Why YEC can seem plausible

[T.G.G. Moogly]

what "can seem" plausible is not a measure of anything.

Except perhaps as a measure of a person's bias. Both young and old earth creationism require a belief in magic beings. If I like believing in magic and magic beings then I will find any kind of creationism as plausible.

 

[Elixir]

what "can seem" plausible is not a measure of anything.

Except perhaps as a measure of a person's bias. Both young and old earth creationism require a belief in magic beings. If I like believing in magic and magic beings then I will find any kind of creationism as plausible.

Believing that the universe contains things beyond human understanding is rational. Believing that you know what those things are - that's religion. Aka delusion.

 

[excreationist]

Yep.
And I have asked many young earthers why they want to make such an intellectually heavy rod for their own back when old earth creationism much easier to defend, AND...
old/young earthism has nothing to do with salvation (soteriology) or fidelity to Jesus Christ.

https://answersingenesis.org/why-does-creation-matter/

Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.​

It's a case of a slippery slope. BTW my female priest friend, who is the most liberal Christian I know, says that Jesus didn't necessarily physically rise from the dead.

 

[DBT]

That's right, the authority of the bible versus science.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

BTW my female priest friend, who is the most liberal Christian I know, says that Jesus didn't necessarily physically rise from the dead.

That's right, the authority of the bible versus science.

The bible is full of lies that people believe. We're better served by attempting to discover and understand what makes a person believe an obvious lie, than we are by submitting to an authority that tells us we should believe the lie.

 

[Learner]

TEST ALL THINGS, it says in the bible. That sort of means IOWs, be careful not to believe in lies.

 

[Learner]

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

Secular "science" would have the assumption that God is not involved. Then there is the term Creation "Science".

I haven't yet read entirely, your take on simulation. Does it include or propose an intelligent agency behind the matrix concept? Interesting nevertheless.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yep.
And I have asked many young earthers why they want to make such an intellectually heavy rod for their own back when old earth creationism much easier to defend, AND...
old/young earthism has nothing to do with salvation (soteriology) or fidelity to Jesus Christ.

https://answersingenesis.org/why-does-creation-matter/

Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture.​

Nope. You can misinterpret scripture without putting a dent in the authority of scripture.
I don't have to debunk YEC in order to defend the authority of scripture.

If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.

Nope. If millions of years really happened then people who misinterpreted the hermeneutics got it wrong. That's all.
Look how many times we see Jesus explaining scripture.

It's a case of a slippery slope.

Only if you make it so. One can easily harmonize science and Genesis without...

BTW my female priest friend, who is the most liberal Christian I know, says that Jesus didn't necessarily physically rise from the dead.

Sounds legit.

 

[excreationist]

I haven't yet read entirely, your take on simulation. Does it include or propose an intelligent agency behind the matrix concept? Interesting nevertheless.

I think "God" is an AI. I think he works through delusions and hallucinations and "coincidence". See:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?20370-The-theology-of-a-matrix-simulation

"Bender, being God isn't easy... You have to use a light touch like a safecracker or a pickpocket... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

​

The God Entity, Futurama

​

This is about coincidences I've experienced:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists

 

[Learner]

Ok cheers for the link, I couldn't remember where the thread was. I see the context now, the architect and Oracle. (I'll leave it for that thread)

 

[steve_bank]

I haven't yet read entirely, your take on simulation. Does it include or propose an intelligent agency behind the matrix concept? Interesting nevertheless.

I think "God" is an AI. I think he works through delusions and hallucinations and "coincidence". See:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?20370-The-theology-of-a-matrix-simulation

"Bender, being God isn't easy... You have to use a light touch like a safecracker or a pickpocket... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

​

The God Entity, Futurama

​

This is about coincidences I've experienced:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists

Sounds like a phantasy wrapped in a delusion.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Evolution is not atheistic. Religion has adapted it as a guided plan of god.

 

[excreationist]

......Evolution is not atheistic. Religion has adapted it as a guided plan of god.

I wrote ".....YEC, guided evolution and blind atheistic evolution (and other belief systems)...."

I talked about two types of evolution - blind atheistic evolution and guided evolution.

 

[excreationist]

I think "God" is an AI. I think he works through delusions and hallucinations and "coincidence". See:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?20370-The-theology-of-a-matrix-simulation

"Bender, being God isn't easy... You have to use a light touch like a safecracker or a pickpocket... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

​

The God Entity, Futurama

​

This is about coincidences I've experienced:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists

Sounds like a phantasy wrapped in a delusion.

Well he has proved he exists to me through coincidences - which to me are meaningful synchronicities but for you it could just be delusions and coincidences. The other method God could use is hallucinations but so far that hasn't happened to me. BTW I believe we are in a simulation which means an intelligent force can exist - though I also believe that he doesn't give clear evidence that he exists - so that the atheists can feel confident in their beliefs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

TEST ALL THINGS, it says in the bible.

Think all those Xians who refuse to 'test god' by praying for evidence He exists know about that part?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

TEST ALL THINGS, it says in the bible. That sort of means IOWs, be careful not to believe in lies.

How can you reasonably be expected to test anything in the Bible? The Bible is supposed to be truth, so if you test and find it not to be truth, then you are a heathen.

The Bible isn't a Physics book based on centuries old reproducible science where you experiment to find the expected results.

 

[Keith&Co.]

TEST ALL THINGS, it says in the bible. That sort of means IOWs, be careful not to believe in lies.

How can you reasonably be expected to test anything in the Bible? The Bible is supposed to be truth, so if you test and find it not to be truth, then you are a heathen.

Exactly.
The parts that say if you're a good Christain, and pray for something that's in God's interests, you'll get it? If a million or so people who think they're Christains pray for an end to abortion, and fuck-all changes? Then either God desires abortion OR the people making the prayers are not good Christains.
Or God doesn't exist at all, but that's not considerable.

Anyway, one means God's either bloodthirsty, or doesn't consider the preborn as people.

One puts any blame on the humans involved. Traditionally, that's the preferred solution to any apparent test failure.

 

[steve_bank]

Science reduces to quantified numerical parameters, religion does not.
Science leads to repeatable experiments repeated the world for testing, region does not.
Religion reduces to subjective perceptions, science does not.

We can over to logic and metaphysics on philosophy. One can make a logically consistent argument in metaphysics which has no basis in reality. The primary requirement is conclusion follows from premise without any logical fallacies

A theology can be logically consistent. based on an assumption or hypothesis. You can prove what you will logically. However That does not prove reality.

That prooof is not a proof of existence or reality.

Coincidence is not a proof.

 

[excreationist]

TEST ALL THINGS, it says in the bible. That sort of means IOWs, be careful not to believe in lies.

1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 (the NIV at least)"Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good,"

 

[excreationist]

.....Coincidence is not a proof.

For me I see my coincidences as proof of an intelligent force but obviously it isn't an absolute proof - some pastors see my upsidedown Bible as a meaningless accident.