Why YEC can seem plausible

[hyzer]

Does God still cause natural disasters today with the goal of wiping out wicked people?

No. The rainbow after the flood showed future floods are different.

Well, that is certainly one view among those theological groups that believe in the Deluge tale (already a minority group at least among the preachers, that think there was a biggly floody). There are quite a few believers in the inerrant Bible god that believe their god still is out there causing disasters to punish 'wicked people' or a country. The Katrina hurricane is a good example where lots of whack-a-noodle preachers got on their soap box talking of such...

shit . . . I see rainbows after rain all the time . . .

 

[James Brown]

Was wiping out wicked people by a global flood the best way to do that?

Well it makes an interesting story...

I find your answers disturbing. The Hero's Journey is an interesting story. Hamlet is an interesting story. Freaky Friday is an interesting story.

Global genocide is a crime against humanity, and I find those who defend it to be disturbing.

Fortunately for all concerned, the global flood never happened. And so that reduces Genesis 6-9 to a story after all. Horrific, barbaric, and childish, but just a story all the same.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It gives meaning to the term "godfearing", which isn't used as much as it once was. It used to confuse me, as a kid. "Good, godfearing folks." WTF? They sit in their little family enclave, praying that God won't unleash one of his plagues on them? It also sounded like anyone who would use that word was play acting, as they didn't flesh out what exactly they meant, and their words usually implied that it was the unbelievers who needed to fear God. And where did the warm hugs come in? The "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" (which is another bizarre phrase, as it implies talking to your friend Harvey.) Little by little, America is moving away from the old orthodox baggage. The demographics of the past quarter century seem to show it. Can't happen fast enough.

 

[excreationist]

Was wiping out wicked people by a global flood the best way to do that?

Well it makes an interesting story...

I find your answers disturbing. The Hero's Journey is an interesting story. Hamlet is an interesting story. Freaky Friday is an interesting story.

In the end of the Spartacus movie the hero and his followers were all crucified. I think that part of the story is also interesting though I don't think they deserved it. Stories about Christians being fed to lions or being burnt alive are also interesting though I think it involves a major injustice.

Global genocide is a crime against humanity, and I find those who defend it to be disturbing.

I think genocide involves focusing on particular ethnicities... that is not the case in Noah's flood. This Bible passage about God commanding the elimination of six different ethnicities is genocide: Deuteronomy 20:16-17

Fortunately for all concerned, the global flood never happened.

Well that's why I called it a story.

And so that reduces Genesis 6-9 to a story after all. Horrific, barbaric, and childish, but just a story all the same.

Apparently crucifixion is far more painful than drowning.

If you find my answers disturbing what about this: lots of Christians believe that the unsaved with suffer in hell forever and they believe that God is perfectly loving and holy and deserves worship. I would say that my views are not disturbing but the views of those Christians are.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The thread is about science vs creationism.

Based on qualitative scientific tools YEC can not be true.

Creationists try to debunk quantitative science in favor of a few lines in an ancient text by unknown authors.

I generally understand religion, but I do not understand the utter blind belief in ancient writings as literal. It seems like a form of mental illness. Obsessives belief and tunnel vision.

Taking metaphor and poetry as truth, akin to believing Santa existed 3000 years from now not knowing the origin of the myth.

It's obvious that people tell lies. People also have identities that they naturally defend, aka tribalism. So defending a lie to preserve one's identity (tribal association) isn't too far a reach.

Yea, it's just bizarre. The only so-called evidence that they offer is that it's written in their book; and that it might be possible. That's it.

People who defend lies are and never were interested in evidence. As a matter of scientific fact, evidence is the enemy because it argues against their claim and reveals the lie.

Add in a lot of cognitive inequality and it's not a difficult read.

Can any YEC explain why Jehovah sent the flood to begin with?

To wipe out the wicked people....

Translation: This story - taken literally - justifies my own brutality and genocidal inclinations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, that is certainly one view among those theological groups that believe in the Deluge tale (already a minority group at least among the preachers, that think there was a biggly floody). There are quite a few believers in the inerrant Bible god that believe their god still is out there causing disasters to punish 'wicked people' or a country. The Katrina hurricane is a good example where lots of whack-a-noodle preachers got on their soap box talking of such...

shit . . . I see rainbows after rain all the time . . .

It is a constant reminder of God's solemn promise not to kill virtually every living thing on Earth.... again.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Global genocide is a crime against humanity, and I find those who defend it to be disturbing.

I think genocide involves focusing on particular ethnicities... that is not the case in Noah's flood. This Bible passage about God commanding the elimination of six different ethnicities is genocide: Deuteronomy 20:16-17

Correct. It wasn't genocide, it was global extermination. Not better.

Fortunately for all concerned, the global flood never happened.

Well that's why I called it a story.

You did catch the title of the thread, right?

 

[excreationist]

It is a constant reminder of God's solemn promise not to kill virtually every living thing on Earth.... again.

