Why YEC can seem plausible

[funinspace]

No, not a dambuster smash, just another one of the 1000 pieces of the puzzle deconstructing a literal narrative...much like climate evidence, or the invisible Moses, what a weird Egyptian name...'son of'.

Well hopefully with each piece there's a little resolve.

Yet Yahweh didn’t bother to nudge for a little bit stone help. The oldest Hebrew is about 3000 years old on some broken clay.

This 'stone help' would be to who's advantage?

If you look at it rhis way, this stone nudging seems to be more of a disadvantage to those faiths, so to speak. The question you could ask is : Who believes in Gilgamesh now, even though he's written in stone?


It seems God of the bible versus 'all those written in stone' is the most successful, I can see why He needn't bother nudging any stones when He will have had many believe in Him... still to this day.

Uhm...oky doky...I find that a rather odd argument. It's also getting quite away from the flood story, so I will simply add that the lack of belief in the gods of Gilgamesh's time, has little to do with the fact that they have stories written on stone/clay. FWIW, most projections show that Muslims will out number Christians within a couple decades by current trends. I don't really see how you think there are 'so many' who believe in your god today, but if it floats your boat...

Back to the world wide human killing deluge tale...even if the majority of Americans believe this silly tale as historical, I doubt a majority of the preachers/theologians do. I know the vast majority of mainstream Protestant theologians most certain don't believe it is real history. It seems that the RCC leadership is at best neutral on the subject, but they certainly don't argue for its historicity. And it seems you avoid providing a perspective on just when you think this massive event could have happened...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Each to his own faith.

You aren’t talking faith, you are speaking fan fiction.

I am a fan yes. Just that bit I'll agree with. Anything else in your opinion?

Opinion? That wasn't an opinion, it is a straight up reading of Genesis 3. The whole 'death' punishment isn't raised once. Your interpretation is based solely on wishful thinking.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I get it that some believers have to believe in all the stories. After all, if you declare that the Flood is a) just an old folk tale or b) a metaphor (although what it says about the love god is completely at odds with him being in any sense a god of love) -- then why can't someone else declare that the resurrection of the love god's kid is just a tale or a metaphor? Such a dilemma. Such a load to push into their own children's poor brains.
I just finished a nifty, compact book called Why We Believe in God(s), by Thomson and Aukofer. It puts forth in ten short chapters how religion developed in man's evolution, and how it once served a unifying purpose in tribal groups. I can't for the life of me understand how people of 2021 find these old stories seductive. Or morally correct. Or plausible. Maybe when I'm 600 I'll build me a boat, and it will all make sense.

 

[Learner]

From the very beginning God warned Adam.
God say's, "Now that you've sinned in the world, from this day onward....

Death Now Applies!

Wow, what rubbish. Genesis 3:17-19 makes clear what the punishment was for man, woman, and the serpent. Death is not included. Any other interpretation is fan-fiction.

When I was in Egypt and wanting something fun to read while on the beach I picked up the same kind of absurd book on fundamentalist Islam and they were bending over backward to shoehorn modern science into the Quran.

Opinion? That wasn't an opinion, it is a straight up reading of Genesis 3. The whole 'death' punishment isn't raised once. Your interpretation is based solely on wishful thinking.

I wasn't sure whether either of you were actually serious or not trying debate this! But now, I'm going to have to believe you both have blind spots for irony and a tad less sense of humour.

BTW, I responded to this post below where it all stems from, with simillar sarcasm ... that neither of you noticed:

Do you mean your god was going to make DNA behave differently in a few hundred years and he never warned them? That DNA didn’t used o mutate, but god was going to make it start, and he warned them against wearing cloth made of two different fibers but not about the *new* dangers of incest? What was his point? He thought it would serve them right to have disabled children? And those children, what, it served them right for being born? Wow, that’s cold.

 

[steve_bank]

G0d says? It is words by unknown ancient authors in cultures we really do not understand that you interest as comming from a deity.

Sata knows when you are goodand bad, so kids you better be good if you want Santa,or Sanata's agents your parents, to give you presents.

 

[excreationist]

But why would people before the flood live that long? It's the same species. I can't follow your logic.

Well a point I have been making is that YECs have basic counter-arguments for just about everything including:
https://creation.com/living-as-long-as-methuselah
That was written by a chess champion chemistry doctor
Their arguments might be flawed but the point is that they are quite comprehensive and probably make sense to YEC readers....

