Travertine deposits commonly collect other mineral and biological debris, and are excellent recorders of trace elements and stable isotopes. Dating by Th/U methods, combined with oxygen and carbon isotope work can provide high-resolution time/temperature curves.
My intention in this thread was to discuss de jure objections to believing YEC. It seems to have gotten far off track with de facto arguments.
Perhaps those wanting to argue specifics of YEC can start a thread on that?
Getting back to de jure issues, let me refresh the original argument, taking account of a possible gap (depending on assumptions about our definition of God):
Now, if I’m not mistaken, the responses to this have broken down into two categories. The first group would be those who affirm the argument, with the proviso that the person isn’t aware of defeaters. The second group denies the conclusion, but also denies A.
Of course, the sample size here is very small. But maybe this should indicate to Christians that YEC isn’t the fulcrum for Christianity and culture relations that it’s sometimes made to be?
Hi John
The question I have is if it is theologically important to distinguish between Genesis 1,2,3 being a story or being real history. I agree with points A and B BTW.
I have briefly looked at the arguments for the importance of Genesis being history and don’t find them compelling.
But why not consider the idea that God created the system of evolution. That would really be to the credit of God.
Hi Bill,
The question would be whether you think it’s possible to rationally believe that the Bible teaches YEC, not whether you find it compelling personally.
(1) Abiogenesis in science refers to a living organism arising from non-living materials.
(2) Unless one believes that living organisms have always existed, logic tells us that there was at least one (if not many) times in the past that a living organism arose from non-living ingredients.
(3) Nothing in the Bible denies the possibility of living organisms coming into existence from non-living materials. (The Bible even speaks of HADAM, “the man”, being formed from “the dust of the ground”, which sounds like non-living raw ingredients to me. So why couldn’t someone interpret the creation account of Adam in Genesis as an instance of abiogenesis?)
Obviously, when abiogenesis is discussed in a science textbook, it takes no position on whether or not a deity was involved because the scientific method has no means of addressing theological topics involving the actions of deities.
That seems about right. I never said YEC was irrational. Many brilliant. thoughtful, and (yes!) rational people I know are YEC. Note, it is rational provided we are not engaging the evidence. It might be rational engaging evidence 3rd hand too, but soon it starts to loose touch with reality as we get to know the evidence better…
Well, YEC itself is not the problem, but many of the things surrounding it.
The problem is not YEC itself, but the virulent strains of YEC.
Hi John
I would have to say that I don’t think the Bible teaches YEC. I think it teaches mans separation from God and the process that reunifies man with God. The Bible contains many literary techniques to get this message across. The exact literary technique used in early Genesis chapters is open for rational debate in my opinion.
I’d say, similarly to the scientific case, one can rationally believe this until one encounters church history and some basic Hebrew. Then we could say that Scripture might “allow” for a YEC reading if we depart from the basic principles of literalism, but it becomes very hard to say that it “teaches” YEC.
Interesting discussion here. Here’s my take on it.
I’d say it is possible to rationally believe in YEC—if you are a student of the arts, humanities, or social sciences, who hasn’t set foot in a laboratory since finishing compulsory science education at age sixteen, who is unaware of the standards and level of technical rigour that science expects of its practitioners, and who views science entirely in terms of the results that it spits out while having little or no understanding of the methods used to determine those results.
What is not possible (and certainly not intellectually honest) is to rationally believe in any form of YEC other than omphalism if you have any science education beyond school, and especially not if you have a career that is related in any way to the “hard” sciences. Once you reach that level, you have not only learned and gained an understanding of the basic rules and principles of mathematics, measurement, logic and technical rigour; you have hands-on practical experience of seeing those rules and principles worked out in real-world situations, and you may even be required to apply them in a professional context. At that level, you should be very uncomfortable with any approach to science that takes a sloppy, incoherent, hand-waving or dishonest approach towards those principles in the way that YEC “science” does.
Back to John’s OP
The premises given
It is possible to rationally believe the Bible is the word of God
It is possible to rationally believe the Bible teaches YEC
leads to: It is possible to rationally believe YEC
…may have some faults as a syllogism, but it works OK for me as being rational.
In other words, the conclusion is that the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.
Should the stance be then, science is of the devil and stay far away, one is still good.