Genesis 9:15
"...Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life"
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/taking-back-the-rainbow/
"The Bible states clearly that there will be a future, global judgment, but next time by fire, not water (2 Peter 3:10)"

 

[excreationist]

Fortunately for all concerned, the global flood never happened.

Well that's why I called it a story.

You did catch the title of the thread, right?

Yes I did believe in YEC earlier and there are quite a lot of intelligent YECs including some with PhD's in relevant areas. But now I think that it is just a story.

 

[James Brown]

What made you change your mind?

 

[excreationist]

What made you change your mind?

Mostly chatting with an ex-creationist author called Ed Babinski - and his documentation involving YEC letters related to the Green River Formation... and also lots of little things.

 

[excreationist]

From the book "Inside Noah's Ark - Why It Worked"

Solid Waste Removal

These systems would work in concert with another simple device, the solid waste remover. This simple automation solution is not often seen in the developed world today because it is based on animal power.

The solid waste remover functions like the chain pump, dumping its contents into the waste moon pool and using the same drive system. The major difference between the two is that the larger buckets of the solid waste remover are loaded manually from a solid waste collection pit on the lower deck.

Power comes from an animal-driven treadmill, also on the lower deck. A single individual can simultaneously manage the animal and load the solid waste remover, thus massively conserving labor. All of these designs are simple mechanisms found in various cultures throughout history.

Dimensions of the proposed equipment limits its use and installation to the second and third decks. Distribution of the solid waste would occur as the waves recede from the port or starboard sides to keep splashback at a minimum. It could even have been an enclosed device to maximize unwanted contamination of areas in proximity to the system.

This addresses the objection about the problem with waste removal - it shows it is theoretically possible.... and according to many YECs, plausible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What made you change your mind?

Mostly chatting with an ex-creationist author called Ed Babinski - and his documentation involving YEC letters related to the Green River Formation... and also lots of little things.

Well, I bet he is glad you listened.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Honk if you think a 600-year-old alcoholic could build the world's biggest boat without a fatal hernia when he tried to haul the first plank up the scaffold.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From the book "Inside Noah's Ark - Why It Worked"

Solid Waste Removal

These systems would work in concert with another simple device, the solid waste remover. This simple automation solution is not often seen in the developed world today because it is based on animal power.

The solid waste remover functions like the chain pump, dumping its contents into the waste moon pool and using the same drive system. The major difference between the two is that the larger buckets of the solid waste remover are loaded manually from a solid waste collection pit on the lower deck.

Power comes from an animal-driven treadmill, also on the lower deck. A single individual can simultaneously manage the animal and load the solid waste remover, thus massively conserving labor. All of these designs are simple mechanisms found in various cultures throughout history.

Dimensions of the proposed equipment limits its use and installation to the second and third decks. Distribution of the solid waste would occur as the waves recede from the port or starboard sides to keep splashback at a minimum. It could even have been an enclosed device to maximize unwanted contamination of areas in proximity to the system.

View attachment 34422

This addresses the objection about the problem with waste removal - it shows it is theoretically possible.... and according to many YECs, plausible.

Except that it's physically impossible to build a wooden boat that big that is also seaworthy. - unless magic.

 

[excreationist]

Except that it's physically impossible to build a wooden boat that big that is also seaworthy. - unless magic.

It's not that much longer than the Wyoming and all the ark had to do was not sink - it didn't need to navigate anywhere. I don't think YECs use this argument but Genesis 4:22 says an early man made tools out of bronze and iron...
edit: I mean not sink with very severe weather conditions.

 

[bilby]

Except that it's physically impossible to build a wooden boat that big that is also seaworthy. - unless magic.

It's not that much longer than the Wyoming and all the ark had to do was not sink - it didn't need to navigate anywhere. I don't think YECs use this argument but Genesis 4:22 says an early man made tools out of bronze and iron...
edit: I mean not sink with very severe weather conditions.

It's almost twice as long at the waterline, which is the relevant measure when considering hogging and sagging. And the Wyoming had a hundred and eighty diagonal iron cross bracings, without which she would have been destroyed in even very light seas. No suitable material for such construction existed in the Bronze Age, and even as late as the Roman Imperial period, the cost of that amount of iron would have been unthinkable.

There's an absolute limit of Length at the Water Line (LWL) for wooden ships of about 350ft, and the Wyoming was very close to that limit. She required constant pumping, even in ideal weather conditions, and foundered in heavy seas after less than fifteen years of service.

A structure doesn't need to be "much" beyond its limits in order to fail. To suggest that you could almost double the LWL of the Wyoming, in an unreinforced ship (or even equal that LWL without reinforcement) is nonsensical. To dismiss such an increase in LWL as "not much" serves only to demonstrate ignorance of the structural engineering principles that apply to wooden ships.

There's a reason why nobody's ever floated a replica of Noah's Ark, without either scaling it down dramatically, or cheating by using a steel or iron hull with a wooden superstructure. That reason isn't lack of inspiration, funding, or will. Many attempts have been made, and all have failed. Because it's impossible. Science tells us this, but we needn't trust those godless physicists, structural engineers and naval architects; We can try it for ourselves and prove them wrong by doing.

