Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

ruthiesea said:

By that definition it is a valid scientific theory.

Click to expand...

One might stretch YEC being a theory on the basis that it can falsified but since there is zero evidence for a young earth and overwhelming evidence for a ~3.5 billion year earth, YEC has been falsified whether it can be considered a theory or not.

driewerf said:

You deleted this part from the post you replied to:
Unsupported assumptions. There is a book that is allegedly divinely inspired – as there are so many books that are allegedly divinely inspired – that describes the creation of the world in 6 days. But nothing indicates that
• Any divine being exists
• The specific divine being to whom the bible is ascribed exists
• The bible is indeed the work of this alleged divine being
• The bible has been maintained and passed correctly through the ages (the Deuterocanonical Books, anyone?)
• The bible needs to be read literally.

As long as not all points are proven, there is no reason to take the following claim seriously: “what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.”
I invite you to support your claim, to provide any evidence for it and to answer the bullet points above.

Click to expand...

The Golden books of the B.O.M. had
eyewitnesses. Signed and sworn to.

Frank Robert said:

One might stretch YEC being a theory on the basis that it can falsified but since there is zero evidence for a young earth and overwhelming evidence for a ~3.5 billion year earth, YEC has been falsified whether it can be considered a theory or not.

Click to expand...

A theory needs at least one fact doesn't it?

driewerf said:

Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, George Lemaître, Lord Kelvin, none of these used computers. Yet found results that contradict a literal reading of the bible.

Click to expand...

Do you guys need computers to "find results that contradict a literal reading of the bible," when you claim that God creating a loaf of warm raisin bread would be deceptive?

Oh, wait!

Nevermind!

You were smart enough not to answer that challenge.

Instead, you said:

"In an imaginary world where gods create whatever they want everything is possible.
Science on the contrary deals with the real world and is bound by the testable and observable.
This kind of threads is nice Spielerei, but any extrapolation to the real world would be invalid."

driewerf said:

As long as not all points are proven, there is no reason to take the following claim seriously: “what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.”
I invite you to support your claim, to provide any evidence for it and to answer the bullet points above.

Click to expand...

Just don't tell me He was vague about what He did.

Frank Robert said:

One might stretch YEC being a theory on the basis that it can falsified but since there is zero evidence for a young earth and overwhelming evidence for a ~3.5 billion year earth, YEC has been falsified whether it can be considered a theory or not.

Click to expand...

What would falsify the theory of evolution?

driewerf said:

Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, George Lemaître, Lord Kelvin, none of these used computers. Yet found results that contradict a literal reading of the bible. So you fail at that already.
But more fundamentally, I see that you are at smearing the sciences again, at depicting it as one big anti christianity conspiracy.
In your Daffy Duck thread you tried to pretend that creationists don't hate science, knowledge and intelligence. You should at least try to keep your story straight.

Click to expand...

Finding things that contradict a literal reading is
as easy as figuring Jesus wasn't a sheep.

AV1611VET said:

Do you guys need computers to "find results that contradict a literal reading of the bible," when you claim that God creating a loaf of warm raisin bread would be deceptive?

Click to expand...

I need to remind you that it is you who somehow thinks that computers have some nefarious influence and are instrumental at attacking christianity.
"Fitting and force-fitting and trial-and-error and moving the decimal place back and forth and ... most of all ... having to use computers to do it."

Oh, wait!
Nevermind!
You were smart enough not to answer that challenge.
Instead, you said:
"In an imaginary world where gods create whatever they want everything is possible.

Science on the contrary deals with the real world and is bound by the testable and observable.

This kind of threads is nice Spielerei, but any extrapolation to the real world would be invalid."

Click to expand...

Sometimes I am astonished by my own wit and eloquence.

AV1611VET said:

Just don't tell me He was vague about what He did.

Click to expand...

That's the second time that you dodge any attempt at convincing us that there is some truth in what you wrote.

Estrid said:

Finding things that contradict a literal reading is as easy as figuring Jesus wasn't a sheep.

Click to expand...

Eventually they make a mistake in their hunt.

And for some, it costs them their eternal soul.

driewerf said:

That's the second time that you dodge any attempt at convincing us that there is some truth in what you wrote.

Click to expand...

Would you know the truth if I told it?

AV1611VET said:

Would you know the truth if I told it?

Click to expand...

