Why YEC can seem plausible

[angelo]

Again: The burden of proof remains with the claimant!

 

[excreationist]

Further evidence.....

https://northernwoodlands.org/outside_story/article/signs_of_old_beaches_atop_mountains

there is evidence of long-ago ocean life embedded in the limestone at Everest’s summit: fossils, including those of crinoids, ancient underwater animals with tentacles and cone-shaped shells. These fossils are found at 29,000 feet because the highest point on Earth was once under sea

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/...n-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html

Scientists have found fossils of whales and other marine animals in mountain sediments in the Andes, indicating that the South American mountain chain rose very rapidly from the sea

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

BTW I am able to find creationist counter-arguments for just about every objection against the Flood or YEC.... it took a former creationist (Ed Babinski) to deconvert me, then I became an atheist for a long time...

 

[excreationist]

Modern YECs can solve the problem about incest.... while allowing Cain to have a wife....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible
Leviticus 18:9 says not to have sexual relations with your sister and Cain's wife would be his sister....

YECs believe that incest was eventually outlawed in Moses' time because it had become a problem. Cain and his sister wouldn't be a problem because their DNA had no mutations. By Moses' time there would be a lot of mutations and incest is a problem because it is more likely that both people would have the same mutations.

Apparently the "where did Cain get his wife?" question is one of the most common YEC questions and I think it has a very good explanation.... though it is only in modern times that the whole mutation explanation became possible...

 

[FreeMan88]

People where I live are all flocking to see the Noah’s Ark replica in KY and then coming home and going on and on about it. I have to bite my tongue.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Modern YECs can solve the problem about incest.... while allowing Cain to have a wife....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible
Leviticus 18:9 says not to have sexual relations with your sister and Cain's wife would be his sister....

YECs believe that incest was eventually outlawed in Moses' time because it had become a problem. Cain and his sister wouldn't be a problem because their DNA had no mutations. By Moses' time there would be a lot of mutations and incest is a problem because it is more likely that both people would have the same mutations.

Apparently the "where did Cain get his wife?" question is one of the most common YEC questions and I think it has a very good explanation.... though it is only in modern times that the whole mutation explanation became possible...

But the Bible dosn't say that she was his sister. It's so funny to me. We're suppose to take the bible literally. Despite the fact that there is no outside evidence to consider it as factual. But we're suppose take it word for word. Why? Because the bible says we should take it literally. However, we're suppose to allow outside the bible opinions to solve biblical contradictions. You're trying to have it both ways. If you carefully read Genesis 4, it's clear that there were outside groups of people outside of Cain's family. They had their first child then built a great city. After god got mad at him, he threatened to become a homeless wanderer (because the other tribes in the area had homes) and whoever finds him will kill him (I blame the Chinese who had established cities thousands of years before Cain).

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

What? The Bible doesn't have a creation theory at all. It explains nothing. The Bible contains a metaphorical and fantastical musing upon the creation of the world. It's clearly a work of art. Not science. It's also within the pagan tradition. Loads of these were written and even back then in antiquity they all knew it was complete bollocks. When various authors of creation myths changed details, no religious authority could care less:

My favourite acknowledgement of this is from Ovid's Metamorphosis.

Thus when the God, whatever God was he,
Had form'd the whole, and made the parts agree,
That no unequal portions might be found,
He moulded Earth into a spacious round:
Then with a breath, he gave the winds to blow;
And bad the congregated waters flow.
He adds the running springs, and standing lakes

https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ovid/meta/meta01.htm

I just love that in the creation myth he adds, some god or another. It's not important which. Which, in a sacred text, is pure genius.

And thinking that the Bible explains anything about the creation, is IMHO disrespecting the Bible and the Christian God. It's insulting the intelligence of those wise men who wrote it.

 

[excreationist]

Modern YECs can solve the problem about incest.... while allowing Cain to have a wife....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible
Leviticus 18:9 says not to have sexual relations with your sister and Cain's wife would be his sister....

