Why YEC can seem plausible

[JohnClay]

What about what the Bible says.
What about the basic fact that there isn't a scholar of Hebrew that says the writer of genesis intended to give the idea of creation taking place over 6 days. That implies that God did that.

Yes I wrote:

I am under the impression that when Genesis was written an intelligent force made it look like it would look like good evidence for YEC for modern people.
​

Note that in post #12 they were careful that no-one before Noah lived through the Flood. Post #17 shows that there were many versions of the genealogies though established YEC organisations seem to prefer the 4004 BC date. YECs use Exodus mentioning the work week as a reason to believe creation involved literal days.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm referring to science.
Things like the need for 100% pure left handed chemicals to make proteins.
The statistical improbability that random acts will form a viable protein and the equally improbable chance that any proteins formed could food themselves into the required shape.

Then you have the inability of science to provide a reasonable explanation how new intelligent genetic information arises.

Methinks you're misunderstanding what random entails: that quality applies to variables and it's never absolutely random, because the universe is arguably deterministic, not such that such things would just randomly happen (apart from quantum mechanics at best) that wouldn't follow a reasonable pattern of causality for the proteins, proto RNA, etc, to form over time in the earth's environment billions of years ago. True randomness would entail another problem that abiogenesis isn't claiming is the case, but a stochastic system where there is variation and randomness without it being absolutely so

And the mere incapacity of science to explain what you think is intelligent genetic information (that's arguably a misnomer, information is not intelligent, it's intelligible and even then, it's not comparable to a code, that's metaphorical language scientists use for DNA and the like) is not sufficient for you to outright deny it, that's an argument from personal incredulity.

To say nothing of possible goalpost shifting in suggesting that the problem is such as you frame it, when mutations can alter DNA and, technically, create new information, even if it isn't utterly unique from prior information (gradual changes over time is part of natural selection's process, we didn't just come from a common ancestor we share with great apes and the populations just suddenly because orangutans, gorillas, etc, and then homo sapiens, there were several points before that we observe in the fossil record.

 

[JohnClay]

I'm referring to science.
Things like the need for 100% pure left handed chemicals to make proteins.
The statistical improbability that random acts will form a viable protein and the equally improbable chance that any proteins formed could food themselves into the required shape.

Then you have the inability of science to provide a reasonable explanation how new intelligent genetic information arises.

I believe in guided evolution. When I didn't believe in the supernatural I thought the multiverse ("MWI") was a satisfactory explanation.... this was a good version of it:
When parallel worlds collide … quantum mechanics is born
If there are a near-infinite number of parallel universes, even incredibly unlikely things become inevitable.
Apparently string theory (which I've never been a fan of) can involve 10 to the power of 500 universes.

 

[JohnClay]

.....And the mere incapacity of science to explain what you think is intelligent genetic information (that's arguably a misnomer, information is not intelligent, it's intelligible and even then, it's not comparable to a code, that's metaphorical language scientists use for DNA and the like)....

I think DNA involves symbols/code/information since it is a completely arbitrary system where the "meaning" of some base pairs is an amino acid and some machinery deciphers the meaning, etc.
DNA codon table - Wikipedia
(there might be some nit-picks about what I said)

 

[muichimotsu]

I think DNA involves symbols/code/information since it is a completely arbitrary system where the "meaning" of some base pairs is an amino acid and some machinery deciphers the meaning, etc.
DNA codon table - Wikipedia
(there might be some nit-picks about what I said)

In the nominal sense, I wouldn't deny there's information, because we can codify it through the Human Genome Project and just analyzing it in comparison to other genetics (like our sharing 98%~ with chimpanzees as a rough example).

Meaning and information are necessarily something that requires a mind to process them, not necessarily a mind behind their existence when we see them in nature, versus things like a computer or car. No one's going to reasonably claim bees are intelligent merely because they have complex structures of sorts in a beehive or ants for their intricate anthills, right

 

[JohnClay]

In the nominal sense, I wouldn't deny there's information, because we can codify it through the Human Genome Project and just analyzing it in comparison to other genetics (like our sharing 98%~ with chimpanzees as a rough example).

Meaning and information are necessarily something that requires a mind to process them, not necessarily a mind behind their existence when we see them in nature, versus things like a computer or car. No one's going to reasonably claim bees are intelligent merely because they have complex structures of sorts in a beehive or ants for their intricate anthills, right

Would you agree that a bee's dance has a meaning related to the sun and flowers?

 

[muichimotsu]

Again, the language we see is by our understanding of it, not something innate to the bees anymore than my cats communicate in some way that we can understand as originating from a cat's mind, only their instincts and other aspects that don't require sapience in the slightest.

