Talk:Young Earth creationism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

And on the 8th day[edit]

... God said 'Over to you Murphy' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


Compelling argument for Creationism[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDfpL-1GkzQ&feature=youtu.be

You decide.--BnBn (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, it's jailbird 931567324 Kent Hovind. Needless to say he's hardly an authority, logicked has an excellent video series debunking a lot of Hovind's claims, you can find it here. Samstr (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Bah...[edit]

The earth is 4.6 billion years old. SCIENCE, GUYS! XY007 (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Where did you get the samples to say that? Or is it an assumption off of a guess?King RimuruRimuru Slime.png 01:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Reactionary belief[edit]

Does YEC count as a reactionary belief, where the proponents want to bring Christianity back to the good old days where a literal interpreatation of stuff made you pious? --69.165.160.103 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it's already mentioned in this section of the RW article on reactionaries and their beliefs. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Gold?[edit]

How? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a cover article and thus has to be, if the cover page is any indication. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
But why is it a cover article? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Because it's one of RW's central topics and it's not a bad article? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Not being "Bad" or being "Central to RW" doesn't make it inherently "Gold Status-Cover article" though. As to why it's a Cover article, well, 3 people in 2008 voted yes when it was nominated on the reasoning of "Nominated by User:Barbara Shack"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we take the gold back? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It'll probably have to be brought up in the Bar or something instead of a talk page. Go for it if you want.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
There's quite a lot of legacy not-so-marvellous cover articles from the early days. Be nice if it can be brought up to scratch instead - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer transfering the gold from this to the creationism article. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
*cough* αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest a call for de-golding somewhere prominent, e.g. Saloon Bar, and consideration of what to do with older cover articles that aren't so gret actully. I'm not sure this article in its present stage would make bronze - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Unless you plan to switch the content from this page to the other, 'transferring gold status' seems like an odd concept. If you grant gold status to Creationism, that doesn't require you to take the gold status of this article away. They're two separate articles. Though I agree this article should probably be de-golded. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Bronzed. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This article needs more love[edit]

Young Earth creationism... Should we not have one big article instead — named "Creationism" — into which we could contain both Young Earth creationism, Old Earth creationism, and variants of creationism that aren't Biblical (e.g. Hindu creationism)? I believe this is necessary for several reasons, and if done right, it could become another Gold article next to the one on Intelligent Design. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean something like this one Creationism?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere in Heaven[edit]

God-of-the-Bible sits the YECers down and explains to them in #very# simple terms that he told the Bible-writers (who were comfortable with numbers up to the low thousands - for counting livestock and armies) a simplified version of what he had done (the big bang is not easy to explain when you don't have exploding puffballs and ball lightning to hand) and that the scientists had indeed got the basics of how the Universe had been created so the YEC lot are 'ever so slightly wrong.'

Would they change their beliefs? Anna Livia (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Why no Young Earth Atheism?[edit]

