Is believing in creationism (e.g. that lifeforms were independently created) required for salvation?

[Gene2memE]

You say that creationist beliefs offer no scientific value.

Generally speaking, they don't. Creationist explanations of nature offer almost nothing value in understanding the properties of reality and rarely, if ever, have any predictive power.

Well science does not have anything to say about the origin of life.

Science actually has a lot to say on the subject - it's been an active topic of research for almost 100 years, since Alexander Oparin started actively publishing biochemistry papers in the 1920s.

Creationism is the best explanation for how we got from non life to life, not science.

Science is a methodology that we use to derive explanations. Creationism is just fiat assertion that a being did a thing.

Science is pretty useless at explaining origins in general, like the origin of the universe as well as the origin of life.

Science may never answer either question to our complete satisfaction. However, there is a vast difference between explaining the origin of our local presentation of space time, and the development of self-replicating biological systems from earlier abiotic molecules.

Seeking to conflate the two, seemingly just because they're linked in your favoured creation story, is a folly.

 

[pitabread]

Out of curiosity, I combed Google Scholar for papers from 2000 and onward to see when and how the word "proof" is used.

I did find one scientific paper where the term "proof" and "proves" is used in relation to the confirmation of a hypothesis: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/508162/meta

But after going through close to a hundred papers, the rest were all either math, comp sci or similar fields, or use of the phrase "proof-of-concept" typically in relation to medical trials. Refining the search and searching for "proof" in respect to biology yields more 'proof-of-concept' use and mostly other colloquial usage.

It's also worth pointing out that a common rebuttal tactic whenever a scientific paper is presented is to point to any tentative language to suggest uncertainty of the findings. But such language is common in scientific papers given that results are rarely deemed definitively "proving" something.

 

[MaudDib]

Generally speaking, they don't. Creationist explanations of nature offer almost nothing value in understanding the properties of reality and rarely, if ever, have any predictive power.



Science actually has a lot to say on the subject - it's been an active topic of research for almost 100 years, since Alexander Oparin started actively publishing biochemistry papers in the 1920s.



Science is a methodology that we use to derive explanations. Creationism is just fiat assertion that a being did a thing.



Science may never answer either question to our complete satisfaction. However, there is a vast difference between explaining the origin of our local presentation of space time, and the development of self-replicating biological systems from earlier abiotic molecules.

Seeking to conflate the two, seemingly just because they're linked in your favoured creation story, is a folly.

Hi there pita bread!

Please remember that words on a post like this do not disseminate tone nor inflection, and that I am attempting to inspire thinking on your part as opposed to shooting you down

Alexander Oparins work never resulted in any theory? Yes scientists are assuming to apply the scientific method of inquiry to the origin of life but that has yielded nothing so far of value. In fact, the more recent discovery of biological information in DNA is much more compelling when it comes to tweaking our hypothesis that there was a level of agency involved (unless you assume the self defeating stance that science can explain everything?).

Thats because information is best explained from the top down (mind) as opposed to bottom up(random mutation and natural selection). (just try an explain the information(semiotics) on a menu in a restaurant in terms of the ink on the paper!)

And let me explain something that eludes most people right off the bat:

The Theory of evolution or any theory of the origin of life is not science (read scientific method).

Let me be specific, the theory of evolution was not reached by conducting experiments of observation and repeatability. The scientific method as a method of inquiry is not available at all when it comes to trying to explain the level of biological complexity we witness on the planet. Darwin had a friend, Lyell,

The theory of evolution is a philosophical one. Inference as to the best explanation. Just like forensic science is a philosophical endeavour. You get a crime scene, no one observed the murder, and you can't repeat it, so now what.
Well you shift from deduction to induction (inference). A strand of hair on its own is not compelling in any way, but throw in a thumb print and a blood spatter and a foot print, and all of a sudden the cumulative force of the evidence becomes compelling. Because of reasoning and evidence.

when you say:
Generally speaking, they don't. Creationist explanations of nature offer almost nothing value in understanding the properties of reality and rarely, if ever, have any predictive power.

