Why YEC can seem plausible

[excreationist]

From my thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...rix-simulation&p=754682&viewfull=1#post754682

....I think it isn't clear which is the truth out of YEC, guided evolution and blind atheistic evolution. (and other belief systems)

I also think it isn't clear if the Bible is 100% true, partly true or if there is no God/supernatural.....

....If this is a simulation then there doesn't have to be a consistent reality. There could be good reasons to believe any of those three main beliefs....

I think world views can move between those three main options... e.g. like in the case of myself, people can go from YEC to atheism:

An "old earth" tract:
Evolution and Creation Science, The Bible Taught It First

I am under the impression that the evidence for these three options is deliberately ambiguous and very intelligent people can believe in any of these options, including YEC. (chess champions could be considered to be intelligent)

I am under the impression that when Genesis was written an intelligent force made it look like it would look like good evidence for YEC for modern people.

e.g.
- the talk of "kinds" - it allows micro-evolution but no large scale evolution

- the global flood - an explanation for fossils without requiring millions of years

- the 6 days of creation - it is plausible that the sun, moon and stars could have been created a day after plants, and birds being created before any land animals. (note there was already "light")

- not requiring millions of years of death and suffering (it was "very good")

- a plausible explanation (to YECs) for how the earth could recover from a global flood where 2 of each "kind" are taken on the ark

- how the world could be repopulated so rapidly (tower of Babel story)

- that a woman (XX) was created from a man (XY)

- the idea that all animals were originally plant eaters (consistent with the idea of things being "very good")

- 900+ year lifespans - they were initially free from mutations and perhaps a "flood canopy" explains why the ages started to decrease after the flood

- possible mention of dinosaurs (e.g. the behemoth) and the possibility of "dragons"

There is no need to give counter-arguments for these things - I am already aware of that. And creationists have counter-counter-arguments for just about everything... even regarding the main reason I gave up on YEC, the Green River Formation.

I'm interested in the other ways that the YEC beliefs seem plausible to modern readers.

P.S. About flat earthers - often they use the Bible as evidence - and I think according to the Bible the earth seems to be flat, not a globe. This shows that the Bible isn't 100% literally true though otherwise it can seem to be to YECs.

 

[ideologyhunter]

My opinion -- in the most general terms, so fire away at me, I don't care -- is that YEC, if true (i.e, the earth is, oh, six to ten thousand years old) would overturn biology, geology, astronomy, and physics. Bye-bye, science. Biology and geology for pretty obvious reasons. Astronomy because of the calculations of the ages of stars, galaxies, and our planet; physics because key findings in physics are dependent on those calculations from astronomy. But by all means, why not posit the reliability of a book with talking animals and striped sticks leading to animals with striped hides. Yeehaw. Only (or mostly) in America. Brought to you by Liberty University and the Republican National Committee.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That doesn't seem to indicate why YEC is plausible. Seems more like the start of a list of things we're really fucking wrong about in order for YEC to be right.

And by the time you finish that list, you pretty much have to stamp everything ever decided by the scientific method as 'SUSPECT AT BEST' even if it's producing results...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Lots of things were plausible to me in the past. Flying reindeer and Santa were 100% plausible. That the Harlem Globetrotters were the best basketball team in the world was 100% plausible. That professional wrestling was an actual contest and not a staged event was 100% plausible. There were, of course, far more people around for which these things were 100% implausible. Miracles were 100% plausible.

Now I'm in the implausibility camp because I've been able to acquire more information about the actual universe. That additional information, weighed against the old information I possessed is what made the difference. I suppose that if my brain changed in some way those old plausibles would become plausible again. Of course, all that would have changed is my brain, not the rest of the universe.

 

[Lion IRC]

The young earth creationist has to invoke more miracles than the old earth creationist.
But both views are still more plausible than the non-theistic alternative.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Right, because if something could've always existed, what makes more sense for that something to be: matter in a state of perpetual mutation or a three-part deity with super powers who impregnated his own mommy?

 

[Tharmas]

Addressing the OP:

There is no need to give counter-arguments for these things - I am already aware of that. And creationists have counter-counter-arguments for just about everything... even regarding the main reason I gave up on YEC, the Green River Formation.

I'm interested in the other ways that the YEC beliefs seem plausible to modern readers.

P.S. About flat earthers - often they use the Bible as evidence - and I think according to the Bible the earth seems to be flat, not a globe. This shows that the Bible isn't 100% literally true though otherwise it can seem to be to YECs.

I don't know that "seem plausible" is the right term exactly, and I think "modern readers" is too broad a category. For example, IIRC, far fewer Jews accept Genesis literally than do Christians. It seems to me that a literal interpretation of Genesis is an essential component of basic Christianity: Fall / Redemption / Resurrection. In that sense a literal acceptance of Genesis comfortingly reaffirms one's desire for immortality; it's part of the whole basic Christian package.