YECs believe that incest was eventually outlawed in Moses' time because it had become a problem. Cain and his sister wouldn't be a problem because their DNA had no mutations. By Moses' time there would be a lot of mutations and incest is a problem because it is more likely that both people would have the same mutations.

Apparently the "where did Cain get his wife?" question is one of the most common YEC questions and I think it has a very good explanation.... though it is only in modern times that the whole mutation explanation became possible...

But the Bible dosn't say that she was his sister. It's so funny to me. We're suppose to take the bible literally. Despite the fact that there is no outside evidence to consider it as factual. But we're suppose take it word for word. Why? Because the bible says we should take it literally. However, we're suppose to allow outside the bible opinions to solve biblical contradictions. You're trying to have it both ways. If you carefully read Genesis 4, it's clear that there were outside groups of people outside of Cain's family. They had their first child then built a great city. After god got mad at him, he threatened to become a homeless wanderer (because the other tribes in the area had homes) and whoever finds him will kill him (I blame the Chinese who had established cities thousands of years before Cain).

Yeah the theory that in the Bible other people who weren't descendants of Adam and Eve existed makes sense. My point is that the YEC explanation that Cain married his sister is clever - according to genetics there would be no risk of abnormalities at that stage. And their point that incest was only outlawed later on when genetics would become a problem.

 

[Lion IRC]

Again: The burden of proof remains with the claimant!

So you claim.

...Yeah the theory that in the Bible other people who weren't descendants of Adam and Eve existed makes sense

@excreationist
I'm having a mental blank. Which bible verse refers to humans who weren't descended from Adam and Eve?

 

[excreationist]

...Yeah the theory that in the Bible other people who weren't descendants of Adam and Eve existed makes sense

@excreationist
I'm having a mental blank. Which bible verse refers to humans who weren't descended from Adam and Eve?

See post #145...

Genesis 4:25 talks about what seems to be Adam and Eve's third child, Seth... it says "God has granted me another child in place of Abel"

But verse 14 says "whoever finds me will kill me". Verse 17 says "....Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city...."

A city implies a lot of people - and this is before verse 25....

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes, a lot of people, and yes there's an inference that time has passed but where's the inference that those people weren't descendants of Adam and Eve?

 

[Lion IRC]

4:14 Cain, fearful and remorseful pleads with God, anxious about a potential future vendetta feud with his relatives, in-laws and extended family.
4:16 After God vouch safes Cain, Cain embarks on an exile to the land that would come to be called Nod.
4:17 Cain and his wife have a baby named Enoch and their family seeds an eventual settlement, village, town, city.
4:25 Eve gives birth to Seth. And nothing about this verse precludes the passage of time between verse 16 and 17. Verse 16 is open-ended chronologically speaking.

There's no textual barriers to Eve having had countless offspring in the intervening period before Cain reaches Nod, decides to settle there, finds a (consanguineous) wife there - one of Adam and Eve's unnamed offspring.

 

[none]

4:14 Cain, fearful and remorseful pleads with God, anxious about a potential future vendetta feud with his relatives, in-laws and extended family.
4:16 After God vouch safes Cain, Cain embarks on an exile to the land that would come to be called Nod.
4:17 Cain and his wife have a baby named Enoch and their family seeds an eventual settlement, village, town, city.
4:25 Eve gives birth to Seth. And nothing about this verse precludes the passage of time between verse 16 and 17. Verse 16 is open-ended chronologically speaking.

There's no textual barriers to Eve having had countless offspring in the intervening period before Cain reaches Nod, decides to settle there, finds a (consanguineous) wife there - one of Adam and Eve's unnamed offspring.

Oh my...
"There's no textual barriers to Eve having had countless offspring..."
Are you serious?