You are missing the point. Creationism is based on reason and evidence (here we appeal to history and science to support our philosophical inferences), it is most certainly not an assertion? The same applied to the beginning of the universe, and well, the parallels between the bible and what science has discovered over the last 100 years is remarkable!

A good example to hit home with on all of this is to ask someone:
"Choose one of the following that best explains the law of internal combustion:
1. the motor car or
2.Henry Ford"

The one answer is at the level of a mechanism, and the other at the level of an agent. You simply need both, and they in no way conflict with each other.

when you say:
Seeking to conflate the two, seemingly just because they're linked in your favoured creation story, is a folly.

This tells me that you are not properly distinguishing between origin science and operation science.

The two events that i cited are related in that they both fall under origin science. the scientific method can be applied to things already in motion (operation science), but trying to apply it to something that no one observed and that can't be repeated is useless.

I am getting the sense that you are not engaging on the various evidences for the evidence of God, and dismissing the bible as a story as a result?

If you are agnostic, i would encourage you to seek out the truth with an inquiring mind. i am happy to help and or point you to resources to help out once you understand philosophy and have gone through the various evidences then you can come to your own conclusion. But at the very least it will be demonstrated to you that being a Christian is a reasonable and rational position to hold, as opposed to your current view point on Creationists.

Creationism, not science, is the best explanation for the origin of life, and the origin of the universe too.

Kind regards,

T

 

[Gene2memE]

Lot to unpack here, and I'm short on time, so forgive curtness.

Alexander Oparins work never resulted in any theory?

As in, a formal Theory in scientific terms? No. No Theory of Abiogenesis has been formed - it's still a work in progress.

As in, a set of well supported suppositions about the development of biological life from simpler non-biological precursors. Then, yes.

Yes scientists are assuming to apply the scientific method of inquiry to the origin of life but that has yielded nothing so far of value.

Actually, much of value - if you value understanding the origin of life - has been produced by studying abiotic chemistry and early biochemical replicators.

In fact, the more recent discovery of biological information in DNA is much more compelling when it comes to tweaking our hypothesis that there was a level of agency involved (unless you assume the self defeating stance that science can explain everything?).

I'll need a citation on that one.

And no, I don't think that science can solve everything - metaphysics, theology, mathematical constructs and the question of where my daughter hid my car keys are questions beyond the realm of the sciences.

Thats because information is best explained from the top down (mind) as opposed to bottom up(random mutation and natural selection). (just try an explain the information(semiotics) on a menu in a restaurant in terms of the ink on the paper!)

Except, there are valid models of bottom up development of complex systems and information. What's more, they're particularly useful in development of simple biological constructs.

And let me explain something that eludes most people right off the bat:

The Theory of evolution or any theory of the origin of life is not science (read scientific method).

Firstly, the ToE is not a theory of the origin of life. Its an explanation of the observed diversity of biological life and how that developed.

Secondly, the ToE has been repeatedly confirmed by both lab experiments and real world observation. Arguing its not using the scientific method is like arguing that cosmology is not using the scientific method, because you cant replicate star formation in a lab.

A Let me be specific, the theory of evolution was not reached by conducting experiments of observation and repeatability. The scientific method as a method of inquiry is not available at all when it comes to trying to explain the level of biological complexity we witness on the planet.

You've clearly not read the initial work by Darwin or Wallace that developed the theory. Nor, I suspect, have you read much, if any, of the actual work that is important in the development of the ToE over the past 150 years.

I dont want to toot my own horn here, but I have. I've studied the subject, both formally and informally. I suspect that the Yale Department of Biology would be HIGHLY surprised to find that they're not teaching science - even in their free courses.

The theory of evolution is a philosophical one.

Nope. It's an empirical one. You can draw philosophical considerations from it - see Daniel Dennett's work, for example - but the ToE is an observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable. It explains all of the evidence, and is not contradicted by any of it. That's not to say there aren't unsolved questions or incongruent findings, but there's are not enough to overturn it.

