My YEC Evidence Challenge

[lesliedellow]

Garbage. What they have is a long story and what they do is fit all the info into the story.

Quite uniquely for a YEC, this one seems to have some idea what he is talking about. Being trained as a biologist might help:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true."

 

[dad]

What are you going on about?

Tryna be jive?

You were talkin about the man. Maybe you should be talking details of your bizarre godless faith system of so called science. Put it on the table.
Or maybe just pretend you already did, but no one noticed..like the rest of the evo dream team does!

 

[Kylie]

I don't have to prove the negative since you can't prove your positive.

Ah, once again we have someone making excuses for why they don't have to back up their claim.

You don't understand how this works, do you? If a person makes a claim, they must provide evidence for that claim.

 

[Kylie]

You were talkin about the man. Maybe you should be talking details of your bizarre godless faith system of so called science. Put it on the table.
Or maybe just pretend you already did, but no one noticed..like the rest of the evo dream team does!

Sorry, I thought you were a man and I was referring to you as such. Am I mistaken?

 

[dad]

You don't understand how this works, do you? If a person makes a claim, they must provide evidence for that claim.

You claim a same state past. Go figure. Pot...meet kettle.

 

[dad]

Sorry, I thought you were a man and I was referring to you as such. Am I mistaken?

OK woman.

 

[Kylie]

You claim a same state past. Go figure. Pot...meet kettle.

I claim a same state past because:

1. We know that a universe with the current laws works
2. There's no evidence from reality to suggest that the laws were once any different
3. If the laws were different, we'd see evidence of it

The only reason you claim a different state past is so you can reassure yourself that your interpretation of the Bible is correct.

You are the one making the claim. You are the one who must support your position. You must learn what the burden of proof is.

 

[Kylie]

OK woman.

I have a name, you know.

Or are you telling me you are actually a woman?

 

[dad]

I claim a same state past because:

1. We know that a universe with the current laws works

1. We know God created the universe with laws that work. So? How would that relate to a godless view of the universe? How would that relate to whether there even was time in the far universe as we know time?
   

   [*]
   
   [*]There's no evidence from reality to suggest that the laws were once any different

   That depends on what we define as reality. There is no evidence from science to say one way OR THE OTHER. There is evidence in the bible to suggest strongly that things on earth used to be different. It seems you are saying you simply chose ignorance over including the truth of God in your little knowledge.

1. 
   
   

   [*]If the laws were different, we'd see evidence of it

   That makes no sense. How or where or when or why would we see...what if a different nature once existed? What are you talking about? Give an example.

1. 
   

The only reason you claim a different state past is so you can reassure yourself that your interpretation of the Bible is correct.

So you admit that a different state past makes the bible correct, and we all see that you can't prove what state the past was by science! So why would we believe the bible is not correct for no reason whatsoever?!

You are the one making the claim of a same state past. You are the one pretending science has evidence for this nonsense claim. You are the one who must support your position. You must learn what the burden of proof is.

 

[dad]

I have a name, you know.

Or are you telling me you are actually a woman?

This from the one who called me the man.

 

[Kylie]

1. We know God created the universe with laws that work. So? How would that relate to a godless view of the universe? How would that relate to whether there even was time in the far universe as we know time?

No, you know there is a universe, and you know what the laws are now. Your old book of stories is not a valid scientific source.

1. That depends on what we define as reality. There is no evidence from science to say one way OR THE OTHER. There is evidence in the bible to suggest strongly that things on earth used to be different. It seems you are saying you simply chose ignorance over including the truth of God in your little knowledge.

There's plenty of evidence from science. Don't act like it isn't there just because you don't understand it.

That makes no sense. How or where or when or why would we see...what if a different nature once existed? What are you talking about? Give an example.

Have you already forgotten about all the times I told you about the radioactive decay, and how the ratios between different materials would be different?

Oh, that's right, you handwave that away by claiming that the daughter materials were already there...

...in exactly the right amounts to look like it had been formed from millions of years of decay. Yeah, all an amazing coincidence.

So you admit that a different state past makes the bible correct

No, I was saying that YOU need a different state past for your INTERPRETATION of the Bible to be correct.

and we all see that you can't prove what state the past was by science!

Except no one except you has ever made that claim. Why do you think you can say that others share your views when no one has come forward to say they share your views?

So why would we believe the bible is not correct for no reason whatsoever?!

