Young Earth Frustration

[_GR33N]

Respectfully, I submit that, based on science, YEC is a load of crap. Thanks.

Your inability to understand it doesn't make the YEC theory invalid.

[_keithb]

Respectfully, I submit that, based on science, YEC is a load of crap. Thanks.

Your inability to understand it doesn't make the YEC theory invalid.

By that same logic, you inability to read Tarot cards would also not make that theory invalid.

However,what part of the theory am I misunderstanding? I took the assumption of the speed of light changing while the other physical laws of the universe remained constant (which I understand is but one of the assumptions made in the YEC theories) and examined the consequences of such a claim. Do you have anything more than a one sentence quip to refute my post?

If not, then I don't think you're contributing much to this discussion.

[_Hoops]

One of the problems with ad hoc explanations like this is that they ..... ago.

The scientific problems with the sudden creation of the universe 6000 years ago would be even more numerous.

thanks for the post, Keith. You spent a lot of time on it and I learned a lot! I always do. But that's not the position I'm taking.

You'll remember when Jesus "created" the loafs of bread? He created those as fully "functioning" loafs of bread. Well, it would be easy to dismiss this from a purely scientific perspective. That is: the loafs could not be there for the people to eat because we know that wheat takes X number of months to grow, and even if one were to harvest the wheat immediately, we know it takes Y number hours/minutes for the bread to bake and cool and then be ready for consumption. But that's not how it happened. He created the bread (I'm using created loosely here, but I think it works for this discussion) in useable form. In fact, I would find it odd if Jesus had said, "Here, I'll create some loaves for you, but you have to give me a few months for the wheat to grow."

In this case, we know that light had already been created. And on the fourth day, light was placed in the sky to perform its function. I'm not sure why it's any less plausible for God to place light in space in it's already functioning form, then for Jesus to create bread. I don't think one could even make the case that this act of creation was less complicated (not that that matters). As you say, light behaves a certain way, but since it had already been created and is, thus, behaving that way (supposedly, but that's another argument) it would naturally follow that God would place it where it would continue to function as designed. Now, I don't know a lot about light or physics or such. I'm sure you know more. But doesn't light from space have some function in the universe? Doesn't it have some utility? I don't know, you tell me.


Now, from God's perspective (outside of time) we have a precedent (and there's more) of God using his creative powers to create something in its already fully functioning form. Of course, I fully expect you to cry foul, since I'm appealing to the supernatural explanation. But, I think, that is a reasonable appeal, since my entire argument rests on the possibility of supernatural action.

[_keithb]

One of the problems with ad hoc explanations like this is that they ..... ago.

The scientific problems with the sudden creation of the universe 6000 years ago would be even more numerous.

thanks for the post, Keith. You spent a lot of time on it and I learned a lot! I always do. But that's not the position I'm taking.

You'll remember when Jesus "created" the loafs of bread? He created those as fully "functioning" loafs of bread. Well, it would be easy to dismiss this from a purely scientific perspective. That is: the loafs could not be there for the people to eat because we know that wheat takes X number of months to grow, and even if one were to harvest the wheat immediately, we know it takes Y number hours/minutes for the bread to bake and cool and then be ready for consumption. But that's not how it happened. He created the bread (I'm using created loosely here, but I think it works for this discussion) in useable form. In fact, I would find it odd if Jesus had said, "Here, I'll create some loaves for you, but you have to give me a few months for the wheat to grow."

In this case, we know that light had already been created. And on the fourth day, light was placed in the sky to perform its function. I'm not sure why it's any less plausible for God to place light in space in it's already functioning form, then for Jesus to create bread. I don't think one could even make the case that this act of creation was less complicated (not that that matters). As you say, light behaves a certain way, but since it had already been created and is, thus, behaving that way (supposedly, but that's another argument) it would naturally follow that God would place it where it would continue to function as designed. Now, I don't know a lot about light or physics or such. I'm sure you know more. But doesn't light from space have some function in the universe? Doesn't it have some utility? I don't know, you tell me.


Now, from God's perspective (outside of time) we have a precedent (and there's more) of God using his creative powers to create something in its already fully functioning form. Of course, I fully expect you to cry foul, since I'm appealing to the supernatural explanation. But, I think, that is a reasonable appeal, since my entire argument rests on the possibility of supernatural action.

Thank you for responding to my post.

I would like to point a few things out. First, I would argue that the problem with "miracles" is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in order to prove them. Lets switch to a slightly different scenario for a minute. Suppose that you had a friend that claimed that he had a visit from Jesus Christ last night and that he could now predict the stock market with 90% accuracy. Further suppose that your friend wanted you to invest most of your life savings in a trading company that he was starting as a consequence of this new power. Even though you know and trust your friend, wouldn't you want some kind of objective proof of his new found powers?

