Page 69 of 70 FirstFirst ... 195967686970 LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 699

Thread: Why YEC can seem plausible

  1. Top | #681
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,376
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,262
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Just for the sake of discussion, knowing that we don't have mutation free magic parents,
    If God was going to create a human from scratch why must he include problematic mutations?
    This is what is known as fan fiction resolution. The reality doesn't fit the narrative, where specific punishments are applied to man, woman, and the serpent for the fruit eating incident. This did not include genetic issues caused by entropy. As a reminder, the principle of increasing entropy is a major characteristic of the universe....
    I thought YECs thought that entropy began at the fall but this is not the case in this article:
    https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...n-at-the-fall/
    A verse about the extent of the curse from the fall:
    Romans 8:22
    We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

  2. Top | #682
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,376
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,262
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    If God was going to create a human from scratch why must he include problematic mutations?
    This IS the God who flooded the entire world because humans were created inherently wicked, right?
    Who created a reproductive system that generates about 40 mutations per baby?
    Why assume perfection?
    A scientific reason why incest was outlawed in the commands given to Moses was that it resulted in birth defects, etc. If there were mutations right from the start then incest should have been outlawed right from the start.... that means that Cain couldn't have married his sister (the mainstream YEC explanation for where Cain got his wife).

    So anyway assuming that Adam and Eve had mutations creates problems and remember that the creation was said to be "very good".

  3. Top | #683
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    20,721
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,221
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    So anyway assuming that Adam and Eve had mutations
    Assessing a mutation requires comparing DNA between generations.
    None of Adam's DNA can be explained as being inherited from his parents. It's all mutations.
    and remember that the creation was said to be "very good".
    Yeah, the skybeast reviewed his own work. On Amazon, that's frowned upon.
    And, really, what was it being compared to?
    Couldn't be that good if a thousand years later, he tried to junk the whole project and start over, due to mistakes made in that 'very good' creation.

  4. Top | #684
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,376
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,262
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    So anyway assuming that Adam and Eve had mutations
    Assessing a mutation requires comparing DNA between generations.
    None of Adam's DNA can be explained as being inherited from his parents. It's all mutations.
    What if a (bad) mutation was defined as "deleterious recessive alleles". If Adam and Eve had any in common that could lead to "abnormalities, miscarriages and stillbirths"....

    See The Incest Problem post #19

    ...Yeah, the skybeast reviewed his own work....
    In this instance it isn't a case of "God said".... it says "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good"

  5. Top | #685
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,494
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,240
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    ....Who do you think Cain married and had kids with (Enoch)?
    A YEC explanation:
    https://answersingenesis.org/bible-c...as-cains-wife/
    BTW, Enoch founded a city. Who did he marry? A person living alone in a hut does not a city make. How many people do you need in order to call it a city?
    See the previous link....

    Though some YECs believe there were other people around when Adam and Eve were created - maybe "Nephilim".
    These people just sound crazier and crazier

    I love this bit

    Also, it is rather ironic for evolutionary skeptics to mock the biblical position that all people are descendants of the first man and woman. These evolutionists believe that all living organisms are descendants of the first living cell that somehow sprang to life from non-living material.
    Where's the irony? He's saying this like it's obviously stupid. When that is an explanation that actually makes sense, as opposed to YEC, which is bonkers

  6. Top | #686
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    24,761
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    35,238
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    A YEC explanation:
    https://answersingenesis.org/bible-c...as-cains-wife/

    See the previous link....

    Though some YECs believe there were other people around when Adam and Eve were created - maybe "Nephilim".
    These people just sound crazier and crazier

    I love this bit

    Also, it is rather ironic for evolutionary skeptics to mock the biblical position that all people are descendants of the first man and woman. These evolutionists believe that all living organisms are descendants of the first living cell that somehow sprang to life from non-living material.
    Where's the irony? He's saying this like it's obviously stupid. When that is an explanation that actually makes sense, as opposed to YEC, which is bonkers
    The irony is that he, like most people, thinks that 'life' is a clearly defined category, that is always distinctly and clearly different from 'non-life'.

