Quick YEC Debunks

[Whateverist]

So RR and Alpha, are you YEC's? Or are you just arguing that those who are are justified?

[John V]

I am.

[RoadRunner79]

So RR and Alpha, are you YEC's?  Or are you just arguing that those who are are justified?

I am not a YEC.  I believe that the universe is ~14 billion years old.

[John V]

I accept RR as a Christian, and I daresay he accepts me as one. So, stars and distances don't seem to be stopping either side from believing.

In general, people believe or don't due to matters of the heart. They then use their head to justify their desired conclusion.

[RoadRunner79]

I accept RR as a Christian, and I daresay he accepts me as one. So, stars and distances don't seem to be stopping either side from believing.

In general, people believe or don't due to matters of the heart. They then use their head to justify their desired conclusion.

I believe you mentioned, and I am curious what do you think was flawed in my analogy?

[John V]

I believe you mentioned, and I am curious what do you think was flawed in my analogy?

The way that I've formed a question/thought experiment in the past, is that it is not just light of the stars, that we see, but a history. We see different things happening, we see stars dying.  So in essence, we have light that shows a star dying, that according to the young view never existed.  So it is possible, that God created the light in transit, so that we could see, just as it is possible, that God created Adam as a full adult.

Yep.

However, I have difficulty, in thinking, that he was created as an adult human, with a past, that never happened.  Memory of a childhood, or even parents, that never existed.

I agree. And, since I can accept an Adam being created at a later stage of what we now consider the normal life cycle - and I accept that that doesn't imply a history - I can likewise accept a star (or just its image) being created at a later stage of what we now consider the normal life cycle, and I don't need to infer a history from it's present state.

To me it's like you make the proper analogy, then just jump 180 degrees to the opposite conclusion.

[RoadRunner79]

I believe you mentioned, and I am curious what do you think was flawed in my analogy?

The way that I've formed a question/thought experiment in the past, is that it is not just light of the stars, that we see, but a history. We see different things happening, we see stars dying.  So in essence, we have light that shows a star dying, that according to the young view never existed.  So it is possible, that God created the light in transit, so that we could see, just as it is possible, that God created Adam as a full adult.

Yep.

However, I have difficulty, in thinking, that he was created as an adult human, with a past, that never happened.  Memory of a childhood, or even parents, that never existed.

I agree. And, since I can accept an Adam being created at a later stage of what we now consider the normal life cycle - and I accept that that doesn't imply a history - I can likewise accept a star (or just its image) being created at a later stage of what we now consider the normal life cycle, and I don't need to infer a history from it's present state.

To me it's like you make the proper analogy, then just jump 180 degrees to the opposite conclusion.

Would you agree, that the light is not just light (random photons), but that the light contains information (shows a history)?  I don't think that this is an inference.  And in some instances, the information contained in this light tells us about things that are no longer there (was never really there). For me, this would be similar to Adam having false memories (information) about parents that never existed.  In a lot of these arguments, they only focus on the light.  and for a number of those opposing, they are unwilling to consider an assumption that doesn't fit their view.  This is why I focus on the information, not just light.     It's not like there is a rock, that is traveling across space, and we falsely assume that it's motion can be traced back. 

It's not about an inference or assumptions being made (which could be wrong).  It's simply accepting (observation) of the information being given to us.   With this subject, you can go into a lot of depth, about the the evidence for an age of the earth, and of the universe.  And I do think that YEC can make some good points, which are not always addressed very well.   I also think that there are a number of things which YEC must ignore in order to hold that view.  For me, I think that you need to take all the information in, examine where assumptions may have been made, and come to the best conclusion.   While it's possible, that light could be created with false information, it's also possible, that text could be created with false information as well.  The other possibility that people often forget is that they could be wrong (in assumptions or interpretation).

[Angrboda]

It's also possible the world was made last Tuesday. This is stupid.

[John V]

Would you agree, that the light is not just light (random photons), but that the light contains information (shows a history)?  I don't think that this is an inference.  And in some instances, the information contained in this light tells us about things that are no longer there (was never really there). For me, this would be similar to Adam having false memories (information) about parents that never existed.  In a lot of these arguments, they only focus on the light.  and for a number of those opposing, they are unwilling to consider an assumption that doesn't fit their view.  This is why I focus on the information, not just light.     It's not like there is a rock, that is traveling across space, and we falsely assume that it's motion can be traced back. 

It's not about an inference or assumptions being made (which could be wrong).  It's simply accepting (observation) of the information being given to us.   With this subject, you can go into a lot of depth, about the the evidence for an age of the earth, and of the universe.  And I do think that YEC can make some good points, which are not always addressed very well.   I also think that there are a number of things which YEC must ignore in order to hold that view.  For me, I think that you need to take all the information in, examine where assumptions may have been made, and come to the best conclusion.   While it's possible, that light could be created with false information, it's also possible, that text could be created with false information as well.  The other possibility that people often forget is that they could be wrong (in assumptions or interpretation).

If God shows you what a dying star looks like, and you are able to deduce that the star didn't really exist, but rather God just gave you the image - why do you consider that information false? You've still seen what a dying star looks like, and can learn from that, or just be awed by it.

---

For me, I think that you need to take all the information in, examine where assumptions may have been made, and come to the best conclusion.  

The last bit was what I would say to an atheist. To a Christian I say: Jesus spoke as if Adam and Eve were real people and the flood was a historical event. The plain reading of the gospels is that he endorsed a plain reading of Genesis. That's good enough for me.

[RoadRunner79]

Would you agree, that the light is not just light (random photons), but that the light contains information (shows a history)?  I don't think that this is an inference.  And in some instances, the information contained in this light tells us about things that are no longer there (was never really there). For me, this would be similar to Adam having false memories (information) about parents that never existed.  In a lot of these arguments, they only focus on the light.  and for a number of those opposing, they are unwilling to consider an assumption that doesn't fit their view.  This is why I focus on the information, not just light.     It's not like there is a rock, that is traveling across space, and we falsely assume that it's motion can be traced back. 

It's not about an inference or assumptions being made (which could be wrong).  It's simply accepting (observation) of the information being given to us.   With this subject, you can go into a lot of depth, about the the evidence for an age of the earth, and of the universe.  And I do think that YEC can make some good points, which are not always addressed very well.   I also think that there are a number of things which YEC must ignore in order to hold that view.  For me, I think that you need to take all the information in, examine where assumptions may have been made, and come to the best conclusion.   While it's possible, that light could be created with false information, it's also possible, that text could be created with false information as well.  The other possibility that people often forget is that they could be wrong (in assumptions or interpretation).

If God shows you what a dying star looks like, and you are able to deduce that the star didn't really exist, but rather God just gave you the image - why do you consider that information false? You've still seen what a dying star looks like, and can learn from that, or just be awed by it.

---

For me, I think that you need to take all the information in, examine where assumptions may have been made, and come to the best conclusion.  

The last bit was what I would say to an atheist. To a Christian I say: Jesus spoke as if Adam and Eve were real people and the flood was a historical event. The plain reading of the gospels is that he endorsed a plain reading of Genesis. That's good enough for me.

The problem I have, is that any argument that you can make, I can make of the text.  Couldn't that just be an image of what it would be like? 
I don't deny the biblical accounts that you mention.  I also don't deny, what we can see.    There are very early commentaries in the Talmud, that say that the beginning of Genesis should be read as poetry.  There are those who where held in high regard in the early Christian Church, who said very similar and held to and old earth.  If anything, while there has long been a controversy in how to exactly read the first part of Genesis the young earth view is fairly recent.