Consilient YEC evidence

[klaus54]

This thread is for YECs to present their best (or any for that matter) evidence for Earth and the Cosmos being only 6,000 - 10,000 years old. Try to present evidence that is concordant with other evidence. That is give evidence that is "consilient", a term made popular in the 1980s by E.O. Wilson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

[Truthseeker]

But we have several theories for how the universe began and evolved. For example, inflation theories and non-inflation theories. Einstein's General Relativity and modifications thereof.

Consider: If there was indeed inflation shortly after the Big Bang, someone who didn't have a theory of inflation might think the universe is much older than it really is
after retro-projecting from a time when inflation was more-or-less complete. Might that not suggest a reason why the earth appears so old?

It's not so much evidence that YECs need, they need a theory that would explain what we think we know.

[Daniel7:14]

I was wondering if there was any indication how long Adam and Eve were in their state of perfection, prior to their disobedience, time wise? Weren't Adam's years only "counted" once he fell and was removed from the Garden? I was also wondering what the "cost" of the fall was to all things created? Was "age" then applied to all of Creation? Death had passed upon all things, so.....would "things" had to have respective "age" placed upon them, indicative of how long it had been since they were first created?

I am only asking here.

I saw a Non-Sequitur cartoon in the paper this past week. It portrayed Eve talking with Adam, about killing off the dinosaurs, then made the remark about YE (biblical) proponents not being able to reconcile the demise of the dinosaurs with a 6/7000 year time frame. I thought that there was a "Flood"....

Bless

[rogue06]

[klaus54]

But we have several theories for how the universe began and evolved. For example, inflation theories and non-inflation theories. Einstein's General Relativity and modifications thereof.

Consider: If there was indeed inflation shortly after the Big Bang, someone who didn't have a theory of inflation might think the universe is much older than it really is
after retro-projecting from a time when inflation was more-or-less complete. Might that not suggest a reason why the earth appears so old?

It's not so much evidence that YECs need, they need a theory that would explain what we think we know.

Of course an alternate theory has to explain data that the theory it purports to replace already does (and even more heuristically -- the trademark of a good scientific theory.)

The Inflationary Hypothesis deals with (very very short interval of time, something like 10^11 Planck Times) when the universe expanded at superluminal velocities but since then the Universe has expanded at subluminal rates. So this would not explain how the observable universe appears to be 13.7 Ga if it were really 10Ka.

Also, you need to have a theory that explains not only the deep time of the universe but the deep time of the geological history of Earth. And even more difficult is the appearance of history -- multiple events -- new star systems, supernovae, planet formation, etc.

So, YE needs a theory for explain as that history.

[klaus54]

I was wondering if there was any indication how long Adam and Eve were in their state of perfection, prior to their disobedience, time wise? Weren't Adam's years only "counted" once he fell and was removed from the Garden? I was also wondering what the "cost" of the fall was to all things created? Was "age" then applied to all of Creation? Death had passed upon all things, so.....would "things" had to have respective "age" placed upon them, indicative of how long it had been since they were first created?

I am only asking here.

I saw a Non-Sequitur cartoon in the paper this past week. It portrayed Eve talking with Adam, about killing off the dinosaurs, then made the remark about YE (biblical) proponents not being able to reconcile the demise of the dinosaurs with a 6/7000 year time frame. I thought that there was a "Flood"....

Bless

Point of information: The Woman wasn't named "Eve" until after the Fall. Not sure about "perfection" -- what does that mean in physical terms -- the laws of nature. Is there a Hebrew word that translates to the English notion of "perfection"? Was the entire Earth in this "perfect" state? If so why was there a garden that the Man and Woman were tossed out of into an "imperfect" world.

Again, there is more than deep time that needs to be explained by a consilient YE theory. There is also a complex astronomical, geological, and genetic history to be included in the theory if it is to "scientific" in the methodological sense of the term.

[klaus54]

Oh, and by "consilience" here I mean at least somewhat of an agreement on large-scale aspects of the theory. A hodge-podge of conjectures that don't fit together well doesn't fill the bill.

You can always throw in a miracle here and there to patch things together, but that's not scientific in the modern sense -- and most importantly you would all have to agree on what things are miracles and what things are "natural" (of course if God is the Creator then the natural processes we observe are all part of Creation.)

My impression of YECs is that they believe that the Genesis stories, simply read as would a child, give an accurate (even in the modern scientific sense) account of the creation and early history of the cosmos and Earth and humanity. If y'all can't come to an agreement as to what should be plain, simple, and obvious, then I hope you realize you are at an impasse.

