i want a straight up answer from YEC's

[Nathan Poe]

I have studied geochronology for 35 years. I am still a YEC.

Do you know what is geochronology? Are you going to tell me anything new?

Make your question sound more humble. so I might consider to answer it.

Make it worth someone's time.

 

[Hespera]

I have studied geochronology for 35 years. I am still a YEC.

Do you know what is geochronology? Are you going to tell me anything new?

Make your question sound more humble. so I might consider to answer it.

--------

Hey, AV, you tricked me again. I got to be more careful.

But, bless you.

That is really something. You've been studying it far longer than I've been alive, and still not one data point to support your beliefs.

But you still believe in yeccism.

 

[juvenissun]

-- Er, in what way, bro!?

The OP author is, probably, already converted.

 

[AV1611VET]

The OP author is, probably, already converted.

I see now -- lol -- sorry about that, bro!

I necrobumped this thread when I saw YEC in the title --

 

[Gracchus]

I have studied geochronology for 35 years. I am still a YEC.

Imagine that! thinty-five years of study and learned nothing!

Do you know what is geochronology? Are you going to tell me anything new?

Well, to be fair, it should be old news.

Make your question sound more humble. so I might consider to answer it.

You are famous for your humility, juvenissun!

 

[Hespera]

Imagine that! thinty-five years of study and learned nothing!



Well, to be fair, it should be old news.



You are famous for your humility, juvenissun!

He does, after all, have the highest possible degree of education. He says so; it must be so.

Whatever "degree of education" it is, tho, it's sure not in English.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever "degree of education'" tho, its sure not in English.

Compared to you, his English is good.

 

[juvenissun]

Compared to you, his English is good.

u r rite.

 

[Hespera]

u r rite.

so I might consider to answer it.

Would you "consider to answer" a question? How long have you been studying English?

 

[juvenissun]

Would you "consider to answer" a question? How long have you been studying English?

When a bad student asked a question, I gave straight forward answer.

When a good student asked a question, I usually reply: Why? Or: "skip this one, what is the next question?"

I treat you as a good student.

 

[AV1611VET]

When a bad student asked a question, I gave straight forward answer.

When a good student asked a question, I usually reply: Why? Or: "skip this one, what is the next question?"

I treat you as a good student.

I get the feeling that more than one post under that name.

 

[Hespera]

When a bad student asked a question, I gave straight forward answer.

When a good student asked a question, I usually reply: Why? Or: "skip this one, what is the next question?"

I treat you as a good student.

Clearly a better one than you have been.

More forthright, too.

 

[ATTC]

given the OVERWHELMING evidence for an old earth and evolution why do you consitently ignore it? why do you get your points refuted over and over and over but never listen? why don't you do some research? why do you belive things that come from a site such as AIG when they reject any science that would destroy their beliefs? why why why? is your faith really that weak? are you afraid of science? as someone's signature on here says, if your faith is affected by science that is weak faith. now why are you guys so closed minded? why? i want answers.

OVERWHELMING evidence. One of the top 3 fallacies used by evolutionists. Proof by assertion. If you assert that there is OVERWHELMING evidence enough times, people will start to believe it.

Evolution is an origin science and origins science is 100% based on worldview interpretations of data.

Any data that does not support the worldview is thrown out.

Where the conversation starts and ends between young Earth and old Earth view of the world comes down to the worldwide flood of Genesis.

It accounts for the difference between thousands and Billions of years in interpretation of the data.


What exposes the absolute hypocrisy and clearly worldview driven dogma of the naturalist intellectual elites is that they say that a flood on Earth is an absurd hypothesis despite various suggestions that such a flood could have taken place, yet on the other hand don't discount a flood on Mars, a planet with no trace of water.

Or the outright ignoring of geologic features we have noticed the last 30 years such as the phenomenon of Mount Saint Helens or the Little Grand Canyon, which show that dramatic alterations to rearrange mountains, form canyons etc can occur in periods of time that can be measured in days not hundreds of millions of years.

So of course you can make claims that there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence
when in reality the only thing there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence for is how incredibly worldview driven evolution is as a theory and how incredibly biased the scientific community is towards that worldview.

 

[Hespera]

OVERWHELMING evidence. One of the top 3 fallacies used by evolutionists. Proof by assertion. If you assert that there is OVERWHELMING evidence enough times, people will start to believe it.

Evolution is an origin science and origins science is 100% based on worldview interpretations of data.

Any data that does not support the worldview is thrown out.

Where the conversation starts and ends between young Earth and old Earth view of the world comes down to the worldwide flood of Genesis.

It accounts for the difference between thousands and Billions of years in interpretation of the data.


What exposes the absolute hypocrisy and clearly worldview driven dogma of the naturalist intellectual elites is that they say that a flood on Earth is an absurd hypothesis despite various suggestions that such a flood could have taken place, yet on the other hand don't discount a flood on Mars, a planet with no trace of water.