Is this really the simplest explanation using Occam's razor you can come up with?

When I actually read that link it looks like it is mostly pointing out problems with YEC explainations...
e.g.
"....Many creationist works from a few decades ago portrayed the antediluvian world as a paradise of sorts, horribly spoiled at the Flood. But this is not taught in Scripture...."

An excerpt that isn't critical:
"....Recent advanced computer simulations vindicate this proposal, showing that an exponential decay of lifespans fits well with accumulating mutations after the catastrophic population bottleneck at the Flood...."

What's the point of shoehorning modern science into a work of poetic myth written by people who weren't too careful about the details?....

Well....
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling says:
"...many Christians say "well it doesn't really matter - let the scientists deal with the science - we'll just focus on the gospel". But we need to remember that if Genesis cannot be trusted then how can we trust John 3:16? It is a question of all of scripture or none of scripture...."

 

[bilby]

Is this really the simplest explanation using Occam's razor you can come up with?

When I actually read that link it looks like it is mostly pointing out problems with YEC explainations...
e.g.
"....Many creationist works from a few decades ago portrayed the antediluvian world as a paradise of sorts, horribly spoiled at the Flood. But this is not taught in Scripture...."

An excerpt that isn't critical:
"....Recent advanced computer simulations vindicate this proposal, showing that an exponential decay of lifespans fits well with accumulating mutations after the catastrophic population bottleneck at the Flood...."

What's the point of shoehorning modern science into a work of poetic myth written by people who weren't too careful about the details?....

Well....
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling says:
"...many Christians say "well it doesn't really matter - let the scientists deal with the science - we'll just focus on the gospel". But we need to remember that if Genesis cannot be trusted then how can we trust John 3:16? It is a question of all of scripture or none of scripture...."

I agree with Dr Snelling on that last point. But we disagree sharply on which option is correct; and the existence of just one contradiction, either internal to the bible, or between the bible and the reality of our universe, is sufficient to prove that I am right and he is wrong.

But there's not one such contradiction. There's hundreds of the bastards.

The Noah story alone, as we see in this thread, is fractally wrong. It's a description of events that could not possibly have occurred as described, for dozens of reasons any one of which would suffice to destroy scripture according to Snelling's argument.

It's game over. Biblical literalism is demonstably and provably nonsense.

 

[DBT]

Biblical literalism is false....but what do we get out of it as allegory or metaphor? Ethics? A moral code?

 

[bilby]

Biblical literalism is false....but what do we get out of it as allegory or metaphor? Ethics? A moral code?

Yes. But one that's so dated as to be valueless in the modern world.

We've mostly moved past the requirement for advice on how not to mistreat our slaves.

Modern societies are far from perfect in their moral precepts, but few are as flawed as the society recommended by the fables in the bible.

 

[Rhea]

I wasn't sure whether either of you were actually serious or not trying debate this! But now, I'm going to have to believe you both have blind spots for irony and a tad less sense of humour.

BTW, I responded to this post below where it all stems from, with simillar sarcasm ... that neither of you noticed:

Do you mean your god was going to make DNA behave differently in a few hundred years and he never warned them? That DNA didn’t used o mutate, but god was going to make it start, and he warned them against wearing cloth made of two different fibers but not about the *new* dangers of incest? What was his point? He thought it would serve them right to have disabled children? And those children, what, it served them right for being born? Wow, that’s cold.

??

That was not sarcasm.
That was an honest question.

You say that the DNA was going to start mutating causing birth defects among closely related parents, and that your god knew it, and he still created a flood that would cause his people to have incest for many generations. And I ask, “what was his point?”

That was not sarcasm. I am genuinely confused about this claim that your god made DNA start to create mutations. For some reason.

 

[excreationist]

You [Learner] say that the DNA was going to start mutating causing birth defects among closely related parents, and that your god knew it, and he still created a flood that would cause his people to have incest for many generations. And I ask, “what was his point?”

The problem with incest is mutations. In Noah's time not as many would have accumulated as centuries later. God only outlawed incest in Moses' time. Or so educated YECs would say.

.....Do you mean your god was going to make DNA behave differently in a few hundred years and he never warned them? That DNA didn’t used o mutate...

