YEC part Trois

(407 Posts)
PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sun 12-May-13 09:15:49

So we're still going, perhaps not as YEC as originally, but there's some good debate still occurring! Can we link from previous again?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 12-May-13 23:36:16

Young Earth Creationism.

That the earth is 6000yrs old and dinosaurs were either around at the same time as early man, or that dinosaur bones were put there by god as a 'test' of human's faith.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 12-May-13 23:37:42

I'm not a young earth creationist btw.

EllieArroway Sun 12-May-13 23:57:07

Ellie school girl error there re God existing scenarios: In two out of the three choices God exists as well as not existing. Equal odds if you were employing simple probability, could you also do a Bayesian Probability Analysis?

No.

Exempting God from logic does not mean we should also exempt ourselves. That's your error.

We live in a universe where logic applies. You demonstrated that yourself by acknowledging that a paradox arose (there is no paradox if we exempt ourselves from logic along with God).

Whatever the logic or lack of that God himself is subject to - WE REMAIN subject to logic and must use it to determine his existence.

By exempting God, you have merely added another possibility to the question of his existence. Instead of simply exists/ does not exist you've added exists/doesn't at the same time.

We therefore use our logic to determine which is the most likely to be true.

Logically something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. This is impossible. So using our logic we have:

a) An existent God
b) A non-existent God
c) An impossible God.

Impossible = non-existent. Using logic on all three propositions, we have a greater probability of his non-existence.

No, I wouldn't try and use Bayes Theorem to determine the probability of God's existence. Bayes Theorem calculates probability based on evidence. So we have an immediate problem, don't we? What "evidence"?

And "evidence" put forward by Christians/theists for their God usually turns out not to be evidence at all. At best, it is highly contentious. Therefore, it is impossible to properly establish what is/isn't evidence in order to make BT work. You just end up with a biased number based entirely on whether the calculator thinks "nice things happening" equals one point for God. And so on.

Ellie it's why people use narrative (in the Bible) to inform about God. Since the narrative can show His hand in events, you see where He has been. Physically, as humans, we are tied up in the linearity of time, a spirit is not

I have read this three times and truly have no idea what you mean. What is a "spirit" - can you demonstrate that there's any such thing? What evidence do you have that the Bible is a reliable source of knowledge & that a universe creating entity had a hand in writing/inspiring it? It looks to me like that rather silly ramblings of very primitive people who thought that a bird crapping on someone's head was a portent of earth-shattering proportions.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 09:55:35

Snorbs Eternal truth remains the same, is constant. Or understanding of it develops over time and is refined.

This is as true for a Christian as any one else, we grow and refine our understanding as we progress in our walk with God and as this happens many find their faith is strengthened (I have found this for me).

Ellie Re. existing and non-existing at the same time consider Schroedinger's Cat.

Re. demonstrating spirit. One explanation I can give is as with Scientific Theory. It exists and doesn't exist in the physical realm. It is written down so exists physically (although not as an entity) but when people read it (and test it in life) and consider it true it exists in their thoughts and then the collective thoughts of those that believe it. Like Zeitgeist (spirit of age/time).

The Bible is similar, exist physical in that it is written and in people's thoughts. Except the truth in the Bible in eternal, timeless.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 09:56:37

^ Snorbs ^ that should be our understanding of it develops...

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 09:57:55

Ellie ^ that should be exists physically

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:05:28

Regarding the above points Paul said something that many interest you in Corinthians,

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (1 Co 2:12)

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. (1Co 2:14)

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:06:25

^ that should be may I'm trying to type faster than my fingers can go!

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:17:42

Ellie This may interest you:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 10:23:36

That the earth is 6000yrs old and dinosaurs were either around at the same time as early man, or that dinosaur bones were put there by god as a 'test' of human's faith.

Note also that Young Earth Creationism is a movement that is primarily a Christian thing. The majority of YEC believers are Christians plus a smattering of Jews. The concept has very little traction outside of these groups.

That's not to say that all Christians or all Jews believe in YEC of course. Many churches - eg the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican church etc - believe in Creationism (their god make the universe etc) but not Young Earth Creationism as they don't read the Bible that literally.

YEC almost always brings with it a rejection of evolution as an idea and envisage some vast conspiracy of scientists hell-bent on hiding the "evidence" of YEC and the "evidence" that they claim disproves evolution and cosmology.

Of course even if the YEC do manage to disprove evolution and cosmology - it's drastically unlikely given the mountain of evidence that supports these but let's just run with the idea for a moment - it still wouldn't demonstrate the Christian YEC is correct.

If you demonstrate that cosmology and evolution really do indicate an intelligent designer, how do you then work out which of the hundreds and hundreds of different creation myths is the correct one? A refutation of evolution is not evidence of creation by the Abrahamic god.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 10:28:53

I feel a bit as if I am going over old ground but here goes...