 

[Tolworth John]

Methinks you're misunderstanding what random entails: that quality applies to variables and it's never absolutely random, because the universe is arguably deterministic, not such that such things would just randomly happen (apart from quantum mechanics at best) that wouldn't follow a reasonable pattern of causality for the proteins, proto RNA, etc, to form over time in the earth's environment billions of years ago. True randomness would entail another problem that abiogenesis isn't claiming is the case, but a stochastic system where there is variation and randomness without it being absolutely so

And the mere incapacity of science to explain what you think is intelligent genetic information (that's arguably a misnomer, information is not intelligent, it's intelligible and even then, it's not comparable to a code, that's metaphorical language scientists use for DNA and the like) is not sufficient for you to outright deny it, that's an argument from personal incredulity.

To say nothing of possible goalpost shifting in suggesting that the problem is such as you frame it, when mutations can alter DNA and, technically, create new information, even if it isn't utterly unique from prior information (gradual changes over time is part of natural selection's process, we didn't just come from a common ancestor we share with great apes and the populations just suddenly because orangutans, gorillas, etc, and then homo sapiens, there were several points before that we observe in the fossil record.

Everything I mentioned is part of evolution and the science part will be confirmed by any biologist and computer scientist.

If you prefer to believe in the unbelievable that is up to you.

 

[muichimotsu]

Everything I mentioned is part of evolution and the science part will be confirmed by any biologist and computer scientist.

If you prefer to believe in the unbelievable that is up to you.

I wouldn't make such broad statements of confidence, given that the notions you put forth are practically old hat.

Also, most scientists, especially with a focus on biochemistry or such, wouldn't remotely find your criticisms valid to undermine abiogenesis as a reputable hypothesis that has far more merit.

Especially contrasted with notions of intelligent design that posits what is effectively unbelievable and unsubstantiated

 

[Tolworth John]

Yes I wrote:

I am under the impression that when Genesis was written an intelligent force made it look like it would look like good evidence for YEC for modern people.
​

Note that in post #12 they were careful that no-one before Noah lived through the Flood. Post #17 shows that there were many versions of the genealogies though established YEC organisations seem to prefer the 4004 BC date. YECs use Exodus mentioning the work week as a reason to believe creation involved literal days.

Who cares what he'd etc believe. Hebrews scholars say the way genesis is written is to teach a literal 6 day creation story.
That cannot be got away from.
Now if you chose to read into it something that is not there, that is up to your personal integrity.

With theology one starts with what the Bible does say and seek to understand passages by how the Bible comments on it. Not by bring outside ideas to it.

 

[muichimotsu]

Who cares what he'd etc believe. Hebrews scholars say the way genesis is written is to teach a literal 6 day creation story.
That cannot be got away from.
Now if you chose to read into it something that is not there, that is up to your personal integrity.

With theology one starts with what the Bible does say and seek to understand passages by how the Bible comments on it. Not by bring outside ideas to it.

Not sure why we're meant to take your claims as fact when I'm pretty sure plenty of scholars would argue the intention of Genesis was more metaphorical, not a literal understanding.

And even if it was intended by the writers (probably not one by any stretch of imagination), that doesn't mean one should just take it seriously at face value, as if they're infallible in any sense or couldn't be mistaken about something they have no basis for. Or are we going to take the bible's claims about things we know for a fact aren't true (a rabbit doesn't chew its cud, for one glaring example of many) because it says them

 

[coffee4u]

From my thread:
Christianity and Computer Simulations?

I think world views can move between those three main options... e.g. like in the case of myself, people can go from YEC to atheism:

An "old earth" tract:
Evolution and Creation Science, The Bible Taught It First

I am under the impression that the evidence for these three options is deliberately ambiguous and very intelligent people can believe in any of these options, including YEC. (chess champions could be considered to be intelligent)

I am under the impression that when Genesis was written an intelligent force made it look like it would look like good evidence for YEC for modern people.

e.g.
- the talk of "kinds" - it allows micro-evolution but no large scale evolution

- the global flood - an explanation for fossils without requiring millions of years

- the 6 days of creation - it is plausible that the sun, moon and stars could have been created a day after plants, and birds being created before any land animals. (note there was already "light")

- not requiring millions of years of death and suffering (it was "very good")

- a plausible explanation (to YECs) for how the earth could recover from a global flood where 2 of each "kind" are taken on the ark

- how the world could be repopulated so rapidly (tower of Babel story)

- that a woman (XX) was created from a man (XY)

- the idea that all animals were originally plant eaters (consistent with the idea of things being "very good")

- 900+ year lifespans - they were initially free from mutations and perhaps a "flood canopy" explains why the ages started to decrease after the flood

- possible mention of dinosaurs (e.g. the behemoth) and the possibility of "dragons"

There is no need to give counter-arguments for these things - I am already aware of that. And creationists have counter-counter-arguments for just about everything... even regarding the main reason I gave up on YEC, the Green River Formation.

