psychology of Young Earth Creationists

[Ginkgo]

Arising wrote:

The poem the Epic of Gilgamesh. One of the oldest writings we appear to know recounts about a flood story that seems to resemble the Christians Noah story. Now you could say this confirms it but it was way earlier than Noah's so that leads me to think that Noah was a plagiarism therefore a falsehood in the Bible?

Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks. By Darwin's time several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also the final culmination of an ancient speculation.

Does that lead you to think also that Darwin plagiarized the Origin of Species.

Not really. This is because the ancients didn't do science they did metaphysics. It is for this exact same reason that Creationism is a metaphysical theory,not a scientific theory. Baraminology supported with a first cause does not change anything.




Ginkgo

[reasonvemotion]

The dating of the Gilgamesh Epic is the opinion of archeologists and cannot be regarded as completely accurate, as Noah's flood cannot be dated to the exact year. I look to the biblical account as the source of the universal flood and any other accounts as uninspired stories of a great flood based on the original account Moses wrote under the inspiration of God.

[tillingborn]

... the ancients didn't do science they did metaphysics.Ginkgo

That's a bit harsh Ginkgo, especially considering that metaphysics is named for all the work of Aristotle that was catalogued meta (after) his physics. Science is very difficult to define, but the essential feature is observation, you look at the world, you publish your findings you have an argument with your peers about them, they do observations and experiments to confirm or falsify. Once there is a broad enough consensus you do the maths to make sure it all adds up and then you do your metaphysics and argue about the cause. Or if you're Isaac Newton you don't bother; having described the action of gravity very accurately with his inverse square law, he issued his 'hypotheses non fingo', I frame no hypotheses. In other words, he could tell you how the world worked, but not why. A similar approach was taken with regard to Quantum Mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is also known as 'Shut up and calculate'. Much of science is similarly instrumentalist, what matters is how, not why. Even today no-one knows what gravity is, relativity says warped spacetime, quantum mechanics the exchange of gravitons. For all I know it's Angels with fishing rods, but it makes no difference to what happens or how you make a satellite stay in orbit.

As for the ancients, all the early civilizations from Egypt to China were founded on flood plains, where argriculture was made easier by the regular fertilization of the soil. In Mesopotamia for example, the Tigris and Euphrates carry enough silt to advance the coast by 50m a year. The resulting fertile marsh is quickly colonised by reeds, these die and rot underwater giving off methane which bubbles up through the water. This process was interpreted as water turning into soil into air, anyone watching this by torchlight would discover that methane is flammable, hence air turns into fire. Gods associated with the four 'elements' are common to many creation myths. In other words, even things like the Enuma Elish start with what might loosely be described as scientific observations.

As for maths and technology it is inconceivable that the Egyptians could have designed and built pyramids without them. Mind you, as some of them date to before 4000BC, it is inconceivable to some that there was a world to build them on.

[Ginkgo]

... the ancients didn't do science they did metaphysics.Ginkgo

That's a bit harsh Ginkgo, especially considering that metaphysics is named for all the work of Aristotle that was catalogued meta (after) his physics. Science is very difficult to define, but the essential feature is observation, you look at the world, you publish your findings you have an argument with your peers about them, they do observations and experiments to confirm or falsify. Once there is a broad enough consensus you do the maths to make sure it all adds up and then you do your metaphysics and argue about the cause. Or if you're Isaac Newton you don't bother; having described the action of gravity very accurately with his inverse square law, he issued his 'hypotheses non fingo', I frame no hypotheses. In other words, he could tell you how the world worked, but not why. A similar approach was taken with regard to Quantum Mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is also known as 'Shut up and calculate'. Much of science is similarly instrumentalist, what matters is how, not why. Even today no-one knows what gravity is, relativity says warped spacetime, quantum mechanics the exchange of gravitons. For all I know it's Angels with fishing rods, but it makes no difference to what happens or how you make a satellite stay in orbit.

As for the ancients, all the early civilizations from Egypt to China were founded on flood plains, where argriculture was made easier by the regular fertilization of the soil. In Mesopotamia for example, the Tigris and Euphrates carry enough silt to advance the coast by 50m a year. The resulting fertile marsh is quickly colonised by reeds, these die and rot underwater giving off methane which bubbles up through the water. This process was interpreted as water turning into soil into air, anyone watching this by torchlight would discover that methane is flammable, hence air turns into fire. Gods associated with the four 'elements' are common to many creation myths. In other words, even things like the Enuma Elish start with what might loosely be described as scientific observations.

As for maths and technology it is inconceivable that the Egyptians could have designed and built pyramids without them. Mind you, as some of them date to before 4000BC, it is inconceivable to some that there was a world to build them on.

I can see what you are coming from. Nonetheless, I would disagree with the claim that the essential feature of science is observation. It is an important feature of science, but it is not the only feature. There are a number of important other feature as well, that need to be considered. When the YEC claim that science is essentially observation they only partially correct.