Yet Ken Ham in Kentucky, and the Kwok brothers in Hong Kong, built their replicas on land, (in Ham's case, mostly from reinforced concrete).

Johan Huibers built his on a platform of 25 steel barges.

All the other attempts to replicate the Ark have been at significantly reduced scale, and are mostly land based.

Given the powerful message that would be sent by proving the structural engineers and naval architects wrong, both as a propaganda boon for YECs, and as an opportunity to advance our understanding of the structural behaviour of wooden ships and other wooden structures (the ability to safely build much larger wooden structures than are currently believed to be possible would be hugely profitable), it's simply not credible to assert that it CAN be done, or even MIGHT BE possible, without first explaining why not one person has ever ACTUALLY done it.

Why did Huibers bother with his 25 LASH barges, if there was any possibility that he could have floated a replica made entirely from wood? Was he deliberately trying to look shifty and/or incompetent?

 

[bilby]

From the book "Inside Noah's Ark - Why It Worked"

Solid Waste Removal

These systems would work in concert with another simple device, the solid waste remover. This simple automation solution is not often seen in the developed world today because it is based on animal power.

The solid waste remover functions like the chain pump, dumping its contents into the waste moon pool and using the same drive system. The major difference between the two is that the larger buckets of the solid waste remover are loaded manually from a solid waste collection pit on the lower deck.

Power comes from an animal-driven treadmill, also on the lower deck. A single individual can simultaneously manage the animal and load the solid waste remover, thus massively conserving labor. All of these designs are simple mechanisms found in various cultures throughout history.

Dimensions of the proposed equipment limits its use and installation to the second and third decks. Distribution of the solid waste would occur as the waves recede from the port or starboard sides to keep splashback at a minimum. It could even have been an enclosed device to maximize unwanted contamination of areas in proximity to the system.

View attachment 34422

This addresses the objection about the problem with waste removal - it shows it is theoretically possible.... and according to many YECs, plausible.

That's lovely, but hand waving away this one problem by appealing to un-biblical (and probably anachronistic) technological solutions isn't effective - It suggests a level of sophistication implausible for a boat built single handedly by Noah, (or even by a mere handful of helpers who conveniently go unmentioned in the Bible, just like that massive poop scooping pump does), so it replaces one problem with at least one more new problem.

And even if we accept ad argumentum that this handwavium does solve the problem of disposing of all that manure, there still remain literally thousands of other problems with the story being in direct conflict with reality, or with its implying things that are impossible, illogical, or hugely unlikely.

These piecemeal apologetics also frequently contradict each other. With the help of this machine, the poop problem maybe becomes manageable for an eight person crew. But now the people dealing with poo are not available to do other tasks. So while you can solve problem A by reducing it to a job eight people can handle, if you need anyone to handle problems B through Z, you're gonna need another Noah, or a fourth son, or a bunch more wives, or a bunch of slaves or servants or crewmen none of whom are mentioned in the Bible, and any of whom would break the story that Noah, his three sons, and their wives were the only survivors.

And that's just one of myriad serious story problems not addressed at all by a poop pumping machine.

What happened to every other person in the world who owned a boat, for example?

 

[excreationist]

What made you change your mind?

Mostly chatting with an ex-creationist author called Ed Babinski - and his documentation involving YEC letters related to the Green River Formation... and also lots of little things.

Well, I bet he is glad you listened.

Well the year before when I was in year 12, I was investigated anti-YEC books. I said to "God" that I wanted to know the truth - no matter how depressing it was - and I felt a strong tingling in my body (that has never happened again). In university I created a site called "Dirt or Slime"
https://web.archive.org/web/2001050...cities.com:80/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4123/DOS1.HTM
Here are my comments on some anti-YEC books:
https://web.archive.org/web/2001043...es.com:80/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4123/PLIFREND.HTM
Then I was on the fence then became an atheist (and was very depressed)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Except that it's physically impossible to build a wooden boat that big that is also seaworthy. - unless magic.

It's not that much longer than the Wyoming and all the ark had to do was not sink - it didn't need to navigate anywhere. I don't think YECs use this argument but Genesis 4:22 says an early man made tools out of bronze and iron...
edit: I mean not sink with very severe weather conditions.

Why not just say it was a miracle? Why the need to shoehorn bullshit science into this?

If Noah would build a boat he'd base it on, for him, known models. According to YEC he lived 4200 BC. What were they using back then? It wasn't an ark. It was nothing.

The oldest archeological findings of boats are catamarans in Asia. While able to cross the open sea, you can transport barely anything other than your own ass in those. The first findings and mentions of boats used for transporting goods come from Egypt 3000 BC. These were extremely basic. Basically barges only able to navigate rivers. Or in Egypt's case, a river. The first open sea faring vessel came 1300 BC. The Phoenecians. Before that they needed to be close to land and any minor waves required them to quickly pull it up on land.