I'm interested in the other ways that the YEC beliefs seem plausible to modern readers.

We do not all hold to exactly the same beliefs, there are variations and while your original list is pretty spot-on, your view of YEC is too narrow. We are more diverse on the age of the earth than you realize.

The main way we vary on the age of the earth:

Some use the Bible to calculate the age closely. They hold to 6-10 thousand.

Then there are those who don't believe in using the Bible like a calculator and don't know If everything is being accounted for, plus other things such as animal migration indicate a longer time frame. Most of us tend to say 10-20 thousand, but some will take up to 40 or 50.

Thirdly are those who hold to a gap and I don't mean 'the gap theory' which has other creations or evolution involved in it.
This gap says that in Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
That God made the heavens and earth and stopped. That here there may be a gap where the earth sat void, unchanging. The length of time undetermined.
Then at some point God started the creation week.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
This allows for an older earth but a creation week of a literal 6 days some 6-20 thousand years ago.

All three views believe in 6 day creation, the fall and the global flood.

 

[BigV]

I'm referring to science.
Things like the need for 100% pure left handed chemicals to make proteins.
The statistical improbability that random acts will form a viable protein and the equally improbable chance that any proteins formed could food themselves into the required shape.

Then you have the inability of science to provide a reasonable explanation how new intelligent genetic information arises.

Just to clarify, you are okay with other planets being formed without requiring the designer or do you believe that everything requires a designer?

Second point, how do you think a language transforms? I think it's no secret that if we traveled back (if we could) 500-600 years ago, and visited our ancestors, there is a high probability we would not understand everything they are saying. But how exactly does the language change? What is the statistical probability of small changes in the letters and words that results in a big language change over time?

Thirdly, here is a Christian website pointing out evidences for human evolution and common ancestry.

What is the genetic evidence for human evolution? - Common-questions

Lastly, please understand that if you are taking the Bible literally, then there had to be a worldwide global flood, that would wipe out all non-marine life that did not make it to the Noah's Ark. And then, all non-marine life that exists today had to evolve in a span of a few thousand(!) years. The irony of YEC is that they deny evolution while also believing in the evolution on mega steroids!

Adventures in Young Earth Creationist Logic…Ken Ham and “impossibility” of evolution (but let’s not consider his own claims!)

 

[MrsFoundit]

We do not all hold to exactly the same beliefs, there are variations and while your original list is pretty spot-on, your view of YEC is too narrow. We are more diverse on the age of the earth than you realize.

Yes, and just as (as has it as already been pointed out) plausibility is irrelevant to those who believe the conclusions of science, it is not the basis for any Creationist model I know of.

So, it looks to me like the "simulation theory" is too dependent on plausibility as a deciding factor in human perspectives.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Lastly, please understand that if you are taking the Bible literally, then there had to be a worldwide global flood, that would wipe out all non-marine life that did not make it to the Noah's Ark.

Many people argue that the text itself indicates a local flood.

 

[BigV]

Many people argue that the text itself indicates a local flood.

Why would a local flood require an Ark? Just move to a place that is not going to get flooded. Seems like a waste of resources to build an Ark (how long did that take, btw? years?) and float 40 days, floating around a small puddle.

However, to your point, it's hard to have a global flood on a Flat Earth.

 

[dlamberth]

I am under the impression that when Genesis was written an intelligent force made it look like it would look like good evidence for YEC for modern people.
​

​

What I've never understood but find interesting is how ancient middle-eastern desert creation myths Have been carried forward into the modern age as a given place of reality. It makes no sense to me, yet here we are.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Why would a local flood require an Ark? Just move to a place that is not going to get flooded. Seems like a waste of resources to build an Ark (how long did that take, btw? years?) and float 40 days, floating around a small puddle.

However, to your point, it's hard to have a global flood on a Flat Earth.

The subject of this thread is not the viability of a flood.

 

[JohnClay]

Many people argue that the text itself indicates a local flood.

That would be to be consistent with science, not because of the verses - e.g. it said it covered all of the highest mountains, and lasted for a year, etc.

 

[JohnClay]

....The irony of YEC is that they deny evolution while also believing in the evolution on mega steroids!.....

I think what YECs say about this seems to make a lot of sense. (which is the topic of this thread) See:
Speciation, Yes; Evolution, No