to him for wisdom and understanding, not to dead papists.

>Do you understand in broad strokes that living things have to come from non-living things, if there is no God to create them?
viruses
>Do you understand in broad strokes that living things have to come from non-living things,
every being is conscious to a degree

And it was the Holy Spirit of God who dwelt in those 40 men, over that 1500 year period to write those 66 books who inspired them and brought all things to their remembrance, and to their knowledge.

The Holy Bible is holy because God inspired it, not because men wrote it. Only God makes things holy.

So no, you have no clear understanding of anything.

Then why are you posing as someone who knows something?

But the people who wrote genesis were not at the garden of eden

Because they're incredibly ignorant and misinformed, as well as being an embarrassment to christendom as a whole.

Adam left no writings?

Are you sure?

God didn't remember anything from that creation week, and didn't tell anyone about it?

Are you sure?

In what believing that the universe came from nothing is different than believing it was created by God who also came from nothing?

I have bad news for you.

If you are ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ before men, Jesus is ashamed of you before the Father.

God did not come from nothing.

There was never any "nothing".

God is an eternal spirit being who has always existed.

>Genesis' metaphorical nature

>The narrative in [Genesis] is not written in a literary style proper to allegory, as in the Song of Songs, but from beginning to end in a style proper to history, as in the Books of Kings and the other works of that type
>T. St. Augustine

>He rejected the 6 day version and hypothesized it happened all instantly or in some abstract time frame
Whoopity doo. Why don't you post him defending the flood, arc, 5000 year old Earth and other things that the modern Church wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

Not to mention that his interpretation of the days as a single day itself was based on an overly literal reading of a phrase that basically meant "back in the day"

>Adam left no writings?
yes?

If it makes you feel any better I stopped associating these retards with christians a long time ago

There's two accounts of the creation week in Genesis. The first is God's, and starts "in the beginning".

The second is Adam's, and starts on Day Six, when Adam was created.

>He says to a Catholic.

I'm not ashamed of the word at all, I'm ashamed of being associated with you idiots, you make Christians and americans look bad. You're in the same league as Cathars 2bh.

i'm not claiming he was a 19th or 20th century scientist because he wasn't

point was YEC are modernist heretics that equate being contrary to reason to being pious while the church has historically been pro-science and pro-reason from its earliest days as most strongly and elegantly stated by Augustine

So like, why were there no Jews before Abraham?

So by my believing the bible, as written, I'm an idiot.

I make Christians look bad by believing the Word of God.

I make Americans look bad for some reason.

Are you sure about all of those absurdities?

Because the Jews come from the 12 tribes of Israel, aka Jacob, the grandson of Abraham.

I love it when people say that life is just "magically" perfect and probably couldn't tell you what the fuck ATP is.

jesus wasnt the son of god you know.

t. Abraham Goldstein

how do you know my name?

If you know that the Son is the Father, then you would be correct.

If you are saying John 3:16 is a lie, you can take your place with all antichrist liars in a lake of fire.

Your choice.

Francis Bacon was a bad scientist

mate, you the one going to hell unless you renounce that jesus is the son of god and declare your faith in the koran

because people are idiots thats why.

>product of the protestants
Yes, look at all these protestants

you are right but he is also correct that most people that believe the world is 6000ya today is because of protestant biblical literalist movements in america in more modern times. Im not sure what the general population believed about the issue at the time those first groups arose but im sure it is their legacy from which people still have those believes as opposed to these ancient ones.

Because they're demonstrably wrong. People who think the ocean is made of pudding shouldn't have their retarded ideas validated and neither should YECs.

>Catholics/Orthodox invent YEC
>in the 16th century Protestants split from Catholics
>Catholics keep being YECs until the 1800s when the dawn of modern geology and evolution biology makes them cuck out and do a 180 and accept evolution
>I-IT WAS INVENTED BY PROTESTANTS I SWARE ON ME MUM

Fuck Catholics desu.

nah, fuck jesus, he started this shit, hes kekking right now.

"hehe, look at these cunts, think theyre going to heaven"

>" Between 1982 and 2014, successive surveys have found that between 40% and 47% of adults in the United States inclined to the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when Gallup asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings"

USA some dense motherfuckers.

Punctuated equilibrium still works by incremental, inherited changes to the genome. All it says is that sometimes one successful mutation leads to others in short succession. But it's not an argument about the rate of mutation afaik, it's about the rate of success.

>There's just one problem: It's extremely unlikely that any modern evolutionary theorist, however much a romantic, would believe that evolution was accumulating complexity.

Yudkowski is overstating the case himself. Last I heard he's so ignorant of complexity theory that he doesn't believe in emergence, so it's only natural he isn't aware of the arguments coming from that field. If this is a settled matter, it's going to come unsettled when some more old farts die.

You can still follow the ideology of a particular religion while acknowledging that it's creation myth is merely that, a myth.

ffs, why argue with them , theyre idiots, just laugh in their faces.

except that not what happened
almost everyone dropped YEC including pretty much all protestants until it was actively revived in the US by US protestants

hence densest nation in the west

There may be susceptible lurkers around

Catholics invented Christianity.

Jesus Christ invented Christianity. Catholics are just a bunch of retards who falsely claim to be the successors of Peter.

American protestants only worship mammon.

Who cares about Americans anyway.

i know. they don't even know how to do christianity properly.

Certainly. Fortunately, most Christians don't live according to their religion, if they did, society would have collapsed long ago.

>drawing the picture where the kids objects to not being taught creationism
>not his parents being mad while the kid doesn't give a shit