Why YEC can seem plausible

[muichimotsu]

A "reputable hypothesis" is just an idea that is more scientifically pure than ID or any religious concept. This thread is a proposal that we are living in a simulation designed to make unguided evolution "look plausible", it is not based on a scientific consensus from the start.

The problem can be shifted to a basic epistemological problem in phenomenology: our perceptions are not necessarily reflective of reality, especially when we are trying to make assessments of a scientific nature. When we model reality in some sense that makes sense to our perception rather than taking a step back and considering that we might be mistaken, we're not engaging in science anymore, but pseudoscience.

Just because one thinks something is plausible is only a start in terms of determining it as scientific theory; that is, a consistent model to predict reality in some sense.

 

[coffee4u]

My point is that according to flat earthers, the Bible seems to support their view - in every case (AiG found no Bible verses that supported their view).
Yes you can use the excuse that it is just poetry but it is possible to say things like "around the globe" or "down under", etc, that imply a globe.
Do you think it is just a coincidence that according to flat-earthers there are 200+ verses while a lack of verses talking about the literal state of things? I think it was deliberate - as a test to see how dogmatic and faithful the believers are rather than looking to balanced reasoning.

They are just a fringe group who dug up every verse they can think of that supposedly supports their view. As I said I could dig up verses in regards to donkeys and walking and make a case against using cars if I wanted.
It's not an excuse, you can't build a doctrine on poetry. Poetry can be used as additional supporting evidence if all the other verses are in agreement, but even most of the poetry doesn't make me think of a flat earth or have anything to do with a flat earth.
Isaiah 11:12

And He will lift up a standard for the nations And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth.
They claim this one too. Does this have anything at all to do with what they claim? Does it makes you think of a flat earth? (you didn't answer those questions) If anything I think it could be used to 'prove' a square.

We still use a lot of poetic language. We say "What a beautiful sunset" No one is going to say "What a beautiful earth turning" But when someone says that we don't assume they are claiming the earth doesn't turn.

Whether somebody wants to believe a flat earth or not doesn't bother me even though I disagree with it since it doesn't interfere with any doctrine as far as I can tell. So they are welcome to it, but don't get flat earth groups mixed up with mainstream creationists.

 

[JohnClay]

Earth is a Disk/Circle, not a ball: Isaiah 40:22, Proverbs 8:27, Job 38:13-14
A ball seen at a distance looks like a circle. Other people have argued that the verse in Job is better translated to mean sphere rather than circle.

Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.​

"Above" only makes sense if the earth is flat. If it is a ball then the throne would be "below" some of the people. "Like grasshoppers" implies that the people look very small. If the earth is a ball some of the people would be hidden from view due to the earth being in the way. The sky being stretched like a tent implies a flat surface. If it is a ball it is more like a cocoon.

 

[JohnClay]

They are just a fringe group who dug up every verse they can think of that supposedly supports their view. As I said I could dig up verses in regards to donkeys and walking and make a case against using cars if I wanted.

Could you find 20 verses? Then I might believe you. BTW:
Daniel 12:4
"But I want you to roll up this scroll, Daniel. Seal it until the time of the end. Many people will go here and there to increase their knowledge.”

It implies that more travel is a normal part of the end times. It implies advanced science and that perhaps the travel is using science/technology.

....Does this have anything at all to do with what they claim? Does it makes you think of a flat earth? (you didn't answer those questions) If anything I think it could be used to 'prove' a square.

Here is a possibility:

We still use a lot of poetic language. We say "What a beautiful sunset" No one is going to say "What a beautiful earth turning" But when someone says that we don't assume they are claiming the earth doesn't turn.

What about when the Bible said the sun stood still or travelled backwards? If that really happened it implies that the earth actually stopped rotating on its axis or reversed direction.

Whether somebody wants to believe a flat earth or not doesn't bother me

So if your teenage son said that photos of earth from space were just computer-generated fakes from NASA you'd be fine with that?

even though I disagree with it since it doesn't interfere with any doctrine as far as I can tell. So they are welcome to it, but don't get flat earth groups mixed up with mainstream creationists.

I think both involve taking verses literally that might be poetic and trying to seem scientific about it...
About the poetic view of Genesis:
Framework interpretation (Genesis) - Wikipedia

Also:
Psalm 103:12
"as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us."

The east and the west ultimately join up so that technically suggests our transgressions haven't been removed at all...

Also I was looking at the site about the 200+ verses and at the top saw a video about this:

Biblical Earther Conference – Science, Bible, and the Creator

i.e. it involves a Biblical basis.

