Consilient YEC evidence

[Wally]

Or you are. But everyone knows Jorge is right because Jorge says he is right and Jorge is infallible.

In the meanwhile K54's questions go unanswered. There's still zero physical evidence that establishes an age of the Earth of less than 10,000 years and millions of pieces that show it's much much older.

Jorge's position, makes it imposable for a scientifically literate person to be a Christian.

He's the Fred Phelps of creationism.

[klaus54]

Or you are. But everyone knows Jorge is right because Jorge says he is right and Jorge is infallible.

In the meanwhile K54's questions go unanswered. There's still zero physical evidence that establishes an age of the Earth of less than 10,000 years and millions of pieces that show it's much much older.

Apparently Jorge thinks scientific method is invalid which allows him to ignore petabytes of data because "yom" means one day and can't accept that this might be phenomenological language or accommodation to the ANE culture. A super-duper example of epistemic nihilism. Of course he ignores conveniently Ge 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,"

But this thread is NOT just about "days" -- even though "evening" and "morning" are not GLOBAL markers of days. What about "light", God "breathing", "Let Eretz and Mayyim bring forth life" (mediated creation). You know them there kinds of things.

So back to science. I'll give you two (among 3,045,897,100) things to explain. And these are readily observable: 1) Cyclothems and 2) differential erosional conditions of mountain ranges with similar structures.

If you want to take a stab at two more: 1) Abundance of atmosphere argon and 2) absence of technetium in the crust.

But, I'd sure like to see some consilience -- not just this "science is wrong", "extra-biblical evidence be bad", "presuppositions" (the most egregious super-super-duper-duper example of projection hypocrisy I know of). If it's a choice between blowing spitwads through a straw and an 88mm cannon on a Tiger tank, I'd stick with the Tiger.

K54

[klaus54]

Jorge's position, makes it imposable for a scientifically literate person to be a Christian.

He's the Fred Phelps of creationism.

Replace "Christian" with "Fundy YEC nutter" and I'd agree.

If only the Jorge's of the English-speaking post-Hank Morris World knew what havoc they've caused. It's they, not Darwin, that allow one to be "an intellectually-fulfilled Atheist."

K54

[whag]

I've noticed a trend among certain YECs, including at least one placard at Ken Ham’s Creation "Museum," to claim that creation was perfect before we mucked it all up. IMHO, this notion seems incredibly anti-Scriptural. God either describes elements of creation as being “good” (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) or creation as a whole as “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Nowhere does God describe creation as being “perfect.” There is a Hebrew word for perfect (tawmiym) and if that was what was meant it would have been used. A strong hint that the creation wasn't perfect is the existence of the "cunning" serpent, which tempted Eve, in Eden before the Fall in the first place. In a “perfect” creation no such creature would or could have existed.

Further, in Gen. 2:18 God states that it isn't good that Adam should be alone, which is the first time God declares that the creation wasn't good and is well before the Fall.

Playing the devils advocate: Young earthers might reply by asking what part of the creation is "good"? Is the beauty of radiant perfume-y flowers balanced out by stinkflowers and plants that drown prey? Good seems subjective. They might also question whether God would declare an ugly-free earth as "perfect," since only God meets that descriptor. Even a pain-free earth would be inhabited by humans with less-than-perfect intellects, for example. Presumably they would possess less-than-perfect eyes that can only see visible light.

[rogue06]

I've been down this road with you before (several times, actually) ... you didn't listen/learn then and I have no reason to believe that you will listen/learn now. But I will spare you a minute or two, just so that you don't go off on another one of your accusations that "Jorge never answers".

Of those several-thousand-plus times when 'yom' appears in the OT, every time that 'yom' is associated with a number and/or with morning and evening, it refers to a literal day ("24 hours"). Did you get that? EVERY TIME! And people like you NEVER question that fact. Yet, in Genesis 1-2, you cannot accept that rule. Why is that? Hebrew contains other words for measures of times to indicate periods or something other than a literal day. If it were true that the days in Genesis 1-2 were 'not' literal days then why weren't any of these other time-measure words used? Answer that (with honesty!) before proceeding.

The entire "every time that 'yom' is associated with a number and/or with morning and evening, it refers to a literal day ("24 hours")" is a made up rule concocted in modern times being completely foreign to the ancient Hebrews (in fact AFAICT, Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule).

Moreover as we can see in Zech. 14:7 is a false one. There “yom” is used with a number ("yom echad" -- usually translated "a unique day," but identical to "day one," "one day" or "the first day" of Genesis 1:5) AND with “evening.” Even AnswersinGenesis (AiG) recognizes this as an exception though they continue to teach the claptrap that you spouted above.

