Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[rjs330]

Whoever told you that it could didn't know much about science, let alone evolution.

They can't. They are unable to show that it occurred. No one has been able to observe the process, test it or reproduce it. It's all an assumptive situation.

None of evolution from a common ancestor has any more evidence that creationism.

Everything evolution from a common ancestor that is assumed as evidence can be also evidence of creationism.

But that's okay, creationism cannot be scientifically shown to be accurate either. It's all an assumption based upon your own belief system.

Evolution from a common ancestor is no more science than creationism is. It just masquerades as such.

 

[AV1611VET]

He gave the babies advance warning?

The parents, starting with their great grandfathers.

'Why are you drowning that baby!'
'Don't blame me. I've been warning his father about his behaviour for years.'
'Ah, that's perfectly OK then. I'll go get the rest of the kids'.

That's cute.

The earth wasn't Tianamen Square; and making sure that one would be with child when the year of the Flood came wasn't going to prevent it from happening.

 

[rjs330]

Just to deal with eyes...do you know how many different types of eyes there are? That obviously evolved separately? Working on completely different designs that evolved for different circumstances? That some creatures have multiple eyes? That some have none?

Do you know that scales have evolved into feathers? Beaks into teeth. That not all creatures have bones. That some have external skeletons. Some have no tongues.

You seem to have a limited understanding of the evolutionary process. You make basic mistakes that confirm that. Yet you seem determined to refute that which you don't understand. It would be like me trying to refute quantum mechanics...

You might want to re-read that post. The poster didn't claim all animals have teeth etc. or the exact same eyes.

Everyone if your claims is an assumption that it came about by evolutionary process. Perhaps some did. That's the beauty of the creation. God built in an adaptation into his creation so animals could adapt as things changed it as needed.

You have no way to show that scales turned into feathers. That's another assumption.

 

[GenemZ]

Just to deal with eyes...do you know how many different types of eyes there are?

Do you realize all the organs that must exist in the same body for the eyes to even function? And, you are telling me that all animals that have eyes all began as their own lumps of DNA and by chance formed having their own kind of eyes? Sounds like designer was behind the whole thing. Or? By chance they all evolved into having eyes somehow...

Now... there comes a point of 'not getting it' that I stop trying to reason.

 

[GenemZ]

I'm not discussing God's judgement. I'm asking you if you think that He intentionally drowned pregnant women, babies and small children.

Contradictory statement. For it concerns God's judgment.

You're trying to trap me with thinking that is totally devoid of understanding the nature of God. While demanding that I do not try to reason according to that line of reasoning. Its nothing but a trap when you set such rules.

 

[GenemZ]

So how do we know which is the more correct (or least incorrect) version? The details are not exactly subtle. A few people drowned in a small area or a huge global cataclysmic disaster. Why should we accept your version and reject others?

Do your own thinking. People rejected Jesus who stood right in front of them. Did he try to reason with them over and over again? (now find a trap in what I just said)

 

[Kylie]

That's your assumption. But you can't show that's true.

And you have assumed that God set things up to work in a specific way as well, and you can't show that assumption is true either.

However, Occam's razor points to my position being more likely, since I do not have to make the assumption "Goddidit."

 

[GenemZ]

Totally irrelevant except for the defensive bit
and matching refusal to respond on topic.

According to your terms. If I did what it takes you would balk and find reason to fade away.

 

[Kylie]

Do you realize all the organs that must exist in the same body for the eyes to even function? And, you are telling me that all animals that have eyes all began as their own lumps of DNA and by chance formed having their own kind of eyes? Sounds like designer was behind the whole thing. Or? By chance they all evolved into having eyes somehow...

Now... there comes a point of 'not getting it' that I stop trying to reason.

This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Evolution explains it very neatly.

 

[GenemZ]

I wasn't talking about me or anyone else. I was talking about the scientific process.

The bible is not an input to scientific studies. It doesn't matter one way or the other.

