35 year evolution experiment *FAIL*

[Mallon]

I thought YECs rejected genetic evidence. After all, it disproves things like a global flood or Adam and Eve. Why suddenly accept it now as it relates to evolution?

 

[Jig]

I thought YECs rejected genetic evidence. After all, it disproves things like a global flood or Adam and Eve. Why suddenly accept it now as it relates to evolution?

Those who believe God created the Earth in six days, flooded the world in judgment, and recognize Adam as the father of all do not reject genetic evidence.

BOTH Creationists and Darwinianists examine, study, and conclude on the exact same pieces of evidence. It is not the rejection of genetic evidence - it is the rejection of some of the interpretations given to that evidence.

Based on our subjective philosophical world views (materialism, naturalism, uniformitarianism, idealism, etc.) we formulate interpretations for the evidence - the evidence itself is neutral. The true issue we face is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one - yes, on both sides.

 

[shernren]

Those who believe God created the Earth in six days, flooded the world in judgment, and recognize Adam as the father of all do not reject genetic evidence.

BOTH Creationists and Darwinianists examine, study, and conclude on the exact same pieces of evidence. It is not the rejection of genetic evidence - it is the rejection of some of the interpretations given to that evidence.

Based on our subjective philosophical world views (materialism, naturalism, uniformitarianism, idealism, etc.) we formulate interpretations for the evidence - the evidence itself is neutral. The true issue we face is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one - yes, on both sides.

I think I should try that the next time my housemate accuses me of stealing food.

After all, the evidence - missing eggs, depleting containers of minced garlic, disappearing noodles, and the fact that no other housemate cooks - is neutral. Based on his subjective philosophical worldview, he formulates interpretations for the evidence. The true issue he faces is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one.

If only he began by assuming that I am a wonderful, honest person, and studiously applied that world view throughout his interpretation of the evidence, he would readily agree with me that the real problem is that our kitchen is being raided by invisible drop bears. Nasty Australian wildlife!

 

[Jig]

I think I should try that the next time my housemate accuses me of stealing food.

After all, the evidence - missing eggs, depleting containers of minced garlic, disappearing noodles, and the fact that no other housemate cooks - is neutral. Based on his subjective philosophical worldview, he formulates interpretations for the evidence. The true issue he faces is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one.

You joke, but essentially you are correct. He did not physically see you. He is making an assumption that has the potential to be wrong. A thief could have broken in and made eggs. Seemingly unlikely but still very possible.

 

[shernren]

You joke, but essentially you are correct. He did not physically see you. He is making an assumption that has the potential to be wrong. A thief could have broken in and made eggs. Seemingly unlikely but still very possible.

You're lucky we don't know your address.

 

[Cabal]

I wonder if Jig accepts forensic evidence in court cases, or does he think they should all be let free as guilt hasn't been established?

 

[Mallon]

I wonder if Jig accepts forensic evidence in court cases, or does he think they should all be let free as guilt hasn't been established?

Just one of the many questions YECs refuse to answer.

 

[Cabal]

Just one of the many questions YECs refuse to answer.

I've seen some answer - but they then usually flat-out refuse to accept the inconsistency it puts them in.

 

[gluadys]

Yeah cling on to anything no matter how invalid it is
That was change and not evolution and you know that.

I'm confused.

Change occurred through evolutionary process.
But the change is not evolution.

How does that work?

 

[Cabal]

I'm confused.

Change occurred through evolutionary process.
But the change is not evolution.

How does that work?

Exactly

 

[Jig]

I've seen some answer - but they then usually flat-out refuse to accept the inconsistency it puts them in.

I do not reject certain types of forensic evidence. Some clues require a much higher degree of assumption than others.

 

[shernren]

I do not reject certain types of forensic evidence. Some clues require a much higher degree of assumption than others.

So CSI becomes more reliable around August 15?

 

[Mallon]

I do not reject certain types of forensic evidence. Some clues require a much higher degree of assumption than others.

I would love to hear more about the types of forensic evidence you do and do not accept. And about which convicted murderers you believe should be released from prison.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm confused.

Change occurred through evolutionary process.
But the change is not evolution.

How does that work?

Evolution has a direction. That is how.

 

[Mallon]

Evolution has a direction. That is how.

What direction is that?

 

[pastorkevin73]

Congratulations, evolution doesn't work quite the way we think it did.

In other news, creationism is still the unproven unqualified nonsense it always was as a result of this.

Perhaps if the science doesn't work out then one has to question how the science is done?
Could it be that God was right after all? The thing is, God is alot furthar along than we are at discovering science, which He created. Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to throw out God's Word (or give some excuse like Genesis isn't literal) and let our discovery of science catch up with what God has told us to be true in His Word.

 

[juvenissun]

What direction is that?

The direction which we see in the fossil record.
And the anticipated result the experiment was designed for.

 

[Cabal]

Perhaps if the science doesn't work out then one has to question how the science is done?

Why? It's not that the science didn't work out, it just didn't work out as expected. There was still genetic change over time, just not the kind predicted.

Could it be that God was right after all? The thing is, God is alot furthar along than we are at discovering science, which He created.

Sure God's right. He created everything via the scientific processes we are now discovering, like evolution and cosmology.

Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to throw out God's Word (or give some excuse like Genesis isn't literal) and let our discovery of science catch up with what God has told us to be true in His Word.

Who says we threw it out?

 

[Mallon]

The direction which we see in the fossil record.

What direction is that?

 

[pastorkevin73]

Why? It's not that the science didn't work out, it just didn't work out as expected. There was still genetic change over time, just not the kind predicted.



Sure God's right. He created everything via the scientific processes we are now discovering, like evolution and cosmology.



Who says we threw it out?

Where in scripture does it say that God used evolution?