 

[excreationist]

The thread title is "why YEC can seem plausible" - and it is true that some (not many) quite intelligent people believe in it.
e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati

Sarfati is a FIDE Master in chess, and achieved a draw against former world champion Boris Spassky during a tournament in Wellington in 1988, and was New Zealand's national chess champion in 1987–88.

I have intellectual friends that believe in it - and I did too. In high school I found that books like "Telling Lies For God" were really poorly written and like I said, YECs have counter-arguments for just about every basic issue. If it wasn't for the "Green River Formation" (mentioned by an ex-creationist) it would have taken a lot longer for me to give up on YEC.

I think "black and white" thinking is involved. (that explains why YECs can jump straight to atheism)

I'm saying that people with a basic look into the YEC arguments can end up believing in YEC (e.g. the reasons in the OP). I think that YEC is actually false but it can seem to make a lot of sense.

I mean according to YECs believers, it can seem plausible, I not saying that the reasoning is free of logical fallacies. I think that delusions and even hallucinations can be involved.

 

[excreationist]

Addressing the OP:

There is no need to give counter-arguments for these things - I am already aware of that. And creationists have counter-counter-arguments for just about everything... even regarding the main reason I gave up on YEC, the Green River Formation.

I'm interested in the other ways that the YEC beliefs seem plausible to modern readers.

P.S. About flat earthers - often they use the Bible as evidence - and I think according to the Bible the earth seems to be flat, not a globe. This shows that the Bible isn't 100% literally true though otherwise it can seem to be to YECs.

I don't know that "seem plausible" is the right term exactly, and I think "modern readers" is too broad a category. For example, IIRC, far fewer Jews accept Genesis literally than do Christians. It seems to me that a literal interpretation of Genesis is an essential component of basic Christianity: Fall / Redemption / Resurrection. In that sense a literal acceptance of Genesis comfortingly reaffirms one's desire for immortality; it's part of the whole basic Christian package.

Yes I mean modern Christian readers - I had been talking about the Bible being 100% true.

From
https://www.oldearth.org/tract/tract.htm

This is what I mean by "modern":

https://www.oldearth.org/tract/TDSOYECb-13b.jpg

 

[excreationist]

That doesn't seem to indicate why YEC is plausible.

I meant it can seem to be plausible to black and white thinkers who trust the YEC speaker/book/website - it can involve them using quotes from evolutionists and even atheists that seem to support YEC (or at least criticise evolution). And as to "why", I think it is part of a test of the intelligences behind our simulation to test whether people think in a black and white possibly psychotic way (in support of genocide, etc) or whether people might risk the threat of hell and use their own reasoning.

Seems more like the start of a list of things we're really fucking wrong about in order for YEC to be right.

Based on logical fallacies, etc, they can seem to be true.

And by the time you finish that list, you pretty much have to stamp everything ever decided by the scientific method as 'SUSPECT AT BEST' even if it's producing results...

Definitely...

1 Corinthians 3:18-19
"If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become "fools" so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight"

 

[excreationist]

Right, because if something could've always existed, what makes more sense for that something to be: matter in a state of perpetual mutation or a three-part deity with super powers who impregnated his own mommy?

I am saying that an intelligent force has always existed throughout the history of a theoretical simulation. I don't think it has literally existed for an infinite amount of time. I'm not sure about the idea of the virgin birth since it mostly is only mentioned in Matthew and Luke - see:
https://uncensored-christmas.sky-walker.net/read-it/#mary

Also MLK didn't seem to believe in the Virgin Birth:

http://discerninghistory.com/2018/04/was-martin-luther-king-jr-a-christian/

 

[excreationist]

P.S. About flat earthers - often they use the Bible as evidence - and I think according to the Bible the earth seems to be flat, not a globe. This shows that the Bible isn't 100% literally true though otherwise it can seem to be to YECs.

BTW there might be up to 200 related Bible verses related to a flat earth:
https://www.flatearthdoctrine.com/flat-earth-scriptures/

About Answers In Genesis:
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/is-the-earth-flat/

It is against the idea of a flat earth though it only seems to give scientific reasons and not Biblical reasons (perhaps due no good Biblical arguments that are against a flat earth)

A pro-globe view of Isaiah 40:22:A ball seen at a distance looks like a circle. Other people have argued that the verse in Job is better translated to mean sphere rather than circle.


Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,​

and its people are like grasshoppers.​

He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,​

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.​​

"Above" only makes sense if the earth is flat. If it is a ball then the throne would be "below" some of the people. "Like grasshoppers" implies that the people look very small. If the earth is a ball some of the people would be hidden from view due to the earth being in the way. The sky being stretched like a tent implies a flat surface. If it is a ball it is more like a cocoon.

 

[excreationist]

About Christian flat earthers:

1 Corinthians has many verses that talk about God's wisdom vs human/worldly wisdom....
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NIV&quicksearch=wisdom&begin=53&end=53

Christian flat earthers would believe that the verses that suggest a flat earth are God's wisdom. Arguments against a flat earth rely on human wisdom rather than Bible verses.