 

[Rodan6]

God has created an evolutionary plan for our world. Is God impressed with those who would deny His wonderful works? The Master taught us that we if we "seek, we shall find". It is most noteworthy that God has chosen to reveal many great truths to the scientist, many of whom would even deny His very existence. Yet, many (well-intentioned) religionists choose to reject His evolutionary plan in favor of their book written by men. Both the religionist and the scientist seek truth in their own ways, but we can see that many doors are opened for the scientist (armed with rigorous adherence to their scientific method) while the stubborn religionist is given nothing. We should not fear the wonderful discoveries of modern science, but rather rejoice in the greater understandings of God's physical laws that are made possible in our modern light. Remember our Lord's teaching, "to he who has, more shall be given"...

 

[coffee4u]

Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.​

"Above" only makes sense if the earth is flat. If it is a ball then the throne would be "below" some of the people. "Like grasshoppers" implies that the people look very small. If the earth is a ball some of the people would be hidden from view due to the earth being in the way. The sky being stretched like a tent implies a flat surface. If it is a ball it is more like a cocoon.

of course it doesn't, above is straight above your head wherever you are standing on the earth because we are in space. We see an aeroplane go over ahead and so do people in the US.

Anyway, why do you care, you're an atheist. If you are trying to make out that I should believe in a flat earth because I am a YEC, wrong. I don't and no verse says "the world is flat"

Find 20 verses about what? That the world is round? How about you find 20 verses on evolution.
The Bible gives us a framework of what we need to know, the important events in Bible history, important people and what is important spiritually. The Bible doesn't teach either flat or round world because it's neither here nor there. There is no biblical doctrine that needs it because it's a side issue and ultimately unimportant. The world could be a giant pyramid, it makes no difference to no death before sin, to Jesus' work on the cross, salvation, judgment or the New Heavens and New World. It's a distraction, a red herring. Honestly, I am beginning to wonder if perhaps you believe in it since you keep going on about it.
We are not against science unless science falls outside of the Biblical framework. Man has gone into space and seen that the world is round, that's good enough for me. I remember the moon landing on the TV, it was a huge event. If that was a hoax what was the point of it? It's all very well that some people claim it was a hoax, but what reason is there for one? People don't just toss around that amount of cash for no reason. Even if it had been it wouldn't make any difference to our belief in creation-which I thought this thread was about.

That does not look like the modern flat earth belief that I have seen.

What about when the Bible said the sun stood still or travelled backwards? If that really happened it implies that the earth actually stopped rotating on its axis or reversed direction.

Joshua 10
12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:
“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!

Joshua didn't know the earth turned because to him the sun moved across the sky.
I don't assume to understand the verse, except to know that to the people there, this is what they saw and experienced.
It was a miraculous event. The God who can make the world can do whatever he wants. Perhaps God slowed the spin of the earth, time itself or perhaps it was something else. Did you know that there are parallel accounts of a 'long day' around the world, not just the Bible? It's in ancient Chinese writings, the Incas and Aztecs had one, the Babylonians and Persians and Egyptians all have a record of such a day as well.

My son believes the world is round, he's a big Star Wars fan. If he came up with such an idea I would ask him the same question, why would anyone go to the trouble (and cash needed) to carry out such a hoax, what was the purpose?

Genesis was intended to be taken literally by the author (probably Moses) its also vital for some very important Biblical doctrines especially the origin of sin and no death before sin. Not at all the same as flat earth. Again there is no doctrine based on this.
Psalm 103:12
"as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us."
This was also by David and is a picture of God removing our sins even if they are enough to fill from the East to the West, which as far as David knew was what he could see and travel.

I thought this thread was on YA creation, I think you just want another flat earth thread, so I will leave you to it.

 

[JohnClay]

of course it doesn't, above is straight above your head wherever you are standing on the earth because we are in space. We see an aeroplane go over ahead and so do people in the US.

If God's throne was above the UK (by "above" I don't mean north), I think it is reasonable to say it isn't "above" Australia.... it is below it. People in the UK pointing to the throne would point to the sky. In Australia they would point to the ground (if they were being accurate).

Anyway, why do you care, you're an atheist.

Yes I went from YEC to atheism.... but now I'm a very liberal Christian who believes we're probably in a simulation. Some of my story from 2018:
Hearing songs with seemingly supernatural significance

If you are trying to make out that I should believe in a flat earth because I am a YEC, wrong. I don't and no verse says "the world is flat"

Well it seems I can't argue with that.