Well YECs would say that Adam and Eve had no mutations. Then they started to accumulate. The more mutations the more problem there is with incest.

 

[Rhea]

You [Learner] say that the DNA was going to start mutating causing birth defects among closely related parents, and that your god knew it, and he still created a flood that would cause his people to have incest for many generations. And I ask, “what was his point?”

The problem with incest is mutations. In Noah's time not as many would have accumulated as centuries later. God only outlawed incest in Moses' time. Or so educated YECs would say.

.....Do you mean your god was going to make DNA behave differently in a few hundred years and he never warned them? That DNA didn’t used o mutate...

Well YECs would say that Adam and Eve had no mutations. Then they started to accumulate. The more mutations the more problem there is with incest.

I know those are the apologetics. That’s all been posted already. That is not related to my point. My point was that in your story, your god knew this would happen, that DNA would start to mutate - indeed, according to your story your god caused it to happen - and didn’t warn anyone, and then caused a flood that created the need to engage in incest for generations.

Ridiculously, according to your chart, it happened in a single generation from typical 900 year lifespans to typical 400 and then again in a single generation to 200 years. So the ridiculous apologetiics that there was some “gradual change” is put to the lie by your own graphic.

Y’all just making shit up.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is this really the simplest explanation using Occam's razor you can come up with?

When I actually read that link it looks like it is mostly pointing out problems with YEC explainations...
e.g.
"....Many creationist works from a few decades ago portrayed the antediluvian world as a paradise of sorts, horribly spoiled at the Flood. But this is not taught in Scripture...."

An excerpt that isn't critical:
"....Recent advanced computer simulations vindicate this proposal, showing that an exponential decay of lifespans fits well with accumulating mutations after the catastrophic population bottleneck at the Flood...."

Yes, it's an old pagan trope that survived in Christianity.

Its the idea that life doesn't have to be so hard. If we all just got our shit together and were kind to eachother we can have the good times back. It's a handy frame narrative for building a religious community.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age

In classical Greek mythology, the Golden Age was presided over by the leading Titan Cronus. In the Bronze Age, when men became violent and greedy,

European pastoral literary tradition often depicted nymphs and shepherds as living a life of rustic innocence and peace,

I don't think the story, in any version, was ever intended to be taken litterarily

What's the point of shoehorning modern science into a work of poetic myth written by people who weren't too careful about the details?....

Well....
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling says:
"...many Christians say "well it doesn't really matter - let the scientists deal with the science - we'll just focus on the gospel". But we need to remember that if Genesis cannot be trusted then how can we trust John 3:16? It is a question of all of scripture or none of scripture...."

Last year a friend of mine was dying of cancer. One day she had a meltdown. I grabbed her and hugged her tight. She begged me to let her live. As if I was a god. She said she didn't want to die. I told her everything is going to be all right. Soon she calmed down.

That's all that Biblical passage is. It's comforting words to a distressed soul. But sensible and mentally stable people know we won't live for ever. No matter how much we might need it.

Which makes sense when you think about what the Bible is. It's something to turn to in a time of need. It's words of emotional support if you are in a crisis.

 

[excreationist]

....I know those are the apologetics. That’s all been posted already. That is not related to my point. My point was that in your story, your god knew this would happen, that DNA would start to mutate - indeed, according to your story your god caused it to happen - and didn’t warn anyone, and then caused a flood that created the need to engage in incest for generations.

The curse/fall involved many things including thorns and painful childbirth.
Romans 8:22

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

Ridiculously, according to your chart, it happened in a single generation from typical 900 year lifespans to typical 400 and then again in a single generation to 200 years. So the ridiculous apologetics that there was some “gradual change” is put to the lie by your own graphic.

Actually most of the older Bible manuscripts don't fully support that chart, instead they point to this one in post #389:

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genesis_numbers

The mechanism involves mutations and the effect of mutations isn't completely gradual (I mean with incest the effect of mutations can vary a lot)
And at any point in history lifespans can often vary a lot (e.g. 20%+) even though they theoretically should be pretty constant.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I just learned why there's so many stoic ideas in Christianity. S:t Paul and Seneca (famous Stoic philosopher) were close friends and we have a bunch of Teit correspondence saved.

Christianity is like flypaper. Any other religion or major intellectual thinking that comes close to it is effortlessly absorbed into it.