    The idea that there's a massive hurdle to leap to get from a lifeless world, to a world that contains life, is obvious, intuitive, highly regarded, supported by most of the great philosophers of history, believed by the vast majority of people, and utterly and completely false.

    If you are a part of the majority who believe this falsehood, then it's really ridiculous to consider that this huge leap could happen spontaneously; And as it obviously couldn't happen as a result of the actions of anything alive, the only option left is the actions of something intentional and intelligent, but not alive in the natural world. Hence the need for a supernatural intelligence to intervene.

    In reality, 'alive' and 'not alive' are arbitrary and poorly defined categories, invented by humans in the pre-scientific era in an attempt to understand the world. But at a fundamental level, these categories are meaningless. There's no comprehensive definition of 'life' that is consistent and coherent, and that also includes every entity we want to include in 'alive', and excludes every entity we want to exclude from 'alive'.

    People with a high school education in biology usually arc up at this fact, and start quoting the definition of life that they learned in school. But when they do, it soon becomes clear that the definition is woolly and useless - where it's woolly it isn't a definition, but just a placeholder for a possible definition; and where it's precise, it excludes infertile humans from life, and/or includes physical changes in crystals or clays as life, rendering it useless.

    The first living organism was almost certainly a fairly complex cyclical pattern of chemical reactions driven by an energy source. How complex that pattern was, is an arbitrary choice of whoever is judging whether a given pattern is or is not yet sufficiently complex to be considered 'alive'. But for sure there is a continuum from 'so simple that almost nobody thinks it's really alive' through to 'so complex that almost everyone agrees that it's alive'. And the common ancestor of all life on Earth is that continuum of patterns of cyclical chemistry.

  7. Top | #687
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,494
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,240
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    These people just sound crazier and crazier

    I love this bit



    Where's the irony? He's saying this like it's obviously stupid. When that is an explanation that actually makes sense, as opposed to YEC, which is bonkers
    The irony is that he, like most people, thinks that 'life' is a clearly defined category, that is always distinctly and clearly different from 'non-life'.

    The idea that there's a massive hurdle to leap to get from a lifeless world, to a world that contains life, is obvious, intuitive, highly regarded, supported by most of the great philosophers of history, believed by the vast majority of people, and utterly and completely false.

    If you are a part of the majority who believe this falsehood, then it's really ridiculous to consider that this huge leap could happen spontaneously; And as it obviously couldn't happen as a result of the actions of anything alive, the only option left is the actions of something intentional and intelligent, but not alive in the natural world. Hence the need for a supernatural intelligence to intervene.

    In reality, 'alive' and 'not alive' are arbitrary and poorly defined categories, invented by humans in the pre-scientific era in an attempt to understand the world. But at a fundamental level, these categories are meaningless. There's no comprehensive definition of 'life' that is consistent and coherent, and that also includes every entity we want to include in 'alive', and excludes every entity we want to exclude from 'alive'.

    People with a high school education in biology usually arc up at this fact, and start quoting the definition of life that they learned in school. But when they do, it soon becomes clear that the definition is woolly and useless - where it's woolly it isn't a definition, but just a placeholder for a possible definition; and where it's precise, it excludes infertile humans from life, and/or includes physical changes in crystals or clays as life, rendering it useless.

    The first living organism was almost certainly a fairly complex cyclical pattern of chemical reactions driven by an energy source. How complex that pattern was, is an arbitrary choice of whoever is judging whether a given pattern is or is not yet sufficiently complex to be considered 'alive'. But for sure there is a continuum from 'so simple that almost nobody thinks it's really alive' through to 'so complex that almost everyone agrees that it's alive'. And the common ancestor of all life on Earth is that continuum of patterns of cyclical chemistry.
    Christians believe that Adam was made from dust. So in their own book, they should be fine with life arising from non-life. In their funeral rites they emphasize how we come from dust and we will return to dust. Which, scientifically, is what happens.