@Skadooshbag Your presumptions are incorrect and you provide no evidence for them. 1) There are probably not "hundreds of millions of scientists", as you claim. There are possibly more like 7 million, but that's a bit of a guesstimate.[1] 2) There's a least on RWian who's a YEC (User:RobSmith). 3) Evidence for localized floods in the Biblical era is not conceding evidence for "Noah's flood", rather it's a possible explanation for the origin of the myth that became "Noah's flood". 4) There was a poll of RWians a few years ago, and as I recall it was not the case that "the vast majority of us are still atheists". I can dig up the citation for this poll up this up if I have to. Bongolian (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian1) A minor and inconsequential error on my part, but still an error that needs conceding nonetheless. 2)I said the vast majority of us are still atheists, not all of us. We're a wiki, so of course there's going to be at least a few YEC editors. Heck, I'm a Christian myself (I am not a YEC and I acknowledge the old earth and Evolution, though; my stance is basically that God pre-tuned this universe to churn out life capable of returning their love, but didn't give two rat's asses about what we look like). 3) And what exactly would qualify as "evidence of 'Noah's flood'," then? this? If it turned out that the man actually existed, then it wouldn't follow from that that the story went down exactly as YECs insist it did; that'd be a false dichotomy. If an ancient carpenter named Noah living at the edge of the black lake managed to save the wildlife of his known world when said black lake became the black sea, then wouldn't that qualify as "evidence of Noah's flood?" 4)Really? well color me surprised. Dig that up for me and I'll be sure to use the correct figure.Skadooshbag (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You need a better source than an online tabloid employing every trick in the book to try to boost its search rating. As for what would be proof of the Noah story... Proving that the events in the story, distinctive to said story, actually happened via sound evidence. You can't just point to a random flood and say "That's the Noah flood." ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Here's the RW poll: Forum:2017_Community_Survey_Results#Religion. I think you would have to include agnostics with atheists to get a "vast majority". Bongolian (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie So NPR is a "tabloid" now? How about the huffington post then? Or the NY daily news? What about the guardian?
Furthermore, the critera you set would be proof of the hyper-literalist version of the story, which is not the only way to look at the story. The only reason anyone ever called Noah's story into question in the first place was because it contradicted scientific understanding. Stuff like, say, the Court records of King David don't, so nobody ever questioned them or demanded evidence. Shouldn't this version of the Noah story be in the same category? Extraordinary claims do indeed demand extraordinary evidence, but shouldn't modifying the claim to a non-extraordinary one thus equally downgrade the required evidence to non-extraordinary? If you had never heard of the Noah story before, but then you found out about Robert Ballard's discoveries, and then you were told that there are records of a carpenter living in the region at the time saving samples of the local wildlife by putting them on a giant boat, would you really cry foul if the guy's name happened to be Noah?
Bart Ehrman, the world's leading atheistic Biblical Scholar, has written a book specifically dedicated to explaining to other atheists why it's stupid to argue that Jesus didn't exist. But seeing as how you don't like NPR, here's his book's wikipedia article. The man acknowledges that Jesus existed, he just doesn't think that his mom was a virgin or that he performed miracles. Would it really be that big a leap in logic to treat Noah in a similar manner?Skadooshbag (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The Noachian Flood myth is ultimately based on a flood that occurred around 2900 BCE in the Iraqi Floodplain, and the character of Noah is based off of the Sumerian king Ziusudra, who did exist as a historical personage. Just because it has a kernel of truth, as many myths and legends tend to have, buried deep in the mists of oral tradition, doesn't mean it's still not a myth. Oxyaena Harass 20:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif The myth itself is fiction, the events that were mythologized were real. @Skadooshbag I was referring to the link you posted in your edit summery here. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Can you cite a source? Wikipedia's article on that king connects him with the Gilgamesh epic, not the book of Genesis.Skadooshbag (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Skadooshbag, your argument is unnecessarily obtuse. A more concise explanation could be stated as follows:
  1. YEC is contingent upon Biblical literalism, that the two contradictory creation stories (Creation Week) are both factually true.
