Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[driewerf]

Well when the Duck Hunter shows up, it's going to be open season on Egypt's* academics.

* Egypt, known in the Bible as "the Land of Ham and "The Iron Furnace," is a type of the world.

Are killing and bloodshed the only things you know? No wonder you guys liked The Passion of Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is killing and bloodshed the only things you know?

Ecclesiastes 3:3a A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

No wonder you guys liked The Passion of Christ.

 

[driewerf]

Exactly my feelings too.

 

[GenemZ]

Is YEC a scientific theory?



I say no.

​

​

(from wikipedia) In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, testable, and has never been falsified.​

​

​

​

YEC does not correspond to that definition. It does seem to fit the definition of dogma:

(wiki again) Dogma is belief held by a religion to be authoritative​

​

​

​

Also, YEC fails to satisfy the 6 conditions:

​

​

(from wikipedia) A scientific theory...​

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,
5. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
6. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.

In conclusion, YEC has as much to do with science than science has to do with Gilgamesh (i.e. nothin).

The Bible is not supposed to always confirm science. Its the other way around.

At times the Bible is to confound science. Confound it when science finally discovers that when the Bible is properly understood? That the Bible will confound science to see that the Bible was way ahead of science.

The GAP understanding makes science look like a Johnny come lately.
In much sadness I must confess, the YEC theory makes science look like its YEC's master whom is being denied.

Our biggest enemy to freedom and knowledge is when religious ignorance and dogmatism combine for its defense..

 

[Frank Robert]

Ask your buddy who wrote this if Israel is the Promised Land.

As long as they just read It ... right?

Expecting the Bible to be a science book is like expecting Bill Gate's diary to be a computer manual.

Israel could be renamed the land of unending wars from biblical to modern times.

You and I and everyone who reads the bible are entitled to believe or not what they read. As I said above, no one is entitled to force their faith based biblical version of science into public schools. Private schools have the option of teaching their religious beliefs. I would imagine that if bill gates set up private schools he could teach his diary but he would also need to meet the state's requirements for K-12 schools to be certified.

I like to think you understand what I write but I don't understand why you make it difficult.

 

[AV1611VET]

Israel could be renamed the land of unending wars from biblical to modern times.

Looks like your buddy didn't give you enough information in his anti-literal spiel to answer that simple question, did he?

His book can take a hike.

A long one on a short pier.

 

[Astrid]

Let us patiently wait.

Who knows? It is in the realm of extremely
remote possibility.
They sure have not done so yet

The Bible is not supposed to always confirm science. Its the other way around.

At times the Bible is to confound science. Confound it when science finally discovers that when the Bible is properly understood? That the Bible will confound science to see that the Bible was way ahead of science.

The GAP understanding makes science look like a Johnny come lately.
In much sadness I must confess, the YEC theory makes science look like its YEC's master whom is being denied.

Our biggest enemy to freedom and knowledge is when religious ignorance and dogmatism combine for its defense..

What is the gap understanding

 

[GenemZ]

What is the gap understanding

In a nut shell. The creation we now see and observe on earth has not been the first created world to grace its surface.
What we find buried underneath was a previous creation. One that was not created for man as we now know man to be.

And, to add to that? The Bible also teaches that our present creation will also be replaced once more.

.......

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Bible is not supposed to always confirm science. Its the other way around.

Science doesn't care about the bible either way.

Science didn't exist when the bible was created, so there is no reason to think it was addressing the claims of science.

 

[GenemZ]

Science doesn't care about the bible either way.

Science didn't exist when the bible was created, so there is no reason to think it was addressing the claims of science.

I too did not care about the Bible.... Until I entered into the shock of discovering something much deeper than mere 'data.'

I was a Jew. No Christ. The Bible was a guide for Jewish tradition and ethnic pride. Then one day in college after being handed a tract, I broke down and asked Jesus to save me. I really did not expect anything to happen after I did. It was simply something I found myself wanting to do.

The foundation for science existed when the Bible was written. Man is slow.

 

[rjs330]

Here's the bottom line. Science can only prove similarities. They cannot prove evolution from a common ancestor. There is no way to test or reproduce it. They haven't even been able to test or reproduce evolutionary processes they say happened.

 

[Frank Robert]

Looks like your buddy didn't give you enough information in his anti-literal spiel to answer that simple question, did he?

His book can take a hike.

A long one on a short pier.

You can deny the wars of the promised land but history does not agree with you.

 

[Frank Robert]

Here's the bottom line. Science can only prove similarities. They cannot prove evolution from a common ancestor. There is no way to test or reproduce it. They haven't even been able to test or reproduce evolutionary processes they say happened.

