Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[Bradskii]

The problem I have is how some wish to use that to explain how we got living organisms in the first place.

Never a good answer is offered. You stand in a long line of obscurity.

That's another problem that you have to add to your others. When we get a good answer, you'll know about it.

 

[Bradskii]

Before something can live to evolve it needs an explanation as to how it began. At one time some were foolish enough to try... Their credentials could not save them.

So we are left with what? Evolution takes place with creatures.
Creatures that originated from nothing.

A very nothing that caused the life that will evolve into having animation and function.

Yet again, two entirely different matters.

Yes, life needs to exist before it can evolve. It obviously does exist so science has investigated how it has evolved. And again, I find it beyond me to explain to you how much evidence there is to support the only current theory.

And yes again, life has to exist before it can evolve, so science is searching for the means whereby that happened (there is already a gargantuan amount of information as to when it happened).

The first investigation did not require an answer to the second for it to proceed. I was going to say that you obviously knew that. But I am honestly not sure that you did...

 

[Kylie]

Lol that's not an explanation. That's an assumption. Similarities do not show anything if the sort. That's all they are is similarities. Similarities can just as easily be explained by God created it that way. Cause you have no evidence that it happened the way you claim. There was no observation it happened, no testing to show it can happen and you can reproduce it in the way you cla it happened.

Spoken like someone who has no idea what they are talking about. The evolutionary explanation is this:

The blood groups evolved before the chimp/human ancestor. When the population of this ancestor was split and one group evolved into chimps and the other evolved into Humans, the blood groups remained. The Chimp A type gene is more closely related to the Human A type gene because the chimp/human split was much more recent than the A type/O type gene split.

The genetic evidence is there for anyone to test. The fact you don't understand does not mean it's not valid evidence.

Here are some sources that show it:

"Whether this recurrence of A and B antigens is the result of an ancient polymorphism maintained across species or due to numerous, more recent instances of convergent evolution has been debated for decades, with a current consensus in support of convergent evolution. We show instead that genetic variation data in humans and gibbons as well as in Old World monkeys are inconsistent with a model of convergent evolution and support the hypothesis of an ancient, multiallelic polymorphism of which some alleles are shared by descent among species." In other words, there was some argument about whether humans and apes have the same kinds of blood types because they just happened to evolve it independently, or because the blood groups existed in an ancestor species. The paper shows that the best explanation is that the different genes for different blood groups is that the blood groups evolved in an ancestor species that both Humans and apes are descended from. You can read the paper HERE.

"The A, B and O blood types in people evolved at least 20 million years ago in a common ancestor of humans and other primates, new research suggests." SOURCE

"The result was startling: an A gene from one species (e.g. humans) was more closely related to the A gene from other species (e.g. gibbons) than to the B variant from the same species. These results support a scenario in which the A and B blood types first arose in a distant common ancestor and have persisted across species." SOURCE

If you think you are qualified to show that these scientists are incorrect, then by all means, present us with your qualifications and the research you have done to show that creation is a better explanation.

 

[Kylie]

Before something can live to evolve it needs an explanation as to how it began. At one time some were foolish enough to try... Their credentials could not save them.

So we are left with what? Evolution takes place with creatures.
Creatures that originated from nothing.

A very nothing that caused the life that will evolve into having animation and function.

Utterly irrelevant.

Life forms were evolving long before the concept of evolution was around. You are not able to claim that evolution is not valid because there is no testable theory of abiogenesis.

 

[Astrid]

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...

It's a joke but that not quite the same thing

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.

You CAN use all the evidence to show
anything you like.
The " equally valid" is pure twaddle.

Fossil evidence of evolution is wholly
Inconsistent with the Genesis account,
as the most casual student of the subject
would know.
Why dont you?

 

[Astrid]

Two entirely separate areas of scientific investigation.

How life originated is irrelevant to ToE
in the same way that the origin of petroleum
is irrelevant to refinery design.

 

[Frank Robert]

Perhaps? Be hard pressed then?

The only reason you are hard pressed is because your keep projecting your own limited ability into being God.


“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isa 55:8-9

I agree with with you Isa 55:8-9. It should be obvious to even the dullest among us the the vast majority in developed countries out of sync with the biblical command that we be stewards of the earth.

Taking care of God’s earth​

Some people believe that the instruction to ‘rule’ over the earth means we have absolute authority over creation. In this view, nature is a resource for humans to benefit from economically, whatever the environmental impacts. This theology has allowed Christians to chop down tropical forests to grow soya for cattle feed and to pollute rivers with waste products from mines as we dig for precious metals.​

​

To challenge these ideas, Christians have turned to the second creation account in Genesis 2. In verse 15, humans were placed in the Garden of Eden and instructed to ‘work it and take care of it’. In other words, God has given us the responsibility to act as stewards of his creation – to care for, manage, oversee and protect all that God owns. What an honour and privilege!​

​

This does not give us free licence to exploit and abuse God’s earth. As stewards, we need to act in the owner’s best interests, treating his ‘property’ with respect. We must not use it in a way that causes harm to our neighbours. One day we will have to give an account to God of how we have treated his earth.​

 

[Astrid]

I agree with with you Isa 55:8-9. It should be obvious to even the dullest among us the the vast majority in developed countries out of sync with the biblical command that we be stewards of the earth.