Nor are fossils talking about the scientific process. But science has things to say about fossils. There is not science to be found in speculation which enters the realm of subjectivity when unregenerate minds wish to tackle God's creating all there is.

 

[GenemZ]

This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Evolution explains it very neatly.

What evolution explains is a neat system. But, as far as the big picture? Its fragmented and missing too many parts of the puzzle. Its off the mark if it tries to explain how and why evolution even exists in the first place.

Explain then? How did evolution begin to happen?

What brings it about had to be already programmed into the DNA. Programmed by a mind that foresaw needs before they became apparent.

 

[Astrid]

According to your terms. If I did what it takes you would balk and find reason to fade away.

You just keep making things up.

 

[Bradskii]

They can't. They are unable to show that it occurred. No one has been able to observe the process, test it or reproduce it. It's all an assumptive situation.

None of evolution from a common ancestor has any more evidence that creationism.

Paleontology, molecular biology, cladistics, philogeny, speciation, embryology, biogeography, comparative physiology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy...the list of scientific methods that all point to a common ancestor goes on and on and on. And the overwhelming evidence that each brings to the table and the odds that they should all point to the same conclusion coupled with a galactically large number of examples from each kinda lends weight to that conclusion.

All that - an amount of information that would take an enormous number of lifetimes just to peruse, versus...what? Creation.com? Genesis? A literal reading of some scripture that defies almost the totality of science itself?

You are joking, surely...

 

[Bradskii]

The parents, starting with their great grandfathers.

That's cute.

That's accurate. Thanks for your (revealing) input.

 

[Bradskii]

You have no way to show that scales turned into feathers. That's another assumption.

I guess you've never seen a real chicken. You can actually see the scales transform into feathers on their legs. And that's just on the one creature.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you realize all the organs that must exist in the same body for the eyes to even function? And, you are telling me that all animals that have eyes all began as their own lumps of DNA and by chance formed having their own kind of eyes? Sounds like designer was behind the whole thing. Or? By chance they all evolved into having eyes somehow...

Now... there comes a point of 'not getting it' that I stop trying to reason.

By chance? If you think it's all random and just by chance then you are just exhibiting the extent of your 'not getting it'.

 

[Bradskii]

Contradictory statement. For it concerns God's judgment.

You're trying to trap me with thinking that is totally devoid of understanding the nature of God. While demanding that I do not try to reason according to that line of reasoning. Its nothing but a trap when you set such rules.

You can include your views on the nature of God if you like. I just want to know if you thought He did it. It's an incredibly simple quesion. He drowned the men. Did He drown women and small children as well?

 

[Bradskii]

Do your own thinking. People rejected Jesus who stood right in front of them. Did he try to reason with them over and over again? (now find a trap in what I just said)

It's your claim. Versus the global version. How do you refute the global version? What have they got wrong? Why didn't it happen that way?

 

[rjs330]

And you have assumed that God set things up to work in a specific way as well, and you can't show that assumption is true either.

However, Occam's razor points to my position being more likely, since I do not have to make the assumption "Goddidit."

Occam's razor doesn't do that at all. That's another belief. All so called evidence of evolution can be equally used to say creation is the what happened.

It's just as valid as saying evolitiondidit.

 

[rjs330]

Paleontology, molecular biology, cladistics, philogeny, speciation, embryology, biogeography, comparative physiology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy...the list of scientific methods that all point to a common ancestor goes on and on and on. And the overwhelming evidence that each brings to the table and the odds that they should all point to the same conclusion coupled with a galactically large number of examples from each kinda lends weight to that conclusion.

All that - an amount of information that would take an enormous number of lifetimes just to peruse, versus...what? Creation.com? Genesis? A literal reading of some scripture that defies almost the totality of science itself?

You are joking, surely...

None of that shows evolution fr a common ancestor. Every single piece of so called evidence is ASSUMED it does. Cause they can't show it. Every single piece of that can equally be assumed to show creation.