"I chose YEC because..."

[Smidlee]

And evolution does not deal with origins. How many times does that have to be explained to creationists. The Theory of Evolution has zero, zilch, none, nada, zippo, to do with the origin of life. That is an entirely separate theory in an entirely separate branch of science.

Please reread the quote again but this time more slowly. You starting to sound like Chrisbot which gives the same reply a thousand of times.

 

[Smidlee]

Based upon what? In all likelihood you have not the expertise to make that decision when examining the science. I have never seen a YEC on this or any other board who seems to even have an understanding of science beyond vaguely remembered high school classes they took years before. I am willing to wager a virtual $1,000,000 that you personally, though making absolute statements about science, have not a PhD in a valid science field related to the topics braoched on this board and have not worked in research in the said discipline for 5, 10 or 25 years - have you?

Almost sounds like you are in a religious clique. Only those on the inside has true knowledge in a religious clique. Most scientist lives in a tiny box and has only a narrow view.

Edit:rmwilliamsll
Thanks for the correct spelling of the word which obviously you knew what I meant. I do forget how to spell words I seldom use.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Almost sounds like you are in a religious click. Only those on the inside has true knowledge in a religious click. Most scientist lives in a tiny box and has only a narrow view.

clique (klēk, klĭk) pronunciation
n.
A small exclusive group of friends or associates.
intr.v. Informal., cliqued, cliqu·ing, cliques.
To form, associate in, or act as a clique.
[French, from Old French, latch or from obsolete French cliquer, to click, clink, of imitative origin.]

 

[KerrMetric]

Almost sounds like you are in a religious clique. Only those on the inside has true knowledge in a religious clique. Most scientist lives in a tiny box and has only a narrow view.

Like most disciplines only those who perform the work and understand the concepts are likely to know what's what.

Reading CNN science reports or watching a NOVA episode on TV or remembering high school classes is not something likely to create a solid science knowledge or capability. In fact, it is impossible for it to do so.

There is a reason that to become an "expert" in a field like geology takes approx. 10 years of higher education and then up to 30 years of research in the field. Not forgetting the fact that the person who did that was academically capable (probably top 0.5%) to begin with.
In other words - not only do most people not get into it - most people couldn't even if they wanted to, just like most people can't average 25 points per game if they were put on an NBA court or run a 100m in less than 10 seconds. Yet on this board I hear complaints from a collection of housewives, burger flippers, insurance agents or plumbers stating things about say geology (or physics, or biology) they couldn't be less capable of doing so.

 

[Jase]

Please reread the quote again but this time more slowly. You starting to sound like Chrisbot which gives the same reply a thousand of times.

Well, you were talking about Darwin's interpretation of facts, followed by talk of origins. I'm not a mind reader - most creationists associate evolution with origins. Your post sounded the same.

 

[jckstraw72]

Well, you were talking about Darwin's interpretation of facts, followed by talk of origins. I'm not a mind reader - most creationists associate evolution with origins. Your post sounded the same.

when is it proposed that evolution began in the grand scheme of life?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

when is it proposed that evolution began in the grand scheme of life?

when a replicator existed. an absolute requirement for TofE.

 

[SeanSteele]

So you claim to be well-versed, and yet you show ignorance of the stuff you should have been taught in the very first day of science class?

Do you feel better about yourself now? Let's see, you called me ignorant, babbling, and claimed that I have no grasp of science without even knowing who I am.

Now you expect me to either disappear from the thread or come back with a response to defend my point of view. Well first let me say that it was made quite clear from the onset that this was not to be a debate about evolution. This was between me and Kerr about his blatant disrespect going back to the second post where he burst into this thread firing of an insult for no apparent reason.

Now you come in and attack me for no better reason than that you evidently have too much time on your hands. What makes you want to lash out at people that have done nothing to harm you (and we wonder why so many people are anti-Christian)?

The purpose of the thread was to see why people choose YEC. It could have been a very nice and informative thread. Kerr is not YEC and chose to sling an insult for no apparent reason. He had no business posting at all since he is not a YEC and as a Christian he had no business saying anything demeaning about his brother/sisters in Christ no matter how correct he feels in his beliefs. We are to build up the body of Christ, not tear it down. No I would ask you kindly to leave this between me and Kerr. You had no reason to launch an attack against me.

