Evidence for Young Earth Creationism?

Shemjaza said:

Genetics, paleontology, ecology all directly support evolution. Say you don't believe in evolution for whatever personal reason you like, but the claim that science is on your side is simply false.

Click to expand...

Let's see...

Genetics ....doesn't do much more than validate the idea that all of life descends from a common source. However by copying and re-using basic templates on the computer, I've designed nested hierarchies of virtual creations without even realizing it. "Descent with modification" flows quite naturally from a design perspective. Yet evolutionsts want you to believe that such patterns explicitly cry out for an evolutionary cause.

It's funny, because when you pop this bubble, they will retreat to their philosophical safe place: "science can only concern itself with natural causes"...

Paleontology..... doesn't directly support Evolution at all. It's simply a record of buried ecosystems. Usually ecosystems that very suddenly appear in the rock record with no apparent precursors.... Evolutionists employ some pretty weird logic to try and convince you that paleontology proves Evolution..... (e.g. "if evolution were false, we'd find fossils of bunny rabbits swimming on the ocean floor with the trilobytes!") ... and so on.

Ecology... well, to be honest, the field has never been very kind to evolutionsts. Everything is breaking down and degrading, or cycling through different phenotypical expressions. (e.g. finch beak structure) that the animal already possessed and were triggered by the environment. This last one is usually obvious because it happens way too fast to have a Darwinian explanation.

lifepsyop said:

Let's see...

Genetics ....doesn't do much more than validate the idea that all of life descends from a common source. However by copying and re-using basic templates on the computer, I've designed nested hierarchies of virtual creations without even realizing it. "Descent with modification" flows quite naturally from a design perspective. Yet evolutionsts want you to believe that such patterns explicitly cry out for an evolutionary cause.

It's funny, because when you pop this bubble, they will retreat to their philosophical safe place: "science can only concern itself with natural causes"...

Paleontology..... doesn't directly support Evolution at all. It's simply a record of buried ecosystems. Usually ecosystems that very suddenly appear in the rock record with no apparent precursors.... Evolutionists employ some pretty weird logic to try and convince you that paleontology proves Evolution..... (e.g. "if evolution were false, we'd find fossils of bunny rabbits swimming on the ocean floor with the trilobytes!") ... and so on.

Ecology... well, to be honest, the field has never been very kind to evolutionsts. Everything is breaking down and degrading, or cycling through different phenotypical expressions. (e.g. finch beak structure) that the animal already possessed and were triggered by the environment. This last one is usually obvious because it happens way too fast to have a Darwinian explanation.

Click to expand...

OK, you've disproven the theory of evolution (your Nobel Prize will be arriving soon, watch for the mailman). What are you going to replace it with?

lifepsyop said:

Let's see...

Genetics ....doesn't do much more than validate the idea that all of life descends from a common source.

Click to expand...

Actually, we can use genetics to demonstrate specific lines of descent using tested methodologies.

But nice musing.

lifepsyop said:

Let's see...

Genetics ....doesn't do much more than validate the idea that all of life descends from a common source.

Click to expand...

Genetics provides overwhelming evidence that current species are genetic descendants of a common ancestral species.

There's no evidence for YEC. The Earth is billions of years old and science has pretty thoroughly proven this.

sfs said:

Genetics provides overwhelming evidence that current species are genetic descendants of a common ancestral species.

Click to expand...

Well yes, until you threw "ancestral species" in there at the end, which is only imagination. Just as the "common ancestor" between any major class of animals is always left to the imagination, and as a rule is never found in evidence.

Genetics (or any morphology for that matter) only shows evidence of 'descent with modification' ...

For example, a hominid body plan descends from the more basic mammal body plan, which descends from the more basic tetrapod body plan, which descends from the more basic vertebrate body plan, and so forth. Like when I design in virtual space, I will model basic design templates (e.g. create a basic 3D model vertebrate structure) ... then duplicate that structure and further refine those templates into unique variations, which ultimately results in large nested hierarchies of 3D animal models.