I find it interesting that people in modern times with space travel can disagree about such a seemingly obvious thing (according to worldly wisdom) - it is a test of faith...

I don't think there being so many verses about God's vs worldly wisdom is an accident...

This test is related to people's primary purpose in life... (their relationship with God, etc) and about whether there is actually a huge conspiracy involving NASA, etc. It makes for an interesting plot in their life.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

About Christian flat earthers:

1 Corinthians has many verses that talk about God's wisdom vs human/worldly wisdom....
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NIV&quicksearch=wisdom&begin=53&end=53

Christian flat earthers would believe that the verses that suggest a flat earth are God's wisdom. Arguments against a flat earth rely on human wisdom rather than Bible verses.

I find it interesting that people in modern times with space travel can disagree about such a seemingly obvious thing (according to worldly wisdom) - it is a test of faith...

I don't think there being so many verses about God's vs worldly wisdom is an accident...

This test is related to people's primary purpose in life... (their relationship with God, etc) and about whether there is actually a huge conspiracy involving NASA, etc. It makes for an interesting plot in their life.

Is it a test of faith or is it an inability to make a simple observation? Looks more like the workings of natural selection than a test of faith.

 

[excreationist]

Is it a test of faith or is it an inability to make a simple observation? Looks more like the workings of natural selection than a test of faith.

Christian flat earthers involve the "argument from authority" (God said it and he would know). Could you explain what you mean by "natural selection"? Do flat earthers have an easier or better life?

There are many verses that criticise worldly wisdom and this combines with the seemingly 100% rate of verses agreeing with the idea of a flat earth. Note that some Greeks even accurately measured the size of the earth - but that would be considered earthly/human wisdom.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is it a test of faith or is it an inability to make a simple observation? Looks more like the workings of natural selection than a test of faith.

Christian flat earthers involve the "argument from authority" (God said it and he would know). Could you explain what you mean by "natural selection"? Do flat earthers have an easier or better life?

There are many verses that criticise worldly wisdom and this combines with the seemingly 100% rate of verses agreeing with the idea of a flat earth. Note that some Greeks even accurately measured the size of the earth - but that would be considered earthly/human wisdom.

Natural selection in the scientific sense as it is used to discuss evolution. If an organism does not make an accurate observation of it's environment that is different from an organism that makes an accurate observation of its environment. The former would seem to me to be at a disadvantage, but of course that ultimately depends on the environment.

For example, if my brain is markedly delusional I am at a survival disadvantage because it puts me in danger, I will misinterpret my environment, my information will not be accurate. Again, that all depends on the environment and chance.

To me, a flat earther isn't able to interpret the environment correctly at least on a specific point. Why? It's the brain and how it's working. I'm a bit like a venomous snake handler.

 

[ronburgundy]

While both require an enormous feat of intellectual dishonesty, YEC arguably requires no more and perhaps less intellectual dishonesty than the type of theistic evolution that most non-YEC monotheists believe in. YEC basically requires two assumptions, that the Bible is a reliable source of factual information and that empirical science is not a reliable method of discovering what occurred in in the distant past because there are no recorded direct observations of those events in question. These two general assumptions justify any aspect of science that YECers need to reject and make their worldview internally coherent. Other monotheists don't need to hold either of these assumptions, however, they must ignore the clear logical contradiction between human evolution and a human-centric conception of God, and between the facts of random contingency and the notion that humans or any modern creatures was planned or any more than an unintended happenstance byproduct of a hands-off creator who merely kicked things off. IOW, anything beyond the most minimalist form of deism where God plays no role beyond bio-genesis is logically incompatible with core aspects of evolutionary science. Thus almost all theistic evolutionists merely pretend to accept enough science to provide intellectual cover while contradicting themselves by selectively rejecting those aspects of evolution and it's implications that don't fit with their theism. One could argue that requires more vigilant acts of self delusions, self contradiction, and intellectual dishonesty than a wholesale rejection that science has any legitimacy on the question of ancient biological history and origins.

And while minimalist deism can be logically compatible with evolution, it isn't compatible with the increasing mountain of science showing that the kind of will and mental functions that even minimal deism assumes are byproduct of a particular arrangement of matter (e.g., the living brain). Thus, any such deity would itself necessarily be material in some way and subject to rather than preceding or establishing the principles of the material universe.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why is it being called Young Earth Creationism when it's just Anti-scientific Creationism?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why is it being called Young Earth Creationism when it's just Anti-scientific Creationism?

Ah, but it's not anti-TRUE Science. Just anti-all-the-science-that-disagrees-with-their-desired-confusions.
As identified by supporting YECism.

 

[DBT]

I'm not sure in which universe a flat earth would or could be possible. The ancient Greeks worked out the shape of the Earth over two thousand years ago.