  2. A hypothetical YEC atheist would have to both be a Biblical literalist at least as far as Creation Week goes, and be ignorant of the basic scientific facts of evolution and the fossil record. The existence of a YEC atheist is therefore highly improbable, particularly for the first requirement because the atheist would have to believe in God (a contradiction), since God is explicit in Creation Week. Bongolian (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. @Bongolian Harris Hovind is meant to Highlight that fact. See, you haven't yet grasped the idea of a world where the Earth is young, but where there also is no God. That's the belief that my hypothetical character is pushing. He's not a "YEC atheist," He's a YEA: young earth atheist. IRL, If you go about testing the theory against the data, you always arrive at an Old Earth. People don't find data in support of a young earth unless they happened to set out with that preclusion already in mind (just put aside the fact that said people also believe in a God for now). Harris Hovind is meant to highlight this fact.
  2. No, Harris Hovind doesn't believe in the Bible at all, The Bible is completely irrelevant to his discoveries. His Young-eartherism is not based on ulterior spiritual motives at all. He arrived at young-eartherism purely by scientific studies, and by testing the theory against the data rather than the other way around. Is this unlikely to happen in real life? Extremely. But that's the entire point of Harris Hovind as a thought experiment. He's meant to highlight the fact that nobody arrives at the conclusion of Young-Earthism. See, this is what I was getting at when I pointed out that the existence of God and the age of the earth were two separate concepts that are clumped together in the minds of many: it's exactly what you're doing right now. We have old-earth theists (like myself), and we have young Earth theists. We have old-earth atheists, but we don't have young-earth atheists. If the Earth actually were Young, then we would. Because that's what the facts would be, and thus we'd be able to arrive at that conclusion regardless of whatever pre-existing beliefs we might already have. But as it is, everyone who "arrived" at the "conclusion" that the Earth is young just so happens to also believe that it was put there by a higher power. Yes, Young-Earthery is contingent on both the Bible and a literalistic reading of it... because otherwise we'd have people like Harris Hovind.Skadooshbag (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You're ignoring the fact that evidentially YEC came directly from Genesis. Believing that the Earth was created at some other time, like last Thursday, 4000 years ago or 10,000 years ago is not YEC. An atheist would have no reason to believe that any one of these dates is any more correct than the others. Bongolian (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian Look, while the Old Earth is the objectively correct viewpoint, you need to get your mind out of that frame of reference for a moment. Yes, Young-Earthery is specifically linked to theism, which is exactly what I'm trying to demonstrate here. According to one of our own definitions of the phrase, Harris Hovind is meant to be the exception that proves the rule. To help you wrap your head around this, let's imagine four separate universes: one young one that was put there by a God, one Old one that was put there by a God, one young one that arose naturally, and one old one that arose naturally. HH is from the young one that arose naturally, so I hope you can now see how inaccurate it would be to call him a "creationist." Old Earthery is divided between theists and atheists in our world, but Young Earthery is not. In one of the two young-earth universes, it would be the other way around: There would be enough evidence for a Young Earth that both theists and atheists could arrive at this conclusion, but the only Old Earthers would be stubborn people measuring the data against the theory, just like young earthers always are in our universe. My Harris Hovind character is meant to demonstrate the fact that if Our universe actually were young, then there would be enough evidence for a young earth that you wouldn't need to have a pre-existing theistic agenda to arrive at that conclusion.Skadooshbag (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
@Skadooshbag This video by AronRa is a good introduction on the subject. Oxyaena Harass 23:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Is he using the "because there are flood stories in other mythologies" argument? because given the Lake Agassiz article, continuing to use that argument would be circular logic. You're arguing that the world's various flood stories can't have originated from lake agassiz because they're actually all mutated versions of eachother, but you're arguing that they're mutated versions of eachother in the first place because they're all flood stories.Skadooshbag (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena@Bongolian@GrammarCommie Oh, and for the record, from what I've looked up, most YECs don't seem too fond of this view of the Noah story either, likely because of it's non-literalistic reading of the Bible, and likely because it would mean discarding the narrative of a global flood they've been pushing so hard for so long.Skadooshbag (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I`m not arguing that. Floods are a common occurrence throughout history, what I`m arguing is that the flood myths of the Near East are all related. Oxyaena Harass 09:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Skadooshbag this post starts off with someone disagreeing with you which makes it a little bit difficult to future out what you are defending.

