My YEC Evidence Challenge

[Kylie]

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.

You really need to read things more carefully.

In post 1061, you gave a definition of evolution which you repeated above, the one from Stephen Meyer.

You then said, "Evolution by the above definition is pure fiction."

You made the claim that such evolution is pure fiction. I am now asking you to provide evidence to support that claim you made.

You don't get to weasel out of providing support by saying, "I don't need to show that it's fiction because you can't show that it's fact." If you have a problem with it, you need to show where it is.

 

[Kylie]

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

I'll admit that there's a lot about radioactive decay I simply don't understand.

But when the people who DO understand it say that it is evidence of millions of years, you better believe I'm gonna take their word for it over yours. Because they study this stuff for a living, they have studied it in greater depth than you, they have studied it for longer than you. They have conducted experiments with it, they have put it to the test and they have gotten reliable and checkable results from it.

All you've got is a story that disagrees with it, and so you discount it because you want your story to be true.

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

The fact that we see the result of millions of years of decay is the proof. Your outrageous attempts to handwave it away have failed.

Calling the bible imaginary shows denial and ignorance.

I'll call anything imaginary if it contradicts the real world.

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

Of course, it's all a big conspiracy, isn't 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.

Meanwhile, instead of trying to make a reasoned and concrete case for your outlandish so called different state past, we see you try to attack reality and science. Really, dad, you gotta get more than just name-calling and denialism if you want a proper discussion about this.

 

[Kylie]

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?

We'll add that song to the list of things you don't understand...

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

No, I think you are dismissing everything else I have of value.

BTW, the Bible makes it clear that God does indeed think women are of lesser value than men.

 

[Kylie]

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

And yet he could have. What does that tell you about God? He certainly seems to have some odd priorities!

 

[Kylie]

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

Woah, hold on there.

Please show me valid scientific evidence that scientists didn't know that life requires water prior to 2016.

Or do you actually expect me to believe that before 2016, scientists were saying, "We simply don't know if life requires water..."

REALLY?

 

[Kylie]

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

You Christians can't even agree amongst yourselves, but tell me more about how you got it right...

 

[dad]

I'll admit that there's a lot about radioactive decay I simply don't understand.

But when the people who DO understand it say that it is evidence of millions of years, you better believe I'm gonna take their word for it over yours. Because they study this stuff for a living, they have studied it in greater depth than you, they have studied it for longer than you. They have conducted experiments with it, they have put it to the test and they have gotten reliable and checkable results from it.

All you've got is a story that disagrees with it, and so you discount it because you want your story to be true.



The fact that we see the result of millions of years of decay is the proof. Your outrageous attempts to handwave it away have failed.



I'll call anything imaginary if it contradicts the real world.



Of course, it's all a big conspiracy, isn't it?

Hard to believe that you put up so much resistance for so long claiming it was a certain way, and now you admit not knowing at all actually. Wasting our time. You expect us to have blind faith in the system of science. Name anyone in science who says radioactivity was always the same, and their reasons.

 

[dad]

You Christians can't even agree amongst yourselves, but tell me more about how you got it right...

There is not significant disagreement among bible believers that I know about that Adam was created on day six actually. The word Christian is often confused with craziness, cult concepts, and weird nonsense loosely built around some out of context part of some verse that is molested to support some ignorant or secret personal agenda.

 

[pitabread]

The word Christian is often confused with craziness, cult concepts, and weird nonsense

Oh, the irony of it all...

 

[dad]

We'll add that song to the list of things you don't understand...



No, I think you are dismissing everything else I have of value.

BTW, the Bible makes it clear that God does indeed think women are of lesser value than men.

?Lesser Value? No. If you add value to posts, no one will care if a man wrote them or not.

 

[Aman777]

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

Amen, but they included "every living creature that moveth" which means that ALL living creatures that move, including prehistoric mankind, was made by God the Trinity on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Many of them were modeled after HIS kinds or the common ancestors which Jesus made from the dust of the ground. He made Adam on the 3rd Day Gen 2:7 and the beasts of the field and birds on the 6th Day. Gen 2:19 That is WHY mankind MUST be born again in order to go to Heaven. We were FIRST made by Jesus (Lord God) but we MUST be born again Spiritually by the TRINITY. Don't you know the difference between kinds? God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Woah, hold on there.

Please show me valid scientific evidence that scientists didn't know that life requires water prior to 2016.

Or do you actually expect me to believe that before 2016, scientists were saying, "We simply don't know if life requires water..."

REALLY?

That's the way it is with Science. They try to decide IF life came from outer Space, abiogenesis or magical chemical generation, or just appeared from no where. They finally announced last year what God told us more than 3k years ago in Genesis 1:21 that "every living creature that moveth" was made from water. They call it the last universal common ancestor. Please notice the Date. it's 3k years too late.

Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things
Jul 25, 2016 -

God's Truth is the Truth in EVERY way. Soon, the scientists of the last days will confirm other revelations hidden in Genesis chapter one. God told us this would happen more than 2,000 years ago in Act 2:17. God is pouring out His Spirit of Truth upon all flesh including unbelievers and scientists. Happy reading and God Bless you.

 

[Aman777]

You Christians can't even agree amongst yourselves, but tell me more about how you got it right...