Because it makes claims and provides no support for them, because some of the things it claims contradict things we know to be fact...

You are the one making the claim of a same state past. You are the one pretending science has evidence for this nonsense claim. You are the one who must support your position. You must learn what the burden of proof is.

Except that the idea of a same state past is the default position, because I'm not claiming anything was different to the way it is now. You are the one making the claim, you are the one claiming it was different, so you must be the one to support that claim.

The fact you even think that turning my argument around like that is valid shows you have no idea what you are even talking about.

 

[Kylie]

This from the one who called me the man.

I apologise. If you wish, I will never refer to you as a man again.

 

[Aman777]

No, you know there is a universe, and you know what the laws are now. Your old book of stories is not a valid scientific source.

Sure it is UNLESS you can tell us HOW ancient men who lived thousands of years before Science KNEW and wrote the current scientific consensus that ALL life came forth from WATER. Genesis 1:21 AND www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-..

Remember that Faith plus scientific and historic Facts equals God's Truth in Genesis. God Bless you

 

[dad]

No, you know there is a universe, and you know what the laws are now. Your old book of stories is not a valid scientific source.

We do not know what the far universe is like in many ways. We know earth. We know earth in this present nature and time.

There's plenty of evidence from science. Don't act like it isn't there just because you don't understand it.

There is none at all, don't act like there is. Your posts betray you.

Have you already forgotten about all the times I told you about the radioactive decay, and how the ratios between different materials would be different?

If ratios were here already at the onset of the present nature, they would be the same. All that is changed is that the ratios didn't come from decay. There is decay NOW..and it adds to existing ratios.

Oh, that's right, you handwave that away by claiming that the daughter materials were already there...

Any proof they Were?

...in exactly the right amounts to look like it had been formed from millions of years of decay. Yeah, all an amazing coincidence.

Take away decay and there goes any coincidence. It is just that you obsess over present state decay.

No, I was saying that YOU need a different state past for your INTERPRETATION of the Bible to be correct.

It fits. Wonderful.

Except no one except you has ever made that claim. Why do you think you can say that others share your views when no one has come forward to say they share your views?

I must be fortunate that all are not yet on board. Nice to be a pioneer.

Except that the idea of a same state past is the default position, because I'm not claiming anything was different to the way it is now. You are the one making the claim, you are the one claiming it was different, so you must be the one to support that claim.

Just because no one realized we should question your baseless belief doesn't mean you don't need to support it.

 

[lesliedellow]

WWe do not know whattthe far universe is like in many ways. We know earth. We know earth in this present nature and time.TThere is none at all, don't act like there is. Your posts betray you.

Oh yes, gravity was weaker in the past. In fact so weak that Earth entered a parabolic orbit, and we are now on our way to Alpha Proxima.

Oh, wait a minute.....

Phew, that is a relief. Gravity suddenly got strong enough to pull us back in before catastrophe ensued. Close call that.

 

[dad]

Oh yes, gravity was weaker in the past.

? It was? Any support for that claim, or any claim being the same or otherwise?

In fact so weak that Earth entered a parabolic orbit, and we are now on our way to Alpha Proxima.

There are so many things in a nature change that could have affected orbits we need not go there. You don't know...is all we need to know.

Oh, wait a minute.....

Phew, that is a relief. Gravity suddenly got strong enough to pull us back in before catastrophe ensued. Close call that.

Relax. Your invented scenarios should not cause you, or anyone else to worry.

 

[dad]

I apologise. If you wish, I will never refer to you as a man again.

You said the man. Not a man. No? What is it about the word woman you hate? Do you like to deny creation or something? Don't like your place in nature?

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't like your place in nature?

You're just a cisgender!

 

[dad]

You're just a cisgender!

I am happy to be a man. All that bending of nature and truth and normal healthy sexual tastes is, as you probably would agree, not of God.

 

[Kylie]

Sure it is UNLESS you can tell us HOW ancient men who lived thousands of years before Science KNEW and wrote the current scientific consensus that ALL life came forth from WATER. Genesis 1:21 AND www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-..

Remember that Faith plus scientific and historic Facts equals God's Truth in Genesis. God Bless you

Those people lived in the desert. You really think it was hard for them to see how important water was for life? It would have been painfully obvious that life needs water, but here you are thinking that the only way they could have known that was if they heard it from God.