You are missing the point. Creationism is based on reason and evidence (here we appeal to history and science to support our philosophical inferences), it is most certainly not an assertion?

I suspect I'm not.

Here's a thought experiment.

Delete the Bible from history. What does Creationism look like now? Does it exist at all?

Delete On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection from history. What does the ToE look like? Is it changed at all?

If you are agnostic

I'm an agnostic atheist. There's nothing in my understanding and acceptance of the ToE that took me away from being an agnostic theist though. My acceptance of basic biological science didn't change when I realised I lacked belief in the claims of theism (that was learning about history).

i would encourage you to seek out the truth with an inquiring mind. i am happy to help and or point you to resources to help out once you understand philosophy and have gone through the various evidences then you can come to your own conclusion.

Been there, done that. Been researching and writing as on this topic of personal interest for better than a decade and a half. So far, what I know of the hard sciences and the social sciences continues to point me towards a lack of belief. The evidence acts against your position, not for it.

I remain open to having my mind changed though. So, what's the single best piece evidence you can give me to support either a belief in a deity, or that creationism should be taken remotely seriosuly?

But at the very least it will be demonstrated to you that being a Christian is a reasonable and rational position to hold, as opposed to your current view point on Creationists.

Reasonable, potentially, Rational, not really. At least in my view.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right … people come across like they know what a YEC is, and almost every one of them … if not every one of them … mistake me for a YEC.

If you guys know what a YEC is, then I'm Genghis Khan.

Before you call someone "ignorant," you might want to look in the mirror.

I don't think I was addressing you.
But I'm aware of your "embedded age" nonsense. It's really not much better then your average YEC

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you sophisticated?

When it comes to basic science education, which is what I was talking about, sure.

 

[DogmaHunter]

LOL, of all the people to ask me that.

Care to answer it, instead of lol-ing?

 

[Jimmy D]

To anyone with half a brain it would. see you need to use a little common sense there....why would he not show the gopher if he had it, as it's to his advantage to do so. so yeah, at that point, until something else comes along IF something else comes along, he would be lying in my view.

Didn't I already say that?

As I said, maybe the gopher has run away or whatever, I agree that it would be most likely that they were lying but it's not proof is it? Anyway it's a poor analogy, it posits an impossible fantasy animal, whereas the evolution has been observed, tested and examined for over a century so I don't see much point in continuing this line of discussion.

Exactly, it they aren't telling the truth they are lying, and that's my answer to the last part of your post as well.

You have yet to demonstrate that they aren't telling the truth though, there is no reason to think they are. Evidence for evolution is shown in hundreds of thousands of scientific papers and books, that you refuse to address it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I asked you about SFS's post where he linked to a blog.....

"I don't like to drag anyone else into this, but the only professional scientist I can think of who works in the field and regularly posts on this forum is SFS, are you saying he is lying when he says...

"I can find abundant genetic evidence for evolution. Is it possible that some of us know more about genetics than you do? Here is a small part of what I think is genetic evidence. Why isn't it?"

Are you prepared to examine his evidence and demonstrate that he is lying?"


So you are saying that SFS is a liar?

He posted genetic evidence for evolution, which you probably haven't even looked at, and you certainly can't show is wrong, yet you claim it's a lie?

Can you really not see how ignorant and hypocritical this stance is?

That you can call a fellow christian, who has shown himself to be more than happy to demonstrate what he says with empirical evidence, a liar speaks volumes about your character.

Now, please either show where he is lying or retract your statement.

 

[Sanoy]

When it comes to basic science education, which is what I was talking about, sure.

I'll agree with you even more and say that you have an education that is greater than basic science. However your ability to distinguish yourself above others in any objectively meaningful way is lost to me on Atheism. If you want to actually distinguish yourself be humble about yourself, be humble about your thinking, don't judge yourself better than others, do well with your education etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think I was addressing you.