Dad has his own religion which does not agree with Scripture, Science nor History. He believes his truth by Faith in dad's understanding. Such thinking has caused some 30k plus denominations, which is exactly as God knew it would be before He began the creation. This assures that ONLY by Faith can one be saved. ONLY the people of the last days, have the increased knowledge to understand the scientific Truths hidden in Genesis chapter One. Dan 12:4 God Bless you

 

[dad]

Amen, but they included "every living creature that moveth" which means that ALL living creatures that move, including prehistoric mankind, was made by God the Trinity on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Many of them were modeled after HIS kinds or the common ancestors which Jesus made from the dust of the ground. He made Adam on the 3rd Day Gen 2:7 and the beasts of the field and birds on the 6th Day. Gen 2:1

No, Gen 2 is not the order. It was all finished by the time verse one of that chapter starts. The order is chapter one, and it was day six man was made.

Rather than water we actually see man was formed from the dust of the earth!

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Eve was made from his bone...you think he had water for bones!?

Chap 1 gives the when and chap 2 gives the how.

That is WHY mankind MUST be born again in order to go to Heaven. We were FIRST made by Jesus (Lord God) but we MUST be born again Spiritually by the TRINITY. Don't you know the difference between kinds? God Bless you

Why add silly religious talk at the end of a foolish anti bible fable?

 

[dad]

Dad has his own religion which does not agree with Scripture, Science nor History. He believes his truth by Faith in dad's understanding. Such thinking has caused some 30k plus denominations, which is exactly as God knew it would be before He began the creation. This assures that ONLY by Faith can one be saved. ONLY the people of the last days, have the increased knowledge to understand the scientific Truths hidden in Genesis chapter One. Dan 12:4 God Bless you

Talkin behind my back eh?

 

[Aman777]

No, Gen 2 is not the order. It was all finished by the time verse one of that chapter starts. The order is chapter one, and it was day six man was made.

False since man was "formed" of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants, herbs and rain AND TREES, which grew on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12

*** Rather than water we actually see man was formed from the dust of the earth!

Amen, as the common ancestor of All Humans, with an intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22

*** 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Amen. Now go on to the NEXT verse and see that Adam was made BEFORE the trees which GREW on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12 Notice ALSO that Adam was NOT "created" by God the Trinity until the 6th Day. This is not so hard to understand since Eve was also "created" at the SAME time. Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1-2 That's because to be "created" by the Trinity is to be born again Spiritually in Christ.

*** Eve was made from his bone...you think he had water for bones!?

Of course not, but Eve was NOT created along with Adam until AFTER Cain killed Abel. Gen 5:1-2 Adam lived for 930 years AFTER he and Eve were born again. Gen 5:5

*** Chap 1 gives the when and chap 2 gives the how.

False. Genesis 1 is the entire History of God's 6 Day/Age Creation. The first 3 verses of Genesis 2 is prophecy of future events. At Gen 2:4 the narrative goes BACK to the 3rd Day and shows us that Adam was formed on that Day, and so was our Cosmos, and the 3rd Heaven, since Day 3 was billions of years ago in man's time. From Gen 2:4 to the end of Revelation 22, the Bible refers BACK to the first 34 verses of Genesis. If you don't see that, you will NEVER understand Genesis.

*** Why add silly religious talk at the end of a foolish anti bible fable?

What an odd thing for a Christians to say. Do you consider begin born again Spiritually silly religious talk?

 

[Aman777]

Talkin behind my back eh?

No, to your face ole friend. God Bless you

 

[dad]

False since man was "formed" of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants, herbs and rain AND TREES, which grew on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12

Except you made that up. You are conflating what was already DONE and over and finished, with some other creation or new order of creation.

Amen, as the common ancestor of All Humans, with an intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22

Inserting common ancestors into God creating man from the dust on the appropriate day mentioned is a vile and cheap trick.

Amen. Now go on to the NEXT verse and see that Adam was made BEFORE the trees which GREW on the 3rd Day.

Absurd nonsense. There is no end to the confusion you sink into once you try to not believe the given created order of chapter one, and conflate the things detailed that were already done in chapter 2 with some other creation order.

Gen 1:12 Notice ALSO that Adam was NOT "created" by God the Trinity until the 6th Day. This is not so hard to understand since Eve was also "created" at the SAME time.

I know Eve was made the same day. Didn't you claim Adam waited billions of years for her or some such thing?

Of course not, but Eve was NOT created along with Adam until AFTER Cain killed Abel. Gen 5:1-2 Adam lived for 930 years AFTER he and Eve were born again. Gen 5:5

? So the son preceded the mother!! Add that to your whopper list.

What an odd thing for a Christians to say. Do you consider begin born again Spiritually silly religious talk?

Only when it is tossed in at the end of a whopper to try and give religious credibility.

 

[Astrophile]

So, I've decided to ask this question of Young (or Young at Heart) Earth Creationists in a challenge response to AV's numerous 'Challenges'.... though, I'd like to think this would actually be constructive over AV's hypothetical scenarios with no fixed facts... (not meaning to offend of course AV! )

If this universe is a direct fiat creation by God, and the bible is God's word filtered through fallible men, why is it that the second option is believed above the directly observed evidence of the creator of the universe?

Did anybody try to answer this question?

 

[dad]

If this universe is a direct fiat creation by God, and the bible is God's word filtered through fallible men, why is it that the second option is believed above the directly observed evidence of the creator of the universe?

No directly observed evidence contradicts the bible.

Points to consider in a reply:

• We don't have the original books making the Bible

We have the original God, and He came down and confired the bible was right.

• We can directly examine the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between

No. You can examine earth and area and do so in the present time and nature.

• 
  

  [*]There is tangible and demonstrable advantage to knowing facts about the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between

  Part of that is knowing God created it all, and science lobotomized itself of that knowledge.

• The Scientific Method is the most effective method in narrowing in on these facts about the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between

No. That method is an ignorant, godless, pigheaded, short sighted, fraudulent and biased belief system.

Ho hum