Scientists agree that evolution is not proven and will not likely ever be proven. In order to replace the ToE with creationism all creationists need do is to provide superior evidence for creationism and a consilience from multiple unrelated scientific fields.

Last universal common ancestor​

...there is no specific fossil evidence of the LUCA, the detailed biochemical similarity of all current life confirms its existence. Its characteristics can be inferred from shared features of modern genomes. These genes describe a complex life form with many co-adapted features, including transcription and translation mechanisms to convert information from DNA to RNA to proteins. The LUCA probably lived in the high-temperature water of deep sea vents near ocean-floor magma flows around 4 billion years ago. ​

​

If and when creationist produce scientific evidence for a biblical creation scenario it will be able to be taught in public school science classes.

 

[Frank Robert]

The Bible also teaches that our present creation will also be replaced once more.

.......

Many believe that collapse is likely assured to happen, with the crash of civilization between 2030 and 2050 due to limits of a finite world plus climate change.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can deny the wars of the promised land but history does not agree with you.

According to your book, why were they in there warring in the first place?

Or is this another question that will go unanswered?

 

[rjs330]

Scientists agree that evolution is not proven and will not likely ever be proven. In order to replace the ToE with creationism all creationists need do is to provide superior evidence for creationism and a consilience from multiple unrelated scientific fields.

Last universal common ancestor​

...there is no specific fossil evidence of the LUCA, the detailed biochemical similarity of all current life confirms its existence. Its characteristics can be inferred from shared features of modern genomes. These genes describe a complex life form with many co-adapted features, including transcription and translation mechanisms to convert information from DNA to RNA to proteins. The LUCA probably lived in the high-temperature water of deep sea vents near ocean-floor magma flows around 4 billion years ago. ​

​

If and when creationist produce scientific evidence for a biblical creation scenario it will be able to be taught in public school science classes.

I get that. The issue is that evolution theory is a self fulfilling prophecy. The way it's built is everything is evolution. No matter what happens it's evolution even though it can't be shown it actually is. Evolution cannot be disproven because evolution can't be proven. They assume everything and therefore everything is evidence and they dismiss everyone else as not evidence. They can't show evolution actually happened the way they say. It can't be seen, it can't be tested and can't be reproduced. It's very convenient. It can't be seen in nature today, but we have evidence, it can't be tested, but we have evidence, it can't be reproduced, but we have evidence.

And no matter what the creationists say they have no evidence because I. The evolution from a common ancestor is true regardless of the fact it cannot not not will it ever be shown to be true. It's all assumptive and since it is it cannot be contradicted.

Creation has the same difficulty. Because no one can prove creation, because no one can test itz observe it or reproduce it. Evolution is in the same boat but it's accepted anyway.

 

[Astrid]

In a nut shell. The creation we now see and observe on earth has not been the first created world to grace its surface.
What we find buried underneath was a previous creation. One that was not created for man as we now know man to be.

And, to add to that? The Bible also teaches that our present creation will also be replaced once more.

.......

Ah, I thought there was something to
the word "understanding".
I know about "gap", a idea concocted
from ambiguity out of a book believed
by some to be infallible.
That it cannot be demonstrated to be accurate,
and is so thoroughly disproved has of course
been gone over many times here.
Hence my question about the odd usage
of the term " gap understanding".

Perhaps you could say what you mean
by "understanding" of a non event?

 

[Astrid]

Here's the bottom line. Science can only prove similarities. They cannot prove evolution from a common ancestor. There is no way to test or reproduce it. They haven't even been able to test or reproduce evolutionary processes they say happened.

That may well be your bottom line,
but it's awful shallow.

 

[Astrid]

Scientists agree that evolution is not proven and will not likely ever be proven. In order to replace the ToE with creationism all creationists need do is to provide superior evidence for creationism and a consilience from multiple unrelated scientific fields.

Last universal common ancestor​

...there is no specific fossil evidence of the LUCA, the detailed biochemical similarity of all current life confirms its existence. Its characteristics can be inferred from shared features of modern genomes. These genes describe a complex life form with many co-adapted features, including transcription and translation mechanisms to convert information from DNA to RNA to proteins. The LUCA probably lived in the high-temperature water of deep sea vents near ocean-floor magma flows around 4 billion years ago. ​

​

If and when creationist produce scientific evidence for a biblical creation scenario it will be able to be taught in public school science classes.

Uh no. No theory is ever proven.

IF ToE is wrong, it will eventually be DISproved,
with or without a better theory.

 

[Astrid]

.