A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

[Mock Turtle]

The reason is this: I take my Bible literally, which says that the earth is young. Yet evidence shows an old earth. So this is how I can reconcile those two things, rather than simply dismiss scientific evidence
I value to epistemic value of the Bible over man observed science.

So you tend to believe what was written long ago rather than the evidence presented to you today (and which you could verify if so inclined), and for which there is substantial evidence, because - you want to? Not a good decision, in my view.

 

[Yazata]

One could always imagine a narrative where his/her believes could "fit" with the evidence. But do you actually have a good reason to believe the above is correct?

Hi Appie, welcome to the board.

I think that the issue that the thread starter raised is skepticism. We are all skeptical about particular things and we typically try to determine the truth about the things that we question by consulting those things that we don't question. We look for evidence that might decide the question one way or another.

But what happens in a radical case where one questions everything? Philosophers have discussed that possibility since ancient times, we see it with the "evil demon" in Descartes' Meditations, we see it with recent "Brain in a Vat" thought experiments, and even in the movie The Matrix. The 'What if what we think is real life is just a dream?' ideas might date back to prehistoric times. It may or may not be implicit in some varieties of shamanism.

Bertrand Russell (famous atheist philosopher) used this idea when he suggested the possibility that the universe is only one second old, that it just popped into existence complete with all sorts of false "evidences" of a past that never happened. Physical evidences, memories, whatever, all false. He asked how we could ever know whether that possibility isn't what really happened.

And the thread starter suggested that young earth creationists could use this idea themselves. I thought that suggestion was rather smart.

To address the question that you asked, "But do you have a good reason to believe that the above is correct?" Just from how the scenario is constructed, I don't see how there could be 'any good reason'. The scenario is constructed so as to exclude them.

I personally operate on the assumption that the world of experience is the real world and that its apparent past is its real past. It's simpler and more straightforward to believe that. But I recognize that my reason is pretty weak.

From the philosophy of science perspective, it looks like the mother of all "underdetermination" problems.

 

[Valjean]

The reason is this: I take my Bible literally, which says that the earth is young. Yet evidence shows an old earth. So this is how I can reconcile those two things, rather than simply dismiss scientific evidence
I value to epistemic value of the Bible over man observed science.

Why?

 

[an anarchist]

because - you want to?

I would call it a matter of faith, but I suppose it does boil down to this, me simply wanting to.
I have my personal experiences which are responsible for my faith, which is enough for me

 

[Mock Turtle]

Bertrand Russell (famous atheist philosopher) used this idea when he suggested the possibility that the universe is only one second old, that it just popped into existence complete with all sorts of false "evidences" of a past that never happened. Physical evidences, memories, whatever, all false. He asked how we could ever know whether that possibility was correct.

And the thread starter suggested that young earth creationists could use this idea themselves. I thought that suggestion was rather smart.

I think Russell was joking as to such, even if there is/was a remote chance as to such being true. I don't think he thought this was remotely possible.

 

[Yazata]

I would call it a matter of faith

Hi, Xavier.

Yes, and I think that I would agree.

My working definition for 'faith' is confidence and trust in things that aren't known with absolute certainty. And confidence and trust that this reality isn't just an illusion would seem to me to qualify as a textbook example of that kind of faith.

but I suppose it does boil down to this, me simply wanting to.

I suppose that adapting Bertrand Russell's suggestion to the idea that the universe popped into existence 4,000 years ago would be just as consistent with the evidence around us as my own view that the universe is maybe 15 billion years old (if I accept Big Bang cosmology).

So it seems to me to be an article of faith either way.

Personally, I think that the idea that the universe popped into existence with false "evidences" of a past that never happened is a little like a conspiracy theory and seems rather bizarre. Considerations like 'Ockham's razor' tell against it. But none of that seems to me to be conclusive. It still comes down to a matter of faith.

I have my personal experiences which are responsible for my faith, which is enough for me

Fine with me. I have no objections to differences of opinion. I viscerally oppose the growing totalitarian tendencies in contemporary life, where we are all supposed to "celebrate diversity" yet are all expected to believe the same things and think exactly alike. Diversity extends to intellectual life too.

 

[AppieB]

The in a sense meaningless answer is that a human in some likelihood have a subjectively good reason to act including this case. I.e. to believe the above is correct.

Now standard religion I have subjectively no good reason to believe in, but that is the point. I am not the judge of other humans. I am another human and I have tried to do objectivity for these matters and I can't. so I state my subjective reasons and leave it at that.

Who says I'm judging? But wouldn't this be a good starting point for a conversation about epistemology and reason? First we have to look for common ground and then we could explore what knowledge, good reasoning etc would be. That is the context for the question I was asking.

