My YEC Evidence Challenge

[Kylie]

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

Once again, you make a lot of noise but provide no supporting evidence.

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. Any proof they Were?

You have no idea how radioactive decay ratios work as evidence for a same state past, do you?

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

Once again, you make no sense.

It fits. Wonderful.

So what? I can claim magic exists and my proof of this is that it fits with the Harry Potter stories. Doesn't make it real.

You need to learn that an imaginary idea fitting an old story does not make something real.

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

Of course. Because everyone who has ever come up with their own ideas was ALWAYS later shown to be correct. One day soon, I expect people all over the world will be singing your name in praise. Why, you may even get the Nobel Prize!

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

And meanwhile, I've questioned your baseless belief system and you've NEVER supported it.

 

[Kylie]

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

You have no idea how this works, do you?

 

[Kylie]

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?

Yes, I said "the man" because you are "the man" who has the username "dad" on this website.

And what I hate about your use of the word "woman" when referring to me is that you seem to be reducing me to my gender as though that's the only thing I have of value.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have no idea how this works, do you?

Science has to prove it's a negative first.

 

[Kylie]

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.

God doesn't do much to stop it though, does he? I mean, he's made lots of things impossible. We can't go faster than light. We can't bend our knees backwards without breaking them. And yet when it came to making homosexuality impossible, he decided to let it go.

 

[AV1611VET]

And what I hate about your use of the word "woman" when referring to me is that you seem to be reducing me to my gender as though that's the only thing I have of value.

You never heard of the Proverbs 31 woman?

 

[Kylie]

Science has to prove it's a negative first.

Uh, no.

dmmesdale was the one who said it was a negative - and he said that from a RELIGIOUS point of view.

So ask him to show that it's a negative, and ask him to use religion to show that it's a negative. According to him, I'm the one arguing a positive here. (I don't see how I'm arguing anything with him though, I'm simply asking him to support his claims that the theory of evolution is false.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh, no.

dmmesdale was the one who said it was a negative - and he said that from a RELIGIOUS point of view.

So ask him to show that it's a negative, and ask him to use religion to show that it's a negative. According to him, I'm the one arguing a positive here. (I don't see how I'm arguing anything with him though, I'm simply asking him to support his claims that the theory of evolution is false.)

kay

 

[AV1611VET]

God doesn't do much to stop it though, does he? I mean, he's made lots of things impossible. We can't go faster than light. We can't bend our knees backwards without breaking them. And yet when it came to making homosexuality impossible, he decided to let it go.

And evolution has done differently?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Facts don't always tell the truth

We are dealing with artifacts and natural evidence. For the most part we try to determine who can make up the most believable story about the evidence we have to work with. For example there are layers in the soil so we ask what do the layers tell us and what can we learn from that.

 

[AV1611VET]

For example there are layers in the soil so we ask what do the layers tell us and what can we learn from that.

And we should just listen to what they tell us without question?

 

[dmmesdale]

You have no idea how this works, do you?

This is what i wrote, and you requested support for my alleged claim.

Our dispute with evolution comes with this definition. Stephen Meyer.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended
from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent,
purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on ran-
dom variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection,
random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of
design in living organisms.

From what I am gathering you are asking me for evidence or proving the negative when yours assumes blind watchmaker evolution has to be somehow disproven. My point was atheists had not shown blind watchmaker in the first place. They have not made a compelling and reasonable case for their atheistic creation myths.

What they have done is rejected the supernatural from the get go in favor of materialistic abductive inferences about the history of life on Earth. The simply interpret the data atheistically. Quote.

Mayr put it recently:
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. (From the get go) The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator
or designer (although one is certainly free to believe in God even if one ac-
cepts evolution). Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible
and the origin accounts of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any
aspect of the natural world. Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so ad-
mired by natural theologians could be explained by natural selection.
13

From the facts, we can deduce life here had a start and therefore required a cause. The options are either nonliving or the intervention of a living being. Under that scenario, the latter would be the most plausible given all we know about living things.

 

[dad]

You have no idea how radioactive decay ratios work as evidence for a same state past, do you?

You think you do!? Then simply tell us. Ha. Sorry but the old act of pretending to know stuff has grown real old.

So what? I can claim magic exists and my proof of this is that it fits with the Harry Potter stories. Doesn't make it real.

You can claim there was radioactivity in the far past on earth, but we need to see proof.

You need to learn that an imaginary idea fitting an old story does not make something real.

Calling the bible imaginary shows denial and ignorance.

Of course. Because everyone who has ever come up with their own ideas was ALWAYS later shown to be correct. One day soon, I expect people all over the world will be singing your name in praise. Why, you may even get the Nobel Prize!

They don't give one of those out to people who know the truth about creation do they?

And meanwhile, I've questioned your baseless belief system and you've NEVER supported it.

Meanwhile, instead of trying to make a reasoned and concrete case for your outlandish so called science claims, we see you try to attack belief in God's word.

 

[dad]

Yes, I said "the man" because you are "the man" who has the username "dad" on this website.

OK, I'll take it. Maybe you should start working for the man every night and day trying to support your claims of our present nature always having existed on earth?

And what I hate about your use of the word "woman" when referring to me is that you seem to be reducing me to my gender as though that's the only thing I have of value.

Reducing? You think a woman is of less value?? I thought they were part of mankind.

 

[dad]

God doesn't do much to stop it though, does he? I mean, he's made lots of things impossible. We can't go faster than light. We can't bend our knees backwards without breaking them. And yet when it came to making homosexuality impossible, he decided to let it go.

He didn't make bludgeoning a brother with a club to death impossible either. Go figure.

 

[Aman777]

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.

Tell us HOW ancient theologians wrote the scientific truth which was only discovered last year, that "every living creature that moveth" came forth from WATER. Genesis 1:21 You cannot. All you can do is imply that ancient men knew that 3k years ago because they lived in the desert. It's proof that God is the Author of Genesis no matter what unbelievers think. God Bless you

 

[dad]

Tell us HOW ancient theologians wrote the scientific truth which was only discovered last year, that "every living creature that moveth" came forth from WATER. Genesis 1:21 You cannot. All you can do is imply that ancient men knew that 3k years ago because they lived in the desert. It's proof that God is the Author of Genesis no matter what unbelievers think. God Bless you

Only the living things on one day of creation week came from water. Man and beast came from earth. Gong.

 

[Kylie]

You never heard of the Proverbs 31 woman?

You mean the book of the Bible that says women shouldn't be strong, and that virtuous women are rare?

And I said don't call me woman.

 

[Kylie]

kay

Sometimes I wonder whether you even read posts well enough to understand what they are actually saying before you post...

 

[Kylie]

And evolution has done differently?

Why so you think evolution should?