Are Young Earth Creationists Generally Stupid?

[Tom Cohoe]

Which makes them say it's end times, and that they are the true Church which had not existed on Earth before them for nearly 2,000 years. They are wrong about that, but that doesn't make them not Christians. They aren't the only sect that says everybody else has it wrong and it's the only true Church. That's quite common. Used to be a lot of killing over it.

 

[visionary]

I do believe it takes greater faith to jump from the pea soup to a living organism, than to believe God designed and created us.

 

[Mallon]

I do believe it takes greater faith to jump from the pea soup to a living organism, than to believe God designed and created us.

Why the false dichotomy? Why is it not possible to be both created and evolved?

 

[laconicstudent]

I do believe it takes greater faith to jump from the pea soup to a living organism, than to believe God designed and created us.

Your statement is only correct until one starts reading the science detailing all the evidence in support of that "Pea soup to a living organism" idea.

 

[juvenissun]

What testable hypotheses does 'sophisticated YEC' offer? Could you please demonstrate how evolution and YEC have no testable differences.

So I jumped in (not sure how long would I be here) and I pick up this one:

In order to relate the argument to YE, how about the "hypothesis" of accelerated plate tectonics? Is it an issue in YEC?

If you don't like it, I can try another one. Or even better, you can give me one.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

In order to relate the argument to YE, how about the "hypothesis" of accelerated plate tectonics? Is it an issue in YEC?

Juvenissun, you identify yourself as a geologist and say you work with OE models. How far back in time do your OE models go? I am not familiar enough with geology to know whether accelerated plate tectonics is about anything more than earthquakes and other rapid shift phenomena, which would not necessarily imply an OE.

What, as a geologist, do you think of the Pangaea hypothesis of a super continent 250 million years ago? Pangaea is obviously an OE model.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Here is Joe Rosen, physics professor at Tel Aviv University (at the time), in his book Capricious Cosmos:

My own background as a physicist makes me partial to cosmological schemes couched in scientific terms. Indeed I have proposed one myself and it is presented later in this book. Even so, I do realize the inherent lack of scientific validity of such schemes and avoid taking them as seriously as I take science. But more about that later on. Anyhow, if someone prefers the biblical description of the coming into being of the universe, for example, or any other description couched in mythic terms, science cannot object. It really can do no better.
​

I've had this book for years and never read it. It is about the limits of science and the nature of 'truth' in science. I picked it up and began to read it yesterday. Right off the bat, in the first chapter, he hits into the territory I have been talking about.

From the 3rd chapter of the same book:

In science there are rather strict criteria for truth. Whatever one might think or whatever controversy might arise concerning nature, in the final analysis experiments are performed, observations are made, and it is nature itself that is the supreme arbiter. I would be remiss here if I did not warn that the matter is not as clear cut as it might appear from the previous two sentences. There are questions and controversies, mostly of a metaphysical character, about just what scientific truth means (if anything), how it might be attained through science (if it is attainable at all), and so on. But none of that is important for our discussion. On the whole, scientists have no problems with such issues.
​

They can all do science, disagree though they might over metaphysical (read religious) issues and the meaning of truth in the larger metaphysical (read religious) context.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun, you identify yourself as a geologist and say you work with OE models. How far back in time do your OE models go? I am not familiar enough with geology to know whether accelerated plate tectonics is about anything more than earthquakes and other rapid shift phenomena, which would not necessarily imply an OE.

What, as a geologist, do you think of the Pangaea hypothesis of a super continent 250 million years ago? Pangaea is obviously an OE model.

OE is only valid IF, a big IF, the rate of change on everything we currently see on the earth maintained the same at all time. If a natural process could go, in fact, faster than we currently see, then the earth will become younger. Plate tectonics is a current earth model, if it went faster before, then it would take less time to make the current earth.

I don't like the 6000-year old earth. The Bible does not say that. To me, a 5 million years old earth, or even a 50 million years old earth is still a young earth. In fact, these numbers are not that important/meaningful. The rate of change of earth's processes, and the change of rates, are more significant. And, the most importantly, the nature of time is the ultimate key. Unfortunately, nobody can ever understand how does the time work.

 

[Mallon]

OE is only valid IF, a big IF, the rate of change on everything we currently see on the earth maintained the same at all time.

Or if it were slower.

I don't like the 6000-year old earth. The Bible does not say that. To me, a 5 million years old earth, or even a 50 million years old earth is still a young earth.

Where are you getting these numbers from? Are you just making them up as you go along? Is 50 million years really young? It strikes me as a number that neither lines up with a literal reading of the biblical genealogies nor science.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Where I said "complementary components" above in talking about the weather, I meant "conjugate components"

 

[Tom Cohoe]

I don't like the 6000-year old earth. The Bible does not say that. To me, a 5 million years old earth, or even a 50 million years old earth is still a young earth. In fact, these numbers are not that important/meaningful. The rate of change of earth's processes, and the change of rates, are more significant. And, the most importantly, the nature of time is the ultimate key. Unfortunately, nobody can ever understand how does the time work.

juvenissun, if a 50 million year old Earth is young, why not the widely accepted 4.5 billion year universe of conventional geophysics? Surely you have not found a biblical reason to distinguish between these ages.

 

[theFijian]

They are interpretations.

Yes and you want them to adopt the Omphalos interpretation. Why don't you just be up front and say it? Already in this thread you gave a word-perfect definition of omphalos then denied it was, in another thread you gave a word-perfect definition of God of the Gaps and you denied that too!