 

[jckstraw72]

when a replicator existed. an absolute requirement for TofE.

so evolution wasnt happening since the beginning?

 

[SeanSteele]

If you are well versed then you don't make errors at the most basic level like this. Evolution is a fact - the mechanisms to explain it are the theory.

Nice side step. Would you like to adress the point of the matter? Why would you come into a thread that was for YEC's, when you most certainly aren't one, and start trouble? This was not for you. It stated right from the first post that we were to exchange ideas first, then if people wanted to debate they could go ahead.

As far as facts go, evolution is not a fact. Can you observe or repeat the process? You take it on faith that it happened just as I take creation on faith. You can call evolution a fact all you like, it will not make it so. Any high school student will tell you that for something to be fact, it must be observable and repeatable. You can do niether with evolution. Now if you wish to debate evolution, we can start a new thread or use an old one I don't really care. What I would like is to have what this thread was actually intended for, a discusion between YEC's on why we believe what we believe. At this point we will probably have to start a new thread though since this one has be hijacked with worthless debate.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Can you observe or repeat the process?

observed--yes.
repeat-if the basic building blocks are random mutations why would you expect that evolution is repeatable?

 

[random_guy]

Nice side step. Would you like to adress the point of the matter? Why would you come into a thread that was for YEC's, when you most certainly aren't one, and start trouble? This was not for you. It stated right from the first post that we were to exchange ideas first, then if people wanted to debate they could go ahead.

As far as facts go, evolution is not a fact. Can you observe or repeat the process? You take it on faith that it happened just as I take creation on faith. You can call evolution a fact all you like, it will not make it so. Any high school student will tell you that for something to be fact, it must be observable and repeatable. You can do niether with evolution. Now if you wish to debate evolution, we can start a new thread or use an old one I don't really care. What I would like is to have what this thread was actually intended for, a discusion between YEC's on why we believe what we believe. At this point we will probably have to start a new thread though since this one has be hijacked with worthless debate.

Just a correction. Evolution is a fact just like gravity is a fact. Evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over generations. This can be observed and is a fact, just like gravity is defined as the force of attraction between masses.

However, there's also a theory of evolution just like there's a theory of gravity. The theory of evolution explains what causes the change of allele frequencies (mutation + natural selection), just like the theory of gravity explains what causes gravity (gravitons or bending of space-time, we still don't know).

My guess is you're fine with all of this (what Creationists might call adaptation). However, when you delve deeper into the theory of evolution (things such as universal common descent, beneficial mutations, vestigal organs, etc...), I'm guessing that's what you have problems accepting.

Finally, for any lurkers out there, there is no natural progression in science of hypothesis->theory->fact or law. Facts are observations and laws are usually mathematical descriptions for things we observe, like the Law of Gravity (F=Gm * m1 * m2 / r^2). However, just because something is a Law, it doesn't mean it's 100% (again Law of Gravity is not correct).

I hope this clears up any misconceptions. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.

 

[PETE_]

Like most disciplines only those who perform the work and understand the concepts are likely to know what's what.

Reading CNN science reports or watching a NOVA episode on TV or remembering high school classes is not something likely to create a solid science knowledge or capability. In fact, it is impossible for it to do so.

There is a reason that to become an "expert" in a field like geology takes approx. 10 years of higher education and then up to 30 years of research in the field. Not forgetting the fact that the person who did that was academically capable (probably top 0.5%) to begin with.
In other words - not only do most people not get into it - most people couldn't even if they wanted to, just like most people can't average 25 points per game if they were put on an NBA court or run a 100m in less than 10 seconds. Yet on this board I hear complaints from a collection of housewives, burger flippers, insurance agents or plumbers stating things about say geology (or physics, or biology) they couldn't be less capable of doing so.

You make a good point about the complexity of science and math on these levels. I went to college on a full paid engineering scholarship, and do not understand alot of it. Mostly do to the lack of desire and I have better things to do with my time.

To use your sports example, I am a casual sports fan and do enjoy learning the "how"s and "why"s of sports. I am not going to spend the time neccessary to know it all, nor do I have the access to even learn everything. So I read and listen to the experts.