 

[an anarchist]

I suppose that adapting Bertrand Russell's suggestion to the idea that the universe popped into existence 4,000 years ago would be just as consistent with the evidence around us as my own view that the universe is maybe 15 billion years old (if I accept Big Bang cosmology).

One route I don’t think is wise for the young earth creationist to take is this. To attempt to explain how the science shows that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I think the problem that arises from the distance starlight has to travel is enough to refute this hypothesis. Yet this seems to be the preferred method when it comes to defending YEC

 

[AppieB]

The reason is this: I take my Bible literally, which says that the earth is young. Yet evidence shows an old earth. So this is how I can reconcile those two things, rather than simply dismiss scientific evidence
I value to epistemic value of the Bible over man observed science.

What use is science then if you can disregard it when something you believe is contradicting it? Why value science at all if it's not a reliable method to come to knowledge?

Also, how do you demonstrate that the Bible is epistemically sound?

 

[an anarchist]

What use is science then if you can disregard it when something you believe is contradicting it? Why value science at all if it's not a reliable method to come to knowledge?

In what way does the Original Post disregard science? What I am suggesting is unfalsifiable, not unscientific. The conclusion of the OP is the result of taking scientific evidence into account

 

[AppieB]

In what way does the Original Post disregard science? What I am suggesting is unfalsifiable, not unscientific. The conclusion of the OP is the result of taking scientific evidence into account

If it's unfalsifiable then, by definition, it's unscientific. You said that if science contradicts the Bible, than the Bible is right. Which makes science unreliable in your worldview. Why would you value a method that leads to unreliable 'knowledge'?

 

[AppieB]

Hi Appie, welcome to the board.

I think that the issue that the thread starter raised is skepticism. We are all skeptical about particular things and we typically try to determine the truth about the things that we question by consulting those things that we don't question. We look for evidence that might decide the question one way or another.

But what happens in a radical case where one questions everything? Philosophers have discussed that possibility since ancient times, we see it with the "evil demon" in Descartes' Meditations, we see it with recent "Brain in a Vat" thought experiments, and even in the movie The Matrix. The 'What if what we think is real life is just a dream?' ideas might date back to prehistoric times. It may or may not be implicit in some varieties of shamanism.

Bertrand Russell (famous atheist philosopher) used this idea when he suggested the possibility that the universe is only one second old, that it just popped into existence complete with all sorts of false "evidences" of a past that never happened. Physical evidences, memories, whatever, all false. He asked how we could ever know whether that possibility isn't what really happened.

I totally agree, but I hope it's not necessay to put this 'disclaimer' to every post or thread we make.

And the thread starter suggested that young earth creationists could use this idea themselves. I thought that suggestion was rather smart.

It sure is a creative 'sollution' to fix the contradictions between the Bible and science. I don't disagree.

To address the question that you asked, "But do you have a good reason to believe that the above is correct?" Just from how the scenario is constructed, I don't see how there could be 'any good reason'. The scenario is constructed so as to exclude them.

I personally operate on the assumption that the world of experience is the real world and that its apparent past is its real past. It's simpler and more straightforward to believe that. But I recognize that my reason is pretty weak.

From the philosophy of science perspective, it looks like the mother of all "underdetermination" problems.

Again, I agree. We all have assumptions and presuppostions. The thing is, I think, that we should assume and presuppose as less as possible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who says I'm judging? But wouldn't this be a good starting point for a conversation about epistemology and reason? First we have to look for common ground and then we could explore what knowledge, good reasoning etc would be. That is the context for the question I was asking.

Thanks. I believe the world/the universe/everything/reality is fair and we are not Boltzmann Brains, in the Matrix and so on.
I don't believe the world is natural or supernatural/from gods, because I know nothing of the world in ontological terms.

 

[metis]

The reason is this: I take my Bible literally, which says that the earth is young.

Actually, it's your interpretation of the Creation accounts that is doing this as most Christian theologians do not share that interpretation.

 

[GardenLady]

So you tend to believe what was written long ago rather than the evidence presented to you today (and which you could verify if so inclined), and for which there is substantial evidence, because - you want to? Not a good decision, in my view.

.

I agree with Mock Turtle’s take.

It seems to me that belief in YEC while asserting that the universe was created with the evidence of age and evolution but deep time and evolution over time are not true, means asserting belief in a deceptive God. Why would one choose that?

 

[Etritonakin]

I am a young-Earth creationist. What do you guys think about the idea that God created an aged universe, which is why we see evidence of a very old Earth. On the fourth day of creation, God created the stars. These stars are undeniably millions and billions of light-years away, but it is implied that they were readily visible from Earth on the fourth day. The animals that God placed on the Earth were already fully evolved, but does that mean that a creationist cannot believe in evolution? I think that God created an aged universe, but it's only been in existence for a little more than 6000 years.

Young Earth Creationism exists due to a misreading of scripture.

The bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 years old.
There is no reason to make anything fit that timeline. It is not biblical.