Taking care of God’s earth​

Some people believe that the instruction to ‘rule’ over the earth means we have absolute authority over creation. In this view, nature is a resource for humans to benefit from economically, whatever the environmental impacts. This theology has allowed Christians to chop down tropical forests to grow soya for cattle feed and to pollute rivers with waste products from mines as we dig for precious metals.​

​

To challenge these ideas, Christians have turned to the second creation account in Genesis 2. In verse 15, humans were placed in the Garden of Eden and instructed to ‘work it and take care of it’. In other words, God has given us the responsibility to act as stewards of his creation – to care for, manage, oversee and protect all that God owns. What an honour and privilege!​

​

This does not give us free licence to exploit and abuse God’s earth. As stewards, we need to act in the owner’s best interests, treating his ‘property’ with respect. We must not use it in a way that causes harm to our neighbours. One day we will have to give an account to God of how we have treated his earth.​

It's all in how you read the bible.

Others take the view that all is corrupted by
sin, and will all be destroyed so we should
just use things in the meantime.

" take care" was for " the garden" not
spoilt place that followed.

 

[AV1611VET]

And four, you think that He was quite prepared to drown young children because He knew how they'd turn out but has not shown the slightest interest in removing people who are considered the most inhuman animals that have ever walked the planet (and we also have the advantage of knowing who they were), responsible for millions of deaths.

If you don't do something about it, Brad, those children are going to witness your consignment to a place you'll regret for all eternity.

You'll wish you would have been one of them.

 

[Frank Robert]

And when all that fails, as it should, then the miracle still isn’t proven to be false it’s just considered to be false.

You are confusing false with unknown. Science does not have an answer for everything that happens. There are many religious scientists who believe in miracles. Scientists who do not believe in miracles would attribute them to cause unknown.

Besides christian miracles there are many reports of "miraculous cures" by shamans throughout the world. Many would call them miracles, others would say "unknown" while others would say they are false.

 

[Frank Robert]

It's all in how you read the bible.

Others take the view that all is corrupted by
sin, and will all be destroyed so we should
just use things in the meantime.

" take care" was for " the garden" not
spoilt place that followed.

I agree it is all on how reads the bible.

I like your take that "corrupted by sin" becomes a justification to destroy the earth. It sounds like a Christian nihilism in the sense that it leaves man, i.e. each individual, absolutely free to create and sustain his own values in life.

 

[GenemZ]

When all evidence points to it then what choice does one have? There is no other theory. Just a religious belief.

This why when you come here to end up in a dead end street.

"The person without regeneration does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God ​

but considers them foolishness/moronic, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only ​

through the Spirit." ​

We know that we can not be understood by curious minds that do not know God. For at one time we know we could not understand who we have become either.

The answers to your questions can be found. But, not on your terms.

Yes, there are a lot of average IQ Christians to be found. And, then we also have a few genius amongst our ranks.
For God saves anyone who believes in Jesus Christ. God is not a snob. That is because its the end product that He
will produce that He will be very happy with. And, so will they.

In the mean time... We are all now being allowed the needed time to think things through.

 

[GenemZ]

You are confusing false with unknown. Science does not have an answer for everything that happens. There are many religious scientists who believe in miracles. Scientists who do not believe in miracles would attribute them to cause unknown.

Besides christian miracles there are many reports of "miraculous cures" by shamans throughout the world. Many would call them miracles, others would say "unknown" while others would say they are false.

Can he ask science if he will be killed tomorrow?

 

[Astrid]

You are confusing false with unknown. Science does not have an answer for everything that happens. There are many religious scientists who believe in miracles. Scientists who do not believe in miracles would attribute them to cause unknown.

Besides christian miracles there are many reports of "miraculous cures" by shamans throughout the world. Many would call them miracles, others would say "unknown" while others would say they are false.

Belief is fine as long as it's not introduced as science.
Then it becomes intellectual / scientific dishonesty.

Google Image Result for https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.2199467930.5830/st,small,845x845-pad,1000x1000,f8f8f8.jpg

 

[GenemZ]

Utterly irrelevant.

Life forms were evolving long before the concept of evolution was around. You are not able to claim that evolution is not valid because there is no testable theory of abiogenesis.

You have now become irrelevant in that case.

Have a nice day... An utterly nice day.

 

[GenemZ]

Belief is fine as long as it's not introduced as science.
Then it becomes intellectual / scientific dishonesty.

And that's what?

Belief! Science uses faith all the time. Faith is based upon data that can be known. You believe it to be so.

If you can not know the data from inability of your own? It does not negate the data's reality.

God created your soul. Your body is only temporal. Data.

 

[Frank Robert]

Can he ask science if he will be killed tomorrow?

You can ask anything your imagination congers up, chances are you will not like the answer.

Conger away!

 

[Ophiolite]

Utterly irrelevant.

Life forms were evolving long before the concept of evolution was around. You are not able to claim that evolution is not valid because there is no testable theory of abiogenesis.

Please excuse the pedantry, but strictly speaking he is able to claim this and has done so. It's just that his claim is unsupported, illogical and fundamentally silly.

 

[Frank Robert]

And that's what?

Belief! Science uses faith all the time. Faith is based upon data that can be known. You believe it to be so.

You keep on confusing words or meaning of words. There is a hugh difference between faith and belief. A scientist may have faith, i.e, strong trust and confidence in his hypothesis and will test it for evidence while a belief is trust or confidence placed in some person or thing such as a god (no testing necessary).

 

[Astrid]

You keep on confusing words or meaning of words. There is a hugh difference between faith and belief. A scientist may have faith, i.e, strong trust and confidence in his hypothesis and will test it for evidence while a belief is trust or confidence placed in some person or thing such as a god (no testing necessary).

Use of equivocation is intellectually dishonest