Or the outright ignoring of geologic features we have noticed the last 30 years such as the phenomenon of Mount Saint Helens or the Little Grand Canyon, which show that dramatic alterations to rearrange mountains, form canyons etc can occur in periods of time that can be measured in days not hundreds of millions of years.

So of course you can make claims that there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence

when in reality the only thing there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence for is how incredibly worldview driven evolution is as a theory and how incredibly biased the scientific community is towards that worldview.

Proof by assertion

??

What proof might this be? it wont be anything in science, as science doesnt "do" proof.

What exposes the absolute hypocrisy and clearly worldview driven dogma of the naturalist intellectual elite

Normally what one does to falsify a theory is to find some contrary fact, rather than just write a string of insulting assertions.

Do you have even one such fact to offer?

There is nothing revelatory about the erosion of the unconsolidated volcanic ash around St Helens. Any fool know that if you run a garden hose over loose sand or silt, you can make a little canyon in no time.
Run it over the sidewalk and nothing happens.

I wonder btw who you think the "evolutionists" are? Could you define the group?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What exposes the absolute hypocrisy and clearly worldview driven dogma of the naturalist intellectual elites is that they say that a flood on Earth is an absurd hypothesis despite various suggestions that such a flood could have taken place,

is this one of those assertion fallacies you were going on about?

yet on the other hand don't discount a flood on Mars, a planet with no trace of water.

Flood? or simply the possiblity that water may have once existed there?

Or the outright ignoring of geologic features we have noticed the last 30 years such as the phenomenon of Mount Saint Helens or the Little Grand Canyon, which show that dramatic alterations to rearrange mountains, form canyons etc can occur in periods of time that can be measured in days not hundreds of millions of years.

And now you want to assert that that's how it happened all over the world -- when, exactly?

So of course you can make claims that there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence when in reality the only thing there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence for is how incredibly worldview driven evolution is as a theory and how incredibly biased the scientific community is towards that worldview.

Science is "biased" towards facts, not superstitions -- sorry.

 

[Delphiki]

OVERWHELMING evidence. One of the top 3 fallacies used by evolutionists. Proof by assertion. If you assert that there is OVERWHELMING evidence enough times, people will start to believe it.

Well considering that ALL the evidence suggests biological evolution through natural selection eventually gives rise to new species, and that there's NO evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd call that pretty OVERWHELMING, don't you think

 

[ATTC]

Well considering that ALL the evidence suggests biological evolution through natural selection eventually gives rise to new species, and that there's NO evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd call that pretty OVERWHELMING, don't you think

ON a loosely based definition of the word evidence preserved only for this theory, then sure.

In reality, there isn't a single intelligible explanation of how a creature could go from one species to one with a completely different set of biological systems.

Because there is variation among dog breeds and bills of finches, taking information like that and inferring that dogs and finches have the same origin is laughable. Even more laughable is what is used as proof.

The evolutionary tree just has lines drawn on it with no actual links or intelligible ways in which those dramatic changes could have occurred in the first place.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

ON a loosely based definition of the word evidence preserved only for this theory, then sure.

In reality, there isn't a single intelligible explanation of how a creature could go from one species to one with a completely different set of biological systems.

Speciation is an extremely well-supported concept. What you need to understand is that species really just "split" into two when you divide a population over enough time that their gene pools are separate.

Allopatric speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And nobody is arguing that species completely change to a different "set of biological systems". The nuts and bolts of human cell (and other cell) operations is governed by mechanisms that evolved in bacteria. We have inherited TONS of stuff from bacteria, from multicellular organisms, from lower animals, etc.

Because there is variation among dog breeds and bills of finches, taking information like that and inferring that dogs and finches have the same origin is laughable. Even more laughable is what is used as proof.

The evolutionary tree just has lines drawn on it with no actual links or intelligible ways in which those dramatic changes could have occurred in the first place.

Someone hasn't looked at the genetic evidence. Remember - we don't need fossils to demonstrate evolution is true, because the genetic evidence is so powerful. It's powerful enough to inform our decisions on treating infectious diseases, so I'd say it'd be pretty ill-informed of you to call it bunk. Otherwise, you'll have to tell me why influenza needs a new vaccine every year or why Clostridium difficile is in the community now.

 

[visa]

ON a loosely based definition of the word evidence preserved only for this theory, then sure.

In reality, there isn't a single intelligible explanation of how a creature could go from one species to one with a completely different set of biological systems.

Because there is variation among dog breeds and bills of finches, taking information like that and inferring that dogs and finches have the same origin is laughable. Even more laughable is what is used as proof.

The evolutionary tree just has lines drawn on it with no actual links or intelligible ways in which those dramatic changes could have occurred in the first place.

Again I bet you a million to one that you get all of your information from creationist web sites and your creationist preacher.

 

[theFijian]

Again I bet you a million to one that you get all of your information from creationist web sites and your creationist preacher.

Wow those are long odds consol, are you saying that it's highly unlikely that they got their info from other creationists? Or are you just flaunting your ignorance again?