Adam would have been created about 6,000 years ago -the first man by biblical definition -not scientific.
The first to be made in the image and likeness of God -with the potential to be immortal.
That does not mean he was the first humanoid on Earth.
Cain was worried those outside of Eden would kill him.
Cain found a wife in Nod.
The distinction between the sons of God and the daughters of men likely refers to Adam's line and other humanoids -rather than angels and humans making children together.

There is some confusion in the use of the words "man" and "men" -first man -daughters of men -but Adam was the first man of his sort -and directly created. Other "men" were not of his sort.

Also... there is an unspecified amount of time between "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" and .....and the earth BECAME/HAD BECOME waste and ruin (check the definitions in Strong's)

It likely became waste and ruin due to the "angels which kept not their first estate" rebelling with Satan -ascending "above the heights of the clouds" in an attempt to dethrone God...
A good reason for the name Destroyer -having ruined the Earth to the point of it needing to be RENEWED by the events described in Genesis -in preparation for man.

The bible places Lucifer and the third of the angels under him on Earth -before they rebelled.
They were also cast back down to Earth.
Notice Satan had already rebelled -and been cast back down -when interacting with Adam and Eve.

 

[an anarchist]

Cain was worried those outside of Eden would kill him.
Cain found a wife in Nod.

I figure that the reason why Cain was so worried was because everyone on Earth would be pretty much a direct relative of Abel. Since they were the only family one Earth. So of course those he would encounter anywhere would want to kill him, they were all related. As for his wife, it must’ve been his sister of his, right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I figure that the reason why Cain was so worried was because everyone on Earth would be pretty much a direct relative of Abel. Since they were the only family one Earth. So of course those he would encounter anywhere would want to kill him, they were all related. As for his wife, it must’ve been his sister of his, right?

It doesn't seem like there would have been enough time for the family to expand so that Cain could run into a wife.

 

[Etritonakin]

I figure that the reason why Cain was so worried was because everyone on Earth would be pretty much a direct relative of Abel. Since they were the only family one Earth. So of course those he would encounter anywhere would want to kill him, they were all related. As for his wife, it must’ve been his sister of his, right?

That is only if we assume that Adam and Eve were the first "humans" by scientific definition -and if we assume that the 7 days of genesis described the original creation of the heavens and Earth.

When we read scripture, it is very easy to assume things the original writer did not mean -and did not actually write -especially if we have been taught to believe certain things first.
So it is good to read scripture with an open mind -free of preconceptions -and based on biblical principles.
It is also good to "seek wise counsel" and to acknowledge and accept that for which science has absolute proof (though there is not proof for some scientific assertions).
Science did not disprove God or the bible -but has disproved certain ideas about God and the bible which aren't even actually biblical.

1 Thes 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. That is a very vague statement -and no time frame is given.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
According to Strong's definitions, "was" is just as correctly translated HAD BECOME -and formless and void WASTE AND RUIN 1961 8804 8414 922 Also notice these things are said to be the case BEFORE THE "FIRST DAY". Notice "the deep" -was already there -"the waters" were already there -which means the Earth was already there before the first day.
If the initial creation of the Earth is not even included in the first day -neither would be the initial creation of the heavens.

Gen 1:3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The rest of Genesis can be better understood with these things in mind. It is a description of a renewal of Earth in preparation for man -after it had become waste and run for some reason -AND TO AN UNSPECIFIED DEGREE. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the bible and the fossil record -or what science has come to understand about the age of the Earth and universe.
Nowhere does the bible state that there was absolutely no life on Earth before the first day of Genesis -or even that there were no humanoids.
The bible does indicate that Adam was directly created about 6,000 years ago -and that he was the first man TO BE MADE IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD WITH THE POTENtIAL TO BE IMMORTAL (LIKE GOD).
Eve is called the mother OF ALL THE LIVING -which does NOT literally translate to "all humanoids are descended from Eve".

The bible does not state there were no stars or suns before the first day -only that darkness was upon the face of the deep.
The bible does not actually state that the days of Genesis describe the initial creation of our sun or moon! As we read in other scriptures, stars may withdraw their shining for various reasons.

Before going further.... consider the timeline of the angels.
Lucifer was present in Eden -as Satan -which means that archangel over a third of all the angels had already rebelled and been cast back down to Earth with them.
That is likely the source of the Earth's state of ruin at the time -as it says.... 6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
That all happened before the first day of Genesis.

WILL CONTINUE LATER IN ANOTHER POST

 

[an anarchist]

It doesn't seem like there would have been enough time for the family to expand so that Cain could run into a wife.

This is the time period where humans supposedly lived for many centuries. If we take this into account, there would be enough time for lots of things. Including Adam and Eve having lots of kids, grandkids, great grandkids, and so on. So I think there was enough time