For me, it's something quite similar with the idea of YEC. Unlike the claim that there is a god(s) somewhere in the universe, the claim that the universe is 6000 years old is a directly testable proposition. If the universe was created in its current state 6000 years ago and if the laws of physics were temporarily changed to allow light to reach the earth rapidly as the YEC's suggest, the universe should bear overwhelming evidence of this having happened. But, there is no evidence of which I am aware and a lot of evidence to the contrary. So, I must reject the claims of the YEC's until they can come up with evidence in support of their position which yields a scientifically testable result, as I must the claims of a vast number of other supernatural claims.

As for the idea that god somehow changed the laws of physics to coverup these fingerprints and make it appear to humans that the universe is in fact billions of years old, I admit that there is really no way to prove or disprove that claim scientifically. However, I don't see that this claim yields any useful results. By the same argument, I could claim that Papa Smurf had created the universe 10 minutes ago and he used his magic to make it appear that the universe is billions of years old. That claim is equally unable to be proven or disproven, and I don't know that it gets us anywhere in terms of useful information about the universe in which we live.

Finally, I like the fact that you bring up the example of Jesus and the account of him dividing the loaves and fishes to feed the multitudes. If this were to happen today, under scientifically controlled conditions to make sure that an actual miracle was taking place, I would accept that as strong evidence of the supernatural. The fact that such events don't take placer (even though the Bible strongly suggests that they should) is indicative to me of evidence of absence with regard to supernatural claims.

[_Hoops]

I would like to point a few things out. First, I would argue that the problem with "miracles" is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Why? I don't think that necessarily follows. I would accuse you of game-rigging :) just as you will of me below.

in order to prove them.

I don't know that either one of us is proving anything. You are providing evidence for why you say the eart is what it is. All I have to do is show that your data doesn't violate a literal reading of Genesis. I think I've done that (at least in this narrow case). Of course, you might claim that i can always just appeal to a supernatural event - my game rigging. But that's not quite right. I have the advantage of allowing for the supernatural but the disadvantage of having it congruet with the text.

had a visit from Jesus Christ last night and that he could now predict the stock market with 90% accuracy. Further suppose that your friend wanted you to invest most of your life savings in a trading company that he was starting as a consequence of this new power. Even though you know and trust your friend, wouldn't you want some kind of objective proof of his new found powers?

I think Isee where your headed and I'll interact with your example (thoughj as a Christian, I find it incomprehensible). Yes, of course. But my friend also has witnesses of his power in the past. There's testimony on several fronts. etc. So my friends "powers" are not acquired in a vacuum.

[_Hoops]

As for the idea that god somehow changed the laws of physics to coverup these fingerprints and make it appear to humans that the universe is in fact billions of years old, I admit that there is really no way to prove or disprove that claim scientifically.

That's not what he's doing at all. He's given us Gen 1, and in it he clearly describes creation. And, one would argue that His fingerprints are all over the place. So I'm not buying your frustration. Additionaly, why is it that scientific evidence is the only evidence you accept? There's more and other kinds? But, perhaps because we are on a explicitly scientific subject - which is fair. Finally, wasn't it Einstein who used an ad hoc argument to explain something? I don't recall, perhaps you know. So an ad hoc argument is not by default bad, I would think.

However, I don't see that this claim yields any useful results. By the same argument, I could claim that Papa Smurf had created the universe 10 minutes ago and he used his magic to make it appear that the universe is billions of years old. That claim is equally unable to be proven or disproven, and I don't know that it gets us anywhere in terms of useful information about the universe in which we live.

Of course it is, when embracing the totality of the evidence, it certainly. These equivocations are frustrating to me. You know that they are not the same, and you make these silly analogies to lower the level of discourse.

Finally, I like the fact that you bring up the example of Jesus and the account of him dividing the loaves and fishes to feed the multitudes. If this were to happen today, under scientifically controlled conditions to make sure that an actual miracle was taking place, I would accept that as strong evidence of the supernatural.

That's fine. But, in fact, the Bible suggest no such thing. The Bible suggests te opposite.

[_Hoops]

There's something wrong wiht the posting function so I couldn't fit this on the other.