Then I'll ask:

When you said this:

Sorry, but I can't call someone that ignorant "sophisticated". It is almost the very definition of being unsophisticated to hold on to such obviously false beliefs.

Does that apply to those who call me a YEC as well?

But I'm aware of your "embedded age" nonsense. It's really not much better then your average YEC

Then you're only aware of it.

You don't understand it.

That makes you just as ignorant as those you're calling ignorant.

So for the second time, before you call someone "ignorant," you might want to look in the mirror.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to actually distinguish yourself be humble about yourself, be humble about your thinking, don't judge yourself better than others, do well with your education etc.

The academic world plays very judgmental games with their level of knowledge that is akin to King of the Hill.

At one point, if I remember, the United States was 26th in the world on their Totem Pole of Knowledge.

They probably start that propaganda when college applicants are at a low, and they need money.

They try to humiliate us into running down and signing up.

Then they graduate looking down on us koine as … in their word … "hoamskooled."

 

[DogmaHunter]

However your ability to distinguish yourself above others in any objectively meaningful way is lost to me on Atheism.

I don't invoke my atheism for anything, nore does it identify who I am.
Atheism is just a label to describe a single position on a single issue.

It only tells you what I do not believe concerning one particular thing.
By describing myself only with the word "atheist", you literally know nothing about me - except for the one thing that I don't believe.

If you want to actually distinguish yourself be humble about yourself, be humble about your thinking, don't judge yourself better than others, do well with your education etc.

This has nothing to do with being humble and everything with pointing out that believing that the world is only a couple thousands years old, is an error of epic proportions.

When someone, especially an adult, tells you that 2+2 equals 6 and that mathematicians who say it's really 4 are "liars" or "satanic" or whatever, then you aren't being arrogant when you tell them that they are wrong and uneducated.

To quote Dr Sheldon Cooper: "It's not arrogance if you are correct"

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then I'll ask:

When you said this:



Does that apply to those who call me a YEC as well?



Then you're only aware of it.

You don't understand it.

That makes you just as ignorant as those you're calling ignorant.

So for the second time, before you call someone "ignorant," you might want to look in the mirror.

Give it a rest.

Here, I'll say it bluntly: you are incredibly ignorant concerning science.

However, the one thing you are better at then some of your peers - you actually know it. You flat out admit that whenever your fundamentalist beliefs disagree with science, "science can take a hike", whereas a lot of your peers will maintain that the science actually supports their nonsense.

You on the other willfully choose to go with the religious nonsense, knowing that the science doesn't agree with you at all. And then you just say that empirical reality "can take a hike" because "the bible says it, that settles it".

I cannot respect such a view or even remotely take it seriously.
But I can certainly respect your honesty on the matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The academic world plays very judgmental games with their level of knowledge that is akin to King of the Hill.

It's not judgemental to tell a YEC that it is false that the world is young and that believing otherwise is an error of epic proportion that can be corrected with only high school level education.

Facts are facts.

Perhaps you feel "insulted" by that or whatever - but maybe that is simply your problem.

 

[Sanoy]

I don't invoke my atheism for anything, nore does it identify who I am.
Atheism is just a label to describe a single position on a single issue.

It only tells you what I do not believe concerning one particular thing.
By describing myself only with the word "atheist", you literally know nothing about me - except for the one thing that I don't believe.



This has nothing to do with being humble and everything with pointing out that believing that the world is only a couple thousands years old, is an error of epic proportions.

When someone, especially an adult, tells you that 2+2 equals 6 and that mathematicians who say it's really 4 are "liars" or "satanic" or whatever, then you aren't being arrogant when you tell them that they are wrong and uneducated.

To quote Dr Sheldon Cooper: "It's not arrogance if you are correct"

I'm sure there is a wonderful person in there, but all we get to see is a polemic appologist. But any statement is judged on the assumptions and premises behind it, and that is why I'm lost under Atheism.