The problems begin, when you say, I’m YEC and I love science, just real science. That’s when the wild and weird statements about distant starlight, speeded up radioactive decay from temperatures that would ionize the planet, St. George fighting fire breathing dinosaurs, proto-cats devolving into saber toothed lions and house cats in a few hundred years, a fusion free sun, tectonic plates gliding at Daytona speeds, kilometers thick chalk cliffs from algae blooms, magnetic reversals in the course of days, ice ages that melt away like a late spring snow, hot oceans which do not heat the atmosphere, and such a number of irrational arguments that it is impossible to keep up with it all. So, yes, it is possible to be rational and affirm YEC, so long as one lives in a cave - preferably without stalactites, or limestone. What is irrational is for YEC to engage with the real world.
I love this sprint, even if it leaves one breathless:
That’s your goto vacuous objection to anything. Boring.
How do we know that?
I’d say they make it impossible to believe the creationist account. Assuming for the sake of argument that these strata were laid down in the nonexistent flood, how could all that erosion and deformation have happened in 6000 years? Note that your figure also contains an angular unconformity, the simplest of all flood geology refutations.
Well of course nobody sees the problems. Could you perhaps point them out? And you should also explain how those problems are solved by flood geology.
This question may seem dumb and irrelevant, but if it is dumb please bear in mind I’m not a scientist and if it seems irrelevant I’ll explain the relevance once I can type at a computer (instead of phone):
Would Adam and Eve and their immediate descendants needed to have the chromosome 2 fusion in order to be able to breed with the biological humans outside the garden?
You assume here that a rational person can’t hold an irrational belief. I don’t think that’s true. You seem to be saying that these brilliant, rational people have never come into contact with the evidence. How, in the modern world, is that possible? I would say that it’s possible only if you make a conscious decision to avoid the evidence. Now, is that rational? Or you could, as some creationists do, assert that their interpretation of Genesis trumps all evidence, and so that evidence must have another interpretation that doesn’t preclude YEC. Is that rational?
No. Chromosomal fusion doesn’t prevent interbreeding with those lacking it, though it may reduce fertility to some extent. Still, there are a number of populations of various mammal species in which chromosomal fusion is a polymorphism, with no apparent problems.
I’m very curious as to why you ask.
In fact, there is at least one human alive today with on 44 chromosomes, and there is no reason he could not have offspring with a woman with the usual complement:
It seems to me that there are a variety of things people mean by “rational” and that this is a source of confusion. I tend to think that any belief system is “rational” if it is internally consistent – that “rationality” concerns only whether a viewpoint is fraught with internal conflicts.
So, when one is dealing in the realm of pure reason – symbolic logic, for example – there is “rational” and not-rational. But the evaluation of evidence for the age of the earth, the origin of diversity among living things, et cetera, are all topics which fall outside of “reason” in the strict sense and have more to do with weighing evidence and making judgments about how to explain the data.
If one observes that kind of dichotomy, it is possible for all manner of views to be “rational” without being compatible with the evidence. One can believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya “rationally,” in that one can hold no other belief which is inconsistent with that viewpoint. But while one may be able to hold that belief rationally, one cannot hold it reasonably because the weight of the evidence is so strongly against it.
YECism, it seems to me, falls very definitely in that category of things. One can have a “rational” internally consistent set of views which are YEC. But one cannot then take this set of views and reasonably argue that they are supported by the evidence. One can strive to know nothing that is inconsistent with his pre-existing views, but nobody who strives to that objective is very likely to be worth listening to.
So, can one “rationally believe YEC”? I think the answer is yes, if we ONLY mean “rationally.” If instead of rationally we mean “reasonably, in the light of the evidence,” of course the answer is a very solid no.
The relevance would have been to @swamidass’s genealogical hypothesis. Let’s say that we found the bones of Adam and discovered that they contained the chromosome 2 fusion. My question would have been whether @swamidass would then take the position that it is irrational to believe Adam was created de novo.
So someone’s worldview could hold 1 proposition: “I alone exist” and count as rational. Or we could have someone who believed two propositions: “The moon is made of cheese” and “My favorite color is green.” These are consistent and, thus, rational by your definition. If you want to stipulate this, that’s fine. But usually, in logic, aren’t we talking about a set of claims that relate some way? Thus, we speak of validity and soundness. Consistency is obviously a necessary ingredient to validity, but a lot of the focus is on relations of support which your mere consistency account leaves out.
I’m not sure what you mean by “reason in the strict sense.” Evaluating evidence involves reasoning–looking for relations of support.
Would you affirm A and B from my post above? As I said, people can stipulate whatever definition they like and answer from there. So you can introduce your rational/reason distinction. And let’s assume that you agree that people can rationally affirm A and B, since rationally affirming anything is trivially easy under that definition. Would you say people can reasonably affirm A and B?
Chromosome 2 fusion happened millions of years ago sometime after the chimpanzee-hominid split.
