Why YEC can seem plausible

[excreationist]

Just for the sake of discussion, knowing that we don't have mutation free magic parents,

If God was going to create a human from scratch why must he include problematic mutations?

This is what is known as fan fiction resolution. The reality doesn't fit the narrative, where specific punishments are applied to man, woman, and the serpent for the fruit eating incident. This did not include genetic issues caused by entropy. As a reminder, the principle of increasing entropy is a major characteristic of the universe....

I thought YECs thought that entropy began at the fall but this is not the case in this article:
https://answersingenesis.org/creati...cond-law-of-thermodynamics-began-at-the-fall/
A verse about the extent of the curse from the fall:
Romans 8:22

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.​

 

[excreationist]

If God was going to create a human from scratch why must he include problematic mutations?

This IS the God who flooded the entire world because humans were created inherently wicked, right?
Who created a reproductive system that generates about 40 mutations per baby?
Why assume perfection?

A scientific reason why incest was outlawed in the commands given to Moses was that it resulted in birth defects, etc. If there were mutations right from the start then incest should have been outlawed right from the start.... that means that Cain couldn't have married his sister (the mainstream YEC explanation for where Cain got his wife).

So anyway assuming that Adam and Eve had mutations creates problems and remember that the creation was said to be "very good".

 

[Keith&Co.]

So anyway assuming that Adam and Eve had mutations

Assessing a mutation requires comparing DNA between generations.
None of Adam's DNA can be explained as being inherited from his parents. It's all mutations.

and remember that the creation was said to be "very good".

Yeah, the skybeast reviewed his own work. On Amazon, that's frowned upon.
And, really, what was it being compared to?
Couldn't be that good if a thousand years later, he tried to junk the whole project and start over, due to mistakes made in that 'very good' creation.

 

[excreationist]

So anyway assuming that Adam and Eve had mutations

Assessing a mutation requires comparing DNA between generations.
None of Adam's DNA can be explained as being inherited from his parents. It's all mutations.

What if a (bad) mutation was defined as "deleterious recessive alleles". If Adam and Eve had any in common that could lead to "abnormalities, miscarriages and stillbirths"....

See The Incest Problem post #19

...Yeah, the skybeast reviewed his own work....

In this instance it isn't a case of "God said".... it says "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good"

 

[DrZoidberg]

....Who do you think Cain married and had kids with (Enoch)?

A YEC explanation:
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/cain/who-was-cains-wife/

BTW, Enoch founded a city. Who did he marry? A person living alone in a hut does not a city make. How many people do you need in order to call it a city?

See the previous link....

Though some YECs believe there were other people around when Adam and Eve were created - maybe "Nephilim".

These people just sound crazier and crazier

I love this bit

Also, it is rather ironic for evolutionary skeptics to mock the biblical position that all people are descendants of the first man and woman. These evolutionists believe that all living organisms are descendants of the first living cell that somehow sprang to life from non-living material.

Where's the irony? He's saying this like it's obviously stupid. When that is an explanation that actually makes sense, as opposed to YEC, which is bonkers

 

[bilby]

A YEC explanation:
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/cain/who-was-cains-wife/

See the previous link....

Though some YECs believe there were other people around when Adam and Eve were created - maybe "Nephilim".

These people just sound crazier and crazier

I love this bit

Also, it is rather ironic for evolutionary skeptics to mock the biblical position that all people are descendants of the first man and woman. These evolutionists believe that all living organisms are descendants of the first living cell that somehow sprang to life from non-living material.

Where's the irony? He's saying this like it's obviously stupid. When that is an explanation that actually makes sense, as opposed to YEC, which is bonkers

The irony is that he, like most people, thinks that 'life' is a clearly defined category, that is always distinctly and clearly different from 'non-life'.

The idea that there's a massive hurdle to leap to get from a lifeless world, to a world that contains life, is obvious, intuitive, highly regarded, supported by most of the great philosophers of history, believed by the vast majority of people, and utterly and completely false.