Aristotle based his theories on a posteriori analytics and I tend to agree with Kant that such statements are contradictory. For me analytics don't derive any sort of observational proof. The proof of science will always be in the observation. This is the important distinction form my point of view. If YEC and Aristotle want to do teleology then this is find with me, but science doesn't deal with first causes.

Yes, Aristotle did use observation as a starting point but that doesn't mean he was doing science.

[jinx]

I can see what you are coming from. Nonetheless, I would disagree with the claim that the essential feature of science is observation. It is an important feature of science, but it is not the only feature. There are a number of important other feature as well, that need to be considered. When the YEC claim that science is essentially observation they only partially correct.

Matters of the past are lost forever for observational science. They fall into the category of forensic/historical science. Depending on ones a priori worldview depends on how one interprets data in the present (ie rocks/fossils) to infer events that may/may not have happened in the past.

Aristotle based his theories on a posteriori analytics and I tend to agree with Kant that such statements are contradictory. For me analytics don't derive any sort of observational proof. The proof of science will always be in the observation. This is the important distinction form my point of view. If YEC and Aristotle want to do teleology then this is find with me, but science doesn't deal with first causes.

Ok so in the first paragraph you say

I would disagree with the claim that the essential feature of science is observation

now in this paragraph

For me analytics don't derive any sort of observational proof. The proof of science will always be in the observation.

Contradictions/inconsistent worldview is a necessary part of the atheism/'evolution' worldview. Ie 'The present is the key to the past' (except in terms of population growth rate, the myth one kind of animal can produce a completely different kind, when c14 is found in diamonds and coal, whenever else data would not fit the atheism/'evolution' worldview, ditch that philosophy but use it when convenient).

YEC predicts animals bring forth after their kind (i know people (atheists) are retarded and have lost the ability to think so i will repeat for the nth time)) fish bring forth fish, dogs bring forth dogs, cats bring forth cats, ants bring forth ants. Is this observable? (im not asking-i would never ask an atheist a question and expect a reasonable response) the answer obviously is YES! YEC wins, 'evolution' loses (it falls into the category of religion, not science, thats fine though, just dont call it science).

[Kuznetzova]

The bible describes the origin of cosmos as it was understood in the Bronze Age. So it is silly and delusional to pretend like that Genesis 1 dovetails or describes the Big Bang. Big Bang is a modern theory meant to describe the contemporary notion of the cosmos.

[Ginkgo]

I can see what you are coming from. Nonetheless, I would disagree with the claim that the essential feature of science is observation. It is an important feature of science, but it is not the only feature. There are a number of important other feature as well, that need to be considered. When the YEC claim that science is essentially observation they only partially correct.

Matters of the past are lost forever for observational science. They fall into the category of forensic/historical science. Depending on ones a priori worldview depends on how one interprets data in the present (ie rocks/fossils) to infer events that may/may not have happened in the past.

Aristotle based his theories on a posteriori analytics and I tend to agree with Kant that such statements are contradictory. For me analytics don't derive any sort of observational proof. The proof of science will always be in the observation. This is the important distinction form my point of view. If YEC and Aristotle want to do teleology then this is find with me, but science doesn't deal with first causes.

Ok so in the first paragraph you say

I would disagree with the claim that the essential feature of science is observation

now in this paragraph

For me analytics don't derive any sort of observational proof. The proof of science will always be in the observation.

Contradictions/inconsistent worldview is a necessary part of the atheism/'evolution' worldview. Ie 'The present is the key to the past' (except in terms of population growth rate, the myth one kind of animal can produce a completely different kind, when c14 is found in diamonds and coal, whenever else data would not fit the atheism/'evolution' worldview, ditch that philosophy but use it when convenient).

YEC predicts animals bring forth after their kind (i know people (atheists) are retarded and have lost the ability to think so i will repeat for the nth time)) fish bring forth fish, dogs bring forth dogs, cats bring forth cats, ants bring forth ants. Is this observable? (im not asking-i would never ask an atheist a question and expect a reasonable response) the answer obviously is YES! YEC wins, 'evolution' loses (it falls into the category of religion, not science, thats fine though, just dont call it science).

One doesn't interpret any observational data in light of an apriori argument. This is why it is an apriori argument.
You probably mean a posteriori.

No I didn't say, " I would disagree with the claim that the essential feature of science is observation"

My full quote said, " I would disagree with the claim that the essential feature of science is observation. It is an important feature of science. but it is not the only feature".

You are employing a fallacy know as quote mining.

[jinx]

The bible describes the origin of cosmos as it was understood in the Bronze Age. So it is silly and delusional to pretend like that Genesis 1 dovetails or describes the Big Bang. Big Bang is a modern theory meant to describe the contemporary notion of the cosmos.

YEC mocks the big bang ( i already said this). Big bang is the atheists creation myth. Nothing to do with Genesis/YEC which starts 6,000 years ago with Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'.

One doesn't interpret any observational data in light of an apriori argument. This is why it is an apriori argument.
You probably mean a posteriori.

No i mean apriori. Please please to save my time and yours indirectly please consider not even responding if you have not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult. Everyone one earth has a priori (before all else) assumptions that they bring to data. 99% of atheists have not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species') and therefore 99% of atheists do not even know what they take by the height of blind ignorant a priori dogmatic faith.