Find 20 verses about what? That the world is round? How about you find 20 verses on evolution.

Well I believe your belief in YEC is Biblical so therefore I wouldn't expect the Bible to talk about evolution.

The Bible gives us a framework of what we need to know, the important events in Bible history, important people and what is important spiritually. The Bible doesn't teach either flat or round world because it's neither here nor there.

I disagree but I'm unable to convince you.

There is no biblical doctrine that needs it because it's a side issue and ultimately unimportant. The world could be a giant pyramid, it makes no difference to no death before sin, to Jesus' work on the cross, salvation, judgment or the New Heavens and New World. It's a distraction, a red herring.

So evolution means death before Adam? I am familiar with that idea.

Honestly, I am beginning to wonder if perhaps you believe in it since you keep going on about it.

I think the flat earth seems Biblical but like I've said before I think much of the Bible isn't literally true - it is part of a test. You'd agree that the flat earth verses aren't literally true.

We are not against science unless science falls outside of the Biblical framework. Man has gone into space and seen that the world is round, that's good enough for me. I remember the moon landing on the TV, it was a huge event. If that was a hoax what was the point of it? It's all very well that some people claim it was a hoax, but what reason is there for one? People don't just toss around that amount of cash for no reason. Even if it had been it wouldn't make any difference to our belief in creation-which I thought this thread was about.

That does not look like the modern flat earth belief that I have seen.

Joshua didn't know the earth turned because to him the sun moved across the sky.

I agree

I don't assume to understand the verse, except to know that to the people there, this is what they saw and experienced.
It was a miraculous event. The God who can make the world can do whatever he wants. Perhaps God slowed the spin of the earth, time itself or perhaps it was something else. Did you know that there are parallel accounts of a 'long day' around the world, not just the Bible? It's in ancient Chinese writings, the Incas and Aztecs had one, the Babylonians and Persians and Egyptians all have a record of such a day as well.

I'd be interested in evidence for this.

My son believes the world is round, he's a big Star Wars fan. If he came up with such an idea I would ask him the same question, why would anyone go to the trouble (and cash needed) to carry out such a hoax, what was the purpose?

No idea - but NASA apparently spends a lot of money for this conspiracy.

Genesis was intended to be taken literally by the author (probably Moses) its also vital for some very important Biblical doctrines especially the origin of sin and no death before sin. Not at all the same as flat earth. Again there is no doctrine based on this.

I thought this thread was on YA creation, I think you just want another flat earth thread, so I will leave you to it.

There is a bit of a cross-over - I know people that are both.

BTW this AiG article seems to go to a lot of trouble:
Is the Earth Flat?

Perhaps the reason is that a significant number of its YEC readers might think that a flat earth is plausible.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The maximum age for the earth according to YECs is 10,000 years old, usually 6000-8000 years old. It depends on the genealogies in Genesis 5.
See:

I'm not aware of any YECs that believe that the universe is any older than the earth. ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth")

Taking Biblical genealogy as absolute truth does not indicate a young earth. To beget is to have a descendant, not necessarily a direct offspring.

According to the word, it would be correct to say that Adam begat Abraham. So the lineage as it is described tells us only the absolute minimum age of the universe, and not the actual age. What we see is apologists working backward from their conclusion, which is of course the essence of dishonesty.

 

[JohnClay]

Taking Biblical genealogy as absolute truth does not indicate a young earth. To beget is to have a descendant, not necessarily a direct offspring.

According to the word, it would be correct to say that Adam begat Abraham. So the lineage as it is described tells us only the absolute minimum age of the universe, and not the actual age. What we see is apologists working backward from their conclusion, which is of course the essence of dishonesty.

Luke's genealogy seems to agree with Genesis 5
The Genealogies of Jesus
anyway even if there were hundreds of unmentioned people it suggests that the universe is 6 days older than Adam, so it is young.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

Suppose I take one million oxygen atoms and two million hydrogen atoms, and I dump them into a container. What do you reckon will happen? Will I get a completely random assortment of molecules? Should I expect to see, say, a molecule with 57 oxygen atoms and 13 hydrogen atoms? Surely the probability that 99% of the molecules formed will have exactly one oxygen and two hydrogens is vanishingly small.

See, when it comes to chemistry, molecular formation is NOT random.

 

[muichimotsu]

Luke's genealogy seems to agree with Genesis 5
The Genealogies of Jesus
anyway even if there were hundreds of unmentioned people it suggests that the universe is 6 days older than Adam, so it is young.