I like the Atlanta Braves. When I want to know about the team I don't read the papers in Chicago, I read Atlanta based info, or others I trust to give me accurate information. And you always have to be alert for the "homer" who's information is mostly biased but may have a few interesting tidbits.

The Creation/Evolution science is much like this to me.I have Biblical reasons for my positions, and when the science gets deep I turn to experts. But I chose to give more weight to the information presented by those scientists that hold my same Biblical views. They work in the same fields, attended the same schools, and publish their findings, the same as scientists who do not agree with the Bible, they just interpret the evidence differently. I am also aware that some may be biased and push the facts farther than they truely go.

I believe there is plenty of science that points to God, but to say that it "proves" God would be incorrect. On the other hand to say that science has proven that YEC is not a possiblity would also be incorrect. But every team has a few "homers"

Everyone is more likely to accept the scientists for their own team.

 

[artybloke]

so evolution wasnt happening since the beginning?

Since the beginning of what?

 

[Jase]

when is it proposed that evolution began in the grand scheme of life?

After life already existed.

 

[Jase]

Do you feel better about yourself now? Let's see, you called me ignorant, babbling, and claimed that I have no grasp of science without even knowing who I am.

His claim of you having no grasp of science is due to your misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. You should know that theories do not become facts, if you have quite of bit of knowledge of science as you claimed.

 

[Jase]

As far as facts go, evolution is not a fact.

Adaptation is evolution, and even creationists accept that, so yes evolution is a fact.

 

[Pats]

You can do niether with evolution. Now if you wish to debate evolution, we can start a new thread or use an old one I don't really care. What I would like is to have what this thread was actually intended for, a discusion between YEC's on why we believe what we believe.

The OP placed this thread into the open Origins Theology forum, a place for debate. I see that the OP started a new one in the Creationism subforum, the place for creationists to post without debate from non creationists.

The OP also used the past tense wording "Why I chose YEC," rather than the present tense of the word wich would have been, "choose." So, I could easily see how this thread could apply to posters who once chose YEC, whether they are YECist currently or not.

At this point we will probably have to start a new thread though since this one has be hijacked with worthless debate.

If you feel that debating this topic is worthless, why are you wasting your time in Origins theology? You'll find this entire forum "worthless" if this is your feeling on the subject.

 

[Pats]

You make a good point about the complexity of science and math on these levels. I went to college on a full paid engineering scholarship, and do not understand alot of it. Mostly do to the lack of desire and I have better things to do with my time.

Civilizations function best when engineers perfect their knowledge of engineering and scientists perfect their knowledge of science.

The Creation/Evolution science is much like this to me.I have Biblical reasons for my positions, and when the science gets deep I turn to experts. But I chose to give more weight to the information presented by those scientists that hold my same Biblical views.

So, if you ended up in an accident and required emergancy medical attention, would you stop the first doctor on the scene in the nearest hospital to find out if he's not only a Christian but also a literalist before allowing him/her to treat you?

Because, if not, you would be placing your life in the hands of a scientist who may not share your Biblical views.

They work in the same fields, attended the same schools, and publish their findings, the same as scientists who do not agree with the Bible, they just interpret the evidence differently. I am also aware that some may be biased and push the facts farther than they truely go.

I believe there is plenty of science that points to God, but to say that it "proves" God would be incorrect. On the other hand to say that science has proven that YEC is not a possiblity would also be incorrect. But every team has a few "homers"

Everyone is more likely to accept the scientists for their own team.

I used to think "creation science" and the Theory of Evolution were on equal footing with one another. This is, I've learned, a misconception.

However, what convinced me was a real study into how the scriptures were meant to be interpreted and how literalists were twisting them into something they simply don't say.

 

[PETE_]

So, if you ended up in an accident and required emergancy medical attention, would you stop the first doctor on the scene in the nearest hospital to find out if he's not only a Christian but also a literalist before allowing him/her to treat you?

Because, if not, you would be placing your life in the hands of a scientist who may not share your Biblical views.

I do not disqualify a doctor or scientist purely for their beliefs, but I do consider it as a factor.

I used to think "creation science" and the Theory of Evolution were on equal footing with one another. This is, I've learned, a misconception.

However, what convinced me was a real study into how the scriptures were meant to be interpreted and how literalists were twisting them into something they simply don't say.

You know what they say about opinions...