Conclusion: Atheists (probably) have the history book of the universe sitting in their house and do not even realise it (bible). Nothing causing nothing to yield the universe is not a scientific hypothesis. It is pseudo-science. Science wins, religion ('evolution') loses.

http://imgur.com/hEuBMLc

[Ginkgo]

The bible describes the origin of cosmos as it was understood in the Bronze Age. So it is silly and delusional to pretend like that Genesis 1 dovetails or describes the Big Bang. Big Bang is a modern theory meant to describe the contemporary notion of the cosmos.

YEC mocks the big bang ( i already said this). Big bang is the atheists creation myth. Nothing to do with Genesis/YEC which starts 6,000 years ago with Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'.

One doesn't interpret any observational data in light of an apriori argument. This is why it is an apriori argument.
You probably mean a posteriori.

No i mean apriori. Please please to save my time and yours indirectly please consider not even responding if you have not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult. Everyone one earth has a priori (before all else) assumptions that they bring to data. 99% of atheists have not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' cult (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species') and therefore 99% of atheists do not even know what they take by the height of blind ignorant a priori dogmatic faith.

Conclusion: Atheists (probably) have the history book of the universe sitting in their house and do not even realise it (bible). Nothing causing nothing to yield the universe is not a scientific hypothesis. It is pseudo-science. Science wins, religion ('evolution') loses.

http://imgur.com/hEuBMLc

Yes, but that's the whole point of the apriori. No amount of observational data can prove the truth or falsity of the apriori argument.


Yes. I have read the Bible. I mentioned earlier that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. I also mentioned before I am not an atheist

[jinx]

Yes, but that's the whole point of the apriori. No amount of observational data can prove the truth or falsity of the apriori argument.

Everyone brings a priori starting points to data. The atheists/evolutionists (usually taken by the height of blind ignorant dogmatic faith to the point it is not even realised) is 'evolution did it'. The YEC's is: Genesis 1:1 is accurate and took place 6,000 years ago. I know my a priori starting point.

Yes. I have read the Bible. I mentioned earlier that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. I also mentioned before I am not an atheist

Lmao i am referring to the bible of the 'evolution'/atheism cult (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of myths i mean species'). Genesis 1:1 took place ~6,000 years ago in 6 standard earth rotation days. It is the most hated 2 pages of text (well possibly some text to do with Jesus) on earth. Discussion over. Genesis wins, Darwins corpse loses. GG Darwin, thanks for brainwashing the world.

[Ginkgo]

ok. don't worry about it then

Ginkgo

[jinx]

Darwin brainwashed the world. He is dead obv so he has no clue what he started.

[tillingborn]

I would disagree with the claim that the essential feature of science is observation. It is an important feature of science, but it is not the only feature.

Fair enough, but I think Feynman was on the money when he said that no matter how smart you are, or how beautiful your theory, if it disagrees with observation, it's wrong. (Or something.)

There are a number of important other feature as well, that need to be considered. When the YEC claim that science is essentially observation they only partially correct.

I would argue that the essential features of science or, at least physics, were identified by the Pre-Socratic schools. Probably the most important contribution was that of Thales and the other Milesians, they argued that the way to understand the world is to look at it and explain what you see without recourse to supernatural beings. But, the naked eye only reveals so much, so the Eleatics tried to advance our understanding using logic, the Pythagoreans favoured mathematics. Accounting for what you see by referring to something else you can see is what science does. Religion by contrast explains what you can see by appeal to something you can't.

jinx you are a funny little sausage, you keep banging on about the Origin of Species. For the record, I have read it, but while it may be unusual in your circle, I've read more than one book. Lots of them give compelling reasons for thinking that the Earth is more than 6000 years old.

[jinx]

Lots of them give compelling reasons for thinking that the Earth is more than 6000 years old.

If it had only scientific implications there would be no problem. It has personal implications- God created everything 'very good', man sinned, man is fallen, Jesus dies on the cross for mankinds sin. Atheists HATE this. It must be avoided at all costs hence why retarded pagan creation myths are believed to avoid this 'inconvenience'. No ones saying the atheist cant believe by religious faith in one kind of animal producing another kind, just that is not science (never been observed). The concept of 'evolution' started in the garden of Eden

Genesis 3:1-7

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.



Genesis 3:5-6

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

'Evolution' is the myth that mankind is 'evolving' and getting better and better and better and one day with enough knowledge will 'evolve' to the level of gods. It is the lie started by the serpent on the garden of Eden and MILLIONS have fallen hook line and sinker like gullible fish for it. Mankind is decaying and the lie is things are going in the opposite direction. Sheep to the slaughter. Zombies with no clue what lay ahead of them.

Hebrews 9:27

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

[MGL]

The YEC's is: Genesis 1:1 is accurate and took place 6,000 years ago. I know my a priori starting point.

Your starting point is an assumption that the book of Genesis is the literal truth.
Given that our souls may be at stake, it would be nice if you could explain why this is a reasonable assumption to make.