    It's always fun with a literalist fundamentalist who is bad at reading the one book they're so obsessed about.

  8. Top | #688
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    24,761
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    35,238
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    These people just sound crazier and crazier

    I love this bit



    Where's the irony? He's saying this like it's obviously stupid. When that is an explanation that actually makes sense, as opposed to YEC, which is bonkers
    The irony is that he, like most people, thinks that 'life' is a clearly defined category, that is always distinctly and clearly different from 'non-life'.

    The idea that there's a massive hurdle to leap to get from a lifeless world, to a world that contains life, is obvious, intuitive, highly regarded, supported by most of the great philosophers of history, believed by the vast majority of people, and utterly and completely false.

    If you are a part of the majority who believe this falsehood, then it's really ridiculous to consider that this huge leap could happen spontaneously; And as it obviously couldn't happen as a result of the actions of anything alive, the only option left is the actions of something intentional and intelligent, but not alive in the natural world. Hence the need for a supernatural intelligence to intervene.

    In reality, 'alive' and 'not alive' are arbitrary and poorly defined categories, invented by humans in the pre-scientific era in an attempt to understand the world. But at a fundamental level, these categories are meaningless. There's no comprehensive definition of 'life' that is consistent and coherent, and that also includes every entity we want to include in 'alive', and excludes every entity we want to exclude from 'alive'.

    People with a high school education in biology usually arc up at this fact, and start quoting the definition of life that they learned in school. But when they do, it soon becomes clear that the definition is woolly and useless - where it's woolly it isn't a definition, but just a placeholder for a possible definition; and where it's precise, it excludes infertile humans from life, and/or includes physical changes in crystals or clays as life, rendering it useless.

    The first living organism was almost certainly a fairly complex cyclical pattern of chemical reactions driven by an energy source. How complex that pattern was, is an arbitrary choice of whoever is judging whether a given pattern is or is not yet sufficiently complex to be considered 'alive'. But for sure there is a continuum from 'so simple that almost nobody thinks it's really alive' through to 'so complex that almost everyone agrees that it's alive'. And the common ancestor of all life on Earth is that continuum of patterns of cyclical chemistry.
    Christians believe that Adam was made from dust. So in their own book, they should be fine with life arising from non-life. In their funeral rites they emphasize how we come from dust and we will return to dust. Which, scientifically, is what happens.

    It's always fun with a literalist fundamentalist who is bad at reading the one book they're so obsessed about.
    Sure. But they think supernatural intervention is a requirement, at which point no obstacle is insurmountable.

    My point is that the obstacle isn't insurmountable or even surmountable, but nonexistent.

  9. Top | #689
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    20,721
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,221
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    What if a (bad) mutation was defined as "deleterious recessive alleles". If Adam and Eve had any in common that could lead to "abnormalities, miscarriages and stillbirths"....
    but that's not necessarily a mutation.
    ...Yeah, the skybeast reviewed his own work....
    In this instance it isn't a case of "God said".... it says "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good"
    ...how is that not God reviewing his own work?
    Who was there to tell this to Moses for the record? Betty White?
    But still, how good could it have been? The seeds of the Deluge were installed.
    I am not dead. I am fine.
    Appreciate the concerns expressed.
    I am burned out a bit on the repeated nonsense.

  10. Top | #690
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,494
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,240
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    Christians believe that Adam was made from dust. So in their own book, they should be fine with life arising from non-life. In their funeral rites they emphasize how we come from dust and we will return to dust. Which, scientifically, is what happens.

    It's always fun with a literalist fundamentalist who is bad at reading the one book they're so obsessed about.
    Sure. But they think supernatural intervention is a requirement, at which point no obstacle is insurmountable.

    My point is that the obstacle isn't insurmountable or even surmountable, but nonexistent.
    I thought Christians thought the creation of all life was a miracle? No matter if it's made in the lavatory in a downtown club by an inebriated couple who do not know each others first name, or if made by God coughing onto a badly cleaned mantelpiece.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •