A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

[Etritonakin]

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

I have not checked that against the names and years lived given. Might try to calculate that some time.

Either way, there is no scriptural reason to assume there were not others outside of Eden when there were only Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel.

 

[Brian2]

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.

I don't think science has proven that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans. That is something that has come from assuming that evolution is 100% correct as science has written it down. But science methodology eliminates God from any guidance for evolution because that is what science does.

 

[ecco]

I don't think science has proven that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans. That is something that has come from assuming that evolution is 100% correct as science has written it down.

Evolution could be 10% correct and it would still eliminate the Adam & Eve concept.

But science methodology eliminates God from any guidance for evolution because that is what science does.

Would you rather science indulge the concepts of the god who Created Everything Last Thursday?

Would you rather science indulge the Creation concepts of the Iroquois god?

Maybe science should consider this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=shi...i30j0i390l4.6383j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

​

​

https://www.google.com/search?q=Wha...OmuAKHVu2CaYQ9QF6BAgLEAE#imgrc=E1MWDhXmCrIbCM

In the beginning, when the universe was created from the pre-existing chaos a number of kami ('gods' in this context) appeared spontaneously. Their relationships gave rise to a brother and sister; Izanagi and Izanami.


​

Which creation story should science use and which should be discarded? And why?

 

[Valjean]

I don't think science has proven that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans.

You don't understand burden of proof. It's the claimant's job to prove the claim, not the disbeliever's to disprove it.
Science hasn't proven that the Aztec, Japanese, or Maori creation myths are wrong, either. Do you, therefore, give them equal credence with the Abrahamic mythology you seem to believe?

You don't give credence to EVERYTHING till each thing is proven wrong. That would be absurd. You give credence to things for which there is evidence, the degree of belief corresponding to the quantity and quality of evidence. Unevidenced things are not believed till evidence emerges.

That is something that has come from assuming that evolution is 100% correct as science has written it down.

This has nothing to do with scientific assertions. It has to do with reasoning and logic. It has to do with burden of proof.

But science methodology eliminates God from any guidance for evolution because that is what science does.

No. Science doesn't eliminate god, any more than it eliminates Quetzalcoatl or the Flying Spaghetti monster. These are unevidenced things which science will consider as soon as evidence of them appears. In the mean time they're pretty much ignored by science, as unevidenced and unnecessary, inasmuch as the various things attributed to them can be explained by natural mechanisms.
God is an unnecessary appeal to the supernatural, when the natural suffices.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[rational experiences]

O earth is a natural planet.

You cannot discuss its presence unless it exists and you are the human storyteller.

If earth never existed nor did a human. That advice is conscious advice to a science human theist.

O the planet therefore does only exist with no argument.

Reasoning. As humans are applying all arguments.

O the planet owned it's own heavens.

The sun not any planet by form mass or reactions attacked both bodies.

Two variables bodies both attacked and changed by the sun blasting.

Status human science by conditions earth is only discussing science lights presence as sun blasting.

That advice owned no human argument. And it is lawful meaning cannot legally argue against the fact. As it is owned as evidence.

O planet plus human theist.

Why science controlled by rich liars was itself overthrown for lying.

 

[Brian2]

Evolution could be 10% correct and it would still eliminate the Adam & Eve concept.

I think it would depend which part of evolution we are talking about.

Would you rather science indulge the concepts of the god who Created Everything Last Thursday?

Would you rather science indulge the Creation concepts of the Iroquois god?

Maybe science should consider this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=shi...i30j0i390l4.6383j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

​

In the beginning, when the universe was created from the pre-existing chaos a number of kami ('gods' in this context) appeared spontaneously. Their relationships gave rise to a brother and sister; Izanagi and Izanami.

Which creation story should science use and which should be discarded? And why?​

I don't mind methodological naturalism but what I am against is people not realising that it is just that, methodological naturalism, and does not show that god/s do not exist. Is science started saying that then it would be stepping outside it's bounds and if people start saying that science has not found god/s therefore god/s don't exist they are fooling themselves.​

 

[Brian2]

You don't understand burden of proof. It's the claimant's job to prove the claim, not the disbeliever's to disprove it.
Science hasn't proven that the Aztec, Japanese, or Maori creation myths are wrong, either. Do you, therefore, give them equal credence with the Abrahamic mythology you seem to believe?

You don't give credence to EVERYTHING till each thing is proven wrong. That would be absurd. You give credence to things for which there is evidence, the degree of belief corresponding to the quantity and quality of evidence. Unevidenced things are not believed till evidence emerges.

Do you think science has proven that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans? No.
You agree with me. Thanks.
What's the problem?

This has nothing to do with scientific assertions. It has to do with reasoning and logic. It has to do with burden of proof.

If you do think science has proven that A@E weren't the first humans then you better have your proof, believer.

No. Science doesn't eliminate god, any more than it eliminates Quetzalcoatl or the Flying Spaghetti monster. These are unevidenced things which science will consider as soon as evidence of them appears. In the mean time they're pretty much ignored by science, as unevidenced and unnecessary, inasmuch as the various things attributed to them can be explained by natural mechanisms.
God is an unnecessary appeal to the supernatural, when the natural suffices.

You say the natural suffices so the burden of proof is on you. Show me and I'll believe. You have no evidence, just assertions.

 

[ecco]

Is science started saying that then it would be stepping outside it's bounds and if people start saying that science has not found god/s therefore god/s don't exist they are fooling themselves.

Do you consider history to be a science? History shows that man has created gods from his own imaginings since before the advent of writing.

Every religious person is convinced the god(s) he believes in is the Real True God and agrees that all others are just made up.

Historical research shows no evidence for the stories about Mohammed and how he came to write the Koran.

Historical and scientific research has uncovered extensive evidence that the stories in the OT are impossible.

Historical research has shown that the foundation of Christianity, the four Gospels, are not factual.



Still unanswered...

Would you rather science indulge the concepts of the god who Created Everything Last Thursday?

Would you rather science indulge the Creation concepts of the Iroquois god?

 

[Valjean]

Do you think science has proven that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans? No.
You agree with me. Thanks.
What's the problem?

The problem is that it's not science's job to prove Adam and Eve weren't the first humans -- or even existed, for that matter. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. If they cannot make a well evidenced case for Adam and Eve, the couple is assumed not to have existed.
Non-existence is the epistemic default.

If you do think science has proven that A@E weren't the first humans then you better have your proof, believer.

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. It's your job to prove A&E, not science's to disprove them.
Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Leprechauns, or pink unicorns, things are logically assumed not to exist till actual evidence for existence is produced.

You say the natural suffices so the burden of proof is on you. Show me and I'll believe. You have no evidence, just assertions.

Huh? Believe what?