 

[excreationist]

.....There's no textual barriers to Eve having had countless offspring in the intervening period before Cain reaches Nod, decides to settle there, finds a (consanguineous) wife there - one of Adam and Eve's unnamed offspring.

Genesis 4:25 says:

Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”


​

Genesis 5:4 says:

After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters
​

I think those two verses imply that Seth was Adam and Eve's third child....

4:14 Cain, fearful and remorseful pleads with God, anxious about a potential future vendetta feud with his relatives, in-laws and extended family.

You mean just relatives? (initially just siblings?)

 

[DrZoidberg]

We're suppose to take the bible literally. Despite the fact that there is no outside evidence to consider it as factual. But we're suppose take it word for word. Why?

Where does it say you should take it literally. I just read the Old Testament and I didn't see it.

It saying that it's the word of God doesn't mean it should be taken literally.

The only thing that should be taken literally is the 600+ commandments. But those Christians have no problem skipping

 

[Lion IRC]

.....There's no textual barriers to Eve having had countless offspring in the intervening period before Cain reaches Nod, decides to settle there, finds a (consanguineous) wife there - one of Adam and Eve's unnamed offspring.

Genesis 4:25 says:

Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”


​

Genesis 5:4 says:

After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters
​

I think those two verses imply that Seth was Adam and Eve's third child....

4:14 Cain, fearful and remorseful pleads with God, anxious about a potential future vendetta feud with his relatives, in-laws and extended family.

You mean just relatives? (initially just siblings?)

Well, yes. Initially, just siblings - technically.
But eventually it all blurs into general relatedness. All of us are technically relatives of whomever we marry.
...descendants of Noah's three sons.

My main point was that the text allows Eve to have other offspring apart from Seth long before Cain eventually settles down and starts a family with one of those same offspring. Cain lived to the age of 730. Seth lived to the age of 912

If anything, the text actually compells us to infer interbreeding rather than conjuring up the mysterious appearance of unrelated humans who haven't been accounted for anywhere in the text up to that point.

Initially, I thought you might have been alluding to Nephilim. (Non-humans) Hence, I specifically sought clarification of what text you thought made reference to people who weren't descendants of Adam and Eve?

Halfling progeny of Nephilim and humans would nonetheless still be descendants of Adam and Eve.

 

[excreationist]

....Initially, I thought you might have been alluding to Nephilim. (Non-humans) Hence, I specifically sought clarification of what text you thought made reference to people who weren't descendants of Adam and Eve?

Halfling progeny of Nephilim and humans would nonetheless still be descendants of Adam and Eve.

This is a reply from a Christian on another forum:

It is my opinion that there were two races, etc, and that eventually, and maybe some starting with Cain, we eventually have hybrid children called Nephilim, etc...​

And that the flood was regional, and was meant to wipe out all the original Sons of God (race, kind, etc), except for Noah and his family, and maybe Cain and his, depending on how far away they were, or that he (Cain) fled originally, etc...​

BTW from Genesis 1:27-28:

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;​

male and female he created them.​

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth....
​

That is compatible with the idea that God created more than two humans initially....

 

[Lion IRC]

I think Nephilim are widely accepted to be supernatural (angelic) non-humans of extra terrestrial origin rather than a special type of mutant humans who originated as offspring of Adam and Eve.

We can argue about that but why bother? If we want to conjure up multiple ancestors rather than a single common ancestory for all humans in Genesis it's a short-lived ancestry because Noah's Ark hits the reset button.

 

[James Brown]

But eventually it all blurs into general relatedness. All of us are technically relatives of whomever we marry.
...descendants of Noah's three sons.

From "Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition."

How did diseases survive? Many diseases can't survive in hosts other than humans. Many others can only survive in humans and in short-lived arthropod vectors. The list includes typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphilis. For these diseases to have survived the Flood, they must all have infected one or more of the eight people aboard the Ark.

Other animals aboard the ark must have suffered from multiple diseases, too, since there are other diseases specific to other animals, and the nonspecific diseases must have been somewhere.

