Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[AV1611VET]

Somehow I think your joking around now.

QV please: Truth to Legends?

 

[driewerf]

Darwins Tree vs God's Bushes?

Phylogenetic tree. At least try to get something right.

Evolution tries to take something digital and make it analog.
But they're using a modem that doesn't work.
Too much noise, and too many information packets missing.

I don't know what you are trying to say, but there isn't much that refers to the living world. Hence, it is safe to conclude that it isn't very relevant. As usual.

 

[AV1611VET]

Phylogenetic tree. At least try to get something right.

Darwin's Evolutionary Tree

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution tries to take something digital and make it analog.

But they're using a modem that doesn't work.

Too much noise, and too many information packets missing.

I don't know what you are trying to say,

I'll parse it.

AV1611VET: Evolution tries to take something digital and make it analog.

Evolution explains molecules-to-man and adds the idea that there was no break in the process, and that things flowed seamlessly from molecules all the way up to mankind.

AV1611VET: But they're using a modem that doesn't work.

But their attempts to explain this by taking "baby steps" doesn't work, since there are HUGE potholes along the way.

Gaps that can't be crossed over, and have to be made on paper.

Eohippus-to-Horse has to have so many missing links glossed over, it looks like a game of connect-the-dots.

AV1611VET: Too much noise, and too many information packets missing.

Too many mistakes are made (eg. Nebraska Man), and too many missing links to show evolution is analog.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'll parse it.

AV1611VET: Evolution tries to take something digital and make it analog.

Evolution explains molecules-to-man and adds the idea that there was no break in the process, and that things flowed seamlessly from molecules all the way up to mankind.

AV1611VET: But they're using a modem that doesn't work.

But their attempts to explain this by taking "baby steps" doesn't work, since there are HUGE potholes along the way.

Gaps that can't be crossed over, and have to be made on paper.

Eohippus-to-Horse has to have so many missing links glossed over, it looks like a game of connect-the-dots.

AV1611VET: Too much noise, and too many information packets missing.

Too many mistakes are made (eg. Nebraska Man), and too many missing links to show evolution is analog.

If you want to discuss the gaps and issues with the scientific evidence you actually need to get specific about it.

You are declaring the methods of mutation and selection not up to the task, then you need to point out a specific problem.


That all life was created and crafted to the specifications of an uncomprehensible, all powerful creator can't be disproved... but if you want to complain about sciences limitations on its own terms then it's reasonable to expect you to actually do so.

I hold you to a higher standard than the snake oil salesmen of the Discover Institute. If, in addition to your faith in creation, evolution just feels ridiculous, then that's fine, but that isn't an argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to discuss the gaps and issues with the scientific evidence you actually need to get specific about it.

Specific about gaps?

Gaps are gaps.

They are also known as "missing links," and they are missing because they were never there in the first place.

That's why you can't trace an ape to a human being, without drawing lines and even T-bars.

Look at those blue lines in this video:

You can't show one animal existed along those blue lines, let alone some animal (or population of animals) suddenly going left and right.

Look at the blue lines under the chimpanzees, bonobos, humans, gorillas, and orangutans.

They all look like football goalposts that we're supposed to assume were populated with animals slowly changing from one genus to another by way of baby steps over millions of years.

I'm not buying it.

 

[Shemjaza]

Specific about gaps?

Gaps are gaps.

They are also known as "missing links," and they are missing because they were never there in the first place.

That's why you can't trace an ape to a human being, without drawing lines and even T-bars.

Look at those blue lines in this video:

You can't show one animal existed along those blue lines, let alone some animal (or population of animals) suddenly going left and right.

Look at the blue lines under the chimpanzees, bonobos, humans, gorillas, and orangutans.

They all look like football goalposts that we're supposed to assume were populated with animals slowly changing from one genus to another by way of baby steps over millions of years.

I'm not buying it.

Those gaps are explained by the evidence.

I understand you personally don't accept it on a spiritual or intuitive level... but that isn't a justification if you want to define it as a flaw in the science.

And before you repeat your "Only on paper" response, that is false. It's a conclusion drawn from analysis of the fossil record, and the genetic analysis of living and extinct species.

Ironically the Flood and the recent creation is literally only supported by a record found on paper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those gaps are explained by the evidence.

"Those gaps are explained by the evidence."

Um ... wow ... that's just ... like ... I can't wrap my head around this.

You must see gaps as "sinkholes" -- something that was there once, but disintegrated over time.

Whereas I see gaps as "dead ends" -- something that was never there in the first place.

 

[Lost Witness]

Whereas I see gaps as "dead ends" -- something that was never there in the first place.

I agree

 

[Kylie]

"Those gaps are explained by the evidence."

Um ... wow ... that's just ... like ... I can't wrap my head around this.

You must see gaps as "sinkholes" -- something that was there once, but disintegrated over time.

Whereas I see gaps as "dead ends" -- something that was never there in the first place.

Despite the fact that there have been many so-called "gaps" which were later shown to not be gaps at all, and there was something there after all?

Didn't expect to see the God of the Gaps sort of argument from you, AV...

 

[AV1611VET]

Despite the fact that there have been many so-called "gaps" which were later shown to not be gaps at all,

Something I consider a legitimate gap is where a trail goes dry, but picks up later on down the pike with the same kind™.

Like a cheetah being traced back to a gap, but on the other side of the gap is ... well ... a cheetah.

A dead end though, is something quite different.

God is God of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that nature can't pass.

Psalm 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

Didn't expect to see the God of the Gaps sort of argument from you, AV...

Do you know the difference between a "gap" and a "dead end"?

 

[Kylie]

Something I consider a legitimate gap is where a trail goes dry, but picks up later on down the pike with the same kind™.

Like a cheetah being traced back to a gap, but on the other side of the gap is ... well ... a cheetah.

A dead end though, is something quite different.

God is God of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that nature can't pass.

Psalm 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.



Do you know the difference between a "gap" and a "dead end"?

Ah, so a dead end would be a case where some kind of creature just appears out of nowhere, is that it? And when we try to follow its lineage back, we get to this dead end?

Care to provide an example?

 

[Astrid]

Despite the fact that there have been many so-called "gaps" which were later shown to not be gaps at all, and there was something there after all?

Didn't expect to see the God of the Gaps sort of argument from you, AV...

Ah, so a dead end would be a case where some kind of creature just appears out of nowhere, is that it? And when we try to follow its lineage back, we get to this dead end?

Care to provide an example?

Eze. There are many examples of species
known from a fraction single specimen.
No parents, no cousins, no descendents.

Lucretius explained it a couple k years ago.

In old times the earth was so fertile that wombs
just formed underground, animals emerged.
Later, as fertility decreased, just a skeleton
would fork, or a bone. Half a seashell.

 

[AV1611VET]

Care to provide an example?

Take your pick.

 

[AV1611VET]

In old times the earth was so fertile that wombs just formed underground, animals emerged.

Good grief.

 

[Frank Robert]

Whereas I see gaps as "dead ends" -- something that was never there in the first place.

Gaps can be a dead end depends on your perspective. From a scientific perspective it's often an opportunity.

F

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Take your pick.

So you have nothing then. Good to know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gaps can be a dead end depends on your perspective. From a scientific perspective it's often an opportunity.

Science can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you have nothing then. Good to know.

I have just as much "nothing" as you do.

Only I recognize them as dead ends, whereas you see them as gaps.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have just as much "nothing" as you do.

Only I recognize them as dead ends, whereas you see them as gaps.

That's very much a matter of personal philosophical viewpoint over anything else.

Though generally, your views on science can take a hike.