The documents contained within the bible were written in such away that both translation and interpretation were needed. these acts were carried out by people heavilly subject to bias. Even with the best intent and greatest belief in the world we cannot take the bible to be exctly word for word as God (or anyone) intended. Quoting bits is therefore a little counterproductive and easilly dismissed.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 10:34:13

On bible quotation, I'm sure I read on a thread t'other day that a poster's dad worked with someone who used a bible quote to support his point of view. Her dad took great pleasure in finding a quote that meant the opposite - and he always found one.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:44:41

Snorbs Evolution is a scientific theory that in itself is subject to change as we discover more about the world. It is not an eternal truth.

Interestingly what we are finding out with Epigenetics could fit more closely with a Biblical view of inheritance, incorporating the Old and New Covenant of the Bible (see YEC 2 thread for a brief discussion of this possibility).

Regarding YEC itself, I believe the Bible. I have no personal revelation yet of this myself as I have not tried to date the Bible, from what I have taken in from what people say on this subject, it sounds plausible.

Januarymadness regarding the language and translation. Because language is a living thing (not dead or fixed) in that meanings change over time and from community to community, translations, various editions, reflect this. Likewise, the Bible is described as a the Living Word. In understanding it you are engaging with the Holy Spirit, who revels to you the meaning through personal revelation. Revelation is not static, it builds on personal understanding which grows and is refined.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:50:13

Sabriba Yes you did, it was the thread re. God punishing. This is what I said,

re. You Dad's versus his colleague, I tend to think of the paradoxes as checks and balances. You have to look at each quotation in context, it is the reason that isolated bits of the Bible taken out of context can confuse. For me the answer is read more not less, then you get the balance. As I said you have to take the Bible in it's entirety.

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 10:51:22

^Sorry, Sabrina !

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 10:56:02

so in the future the commandments and rules could be different but you know they are right today. Oh come on...

Taking the bible as a guide. Fair enough.

Taking it litterally, word for word while recognising that it has and will change is just absurd.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 11:15:48

I think, going right back to the beginning of the YEC 2 thread, there was a link to an interview with Wendy Wright and Dawkins. It's an hour long, but can be summarised by Dawkins asking WW to look at the (huge amounts of) evidence for evolution, and WW dismissing him.

What is telling though, is that she seems to fear a world where human beings evolved through natural selection. In her eyes, a world where humans weren't each created by god, in his image, is a world where human beings are devalued in some way. Needless to sya, I totally disagree with this. But, even to the majority of christians, YEC isn't the only way christians can believe that they were created by god - the majority of christians (in the UK anyway) seem to be able to reconcile god as a creator, and evolution as a scientific theory without too much trouble. They certainly seem to be able to reconcile their religious beliefs with the fact that all the scientific evidence points to the earth being far, far older than 6000 years.

But WW and her crew want to "teach the controversy" and for creationism/ intelligent design taught in school science lessons alongside evolution -and (I love this) to let the children make up their own minds. This is dangerous, because 1. In some parts of the US they are getting their way and 2. creationism is absolutely not on a par with evolution - as snorbs said it enters into the realms of conspiracy theory and I don't think conspiracy theories should be taught as fact in school. Especially not in science lessons.

Penn and Teller's take on creationism being taught in schools in Georgia

infamouspoo Mon 13-May-13 11:30:14

marking place for when I get a decent signal

daftdame Mon 13-May-13 11:32:43

Januarymadness That is not what I meant to say..I think some of what I'm saying is getting lost in translation for you. But then we don't have the same spirit grin. Eternal truth is eternal, it is our understanding of that is the variable

Sabrina What do you think of Epigenetics with regard to Biblical inheritance (Old and New Covenant). Btw way I think evolution can be taught as as scientific theory. However we've already moved on from Darwin re. the Epigenetics. Scientific theory as Snorbs pointed out is subject to change.

For me the Bible is eternal truth, I say that in faith. Don't worry about the faith aspect, it can't be taught though - it is a choice.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 11:42:34

it is not getting lost in translation it just makes no sense. A litteral interpretation of the bible is impossible because of the changing language. Therefore using direct quotes to represent utter truth is sensless.

I can understand using general principles (although improbable) they are more likely to withstand interpretation and translation.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 11:43:57

and who gets to judge what interpretation is the right one?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 11:44:02

We've "moved on from Darwin" have we? hmm

Sorry, didn't realise this was your thread. Some of us might actually want to talk about YEC and Darwin.

Januarymadness Mon 13-May-13 11:50:12

is anyone still around to discuss gravitational time dialation (I promise I am not being sarcastic) I have been doing a bit of reading and I would like to see if I have interpreted the basic concept right and Best, if you are around I would like to see if I am getting your interpretation of it correct.

Snorbs Mon 13-May-13 11:51:18

Interestingly what we are finding out with Epigenetics could fit more closely with a Biblical view of inheritance, incorporating the Old and New Covenant of the Bible

daftdame I know you made that claim in the previous thread but I don't recall you posting anything that actually backed it up. From what little I know about epigenetics I understand that it means there can be differences in gene expression that don't come solely from the DNA itself but can also be influenced by some of the surrounding supporting structures.

How does that "fit more closely with a Biblical view of inheritance"? Or have I misunderstood what epigenetics actually is?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 13-May-13 11:51:19

To answer your question, though I don't think epigenetics has anything to do with the bible, or biblical inheritance. Nothing. And that is putting it as politely as I can.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now