It's not like the common design templates were actually living creatures crawling around on earth for millions of years, (as evolutionists believe).. Instead it's simply the most elegant way for a designer to create a wide variety of unique living things based off of a common design.

Which is why there's no actual evidence that the "common ancestors" were real animals, and the "common ancestral" nodes on evolutionary tree diagrams are always, and likely will always be imaginary.

tas8831 said:

Actually, we can use genetics to demonstrate specific lines of descent using tested methodologies.

Click to expand...

No.... grouping animals by similar character traits is not "demonstrating" specific lines of evolutionary descent by any stretch of the imagination. These are only the "most likely" or "most parsimonious" evolutionary relationships, IF evolution were true. Sure, if Evolution is true, then a dog and a cat most assuredly share a common ancestor to the exclusion of a turtle, lizard, or other genetically distant animal. But that pattern itself is silent on the fundamental question of evolutionary common ancestry. It is only showing the most likely paths evolution would take, IF it is true.

(Of course it is never honestly explained that the researchers are relying on the assumption that Evolution is true in the first place.)

Additionally, the expected Evolutionary relationships break down in an almost comical fashion when "molecular clock" studies are applied in order to find specific divergence times.

lifepsyop said:

Let's see...

Genetics ....doesn't do much more than validate the idea that all of life descends from a common source. However by copying and re-using basic templates on the computer, I've designed nested hierarchies of virtual creations without even realizing it. "Descent with modification" flows quite naturally from a design perspective. Yet evolutionsts want you to believe that such patterns explicitly cry out for an evolutionary cause.

Click to expand...

Totally ridiculous.

If all we were talking about was a single line of descent then you might have a point. If you were a programmer working on two separate systems, and cam up with a solution to a new problem you wouldn't redevelop a solution from scratch for each system, you'd reuse the solution on all of them.

That's what we always see in manufacturing and computer programming. It's never what we see in the nested hierarchy of nature.

lifepsyop said:

It's funny, because when you pop this bubble, they will retreat to their philosophical safe place: "science can only concern itself with natural causes"...

Click to expand...

Funny is when Creationists think "Oh yeah!? How do you know it isn't just miracled to look like an ancient evolved system for mysterious reasons?" is a clever rhetorical point, rather then totally vacuous.

lifepsyop said:

Paleontology..... doesn't directly support Evolution at all. It's simply a record of buried ecosystems. Usually ecosystems that very suddenly appear in the rock record with no apparent precursors.... Evolutionists employ some pretty weird logic to try and convince you that paleontology proves Evolution.....

Click to expand...

Also nonsense.

There are many gaps, sure, but we have massive chains of life... especially human life much to the deep concern of creationists. Surely you've seen the skulls of the Australopithecus and hominids?

lifepsyop said:

(e.g. "if evolution were false, we'd find fossils of bunny rabbits swimming on the ocean floor with the trilobytes!") ... and so on.

Click to expand...

A straw man argument is misrepresenting someone's argument, it is a lie and bearing false witness. It's either that or profound ignorance of the contents and meaning of the argument.

It's about age and development, we don't see rabbits in the terrestrial strata of similar ages to trilobites.

In addition, it's merely an extreme example. We also don't see dolphins and whales with plesiosaurs. Or deer and elephants with dinosaurs.

lifepsyop said:

Ecology... well, to be honest, the field has never been very kind to evolutionsts. Everything is breaking down and degrading, or cycling through different phenotypical expressions. (e.g. finch beak structure) that the animal already possessed and were triggered by the environment. This last one is usually obvious because it happens way too fast to have a Darwinian explanation.

Click to expand...

Evolution does not propose that traits show up just in time. it has to be present in the population to be selected for.

We have an demonstrated explanation for where these traits come from, how they spread through the population and how natural selection fixes them.

lifepsyop said:

Well yes, until you threw "ancestral species" in there at the end, which is only imagination.