If you are claiming that there have been floods in the past and that one or many of them may have been the root of the story then I guess there is not a lot to argue about. But I think you are claiming more than that. If so, what exactly? Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The Epic of Gilgamesh had clear influences on the Noachian Flood story, itself ultimately deriving from the Flood of Ziusudra, I don't see why this is in doubt. If one looks at the Sumerian Kings List you'll find there is a clear flood mentioned there that substantially disrupted Mesopotamian society. Oxyaena Harass 13:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyaena I was thinking that there was no longer a reason to treat the two stories as originating from the same specific flood, since Utnapishtim came from Mesopotamia whereas NOah came from the Black Sea (then a lake).Skadooshbag (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
That is really a moot argument, Skadooshbag. YECs define YEC on Biblical literalism, and specifically around Ussher's chronology or some minor variant thereof (Early Christian and modern Young Earth Creationist views). Atheists do not believe in Biblical literalism because otherwise they would have to believe in God (Genesis 1:1, etc.). Therefore there is no reason for atheists to prefer the YEC year of creation as being any better than any other non-scientific year of creation. Bongolian (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Bongolian Look, if I use argument A, and you reply with counterargument B, then it wouldn't make a lot of sense for me to respond to B by simply repeating A back at you now would it? I know that people in real life only believe in Young-Earthery as a result of believing in Biblical Literalism. That's exactly what my Harris Hovind character is designed to point out. The data all points toward an old earth, so only people with a specific agenda support a Young Earth. But answer me this: would that be the case if, despite not being put there by a god, the Earth actually were young, and all the evidence supported this? Don't just go "doesn't matter, it's not the case" again, because that would mean that you didn't actually consider the idea. I know it's not actually how things are, but that's because it's what's called a hypothetical situation: When you consider how things would look if they weren't the way they are, you can often gain insight as to why they are the way they are. It's called playing devil's advocate.Skadooshbag (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds more like you're doubling down and doing pretzel logic to try to justify an unjustifiable position. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie My position is that if the earth were young, then there'd be enough evidence for a young earth that we'd have atheists promoting a young earth, and thus young earthery would not be tied exclusively to biblical literalism. how is that unjustifiable?Skadooshbag (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Because you can't communicate worth shit. You've spent over a week droning on when you could have just uttered those words and been done with it. You also have the logic backwards. If the idea of a young earth held any merit, there'd be evidence of it, thus it wouldn't be exclusively the domain of fiction thus science would support it. And given that is the general thrust of the article, you have just argued justification of your edits out of existence. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Pretty sure that the merit of a theory is determined by the evidence, not the other way around. Otherwise, what does determine the merit of a theory? Besides, isn't it still worth getting YECs to question why there are no people like Harris Hovind?Skadooshbag (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Please, YEC is a Hypothesis at most, and I'd argue its lack of connection to evidence and reality makes even that label somewhat dubious. As for the process... Yeah I described it. Atheism has fuck all to do with the process when facts come into play. And finally, because you made him up. The character is a fiction that only exists in your imagination and has such a lack of evidence behind that I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse to troll us. YEC is based on Biblical literalism, which requires that one believe the Bible to be more than mere fiction, which in necessitates the belief in the god of the Bible, which negates the átheos in atheist for fuck's sake! Because that's how fucking words work! Gods and goddesses fucking orally and anally above and below... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The question "Why no Young Earth Atheism?" has a hidden assumption because it assumes that all atheists believe the same things. How do we know there are no atheists who believe that the earth is young? Obviously there will be no Young Earth Creationist atheists because that implicitly requires a god.

But I'm betting there will be some atheists who believe in a flat Earth. Why shouldn't there be some who believe in a young Earth? It's not that much more stupid. I went on about this at some length here.

On the other hand Young Earth skeptics or rationalists would be pretty difficult to find.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bob M I see your point, however, wouldn't including these "Young Earth Atheists" in an article about YEC imply more than the very tenuous connection? And further, without concrete examples, isn't it just mere speculation with no evidence to back it up? I mean, this all seems to go back to the hidden assumption that because something could exist because it can be conceived of, that it does exist, again because it can be conceived of. I'm also pretty sure that's a fallacy, but I can't for the life of me think of the name of it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned previously I didn't see what this argument was originally about. But I agree that obviously a hypothetical group would hardly need a reference in the article. It would be like adding hypothetical "flat earth atheists" to the flat earth page or "homeopathic atheists" to the homeopathy page. Adding a reference to a particular sub-group who lacks a certain weird belief would be absurd. To continue considering absurdities it would be like adding a reference to people who don't believe in Bigfoot but who do believe in a young earth. It's just irrelevant and unnecessary.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)