If you are a part of the majority who believe this falsehood, then it's really ridiculous to consider that this huge leap could happen spontaneously; And as it obviously couldn't happen as a result of the actions of anything alive, the only option left is the actions of something intentional and intelligent, but not alive in the natural world. Hence the need for a supernatural intelligence to intervene.

In reality, 'alive' and 'not alive' are arbitrary and poorly defined categories, invented by humans in the pre-scientific era in an attempt to understand the world. But at a fundamental level, these categories are meaningless. There's no comprehensive definition of 'life' that is consistent and coherent, and that also includes every entity we want to include in 'alive', and excludes every entity we want to exclude from 'alive'.

People with a high school education in biology usually arc up at this fact, and start quoting the definition of life that they learned in school. But when they do, it soon becomes clear that the definition is woolly and useless - where it's woolly it isn't a definition, but just a placeholder for a possible definition; and where it's precise, it excludes infertile humans from life, and/or includes physical changes in crystals or clays as life, rendering it useless.

The first living organism was almost certainly a fairly complex cyclical pattern of chemical reactions driven by an energy source. How complex that pattern was, is an arbitrary choice of whoever is judging whether a given pattern is or is not yet sufficiently complex to be considered 'alive'. But for sure there is a continuum from 'so simple that almost nobody thinks it's really alive' through to 'so complex that almost everyone agrees that it's alive'. And the common ancestor of all life on Earth is that continuum of patterns of cyclical chemistry.

 

[DrZoidberg]

These people just sound crazier and crazier

I love this bit



Where's the irony? He's saying this like it's obviously stupid. When that is an explanation that actually makes sense, as opposed to YEC, which is bonkers

The irony is that he, like most people, thinks that 'life' is a clearly defined category, that is always distinctly and clearly different from 'non-life'.

The idea that there's a massive hurdle to leap to get from a lifeless world, to a world that contains life, is obvious, intuitive, highly regarded, supported by most of the great philosophers of history, believed by the vast majority of people, and utterly and completely false.

If you are a part of the majority who believe this falsehood, then it's really ridiculous to consider that this huge leap could happen spontaneously; And as it obviously couldn't happen as a result of the actions of anything alive, the only option left is the actions of something intentional and intelligent, but not alive in the natural world. Hence the need for a supernatural intelligence to intervene.

In reality, 'alive' and 'not alive' are arbitrary and poorly defined categories, invented by humans in the pre-scientific era in an attempt to understand the world. But at a fundamental level, these categories are meaningless. There's no comprehensive definition of 'life' that is consistent and coherent, and that also includes every entity we want to include in 'alive', and excludes every entity we want to exclude from 'alive'.

People with a high school education in biology usually arc up at this fact, and start quoting the definition of life that they learned in school. But when they do, it soon becomes clear that the definition is woolly and useless - where it's woolly it isn't a definition, but just a placeholder for a possible definition; and where it's precise, it excludes infertile humans from life, and/or includes physical changes in crystals or clays as life, rendering it useless.

The first living organism was almost certainly a fairly complex cyclical pattern of chemical reactions driven by an energy source. How complex that pattern was, is an arbitrary choice of whoever is judging whether a given pattern is or is not yet sufficiently complex to be considered 'alive'. But for sure there is a continuum from 'so simple that almost nobody thinks it's really alive' through to 'so complex that almost everyone agrees that it's alive'. And the common ancestor of all life on Earth is that continuum of patterns of cyclical chemistry.

Christians believe that Adam was made from dust. So in their own book, they should be fine with life arising from non-life. In their funeral rites they emphasize how we come from dust and we will return to dust. Which, scientifically, is what happens.

It's always fun with a literalist fundamentalist who is bad at reading the one book they're so obsessed about.

 

[bilby]

These people just sound crazier and crazier

I love this bit



Where's the irony? He's saying this like it's obviously stupid. When that is an explanation that actually makes sense, as opposed to YEC, which is bonkers

The irony is that he, like most people, thinks that 'life' is a clearly defined category, that is always distinctly and clearly different from 'non-life'.

The idea that there's a massive hurdle to leap to get from a lifeless world, to a world that contains life, is obvious, intuitive, highly regarded, supported by most of the great philosophers of history, believed by the vast majority of people, and utterly and completely false.

If you are a part of the majority who believe this falsehood, then it's really ridiculous to consider that this huge leap could happen spontaneously; And as it obviously couldn't happen as a result of the actions of anything alive, the only option left is the actions of something intentional and intelligent, but not alive in the natural world. Hence the need for a supernatural intelligence to intervene.

In reality, 'alive' and 'not alive' are arbitrary and poorly defined categories, invented by humans in the pre-scientific era in an attempt to understand the world. But at a fundamental level, these categories are meaningless. There's no comprehensive definition of 'life' that is consistent and coherent, and that also includes every entity we want to include in 'alive', and excludes every entity we want to exclude from 'alive'.

People with a high school education in biology usually arc up at this fact, and start quoting the definition of life that they learned in school. But when they do, it soon becomes clear that the definition is woolly and useless - where it's woolly it isn't a definition, but just a placeholder for a possible definition; and where it's precise, it excludes infertile humans from life, and/or includes physical changes in crystals or clays as life, rendering it useless.

The first living organism was almost certainly a fairly complex cyclical pattern of chemical reactions driven by an energy source. How complex that pattern was, is an arbitrary choice of whoever is judging whether a given pattern is or is not yet sufficiently complex to be considered 'alive'. But for sure there is a continuum from 'so simple that almost nobody thinks it's really alive' through to 'so complex that almost everyone agrees that it's alive'. And the common ancestor of all life on Earth is that continuum of patterns of cyclical chemistry.

Christians believe that Adam was made from dust. So in their own book, they should be fine with life arising from non-life. In their funeral rites they emphasize how we come from dust and we will return to dust. Which, scientifically, is what happens.

It's always fun with a literalist fundamentalist who is bad at reading the one book they're so obsessed about.

Sure. But they think supernatural intervention is a requirement, at which point no obstacle is insurmountable.

My point is that the obstacle isn't insurmountable or even surmountable, but nonexistent.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What if a (bad) mutation was defined as "deleterious recessive alleles". If Adam and Eve had any in common that could lead to "abnormalities, miscarriages and stillbirths"....

but that's not necessarily a mutation.

...Yeah, the skybeast reviewed his own work....

In this instance it isn't a case of "God said".... it says "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good"

...how is that not God reviewing his own work?
Who was there to tell this to Moses for the record? Betty White?
But still, how good could it have been? The seeds of the Deluge were installed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Christians believe that Adam was made from dust. So in their own book, they should be fine with life arising from non-life. In their funeral rites they emphasize how we come from dust and we will return to dust. Which, scientifically, is what happens.

It's always fun with a literalist fundamentalist who is bad at reading the one book they're so obsessed about.

Sure. But they think supernatural intervention is a requirement, at which point no obstacle is insurmountable.

My point is that the obstacle isn't insurmountable or even surmountable, but nonexistent.

I thought Christians thought the creation of all life was a miracle? No matter if it's made in the lavatory in a downtown club by an inebriated couple who do not know each others first name, or if made by God coughing onto a badly cleaned mantelpiece.

 

[bilby]

Christians believe that Adam was made from dust. So in their own book, they should be fine with life arising from non-life. In their funeral rites they emphasize how we come from dust and we will return to dust. Which, scientifically, is what happens.

It's always fun with a literalist fundamentalist who is bad at reading the one book they're so obsessed about.

Sure. But they think supernatural intervention is a requirement, at which point no obstacle is insurmountable.

My point is that the obstacle isn't insurmountable or even surmountable, but nonexistent.

I thought Christians thought the creation of all life was a miracle? No matter if it's made in the lavatory in a downtown club by an inebriated couple who do not know each others first name, or if made by God coughing onto a badly cleaned mantelpiece.

I think you're right.

I don't think that that observation in any way addresses my previous posts on this topic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If God was going to create a human from scratch why must he include problematic mutations?

This IS the God who flooded the entire world because humans were created inherently wicked, right?
Who created a reproductive system that generates about 40 mutations per baby?
Why assume perfection?

A scientific reason why incest was outlawed in the commands given to Moses was that it resulted in birth defects, etc. If there were mutations right from the start then incest should have been outlawed right from the start.... that means that Cain couldn't have married his sister (the mainstream YEC explanation for where Cain got his wife).

Genesis 3:14 implies a lot more people exist than just the Adam clan. Oddly enough God decides to repunish Cain with the same punishment he gave Adam. God clearly had no original ideas.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A scientific reason why incest was outlawed in the commands given to Moses was that it resulted in birth defects, etc. If there were mutations right from the start then incest should have been outlawed right from the start.... that means that Cain couldn't have married his sister (the mainstream YEC explanation for where Cain got his wife).

Genesis 3:14 implies a lot more people exist than just the Adam clan. Oddly enough God decides to repunish Cain with the same punishment he gave Adam. God clearly had no original ideas.

Sometimes Genesis talks about all of humanity. Sometimes only the Jews/Israelites. Sometimes only a family. Sliding back and forward between these definitions, in the same text, just as if it didn't matter a damn to the audience. There's a lot of puns in the Bible. Clever word play. The Bible uses a lot of clever writerly world play and clever rhetorical tricks, to make the language pop.

Genesis is a pagan text and as such written for an audience who wouldn't take religious texts literally. That came thousands of years later. This is doubly true for any pagan creation myth. We know for a fact that pagan bards would have no problems with just making up a new creation myth on the spot, if they thought their audience were up for it. These are performative pieces intended to entertain a crowd. And the crowd would know it.

In any religious etiology the message is always what is implied. Not the actual steps described. The underlying message in Genesis is that God is all powerful. The story is just a way to demonstrate it in an entertaining fashion. I'm quite convinced that the guy who first came up with the Genesis myth knew what he was doing, and he didn't see himself as a liar.

Taking Genesis literally is retarded. It's ignoring what the text is. It's also demonstrating an unwillingness to study ones own religion to understand what it means. If somebody is this damn uninterested in their own religion, then why do they care enough to have a strong opinion on it. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In any religious etiology the message is always what is implied. Not the actual steps described. The underlying message in Genesis is that God is all powerful. The story is just a way to demonstrate it in an entertaining fashion. I'm quite convinced that the guy who first came up with the Genesis myth knew what he was doing, and he didn't see himself as a liar.

I disagree on that message. There are multiple things being addressed in the narratives in Genesis.

The first are origin stories in the pre-history text, why are we here, why do we suffer, why if we are the same people of god we speak different languages.

Then into the fake historical part, it tracks the origins of the tribes (followers of el *insert god here*) that become the Hebrews, which also hitches the trailer to god.

A bonus concept is also tossed in late in Genesis when Joseph emotes bad stuff happens so god can make good of it.

Once you get into Exodus, we get to the "God is powerful (and a complete dick)" narrative.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In any religious etiology the message is always what is implied. Not the actual steps described. The underlying message in Genesis is that God is all powerful. The story is just a way to demonstrate it in an entertaining fashion. I'm quite convinced that the guy who first came up with the Genesis myth knew what he was doing, and he didn't see himself as a liar.

I disagree on that message. There are multiple things being addressed in the narratives in Genesis.

The first are origin stories in the pre-history text, why are we here, why do we suffer, why if we are the same people of god we speak different languages.

Then into the fake historical part, it tracks the origins of the tribes (followers of el *insert god here*) that become the Hebrews, which also hitches the trailer to god.

A bonus concept is also tossed in late in Genesis when Joseph emotes bad stuff happens so god can make good of it.

Once you get into Exodus, we get to the "God is powerful (and a complete dick)" narrative.

Ok, sure. I was just thinking about the creation story specifically. But yes, different stories in Genesis has different subtexts. Just for fun I went through the chapters of Genesis and made my own interpretation.

Genesis 1:1 (narrative) In the beginning
Genesis 2:4 (narrative) Toledot of Heaven and Earth

meaning = God is powerful

Genesis 5:1 (genealogy) Toledot of Adam
Genesis 6:9 (narrative) Toledot of Noah

Meaning = This is the old pagan "fall of man" narrative. The reason things are bad now is because we're super shitty to each other. if we only pull together and behave it can go back to the good old days. If we insist on being shitty God might smite us and kill us all. We should be good to each other and be virtuous. = a great myth if you want to build a community.

Don't be envious of your brothers and don't murder them. Also good ideas if you want to build a community.

AND we should be grateful to God because he's powerful.

Genesis 10:1 (genealogy) Toledot of Shem, Ham, and Japheth

You (ie Jews) are the descendent of important people.

Worth noting is that when pagan authors listed people in their epics and religious texts, they'd use names of prominent people, at the time of writing, that they were trying to suck up to in their community. I don't know for sure. But this is exactly what this looks like. Prominent people always liked to be the descendent of somebody historically significant.

This is also an etiology of nations and ethnicities.

= In spite of Gods power this explains other ethnicities.

Genesis 11:1 (narrative without toledot) The tower of Babel

This is a fun etiology. When the old testament was written the diplomatic language in the ancient Middle East was still Babylonian Cuneiform tablets. While phonetic writing existed at this point (obviously) a theory that I like is that the tower of Babel story is to explain why scribes were trained to write in parallel languages, one being a language (Cuneiform) that nobody could speak any longer but everybody could write. FYI, Cuneiform was never a spoken language. It's just based on assumptions from people who knew a phonetic alphabet and just assumed that Cuneiform also was at some point. Obviously the Middle-East has never had a single universal language they all spoke. It's an oddly specific item in this list.

Genesis 11:10 (genealogy) Toledot of Shem
Genesis 11:27 (narrative) Toledot of Terach

Same as 10:1

Genesis 12 is weird though. That's the bit about the Jews being enslaved in Egypt. Something which the Jews never were.

I'm sure there's a good explanation for why it's in the Bible. But I've never seen one.

Genesis 25:12 (genealogy) Toledot of Ishmael

More geneology.

Genesis 25:19 (narrative) Toledot of Isaac

No idea wtf this is about.

Genesis 36:1 & 36:9 (genealogy) Toledot of Esau

More genelogy

Genesis 37:2 (narrative) Toledot of Jacob[10][11]

This looks like something that was relevant at some point, but the meaning of this has been lost in history.


I don't think it's fake history. I think it's entertainment. It's an easy to digest, fun way, to convey the most basic aspects of Judaism. As creation stories, in any religion, always are .

This was a fun exercise.

 

[DBT]

Probably a set of stories collected, adapted and compiled as a means of building an identity for a tribe of people, the Israelites, including an explanation for the existence of the world and its conditions. Many, if not most, people of that period believing that this is how the world came about.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Probably a set of stories collected, adapted and compiled as a means of building an identity for a tribe of people, the Israelites, including an explanation for the existence of the world and its conditions. Many, if not most, people of that period believing that this is how the world came about.

I would change your post above to say that "many, if not most, people of that period, from that area, believed that this is how the world came about". Clearly the writers of the bible had never been to the Americas, Australia, and Asia (and most of the rest of the world).

 

[DBT]

Probably a set of stories collected, adapted and compiled as a means of building an identity for a tribe of people, the Israelites, including an explanation for the existence of the world and its conditions. Many, if not most, people of that period believing that this is how the world came about.

I would change your post above to say that "many, if not most, people of that period, from that area, believed that this is how the world came about". Clearly the writers of the bible had never been to the Americas, Australia, and Asia (and most of the rest of the world).

You are right. I took the region as a given because we are talking biblical young earth creationism, which only applies to that region. Other regions obviously have their own stories.

 

[Elixir]

Probably a set of stories collected, adapted and compiled as a means of building an identity for a tribe of people, the Israelites, including an explanation for the existence of the world and its conditions. Many, if not most, people of that period believing that this is how the world came about.

I would change your post above to say that "many, if not most, people of that period, from that area, believed that this is how the world came about". Clearly the writers of the bible had never been to the Americas, Australia, and Asia (and most of the rest of the world).

Right. Turtles. All the way down.