Click to expand...

Well, no. Should you find any flaws with the actual genetic evidence for common descent, write it up and have it published in a journal. Until then, geneticists will go on relying on the evidence you don't know exists.

lifepsyop said:

It's funny, because when you pop this bubble, they will retreat to their philosophical safe place: "science can only concern itself with natural causes"...

Click to expand...

We keep waiting for you or anyone else who makes his complaint to explain to us exactly how science is supposed to incorporate non- empirical data into observations and more importantly predictions. If literally anything can happen because of a miracle, then all scientific predictions are a farce.

lifepsyop said:

Paleontology..... doesn't directly support Evolution at all. It's simply a record of buried ecosystems. Usually ecosystems that very suddenly appear in the rock record with no apparent precursors....

Click to expand...

This read more like the garbage people try and convince themselves with than trying to convince others.

lifepsyop said:

Evolutionists employ some pretty weird logic to try and convince you that paleontology proves Evolution..... (e.g. "if evolution were false, we'd find fossils of bunny rabbits swimming on the ocean floor with the trilobytes!") ... and so on.

Click to expand...

It's funny you should decry "evolutionist" logic and then engage in a straw man fallacy. The Precambrian rabbit (or any seriously out of place fossil) refers to the strata. Here's Haldane's apocryphal quote again (from Dawkins, quoted 3rd hand):
>> “However, if there was a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found.” <<

There is nothing in there about rabbits and trilobites swimming together, not for the least of reasons that trilobites hadn't evolved yet in the Precambrian.

USincognito said:

We keep waiting for you or anyone else who makes his complaint to explain to us exactly how science is supposed to incorporate non- empirical data into observations and more importantly predictions.

Click to expand...

And we've always responded to you that science doesn't need to attempt to investigate anything super natural, it only needs to be honest about the possible limits to natural processes, and be willing to accept and discuss those implications rationally instead of wringing your hands.

But you can't do that because at it's core, you're operating within the bounds of a religion or at least a quasi-religious philosophy, that essentially says nature is the unquestionable god of all creation. Might sound ridiculous, but really, most of you believe this.

USincognito said:

It's funny you should decry "evolutionist" logic and then engage in a straw man fallacy. The Precambrian rabbit (or any seriously out of place fossil) refers to the strata.

Click to expand...

Uh huh.... And what ecosystems are represented in the precambrian or cambrian strata?

USincognito said:

Here's Haldane's apocryphal quote again (from Dawkins, quoted 3rd hand):
>> “However, if there was a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found.” <<

There is nothing in there about rabbits and trilobites swimming together, not for the least of reasons that trilobites hadn't evolved yet in the Precambrian.

Click to expand...

And yet, you wonder, (if Evolution is false..) then why we don't find rabbits buried in the same rock layers which only depict sea-floor ecosystems? Somehow you guys have convinced yourselves this is some sort of slam-dunk for your beliefs.

Shemjaza said:

No. It isn't.

It's totally irrelevant to the point. If there's demonstratable evidence then the other attitudes, beliefs and identity don't change it.

Click to expand...

It is very much dependent.
A medical doctor believes in medicine is scientific;
A farmer believes in medicine is religious.

juvenissun said:

It is very much dependent.
A medical doctor believes in medicine is scientific;
A farmer believes in medicine is religious.

Click to expand...

False.

A farmer can trivially look up statistics and check reliability. He may not have the experience and knowledge to evaluate it at first, but the information exists and is independent of the experience of any individual.

Religion is a matter of personal faith, and can't be objectively verified.

lifepsyop said:

Uh huh.... And what ecosystems are represented in the precambrian or cambrian strata?

Click to expand...

In the Precambrian simple organisms living like modern stromatolytes. Gives us the approximate temperature and depth of the environment they lived.