I would submit that you are asking me to provide "proof" of YEC/OEC/ID solely under the parameters you construct. In other words, you've set the rules so that there's no way we could win. Then turn away triumphantly. Let me add, the fact that science has no comment, let alone answers, for other questions that are just as important (possibly more so) could indicate that science has a competitor for supremacy. I'll give you an example: science can not anser love, hate, altruism, joy, etc. The speed of light is important, but is it more so than love?

[_GR33N]

However,what part of the theory am I misunderstanding? I took the assumption of the speed of light changing while the other physical laws of the universe remained constant (which I understand is but one of the assumptions made in the YEC theories) and examined the consequences of such a claim. Do you have anything more than a one sentence quip to refute my post?

The key, I believe is as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Maybe the problem is associating the young earth theory and the creation event together. Can they not be separate?

So the question is, can creation, biblical history (young earth theory), and old earth theory all be true at the same time. I believe they can.

Not knowing how long the "creation days" lasted we don't know how long the earth had been formed before Adam and Eve walked upon the earth. Time as we know it did not start until after Adam and Eve found themselves out of the Garden of Eden. Understanding that could satisfy the OEC and the YEC at the same time.

From another post:

Now, from God's perspective (outside of time) we have a precedent (and there's more) of God using his creative powers to create something in its already fully functioning form.

This got me thinking about the miracle of the Loaves and Fishes that Jesus performed. When we think about the word "creation" we think about making something out of nothing. But with this miracle and others it wasn't "created" out of nothing. There were already fishes and loaves. Just not enough. The word creation as we know is better defined as organized or formed. The miracle was that He "formed" or "organized" more or "expanded" the fishes and loaves from the existing ones that the Disciples had gathered by blessing it.

The earth creation, I believe, was much the same way. The earth was formed or organized from existing matter. Formed using the expansion of other "earth" .

[_keithb]

That's not what he's doing at all. He's given us Gen 1, and in it he clearly describes creation. And, one would argue that His fingerprints are all over the place. So I'm not buying your frustration.

You and I must have vastly different definitions of the word "clearly" as used above. I think that good evidence of this is the fact that two people can read Genesis 1 and come to vastly different conclusions about how the universe was formed (i.e. OEC and YEC camps).

Additionaly, why is it that scientific evidence is the only evidence you accept? There's more and other kinds? But, perhaps because we are on a explicitly scientific subject - which is fair. Finally, wasn't it Einstein who used an ad hoc argument to explain something? I don't recall, perhaps you know. So an ad hoc argument is not by default bad, I would think.

When your child gets sick, do you take him/her to a medical doctor or a shaman? When you want to go to work in the morning, do you drive there in your car, or do you pray for God to send a chariot from heaven to take you there? When you get robbed, do you call the police or turn to voodoo for vengance?

I think that, if you can answer these questions honestly, you will realize why I accept scientific and not supernatural evidence as the only form of valid evidence in life.

Of course it is, when embracing the totality of the evidence, it certainly. These equivocations are frustrating to me. You know that they are not the same, and you make these silly analogies to lower the level of discourse.

I have a deep and abiding faith in the power of Papa Smurf. YOU WILL NOT BLASPHEME MY BELIEFS OR SO HELP ME PAPA SMURF WILL SMURF YOU TO SMURF!!!!!!!!!

That's fine. But, in fact, the Bible suggest no such thing. The Bible suggests te opposite.

This is the reason why, again, when people are hungry, they go to Subway or McDonalds rather than knocking on Pres. Monson's door and asking him to divide his lunch pail into enough food to feed them for the next three weeks.

[_keithb]

There's something wrong wiht the posting function so I couldn't fit this on the other.

I would submit that you are asking me to provide "proof" of YEC/OEC/ID solely under the parameters you construct. In other words, you've set the rules so that there's no way we could win. Then turn away triumphantly. Let me add, the fact that science has no comment, let alone answers, for other questions that are just as important (possibly more so) could indicate that science has a competitor for supremacy. I'll give you an example: science can not anser love, hate, altruism, joy, etc. The speed of light is important, but is it more so than love?

There is ABSOLUTELY a way that you can win this argument.

Think about the implications of your YEC theory. Find a testable hypothesis where the evidence supports a YEC model of the age of the universe and does not support a Big Bang model of the universe. After careful analysis, write up a journal article about said hypothesis, along with supporting scientific data, and submit this to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Get this paper published, watch as subsequent papers confirm this new theory, and watch your scientific fame grows exponentially over the next few years.

Oh, by the way, evolutionary biologist and neurologist are starting to generate pretty good explanations for why people feel things like anger, love, etc. As to whether the speed of light is more important than love, that's like asking how long is a piece of string.
That's how you win an argument with me regarding YEC. It's very simple really.