Except the Bible suggests that a day doesn't have to be interpreted literally in regards to Genesis, as God's perception of time is such that a day could be 1000 years (which is one of the ways you can try to claim the earth and universe are 10000 years old or the like, working on that, but OEC can just as easily point out that God is infinite in nature, so the days could be billions of years in actual scale).

Even if there is a metaphorical aspect to verses that one can find, if one grants that God is far beyond human comprehension, then the 6 days could just be a representation that's cogent to ancient human understanding rather than literally how it happened

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Luke's genealogy seems to agree with Genesis 5
The Genealogies of Jesus
anyway even if there were hundreds of unmentioned people it suggests that the universe is 6 days older than Adam, so it is young.

Thumbing through Genesis, it's not unusual to see a patriarch living for 900 years and having his primary son at age 500. If each omitted patriarch had their primary son at age 500, then 2000 generations would span a million years. How do we actually know how many generations were omitted?

 

[coffee4u]

If God's throne was above the UK (by "above" I don't mean north), I think it is reasonable to say it isn't "above" Australia.... it is below it. People in the UK pointing to the throne would point to the sky. In Australia they would point to the ground (if they were being accurate).

Again we are a ball so above is everywhere since technically there isn't an above or a below except in relevance to where we are standing. The US is every bit as much below us as we are below them. The main reason we are 'down under' is most of the world's population is in the northern hemisphere and everything caters to that.

Yes I went from YEC to atheism.... but now I'm a very liberal Christian who believes we're probably in a simulation. Some of my story from 2018:
Hearing songs with seemingly supernatural significance

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-seemingly-supernatural-significance.8080791/

Sorry, I hadn't noticed the change in your profile. You seem to 'bounce' around a lot.

Well it seems I can't argue with that.

Lol, we agree!

Well I believe your belief in YEC is Biblical so therefore I wouldn't expect the Bible to talk about evolution.

Quite right, it doesn't. It doesn't talk about flat earth the way people think either. it uses language from the perspective of the people living on it. If believing in flat earth had been important and a specific part of creation, God would have made it clear. Even one short verse would have been enough, but since he didn't and science has shown it to be round, it is round. A round earth makes a lot more sense for seasons and a day and night cycle so why wouldn't God make it round? How do people sail around the world if it's flat? Doesn't take a spaceman to achieve that.

I disagree but I'm unable to convince you.

You think it does teach a flat earth or you disagree that God only included the important things in the Bible?

So evolution means death before Adam? I am familiar with that idea.

Death is a huge part of evolution.
God created and said it was 'very good' Our idea of very good isn't God's, there is no way God would have sat around for millions of years watching things die then create over the top of it and call it 'very good'.
The Bible teaches that there was no death before sin. Biblical death only means creatures with a soul this does not include plants.
Romans 5:12

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

1 Corinthians 15
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

I think the flat earth seems Biblical but like I've said before I think much of the Bible isn't literally true - it is part of a test. You'd agree that the flat earth verses aren't literally true.

In some ways I view evolution as a test. I believe that the flood played a big part in the 'deception'. Electricity from the volcanoes that erupted during the flood and the loss of the water vapour canopy that surrounded the world let in space radiation. I also believe there was an ice age after the flood caused by the ash in the sky.
Evolution has quite a bab of circular reasoning. A google search on 'how fossils are aged' brings up Dating Fossils – How Are Fossils Dated?
"Relative dating is used to determine a fossils approximate age by comparing it to similar rocks and fossils of known ages. Absolute dating is used to determine a precise age of a fossil by using radiometric dating to measure the decay of isotopes, either within the fossil or more often the rocks associated with it."
I've seen this used over and over again, that the rocks determine the age of the fossils, and some fossils determined the age of other fossils which means they are already predetermined and using each other to confirm the age.

Then radiometric dating Radioactive dating
"The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay."

I say to that, known now in the current state of the world. Who says those rates were the same before the flood? Who says that the space radiation and electricity didn't alter things? Evolutionists don't believe in the flood so this isn't even taken into consideration. This is what I mean by the framework. God says there was a global flood, he also says some of the laws governing the world literally changed between creation-fall-flood.

So they get back these results of millions of years (although I have heard they have even got back millions of years off St Helens which was recent) by trusting that what they observe now can accurately be extrapolated back into the past. Since scripture says otherwise I believe their results are completely false.

I agree
I'd be interested in evidence for this.

The long day in other cultures? I haven't looked into it myself but I am sure it can be found. I have read that Herodotus, an ancient historian, talks about temple records in Egypt about a day twice the natural length.