As you say I think you are very convicted against what you think is incorrect. But I don't think that was going through your head in the comment. ( Which is a not huge deal, people say things they don't really mean, so I'm not going to mention again )

I don't believe the Earth is young, but I am humble enough in my thinking to know I could be wrong. But I am more sure of my belief in and old earth on Theist grounding than Naturalistic grounding. Presupposition is a dangerous thing. There are even naturalistic models that make a world that began identical to 1894 just as likely as the old world we imagine as old. There is no room for arrogance in knowledge. Knowledge should always be approached humbly and graciously. Sheldon is popular not because he is smart but because he is so intellectually and social broken to be found humerous.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As you say I think you are very convicted against what you think is incorrect

Again, this is not a matter of my mere opinion or what I think.
That the world is only a couple thousand yours old is factually incorrect.
And not just a little bit. Epicly incorrect.

As 'Russ' once said to 'Ross' in the sitcom Friends: "You could not be more wrong... you could try… but you would not be succesfull…."

YECism is not just incorrect. It is mindblowingly, massively, embarassingly incorrect.

That's not just my opinion. It's a matter of fact and empirical evidence.

But I don't think that was going through your head in the comment. ( Which is a not huge deal, people say things they don't really mean, so I'm not going to mention again )

I can tell you that to an extent, it was.
Yes, I'm not exactly very understanding when adults who have access to the internet and who live in a western secular democracy with easy access to education (in fact… in such countries you are even forced by law to get a minimum of schooling - it's actually illegal to prohibit your kids from having a basic education) proudly profess to believe in magical supernatural floods and 6000-year old earth.

I have exactly zero respect for that. I think it is damaging.
I might respect the people as humans, but I will never respect willful ignorance or just sheer stupid ideas that fly in the face of basic fact. No respect at all. Au contraire.

And I have no problem at all saying that. As a matter of fact, I think not enough people are like that. People should be like that. There is no reason to tolerate such stupidity in the public sphere. There is only one propper response to such idiocy imo, and that is plain old ridicule and laughter.

I don't believe the Earth is young, but I am humble enough in my thinking to know I could be wrong.

The facts are what they are.
That the earth is old, is as certain as you falling back to earth if you jump up instead of shooting of into space.

But I am more sure of my belief in and old earth on Theist grounding than Naturalistic grounding. Presupposition is a dangerous thing.

Says the guy who presupposes theism.
Old earth in science, is a conclusion from the data - which is the very opposite of a presupposition.

There are even naturalistic models that make a world that began identical to 1894 just as likely as the old world we imagine as old.

lol....

I'll guarantee you that it has the same kind of evidence in support of it as YECism has. The invisible / non-existing kind.

ps: you'll also note that at no point did I actually use the word "naturalistic". I just go by the evidence and data. I have no presupposition of "naturalism" or "materialism" or whatnot. I'll sure as heck agree that all the data we have IS of the "naturalistic" or "materialistic" kind and that it all points to that being all there is, sure. But that doesn't mean I presuppose it. Show me valid evidence of the "supernatural" or the "spiritual", whatever those are, and I'll happily accept it without blinking.

But that's the thing now, isn't it? Why would I "presuppose" or assume such things, before there is any shred of evidence that even only remotely points in that direction?

There is no room for arrogance in knowledge. Knowledge should always be approached humbly and graciously. Sheldon is popular not because he is smart but because he is so intellectually and social broken to be found humerous.

The point of the joke is actually that when people have their false beliefs corrected/challenged, they go into defensive mode and instead of accepting the correction, they still stick to their disproven beliefs and just call the person "arrogant" - as if that changes the outcome or the facts.

It is, in fact, a species of ad hominim.

 

[Sanoy]

Again, this is not a matter of my mere opinion or what I think.
That the world is only a couple thousand yours old is factually incorrect.
And not just a little bit. Epicly incorrect.

As 'Russ' once said to 'Ross' in the sitcom Friends: "You could not be more wrong... you could try… but you would not be succesfull…."