Creationism and Biblical litteralism is a result of the Enlightenment. Its confusing science and religion and thinking that the Bible must be science.

Atheists often make fun of the Bible for this reason. They point out inconsistencies and laugh. As if that proves anything. Its not that kind of book.

Treating the Bible as literally true cheapens it imho.

 

[DBT]

Many of St Paul's verses are taken nearly verbatim from Greek philosophers....

 

[Learner]

I wasn't sure whether either of you were actually serious or not trying debate this! But now, I'm going to have to believe you both have blind spots for irony and a tad less sense of humour.

BTW, I responded to this post below where it all stems from, with simillar sarcasm ... that neither of you noticed:

Do you mean your god was going to make DNA behave differently in a few hundred years and he never warned them? That DNA didn’t used o mutate, but god was going to make it start, and he warned them against wearing cloth made of two different fibers but not about the *new* dangers of incest? What was his point? He thought it would serve them right to have disabled children? And those children, what, it served them right for being born? Wow, that’s cold.

??

That was not sarcasm.
That was an honest question.

Ok you weren't being sarky, but I did know it was an honest question. I merely answered with a similar (mocking) undertone.

You say that the DNA was going to start mutating causing birth defects among closely related parents, and that your god knew it, and he still created a flood that would cause his people to have incest for many generations. And I ask, “what was his point?”

"After the flood, incest for many generations" is a false notion for intenttion, a misleading representation.

Anyway our friend 'excreationist' has given a good explanation, mutation before and after the flood, which I'll borrow as the response here. To which I must mention, excreationist, as the name suggests, is not a YEC or theist, and he doesn't agree with the theology, which most of us know by now. But he is honest with his fair analysis, to sujects of relating texts and other relating aspect in their context, highlighting the easy to understand concept of mutations and it's implications.

That was not sarcasm. I am genuinely confused about this claim that your god made DNA start to create mutations. For some reason.

Like the above: I thought I detected a mocking undertone but I still took this to be a serious question.

And so, I'm wondering. Were you confused because you thought I was making some claim, as if, word for word verbatim I got the explanation for DNA because it's written in the bible? Please tell me that's not so - not you too?

I got the idea for 'DNA doesn't get better' from people like scientist Dr. James Tour! I mentioned him a few times already.

 

[Learner]

The point I forgot to mention to all this as you ask. 'Death came into the world' because man was tainted from the beginning. Sins are forgivable and Adam and Eve seem to be remorseful. God pitied them, made them garments and still allowed them to live, rather than erase them there and then. 'Be frutiful and multiply'

summary in short: 'Death comes into world' simply implies we have limited life spans now. 'It is appointed that man must die once' Heb 9.27. Man is no longer perfect, he's tainted. I'm taking to the idea as some theists suspect through their continous scrutinized study... the perspective that through Eve, by tasting the forbidden fruit first, who was not alone but without Adam, ultimately produced Cain. Then Adam tasted the forbidden fruit with Eve (being her second time) produced Abel. This would mean in context, Cain would therefore introduce another set of DNA into the mix - adding on top of the very little mutations, lessing the issues for having children - not being genetically full brother to Abel and the rest of the siblings.

(not to mention other gene-pool interference from those who left their heavenly states going into the daughters of men etc..)

John 8:44

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Behaving like Cain IOW

 

[ideologyhunter]

Death came into the world because man was tainted from the beginning. Sins are forgivable and Adam and Eve seem to be remorseful. God pitied them, made them garments and still allowed them to live, rather than erase them there and then.

Then the fault lies ONE HUNDRED PERCENT with the creator in the story.
If man was 'tainted' at the outset, then the Hebrew war god who designed man MADE THEM THAT WAY. (BTW, he also made leukemia, ALS, the tuberculosis bacterium, the leprosy bacteriium, cystic fibrosis, the tsetse fly, the deer tick, so his "pity" on mankind is questionable, in terms of this story.)
If he had chosen to "erase them there and then", it would have been a case of "Well, I fucked up. As a creator, I'm a dope!" And of course, he's supposed to know the full arc of the future, so he could foresee that his tainted beings would need some tough love in advance of creating them.

 

[Learner]

There's a few things I'd like respond to.. But at this moment... Wouldn't you blame the Creator in this story anyway ?