Zech. 14 describes "the Day of the Lord". This phrase is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to a future period of judgment at the Lord's return, not a literal 24-hour day. In the Zech. 14 context, it seems to include the Lord's judgment at His return to earth and also His subsequent Millennial reign (cf. Zech. 14:9). So according to context, this "Day of the Lord" is about a thousand years long (sort of bringing up what is mentioned in Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8).

Another exception can be seen in Hosea 6:2 where we read that "after two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us." Hugh Ross states that "for centuries Bible commentators have noted that the "days" in this passage (where the ordinal is used) refer to a year, years, a thousand years, or maybe more." Ross seems to support the concept that it means a thousand years but most commentaries that I've read appear to indicate that it means a relatively short period of time. The point being that once again we have "yom" being used with a number and it does not mean literal days.

And yet another apparent exception to the rule made up by YECs appears to be found in I Samuel 9:20 when Samuel speaks to Saul about the donkeys that were lost "three days ago." It seems obvious that Samuel isn't meaning three days in the literal sense but as a way of saying "recently" or a "short time" since Saul had already searched the hill country of Ephraim, the land of Shalishah, the land of Shaalim, the land of Benjamin and finally the land of Zuph for the lost donkeys. So once again we have an instance where "yom" is associated with a number and it is not referring "to a literal day ("24 hours")."

Finally, in Isaiah 9:14 the expression "one day" or "single day" is exactly the same ("yom echad") in Hebrew as the one often translated as "the first day" in Genesis 1.5 and once again it is here not necessarily referring "to a literal day ("24 hours")" but rather is meant figuratively.

As an aside, even in the creation account itself the word "yom" is used to indicate more than a single day as can be seen in Gen. 2:4 where it is used to describe the entire creation process.

[rogue06]

Playing the devils advocate: Young earthers might reply by asking what part of the creation is "good"? Is the beauty of radiant perfume-y flowers balanced out by stinkflowers and plants that drown prey? Good seems subjective. They might also question whether God would declare an ugly-free earth as "perfect," since only God meets that descriptor. Even a pain-free earth would be inhabited by humans with less-than-perfect intellects, for example. Presumably they would possess less-than-perfect eyes that can only see visible light.

By "good" or even "very good" it seems probable that this means "very good" for attaining God's goals for the creation, especially for mankind. For instance, when Paul says in Romans 8:28 that, "in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose,” obviously "good" doesn't mean an absence of death, suffering, or pain because these do occur for those who love God. Instead, "good" here means good for accomplishing God's goals for us, both in this life and the hereafter.

IOW, "good" here could mean it is adequate for an assigned purpose. Further, theologically speaking, it may also speak of the absence of sin from God’s original creation. Sin was the result of rebellion, not creation.

[whag]

By "good" or even "very good" it seems probable that this means "very good" for attaining God's goals for the creation, especially for mankind. For instance, when Paul says in Romans 8:28 that, "in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose,” obviously "good" doesn't mean an absence of death, suffering, or pain because these do occur for those who love God. Instead, "good" here means good for accomplishing God's goals for us, both in this life and the hereafter.

In that case, wouldn't perfect also describe the environment if all that's required is an environment conducive to completing God's goals? The YEC might ask what extra factor(s) would have made it perfect and not merely good.

IOW, "good" here could mean it is adequate for an assigned purpose. Further, theologically speaking, it may also speak of the absence of sin from God’s original creation. Sin was the result of rebellion, not creation.

To clarify, what other things would have made the environment perfect for those goals to be achieved rather than merely adequate?

[klaus54]

In that case, wouldn't perfect also describe the environment if all that's required is an environment conducive to completing God's goals? The YEC might ask what extra factor(s) would have made it perfect and not merely good.



To clarify, what other things would have made the environment perfect for those goals to be achieved rather than merely adequate?

Actually, I don't have the foggiest idea what "perfect' would mean in the context of creation, and I seriously doubt YECs will come up with a consistent answer. And I don't even know what "perfect" means in today's world. Your "perfect" food (or mate, or vacation spot, etc.) is likely different than my "perfect" food (or mate, or vacation spot, etc.)

I've been curious that had creation not "fallen", putatively causing animal death to enter the world, would we exist today? Without human death the world in 6000 years would contain something like 10^50 people. If people had limited their "fruitfulness" to avoid running out of surface area, I doubt I would have ever been born. Any YEC wanna tackle this inconvenient little observation?