I never promised you the Sistine Chapel.

You could have given us more than an outhouse though.

What theological problem? When did I ever say I did not want to address a theological problem? I answered this charge of veiled trickery by God by saying, in concordance with widely received theology, that God wants us to discover him by faith and that we are not to put God to the test, so the truth of creation cannot be discovered by science, which puts everything to the test.

Except you seem to think science is the search for the existence God! You seem to think that trying to uncover the ancient history of the earth and the universe is the same as trying to uncover God himself! Who actually believes this? YECs? Don't think so. TEs? Not likely. Therefore you still have not answered the charge of veiled trickery. I already told you that Romans 1 lays out God can be known through the created order to such an extent that men are 'without excuse'! But your 'plan' gives men plenty of room for excuse since God has made, and I quote, '...the appearance different than the reality'. This theological problem remains unaddressed and it puts your plan firmly outside historic orthodox Christianity.

That's not a fumbling, awkward answer either. I think it is a darned good one.

You were more on track when you said it was ugly. Like Creationism itself your plan creates more problems than it solves.

 

[theFijian]

I do believe it takes greater faith to jump from the pea soup to a living organism, than to believe God designed and created us.

That's because you've never tried my granny's pea soup!

 

[theFijian]

.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Except you seem to think science is the search for the existence God!

Except that I don't. I've said multiple times IT'S NOT SCIENCE.

You seem to think that trying to uncover the ancient history of the earth and the universe is the same as trying to uncover God himself!

Except that I don't. I've said the opposite, that trying to uncover God through science is bad faith and bad science.

Who actually believes this? YECs? Don't think so. TEs? Not likely. Therefore you still have not answered the charge of veiled trickery.

Hmmm, and here I thought what I was saying was supposed to be "Omphalos", already argued for by some YECs.

I already told you that Romans 1 lays out God can be known through the created order to such an extent that men are 'without excuse'!

I don't need you or Romans to tell me that since it is how I came to know of God.

But your 'plan' gives men plenty of room for excuse since God has made, and I quote, '...the appearance different than the reality'.

And you have no interest in what I meant by that do you?

This theological problem remains unaddressed and it puts your plan firmly outside historic orthodox Christianity.

Oh I addressed it. The projection you create for me, of course, hasn't addressed it. When you insist that you have to call my idea (that's what it is, an idea, not a "plan" as I've said before) "omphalos" you pretty clearly telegraph that projection is what you're interested in. Eg, on the other thread, you reversed my statement logically abstracted as A implies B into B implies A which demonstrates how little interest you have in actually understanding me. Your, "you seem to think ..." statements demonstrate the same thing as they actually contradict what I've said.

So I don't know what you are proving, but you aren't talking about me or my ideas.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Hmm, maybe the massive amounts of energy released which would probably kill all multi-cellular life?

Fijian, accelerated plate tectonics is a completely coventional area of study in geophysics. For example, here is the abstract of an article in Science, a prestigious journal which I hope you do not think publishes creation "science" papers. Here is the first page of a list of 46 more articles in Science that concern accelerated Plate tectonics. But perhaps Science will want to publish your theory that phenomena of accelerated plate tectonics cannot have occured because such a phenomenon would "kill all multi-cellular life".

On second thoughts how about you not derail this thread? Or better still how about you go back over to C/E where you're getting your backside handed to you and try to get out of the hole you've dug for yourself?

Fijian, I invited him to jump in because he says in his profile that he is a YEC Christian who is a geologist working with OE models. His first post is actually a response to the private message I sent to him.

 

[juvenissun]

juvenissun, if a 50 million year old Earth is young, why not the widely accepted 4.5 billion year universe of conventional geophysics? Surely you have not found a biblical reason to distinguish between these ages.

Good question.

A not-too-good answer is: because the evolution model called for billions of years of time. By limiting the time to less than a billion years, evolution model is broken.

This answer can certainly be further modified. But that is the idea. I don't care about an old earth. I just don't think evolution is true.

 

[juvenissun]

Hmm, maybe the massive amounts of energy released which would probably kill all multi-cellular life?



On second thoughts how about you not derail this thread? Or better still how about you go back over to C/E where you're getting your backside handed to you and try to get out of the hole you've dug for yourself?

YOU, who asked for an example and I gave you an example. What is wrong with that? Do you want me to reply to your question and continue to derail the thread or not. You made a follow-up on my example. Are you derailing the thread or was it me?

 

[theFijian]

Fijian, accelerated plate tectonics is a completely coventional area of study in geophysics. For example, here is the abstract of an article in Science, a prestigious journal which I hope you do not think publishes creation "science" papers. Here is the first page of a list of 46 more articles in Science that concern accelerated Plate tectonics. But perhaps Science will want to publish your theory that phenomena of accelerated plate tectonics cannot have occured because such a phenomenon would "kill all multi-cellular life".

Just try shoehorning it into a YEC moel and see where that gets you.

Fijian, I invited him to jump in because he says in his profile that he is a YEC Christian who is a geologist working with OE models.

Yes he says it in his profile, and since this is the internet it must be true! Just go and read a couple of thread where he's tried discussing the topic and you'll see how 'qualified' he is.

His first post is actually a response to the private message I sent to him.

I do of course apologise and have removed the post in question.

 

[theFijian]

YOU, who asked for an example and I gave you an example. What is wrong with that? Do you want me to reply to your question and continue to derail the thread or not. You made a follow-up on my example. Are you derailing the thread or was it me?

Apologies, the post has been removed.