YECism is not just incorrect. It is mindblowingly, massively, embarassingly incorrect.

That's not just my opinion. It's a matter of fact and empirical evidence.




I can tell you that to an extent, it was.
Yes, I'm not exactly very understanding when adults who have access to the internet and who live in a western secular democracy with easy access to education (in fact… in such countries you are even forced by law to get a minimum of schooling - it's actually illegal to prohibit your kids from having a basic education) proudly profess to believe in magical supernatural floods and 6000-year old earth.

I have exactly zero respect for that. I think it is damaging.
I might respect the people as humans, but I will never respect willful ignorance or just sheer stupid ideas that fly in the face of basic fact. No respect at all. Au contraire.

And I have no problem at all saying that. As a matter of fact, I think not enough people are like that. People should be like that. There is no reason to tolerate such stupidity in the public sphere. There is only one propper response to such idiocy imo, and that is plain old ridicule and laughter.



The facts are what they are.
That the earth is old, is as certain as you falling back to earth if you jump up instead of shooting of into space.




Says the guy who presupposes theism.
Old earth in science, is a conclusion from the data - which is the very opposite of a presupposition.



lol....

I'll guarantee you that it has the same kind of evidence in support of it as YECism has. The invisible / non-existing kind.

ps: you'll also note that at no point did I actually use the word "naturalistic". I just go by the evidence and data. I have no presupposition of "naturalism" or "materialism" or whatnot. I'll sure as heck agree that all the data we have IS of the "naturalistic" or "materialistic" kind and that it all points to that being all there is, sure. But that doesn't mean I presuppose it. Show me valid evidence of the "supernatural" or the "spiritual", whatever those are, and I'll happily accept it without blinking.

But that's the thing now, isn't it? Why would I "presuppose" or assume such things, before there is any shred of evidence that even only remotely points in that direction?



The point of the joke is actually that when people have their false beliefs corrected/challenged, they go into defensive mode and instead of accepting the correction, they still stick to their disproven beliefs and just call the person "arrogant" - as if that changes the outcome or the facts.

It is, in fact, a species of ad hominim.

Everything deemed correct is correct only in regard to the presupposition that substantiates it. Essentially the gettier problem. Young Earth Creationism is incorrect within a realm of belief. A realm we partially share. Whether or not we can claim they are wrong depends on our base belief of how the universe came into being. If we believe it came into being from nothing by nothing, or as a brute fact then a world begining just like 1894 is just as likely (or unlikely) than our present world. Conviction is an internal system that begins with assumptions that may or not be correct. That is why humility is required in knowledge. I understand the certainty you feel, I also feel certain about things, but certainty always shares a tenuous relationship with first assumptions. We can still retain our justified true beliefs but we need to be humble because of our presuppositions. Follow your data, but don't forget the presuppositions they rest upon.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Everything deemed correct is correct only in regard to the presupposition that substantiates it. Essentially the gettier problem. Young Earth Creationism is incorrect within a realm of belief. A realm we partially share.

There is no realm where YECism is correct. Not a real one anyway.

Sorry, but no.
The earth is old. Fact. Period. No discussion.
The discussion has been held a long time ago. It's a settled matter.

It has about same chance of being wrong as the idea that we all live in the Matrix is correct.
Technically a possibility, sure.

But not exactly something you can seriously consider and still be called rational.

Whether or not we can claim they are wrong depends on our base belief of how the universe came into being.

What is accurate and what is inaccurate is NOT dependend on beliefs. It is dependend on evidence.

And the evidence says the earth is old.
No evidence says the earth is young.

If we believe it came into being from nothing by nothing, or as a brute fact then a world begining just like 1894 is just as likely (or unlikely) than our present world.

It is not.
Unless you completely ignore all the evidence of there being a 13.7 billion year history before 1894.

An explanation actually needs to explain the data.
And the data says the universe existed pre-1894.
So if you wish to claim it all came into being in 1894, despite the evidence, you are now required to explain (not assert!) why all that evidence points to the opposite.