Such explanation would necessarily be part of a consistent YEC creation model.

Santa

[whag]

Actually, I don't have the foggiest idea what "perfect' would mean in the context of creation, and I seriously doubt YECs will come up with a consistent answer. And I don't even know what "perfect" means in today's world. Your "perfect" food (or mate, or vacation spot, etc.) is likely different than my "perfect" food (or mate, or vacation spot, etc.)

I've been curious that had creation not "fallen", putatively causing animal death to enter the world, would we exist today? Without human death the world in 6000 years would contain something like 10^50 people. If people had limited their "fruitfulness" to avoid running out of surface area, I doubt I would have ever been born. Any YEC wanna tackle this inconvenient little observation?

Such explanation would necessarily be part of a consistent YEC creation model.

Santa

All theologies have their difficulties.YECs wouldn't be YECs unless they had good reason to be wary. If it made Darwin distressed, I can in a small way sympathize with their distress. Maybe they're just sensitive.

Darwin was an sensitive chap. He was no Ted Nugent.

[klaus54]

All theologies have their difficulties.YECs wouldn't be YECs unless they had good reason to be wary. If it made Darwin distressed, I can in a small way sympathize with their distress. Maybe they're just sensitive.

Darwin was an sensitive chap. He was no Ted Nugent.

But any philosophy/theology should be as parsimonious as possible, I see YEC "science"/theology as wildly variant and full of unsupported and undefinable presuppositions. "Perfect" is a perfect (LOL) example. Not only is the Hebrew term not mentioned in the Genesis stories, but they (nor I) have no consistent idea of what it would mean.

Jorge bristles at the notion that YEC "science" requires non-scriptural miracles thrown in when necessary, but that's exactly appears to be what they do -- not only with the myriad of science anomalies but also with an undefined and non-scriptural term like "perfect".

[whag]

But any philosophy/theology should be as parsimonious as possible, I see YEC "science"/theology as wildly variant and full of unsupported and undefinable presuppositions. "Perfect" is a perfect (LOL) example. Not only is the Hebrew term not mentioned in the Genesis stories, but they (nor I) have no consistent idea of what it would mean.

Jorge bristles at the notion that YEC "science" requires non-scriptural miracles thrown in when necessary, but that's exactly appears to be what they do -- not only with the myriad of science anomalies but also with an undefined and non-scriptural term like "perfect".

What I meant to say is that they're struggling with facts that bugged Darwin, such as dysteleology (although Darwin's example of the wasp is tame in comparison to discoveries since then). I did not mean to make light of their activities.

BTW, I just realized Darwin was kind of a Ted Nugent. Didn't he kill tortoises?

[klaus54]

Dysteleology definitely generates theodicies that are easily solved by the YEC by placing all the blame for the anthropomorphic nastiness of nature on the Man and Woman's eating of the forbidden fruit. Which when you think about it is about the worst theodicy imaginable, but somehow they don't seem to realize that. But Fundy atheists will use that same nastiness of nature and lack of "perfection" in their theodicy, kinda like making a Strawman of the YEC position to dismiss any notion of transcendence and teleology. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'd rather just look at the facts of nature and their natural explanations and look at the Genesis stories not as a science text and a simplistic notion of the "fall" of nature for explaining carnivores, etc.

People all across the theological spectrum have an anthropomorphic of "niceness" which I suppose is an artifact of paleo-culture and the development of a complex social structure that shuns selfishness in favor of some variety of altruism. Nature is not altruistic -- it just "works". A wasp laying its eggs inside a live spider is just the way it survives as does a lion goring a wildebeest or a mama birdie feeding live worms to her young, or Ted Nuygent shooting a deer for meat. These are all neither "good" nor "bad" from a philosophical view -- unless one has a presupposition of how nature should have worked without death.

[klaus54]

Anyway, I'd like to concentrate on the scientific evidence for YEC and keep the theological issue as a minor point. As far as theology and Scripture interpretation, I'd like to see an unambiguous "interpretation" that's not an interpretation, i.e., supporting the plain-simple-straightforward reading that they purport to have but rarely seem to agree upon.

[Wally]

Apparently, Fox is doing a YEC version of "Cosmos"

https://soundcloud.com/rockymountain...bad-smash-rock

At'l learn em.

[Cerebrum123]

Apparently, Fox is doing a YEC version of "Cosmos"

https://soundcloud.com/rockymountain...bad-smash-rock

At'l learn em.

Yeah, right, given that Fox is the one that aired "Cosmos" in the first place.