[rogue06]

Point of information: The Woman wasn't named "Eve" until after the Fall. Not sure about "perfection" -- what does that mean in physical terms -- the laws of nature. Is there a Hebrew word that translates to the English notion of "perfection"? Was the entire Earth in this "perfect" state? If so why was there a garden that the Man and Woman were tossed out of into an "imperfect" world.

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.

[Jorge]

This thread is for YECs to present their best (or any for that matter) evidence for Earth and the Cosmos being only 6,000 - 10,000 years old. Try to present evidence that is concordant with other evidence. That is give evidence that is "consilient", a term made popular in the 1980s by E.O. Wilson.

LATER ADDED :

Oh, and by "consilience" here I mean at least somewhat of an agreement on large-scale aspects of the theory. A hodge-podge of conjectures that don't fit together well doesn't fill the bill.

You can always throw in a miracle here and there to patch things together, but that's not scientific in the modern sense -- and most importantly you would all have to agree on what things are miracles and what things are "natural" (of course if God is the Creator then the natural processes we observe are all part of Creation.)

My impression of YECs is that they believe that the Genesis stories, simply read as would a child, give an accurate (even in the modern scientific sense) account of the creation and early history of the cosmos and Earth and humanity. If y'all can't come to an agreement as to what should be plain, simple, and obvious, then I hope you realize you are at an impasse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

Other than to point out just one of the glaring errors that you make - errors shared by most of people like-minded as yourself - I won't be wasting any time here. One of those errors is highlighted above (there are others).

You say, "...throwing in miracles here and there to patch things up...". Pot-kettle-black ... YOUR worldview doesn't do that, right? Look into your own eye and see the log, before trying to point out the speck in our eyes. That's not even taking into account that certain miracles are not "thrown in here and there" - they actually happened. Compare that with the "miracles" invoked by your worldview - both miraculous and totally imaginary. The only difference is that you and your kind take the liberty of referring to your "miracles" as "science".

That is about as much of a reply as your obviously-ignorant, obviously-biased post merits. Have a nice day.

Jorge

[seer]

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.

That is a good point rogue, I actually never thought of that before...

[klaus54]

Other than to point out just one of the glaring errors that you make - errors shared by most of people like-minded as yourself - I won't be wasting any time here. One of those errors is highlighted above (there are others).

You say, "...throwing in miracles here and there to patch things up...". Pot-kettle-black ... YOUR worldview doesn't do that, right? Look into your own eye and see the log, before trying to point out the speck in our eyes. That's not even taking into account that certain miracles are not "thrown in here and there" - they actually happened. Compare that with the "miracles" invoked by your worldview - both miraculous and totally imaginary. The only difference is that you and your kind take the liberty of referring to your "miracles" as "science".

That is about as much of a reply as your obviously-ignorant, obviously-biased post merits. Have a nice day.

Jorge

Interesting. Do you have a consilient theory of YE "Creation Science"? First I'd like to hear what version of a "literal" interpretation of the Genesis stories you advocate. Be precise with this and make certain it agrees with the "literal" interpretation of other YECs. Then you can delineate a consilient scientific YE theory -- i.e. one that accounts for ALL the cosmological, geological, and genetic evidence.

You've been the most vocal and strident of the YEC respondents to this thread, so I assume you have a consilient theory that includes a non-ambiguous Scripture interpretation that also agrees with your proposal for a theory of Creation Science. You can't simply criticize - you must also provide an alternate explanation.

Santa

[klaus54]

Jorge,

As one of a myriad of examples, how would cyclothems fit in with a consilient YE Creation theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclothems

[klaus54]

Jorge,

As a Scriptural example, what literal interpretation do you give to Genesis 2:7; "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."? In what literal sense did YHWH Elohim "form" Adam from the Adamah, and what is the literal interpretation of the LORD God "breathing"? Do you believe this is anthropomorphic, or does the LORD God have lungs and diaphragm?

I'm assuming there's only one "plain, straightforward, simple, obvious-even-to-a-child" reading of this verse. What is it?

[klaus54]

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.

One little detail that I was always curious about was the notion of "clean" and "unclean" critters that Noah was commanded to take on the Ark. The notion of "cleanness" wasn't given until the Mosaic Law purportedly over a millennium later.

And yes -- Good "tov" and Very Good "tov tov" --- not "tamiym". I looked up "tamiym". It implies "complete", "whole", "innocent", etc. It seems the writer of the first story would have used tamiym to describe a "finished" creation.

[klaus54]

¿Dónde está Jorge?

I was really hoping to hear an unambiguous reading of the Genesis stories that is also concordant with the existing scientific knowledge of the history of Earth and the cosmos.Since Jorge is so strident that my view (whatever he believes that is) is wrong I was sure he'd be able to regale us with his view of science and Scripture.