When all evidence points to answer A, then there is no possible scenario where B is the more likely answer. That's just absurd.

Conviction is an internal system that begins with assumptions that may or not be correct.

If that is all you have, then you're talking about mere beliefs.
In rational world, objective evidence is a requirement for conviction.

That is why humility is required in knowledge. I understand the certainty you feel, I also feel certain about things, but certainty always shares a tenuous relationship with first assumptions. We can still retain our justified true beliefs but we need to be humble because of our presuppositions. Follow your data, but don't forget the presuppositions they rest upon.

Now would be a good time for you to state which presuppositions the data apparantly rests on.

I, and every other human, make 3 basal assumptions:
- the universe is real (ie: we're not brains in vats)
- the universe is consistent enough to learn about it (ie: gravity won't stop working at random moments)
- models with predictive capabilities are better then those without (falsifiability / usefullness of explanations)

None of these are arbitrary. All 3 are justified assumptions that rest on empirical data, experience and observation.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle.

But we are talking about entertaining an obviously false thought and accepting it.

I have no issues with "what if" thought exercises. But YECs really do believe that stuff, they don't consider it thought exercises.

 

[Sanoy]

There is no realm where YECism is correct. Not a real one anyway.

Sorry, but no.
The earth is old. Fact. Period. No discussion.
The discussion has been held a long time ago. It's a settled matter.

It has about same chance of being wrong as the idea that we all live in the Matrix is correct.
Technically a possibility, sure.

But not exactly something you can seriously consider and still be called rational.



What is accurate and what is inaccurate is NOT dependend on beliefs. It is dependend on evidence.

And the evidence says the earth is old.
No evidence says the earth is young.




It is not.
Unless you completely ignore all the evidence of there being a 13.7 billion year history before 1894.

An explanation actually needs to explain the data.
And the data says the universe existed pre-1894.
So if you wish to claim it all came into being in 1894, despite the evidence, you are now required to explain (not assert!) why all that evidence points to the opposite.

When all evidence points to answer A, then there is no possible scenario where B is the more likely answer. That's just absurd.



If that is all you have, then you're talking about mere beliefs.
In rational world, objective evidence is a requirement for conviction.



Now would be a good time for you to state which presuppositions the data apparantly rests on.

I, and every other human, make 3 basal assumptions:
- the universe is real (ie: we're not brains in vats)
- the universe is consistent enough to learn about it (ie: gravity won't stop working at random moments)
- models with predictive capabilities are better then those without (falsifiability / usefullness of explanations)

None of these are arbitrary. All 3 are justified assumptions that rest on empirical data, experience and observation.



But we are talking about entertaining an obviously false thought and accepting it.

I have no issues with "what if" thought exercises. But YECs really do believe that stuff, they don't consider it thought exercises.

I don't think you are quite getting presupposition here but I'll let that go and give you some time to think about it.

As far as the 1894 scenario it is empirically equivalent to our perceived world. So if you follow the data you will merely be mislead and not know it. (Which is why humility is preferred)

The first two assumptions are not justified. If they were they wouldn't be assumptions. The last is not a base assumption, but is derived from the assumption that our cognitive faculties can acquire truths about the world. If I presupposed certain cosmological models, as I mentioned before, I don't see how one could be justified in saying the earth is old. That's why one should be introspective and humble about their own thoughts. I think the earth is old precisely because I assume Theism as my explanation for the Universe and my faculties for determining truths about the world.

A lot of what we are asked to entertain comes from people who believe what they are saying.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no realm where YECism is correct. Not a real one anyway.

I disagree.

And while I'm not a YEC myself, I do believe just about everything they do … except one: the age of the things in the universe.

Sorry, but no.
The earth is old. Fact. Period. No discussion.
The discussion has been held a long time ago. It's a settled matter.

Fair enough.

The earth is old.

How old it is doesn't matter.

It has only been in existence since 4004 BC.