As to the Cambrian... I've never met a creationist who wasn't happy to pontificate about the Cambrian Explosion, so we have all those plants and animals to examine and form hypotheses about their life and eco system.

lifepsyop said:

And yet, you wonder, (if Evolution is false..) then why we don't find rabbits buried in the same rock layers which only depict sea-floor ecosystems? Somehow you guys have convinced yourselves this is some sort of slam-dunk for your beliefs.

Click to expand...

Are you just going to keep repeating this lie?

It's a comparison of age. It's an extreme example, but it illustrates a point that creationism has no answer for. Life significantly varies by age of rocks and not simply by environment.

Shemjaza said:

Totally ridiculous.

If all we were talking about was a single line of descent then you might have a point. If you were a programmer working on two separate systems, and cam up with a solution to a new problem you wouldn't redevelop a solution from scratch for each system, you'd reuse the solution on all of them.

Click to expand...

Wow you must not be, or know many, programmers. If you have different design variations that have been developed in thoroughly unique ways, shoe-horning in the same complex solution for both of them would likely result in disaster. I think any programmer could immediately envision the number of bugs resulting from such a move. You'd likely have to make a ton of refinements and bug-fixes to both the original program and the newly added component.

The far more elegant solution (especially if you're not limited by time and resources), would be to develop unique solutions along the separate design branches.

Shemjaza said:

That's what we always see in manufacturing and computer programming. It's never what we see in the nested hierarchy of nature.

Click to expand...

Of course we do. Human software development is often a nightmare where re-using components can be the safest and most practical solution.

But would a programmer choose to do it that way if he was constructing his magnum opus and had the ability to code masterpiecies instantaneously with no limiting parameters? From an artistic perspective, I think the answer is obvious.

Shemjaza said:

Funny is when Creationists think "Oh yeah!? How do you know it isn't just miracled to look like an ancient evolved system for mysterious reasons?" is a clever rhetorical point, rather then totally vacuous.

Click to expand...

But that's just it... it doesn't look evolved. It looks like a large variety of very distinct living things popped out of nowhere.

It's you, the evolutionist, who have worked yourself into this hypnotic illusion that shared traits = relatedeness all the way down to where humans and onions share an ancestor. It's a huge leap of faith, yet because it's a "natural explanation", Evolution is automatically and uncritically lifted into a sacrosanct position. Because your religion/philosophy of nature-god is prioritized over the science.

Shemjaza said:

We have an demonstrated explanation for where these traits come from, how they spread through the population and how natural selection fixes them.

Click to expand...

200+ years of storytelling is not a demonstration.

Shemjaza said:

False.

A farmer can trivially look up statistics and check reliability. He may not have the experience and knowledge to evaluate it at first, but the information exists and is independent of the experience of any individual.

Religion is a matter of personal faith, and can't be objectively verified.

Click to expand...

Why don't you say a farmer can also get a Ph.D.?

lifepsyop said:

And we've always responded to you that science doesn't need to attempt to investigate anything super natural, it only needs to be honest about the possible limits to natural processes, and be willing to accept and discuss those implications rationally instead of wringing your hands.

But you can't do that because at it's core, you're operating within the bounds of a religion or at least a quasi-religious philosophy, that essentially says nature is the unquestionable god of all creation. Might sound ridiculous, but really, most of you believe this.

Click to expand...

No, that is metaphysical naturalism. Science is based on methodological naturalism. Not the same thing at all.

lifepsyop said:

Uh huh.... And what ecosystems are represented in the precambrian or cambrian strata?



And yet, you wonder, (if Evolution is false..) then why we don't find rabbits buried in the same rock layers which only depict sea-floor ecosystems? Somehow you guys have convinced yourselves this is some sort of slam-dunk for your beliefs.

Click to expand...

Change it to Precambrian shark and it's still correct.

Now how are you going to twist out of it?

USincognito said:

Change it to Precambrian shark and it's still correct.

Click to expand...

Or Precambrian crab.

Or Precambrian whale.

Or Precambrian penguin

Or Precambrian grass.

So forth and so on...