You don't even try.
But before you start, WHY you consider something as true is equally important as WHAT you consider as truth.
If you think you have something valuable to share, that is demonstrably true, I invite you to share it with us.

driewerf said:

If you think you have something valuable to share, that is demonstrably true, I invite you to share it with us.

Click to expand...

So you can deny it?

Here, I'll let you QED my point:

driewerf said:

If you think you have something valuable to share, that is demonstrably true, I invite you to share it with us.

Click to expand...

Merry Christmas

AV1611VET said:

So you can deny it?

Here, I'll let you QED my point:
Merry Christmas

Click to expand...

Yes?
Do you care to elaborate? Please explain in detail why you think this is a useful answer. Step by step. If possibly, please differentiate assumption from empirical evidence from reasoning from conclusion. This will improve the clarity.
Don't be shy to assume me an Immensely Idiotic Ignoramus, to which everything needs to be explained. I prefer boredom over brevity and redundancy over lack of clarity. I want to know what you hope to demonstrate with that answer for I fail to understand it.

AV1611VET said:

Because Abraham was the first Hebrew.

Click to expand...

However, the Hebrew language has been shown to have been around long before Abraham.

AV1611VET said:

What would falsify the theory of evolution?

Click to expand...

What would disprove evolution?​

• Fossils in the wrong place (e.g., mammals in the Devonian). If the fossil record were all out of order like this (a single anomalous fossil might not overturn everything, of course, since it could be in the wrong place for other reasons), we’d have to seriously question the occurrence of evolution.
• Adaptations in one species good only for a second species. There are plenty of adaptations in species that are good for other species, but also help members of the first species: these are the basis of mutualisms. (Cleaner fish, for example, remove parasites and dead tissue from other marine fish, but thereby gain a meal.) But we don’t expect to see—and don’t see—adaptations in one species that evolved solely for the benefit of another species.
• A general lack of genetic variation in species. Evolution depends on genetic variation. If most species had none, they couldn’t evolve. However, the universal efficacy of artificial selection (I’m aware of only three lab experiments that failed to show a response to such breeding experiments), shows that genetic variation is ubiquitous in nearly all species....

The entire article and more at: Why Evolution is True

Estrid said:

The Golden books of the B.O.M. had
eyewitnesses. Signed and sworn to.

A theory needs at least one fact doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Yes. But there was no necessity to argue if it is truly a theory by illustrating that theory or not it has already been falsified.

I don't think there is one single idea or way of thinking that should have a monopoly on what is considered science. Science needs to be open to alternative theories. It should be okay to challenge current theories and have discussions, even if some theories are based on faith. There are brilliant PhD-level scientists who are creationists and can explain certain phenomena within the creationist view. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in a Creator God. In many ways, current science has led some former atheists to consider the possibilities.

The universe is so finely-tuned that one cannot fully, totally deny the possibility that it was created by an intelligent being.

Saucy said:

Science needs to be open to alternative theories.

Click to expand...

But not alternatives to doing science. Alternative hypotheses is fine: abandoning the scientific method is not.

Saucy said:

I don't think there is one single idea or way of thinking that should have a monopoly on what is considered science. Science needs to be open to alternative theories. It should be okay to challenge current theories and have discussions, even if some theories are based on faith. There are brilliant PhD-level scientists who are creationists and can explain certain phenomena within the creationist view. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in a Creator God. In many ways, current science has led some former atheists to consider the possibilities.

The universe is so finely-tuned that one cannot fully, totally deny the possibility that it was created by an intelligent being.

Click to expand...

Science is far far more open than religion that
after all cannot possibly be wrong.
Science does not do absolutes, like
' can't possibly be". Again, it's religion does that.

As for " alternate theories", bring on the data.

Ever notice how data never can affect flood- belief?
Challenge me on flood and see for yourself.

As for "explain with creationist view", the defense
explained how OJ was innocent. "Dog ate homework"
is an ecplanation.

Your " brilliant" PhD guys cannot show any data
to disprove a y science in favour of creationist interpretations..

See Dr K Wise, PhD Yec paleontologist-

"...even if all the evidence in the
universe turns against yec, I will
still be yec as that is what the Bible
seems to indicate."

That, my friend, is the refined essence
of intellectual dishonesty.

It is impossible to be an educated yec
who is intellectually honest.

Larnievc said:

But alternatives to doing science. Alternative hypotheses is fine: abandoning the scientific method is not.

Click to expand...

Nobody here would want to be an innocent
on trial when the jury abandoned all data
in favour of what they had
already decided or their attitude.