Thoughts on the Young Earth theory

[Andara Bledin]

As far as I know, the whole "God created the universe" is more of a why and doesn't really go into the how. That's where science comes in.

YECs drive me nuts. According to them, anything that they, personally, don't know isn't verifiable. Nevermind the fact that anything they actually do know is subject to precisely the same exact potential for misdirection as those things which are historical or otherwise predate man.

They're self-deluded hypocrites who have to lie to themselves to mask their own inability to handle the cognitive dissonance of their truth failing to align with observable and observed reality.

[siead_lietrathua]

They're self-deluded hypocrites who have to lie to themselves to mask their own inability to handle the cognitive dissonance of their truth failing to align with observable and observed reality.

it's worse than that. the ones in the leadership roles all seem to be intentional liars. and they feed of a devout congregation that has been convinced that anything that contradicts them is lies from satan or tests from god. it's a cult. and the poor kids that are getting homeschooled that this shit is true are the ones that will suffer in the long run

[KabeRinnaul]

i'm assuming this was sarcasm... but i want to address it like it's real.

It's sarcasm, and a reference.

In the Spider-Man storyline "One More Day", a key plot point is Peter Parker literally making a deal with the devil. The story is almost universally despised, not only for being a massive unwanted retcon that destroyed years of character development for, essentially, marketing purposes (which were of dubious merit to begin with); but also for poor writing and a number of perceived plot holes. Writer and editor Joe Quesada once infamously responded to complaints of the latter with "It's magic, we don't have to explain it."

In response, comic book reviewer Lewis "Linkara" Lovhaug turned "It's magic, I don't have to explain it" into a long-running meme in his web series.

[Seshat]

Last time, I questioned evolution.

This time, I question the Young Earth Theory. It states that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, because that is when God created the Universe.

If you're looking for someone to argue in favour of Young Earth, I think you're looking in the wrong place.

[Gilhelmi]

Oh, I am not. I just really do not want people lumping me in with the young earthers.

OT:
I remembered a way I look at Genesis.

A mommy and daddy love each other very much. When they hug in a special way, a baby is born.

Is that a lie? No, it was an overly simplistic way of telling the inquisitive 3 year old where babies come from.

The ancient Hebrews did not have the word or basic concepts for how God created the Universe. They did not know about the Theory of Quantum Physics or the concept of Gravity. So how does God describe the creation of the Universe? By simplifying it down to their level, and letting them learn more and grow into the full understanding and knowledge.

[siead_lietrathua]

So how does God describe the creation of the Universe? By simplifying it down to their level, and letting them learn more and grow into the full understanding and knowledge.

i don't know. some part of me thinks there would be ways to describe it as it actually would have happened, but still dumbed down, if a god wanted to give an account that would only be confirmed as time went on, and not outright disproved.

such as:

"in the beginning there were gods overseeing the void of the sky. these gods created light, and the light expanded to fill the void with stars and suns. then the gods spake, and created the earth, moon, and other bodies of the sky, and they were of of formless fire.
then the gods spake, and the fires cooled to stone. as the stone cooled, steam rose above the rocks and created a barrier between the stone and the sky, and this the gods created air. some of the steam settled back unto the earth, and thus the gods formed the rivers and lakes. and the gods spake motion into the light and the stones, and that motion began time and seasons. and thus the gods created all we see in the skies.

then the gods spake, and life began in the waters, and changed and multiplied until it grew over the earth. the life divided, and became the flora and the fauna at the gods commands. and so the gods created all we see upon the earth.
the gods spake unto the fauna and grew from it Mankind, whom the gods desired to be of their own minds. so the gods gave mankind logic, and reason, and then fucked it up with imagination just for fun."

ok, i'm kidding in that last sentence of course. but it's not too hard to make a simple, understandable creation myth that is also fairly accurate. which is why i find it hard to believe that omniscient gods would not know their words would eventually come under fire and try to make it at least semi accurate.

[Hyena Dandy]

I get frustrated when people take an all-or-nothing approach to biblical exegesis. Either one takes everything directly literally, or you're 'picking and choosing,' which really clouds over the fact that the choices are, indeed, BASED on something. It's not just "I like this, I don't like this." It's creating a structure, by which one might figure something out.

For example, someone could say "The Bible is God's word, and thus perfect. The world is God's creation, and thus perfect. Both being perfect, they cannot contradict each-other. I am human, and thus, not perfect. So, if I see something in the Bible, that seems to contradict creation, I must have made a mistake in interpreting one or the other. Now, perhaps this means I've misinterpreted the scientific data, but since most everyone whose job is looking at that data has interpreted it the same way, that seems less likely than that I misinterpreted the Bible, which plenty of people see different interpretations of."

Using that reasoning to come to an interpretation that that section of the Bible isn't meant to be seen as a literal description of the beginning of the universe, isn't 'not taking the bible seriously.' It's interpreting it differently, but not 'less seriously.'

[siead_lietrathua]

i think people care less about the pick-and-choose method for personal philosophy. the issue with pick-and-choose creation comes up when people are trying to Prove that it happened.
to be able to prove something happened, (generic) you cannot just assert it as fact, and say that it is fact until someone disproves it. that's not how it works.
for example, if someone wants to say god used evolution to create humans. ok, then they need to prove how they know a god used evolution, and how you would be able to tell the difference if god did not direct evolution. every time i see this question posed though, the creationist answer inevitably boils down to either "the bible says god did it so god did it" (circular reasoning), or "you can't prove it's not true" (shifting burden of proof). neither actually demonstrate their point.

people joke about the flying spaghetti monster when it comes to this pick-and-choose stuff. but it's a fairly accurate comparison. when people start treating assertions of god as though they were proven fact, then others should be able to show how things like FSM have as much validity as any of their assertions.