[snip]

Why is inbreeding depression not a problem in most species? Harmful recessive alleles occur in significant numbers in most species. (Humans have, on average, 3 to 4 lethal recessive alleles each.) When close relatives breed, the offspring are more likely to be homozygous for these harmful alleles, to the detriment of the offspring. Such inbreeding depression still shows up in cheetahs; they have about 1/6th the number of motile spermatozoa as domestic cats, and of those, almost 80% show morphological abnormalities. [O'Brien et al, 1987] How could more than a handful of species survive the inbreeding depression that comes with establishing a population from a single mating pair?

 

[Bronzeage]

The oldest philosophical question is, and always has been, "What difference does it make?"

The world we live in and the universe in which it resides, behaves in accordance with observed natural laws. We have a slightly better understand of these laws at the present time, but we have no reason to believe there was any different laws in the past. Tectonic plates move, mountains rise, erode and wash to whatever ocean exists in their particular eon. Always has and always will, as far as we know.

The YEC idea depends upon a very radical change in either natural law, or a great acceleration of time. Instead of millions of years for mountains to carry marine fossils to 8500 feet above sea level, it was a year or two. If we observe that geological forces work on a time scale of millions of years and we know the depth of the Grand Canyon, we have a pretty good idea of when the Colorado River was just a trickle. All the stuff around us is too old be young anything. The question of who did Adam and Eve's children marry, or how did Noah get the kangaroos on the Ark, are the least of a YECer's problems. And, the fossils do present a problem.

I used to post on an old BBS group called alt.history.com. It was basically a discussion of the way history would play out, if some factor was different. Things like, 'What if the US Navy broke Japanese codes in 1941 and knew about the Pearl Harbor attack, before hand.' The alternate factor was supposed to be something realistic. If not, it was dismissed as ASB(alien space bats, magic, miracle, etc). If your proposal wasn't something probable or possible, there was no point in discussing it.


Which brings us back to the WDDITM question. Unless mountains start rising at 40 feet a day, how does YEC change what we do today?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think Nephilim are widely accepted to be supernatural (angelic) non-humans of extra terrestrial origin rather than a special type of mutant humans who originated as offspring of Adam and Eve.

We can argue about that but why bother? If we want to conjure up multiple ancestors rather than a single common ancestory for all humans in Genesis it's a short-lived ancestry because Noah's Ark hits the reset button.

Or you can go to the source. Angels popped up in Judaism fully formed in 530 BC after the Jews were allowed to go home following the Babylonian captivity. It was some of their beliefs that rubbed off. Zoroastrian theology is dualistic. It's the conflict between good/order/Ahura Mazda and evil/chaos/Angra Mainyu. In Zoroastrian iconography any person (usually ruler) who was good was depicted in art as having wings pointed upward. Evil people got fangs and wings pointed downward.

Zoroastrian theology is a hell of a lot more sophisticated than Judaism (and later Christianity). In Zoroastrianism Everybody has both the good and the bad in them. They didn't believe in good and evil beings out to get them. They saw it as an inner conflict we all had to wrestle with.

When the Jews imported this concept they grafted it onto Jehova. But its an awful fit. So the people who did good deeds in Zoroastrian art became converted into some sort of magical support army for God. An omnificent who doesn't need any help.

This is also when they imported apocalypticism. Ie, there will be a final cataclysm where the good will be given eternal lives in a Paradise-like place. Before this Jews had the same ideas of the afterlife as the Pagans.

It's an interesting evolution of ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazata

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura_Mazda

So basically, angels is just a human being you admire. When you depict the person you want it to be super obvious that this is a great guy. So you slap wings on them.

That's all angels were originally. And then the Jews took this and ran with it. But all of that can be scraped off the theology IMHO. It doesn't really add anything of any value.

The ranks of angels is that the more wings the greater the goodness of the guy depicted.