No idea - but NASA apparently spends a lot of money for this conspiracy.

Just for giggles obviously.

There is a bit of a cross-over - I know people that are both.

BTW this AiG article seems to go to a lot of trouble:
Is the Earth Flat?

Perhaps the reason is that a significant number of its YEC readers might think that a flat earth is plausible.

Significant numbers? Well I will say there is a resurgence of it lately, but its a small fringe group and while I know plenty of creationists I don't know any flat earthers apart from those who post on here and on Youtube, so I don't actually know any in RL.
Like you said the rebuttal is based on science because while flat earth looks like a Biblical issue, it really isn't. If the Bible suggested it was literally flat you can be sure AIG would agree with it.
Some flat earthers also believe Australia and Finland doesn't exist and that we are paid actors, if so I want my cheque.

 

[JohnClay]

Thumbing through Genesis, it's not unusual to see a patriarch living for 900 years and having his primary son at age 500. If each omitted patriarch had their primary son at age 500, then 2000 generations would span a million years. How do we actually know how many generations were omitted?

In Genesis people use agriculture. That could involve the population doubling every 40-50 years. But to be generous for your side, let's assume the population doubles every 1000 years. If there is a million years that is 1000 doublings. 2^1000 is according to my computer's calculator in scientific mode is "Not a number". I think it would have more than 100 zeroes. Well it would seem that they did obey the command and fill the earth.

 

[muichimotsu]

A

I say to that, known now in the current state of the world. Who says those rates were the same before the flood? Who says that the space radiation and electricity didn't alter things? Evolutionists don't believe in the flood so this isn't even taken into consideration. This is what I mean by the framework. God says there was a global flood, he also says some of the laws governing the world literally changed between creation-fall-flood.

So they get back these results of millions of years (although I have heard they have even got back millions of years off St Helens which was recent) by trusting that what they observe now can accurately be extrapolated back into the past. Since scripture says otherwise I believe their results are completely false.

How is your rationalization any more than just post hoc goalpost shifting to fit a preconception that you want to hold against any evidence to the contrary? If you can just have things be different in antedeluvian times, of course you can handwave ANY scientific explanation based on things being different now. YEC's haven't been able to demonstrate a global flood without appeals to some new arbitrary standard, to say nothing of the idea of sin being as unscientific as possible, so that variable is unfalsifiable in the first place.

 

[JohnClay]

...A round earth makes a lot more sense for seasons and a day and night cycle so why wouldn't God make it round? How do people sail around the world if it's flat? Doesn't take a spaceman to achieve that.

They have solutions/counter-arguments for those problems you mention.

You think it does teach a flat earth or you disagree that God only included the important things in the Bible?

I think it seems to teach a flat earth.

The long day in other cultures? I haven't looked into it myself but I am sure it can be found. I have read that Herodotus, an ancient historian, talks about temple records in Egypt about a day twice the natural length.

Here is a related article:
NASA Found Joshua’s Missing Day
I think if there was historical data like you mentioned AiG would have mentioned it.

....Some flat earthers also believe Australia and Finland doesn't exist and that we are paid actors, if so I want my cheque.

Interesting...

 

[Larniavc]

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

But you seemed to imply that scientists don’t know where novel genetic information can come from.

How do you square that?

 

[Larniavc]

I wouldn't make such broad statements of confidence, given that the notions you put forth are practically old hat and 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 than any notions of intelligent design that posits what is effectively unbelievable and unsubstantiated

Seriously, dude. Run on sentence much?

 

[MrsFoundit]

, we're not engaging in science anymore, but pseudoscience.

Some endeavours are not simply not science by definition.
"Pseudoscience" is an invalid presentation as science Pseudoscience - RationalWiki.

Just because one thinks something is plausible is only a start in terms of determining it as scientific theory; that is, a consistent model to predict reality in some sense.

The OP does not state a connection between plausible and scientific, and it is a philosophical proposal, scientific method is not automatically required.

 

[muichimotsu]

Some endeavours are not simply not science by definition.
"Pseudoscience" is an invalid presentation as science Pseudoscience - RationalWiki.



The OP does not state a connection between plausible and scientific, and it is a philosophical proposal, scientific method is not automatically required.

If the goal is to present an actual comparable model to evolution, it kind of does require science or you're basically just spouting something that, by definition, can't be falsified, so it allows someone to just believe without need for real justification

OP's notion is one thing, YEC is only compelling if you barely use science and engage in what amounts to sophistry masquerading as science under spiritual presuppositions about reality based on anthropic principle