[TheHuckster]

i think people care less about the pick-and-choose method for personal philosophy. the issue with pick-and-choose creation comes up when people are trying to Prove that it happened.
to be able to prove something happened, (generic) you cannot just assert it as fact, and say that it is fact until someone disproves it. that's not how it works.
for example, if someone wants to say god used evolution to create humans. ok, then they need to prove how they know a god used evolution, and how you would be able to tell the difference if god did not direct evolution. every time i see this question posed though, the creationist answer inevitably boils down to either "the bible says god did it so god did it" (circular reasoning), or "you can't prove it's not true" (shifting burden of proof). neither actually demonstrate their point.

That's where faith comes in. I know you don't believe it, and I know you've ridiculed/pitied/etc people for it, but when it comes to people's faith it's appropriately out of the realm of science and is more of a personal spiritual issue than a scientific "show me the evidence/proof" issue.

I just wish more people on the religious side understood that a little more and stopped making it such a public spectacle, demonizing the other side(s), when it really should be a private matter and only discussed among those who actually want to discuss it.

[siead_lietrathua]

That's where faith comes in. I know you don't believe it, and I know you've ridiculed/pitied/etc people for it, but when it comes to people's faith it's appropriately out of the realm of science and is more of a personal spiritual issue than a scientific "show me the evidence/proof" issue

i don't care if people have faith, frankly having faith in some things, like say the good of overall humanity, is a good thing. i may mock people for irrational beliefs, sure. but again, if someone wants to believe the earth is only 6000 years old, or that we are full of thetians, or Jews are from space, then that lack of rationality is something even non-literal creationists would (and do) mock.

the problem is that there are groups of people that do not see it as a "personal spiritual issue". they want to teach it as science, specifically in classrooms. which means the creationists are bringing their stuff to the scientific table, and need to be able to meet the standards in place. if they kept creation to the religion/philosophy classes there would not be this clash going on.

[TheHuckster]

the problem is that there are groups of people that do not see it as a "personal spiritual issue". they want to teach it as science, specifically in classrooms. which means the creationists are bringing their stuff to the scientific table, and need to be able to meet the standards in place. if they kept creation to the religion/philosophy classes there would not be this clash going on.

I agree with that, and it's very frustrating when people try to bring an unprovable concept to a subject that relies on a method for proving theories.

[siead_lietrathua]

I agree with that, and it's very frustrating when people try to bring an unprovable concept to a subject that relies on a method for proving theories.

exactly. and it would be just as illogical for science to try and go into the religion turf. you can't prove or disprove things that are supernatural unless they effect this world. and since there are no testable effects on this world, science moves onto shit it can actually study

[s_stabeler]

yeah- when you try to introduce a religious element into science- and intelligent design/creationism both introduce a religious element- ID has whoever designed humans, creationism has God- it's flat wrong. However, when it comes to religion, the same actually applies in reverse. Can God be scientifically proven? No, and will never be. (not least because it's like the old philosophical question of if you could tell if life was a simulation running on someone's computer)

[Seshat]

Which is one of the reasons scientists don't try to answer religious questions.

The other reason is simple: give me a hypothesis that fits scientific method, and I can start to do science on it. Harder than it sounds, when it comes to stuff like the existence (or lack thereof) of God.


This is why I'm firmly agnostic, NOT atheist. An atheist believes there is no god. An agnostic doesn't know.


I lack the data, the evidence, to know whether God (Allah, Jehovah), Buddha, the pantheons of the First Nations, the pantheons of the First Australians, the pantheons of anyone else .... I don't have the data to tell whether or not any or all or none of the above exist.
Maybe they're all facets of some Great Unknowable Deity. Maybe only one of them exists and is One True God who will strike down all who do not believe in Him and only Him. Maybe there's nothing and it's all entirely random chance.

I don't know. I have no data.

I do have some perceptions - feelings that happen when I meditate, sensations I can perceive which science has no answers for, but which fit the descriptions of 'auras', a deep sense of peace which once struck me in a church, another similar sensation at an old stone sacred to the First Australians.
Since those perceptions cannot be considered objective, I cannot apply scientific method to them. So I don't try. I just ... have them. And treat them as a part of my life experience, and think my own private thoughts about them.
... and occasionally study comparitive religion, spirituality and philosophy, where I can compare my 'strange perceptions' to the reports of similar perceptions from other people.

[mjr]

I think, as a Christian, I've reconciled my religious beliefs with science quite nicely, as they relate to this particular topic.

For the record, I do believe that the observable universe is 14 some-odd billion years old (and may in fact be MUCH older), and that the earth is 4 some-odd billion years old.

That said, I do believe that it was created by God.

I saw a pretty interesting site about this once. I know a lot of people will discredit it, but the site was godandscience.org

I think it was probably more of an illustration about how God and science could (and should) exist together.

I did read somewhere, too, that if all of the life on earth were mentioned (i.e. dinosaurs, bacteria, etc) that the Genesis account itself would be about the length of the Bible.