Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[Astrid]

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

Conger away!

Do you have an 800 number for Science?
I have some questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists who do not believe in miracles would attribute them to cause unknown.

Either that, or call it magic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Belief is fine as long as it's not introduced as science.

Or history.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Conger away!

Is Israel the Pro...

Oh, wait!

You said the answer, not the question.

Nevermind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have an 800 number for Science?
I have some questions.

1-800-666-MUSE

 

[Torah Keeper]

University? Uninformed?
You believe in a world wide flood and
think I'm the one who needs an education?

If you do not believe in a world wide flood then you need to be educated.

 

[Astrid]

If you do not believe in a world wide flood then you need to be educated.

I know the story so you are referring to faith,
not education, per se.

But if you feel that education is the key
to belief / non belief, may I ask what education
you have in such as physics, biology, chemistry, or
geology?

 

[rjs330]

Yet the same thing is found entirely within one generation of other birds as well. And not just turning scales into feathers but gradually turning legs into partial wings. Again, in one single generation. Pigeon foot feather genes identified: Study hints how scaly dinosaur legs could get birdlike feathers

'The study found that in pigeons with feathers on their hindlimbs or feet, a hindlimb-development gene named Pitx1 is less active than normal, while a forelimb-development gene named Tbx5 is active in the feet, where it normally is not.

In other words, "pigeons' fancy feathered feet are partially wings," says biologist Mike Shapiro, senior author of the study published today by the journal eLife.

In mutant pigeons with foot feathers, "the hindlimb is clearly recognizable as a leg, but it has taken on more forelimb characteristics," he says. "It's not a complete transformation of a leg into a wing. Rather, components of the leg are more winglike, including feathers and a larger leg bone."

So you've been show an example of a bird with scales, a process whereby it can happen to transform one to the other, another bird where this happens as a common mutation and we see the results in one generation caused by changes to two identified genes. Notwithstanding that there were actually some dinosaurs with feathers: 9 Dinosaurs With Feathers

'Birds are the closest relative to dinosaurs that are presently alive, and they are a type of reptile. Birds may look different than some of the dinosaurs you see in the movies, but many species of dinosaurs had feathers and resembled the feathered animals we see today.

In this article, you will learn about 9 dinosaurs with feathers. Birds and dinosaurs are closely related, and feathers are a common trait that both animals share. '

To deny that this actually happens would really be perverse.

This is very interesting. It's definitely indicative of the belief system of evolution believers. Of course there were dinosaurs with wings. That doesn't prove a thing. It's still assumed that they evolved from crawling on the land with scales like lizards to being flying dinosaurs. No thought is given to the fact that they could have been created that way and never evolved. They just were. Chickens and pigeons are not lizards. When you said scales I was picturing lizards like the iguana or a reptile like a snake.

Of course some chickens or pigeons have feathers on their legs. So? That doesn't prove it even show evolution form a common ancestor for all things. All it shows is that some chickens and pigeons have feathers on their legs.

This is were evolution goes off the he rails. To them EVERYTHING is evidence of evolution. Even though they have no way of showing it to be so.

Just to be clear I am NOT an evolution denier in the sense that there is no evolution of a certain creature. For example bacteria evolves in order to survive. There are lizards whos digestive system has changed order to survive. Etc. That's because God made it that way in order for his creation to continue to exist. Otherwise everything would become extinct.

Similarities in creatures do not show evolution it shows design. It shows that something created everything with certain properties. And those properties include the things ability to evolve in an attempt to continue to exist.

There is no way to show that all things evolved from one thing. No one saw it happen. No one can reproduce it happening and no one can test it happening. It's all assumed to have happened and all evolutionists so is point to similarities between creatures and say see it must have happened. It's a faith and belief based system.

Whereas similarities can easily show there was a creator who created and designed life to be as it is.

 

[rjs330]

So we have four answers in one.

One, you can see no problem in drowning children that have done no wrong.

Two, you believe that God knew that every single child would turn out so bad that you feel the acts were justified.

Three, He knew what was going to happen, so you think that He allowed them to be born with the express purpose of killing them for sins that they had no choice in avoiding (there went free will).

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.

Interesting.

What I find interesting as the you seem to think God couldn't do any of that. Babies are born with a sinful nature and WILL do wrong. Sometimes great wrong. We are all born deserving of death due to our wicked nature. Our free will is that we can choose what's right as displayed by the fact that we do sometimes. But the right we do doesn't make up for all the wrong choices and sinful acts that we do. A murderer may help grandma across the street, but it doesn't negate the fact that he killed 5 people. We choose to do wrong more than we choose to do right. And the biggest choice of wrong is to reject God and his son's death for us.

Knowing something is going to happen is not the same as causing it to happen. But even if he did create them all to be killed he has that right to do so.

Yes, God killed all those people for their wickedness and the wickedness they were going to inflict upon the world and each other. God also promised no to do that again.

He is not willing that any should perish and is wanting all to come to repentance. With the advent of Christ he has ushered in the age of grace where everyone has a chance and the final judgement happens after death.

 

[rjs330]

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

We already have the answer. You just have chosen to believe the other man made answer. That's why it's a belief system.

 

[rjs330]

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.

Did you see all the assumption you made in all of that? All the assumptions the scientists make in all of that? Blood groups evolved. That's an assumption. There is no way to show that it happened that way.

The best explanation? Really? No, it's an assumptive explanation. They believe it happened but can't show it happened. It just is and because they believe it happejed by evolution and not because they can show it happened by evolution.

You know what it actually shows is that God created it that way and has created creatures with similar design qualities. That's a belief system too.

Everything in evolution is "suggests" or is debated and one theory may have stronger beliefs than another.

These scientists are very smart, but they are committed to the belief of evolution form a common ancestor. They are very good at finding and comparing things. But they all they have done is fine and compair and hypothesize. They don't know. B cause I get can't.

They could just as easily said, look how things are designed. And look at how God created all his creation with similarities of design. But they have chosen not to.

 

[Ophiolite]

They could just as easily said, look how things are designed. And look at how God created all his creation with similarities of design. But they have chosen not to.

Evidence for evolution - massive, objective, validated, quantified, etc
Evidence for design - superficial, colloquial, unconvincing

Other than that you are correct.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Evidence for evolution - massive, objective, validated, quantified, etc
Evidence for design - superficial, colloquial, unconvincing

Other than that you are correct.

Please demonstrate your massive, objective, validated, quantified, etc. evidence for abiogenesis. Please, take your time. I have all day.

 

[Ophiolite]

Please demonstrate your massive, objective, validated, quantified, etc. evidence for abiogenesis. Please, take your time. I have all day.

I didn't mention abiogenesis.

I will be happy to start you out on an investigation of the massive, objective, validated, quantified, etc evidence for evolution when you give me some assurance that you will honestly and actively commit to studying it. Absent that assurance I think this conversation is at an end.

Oh, what the heck! Obtain a copy of the Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. Read it from cover to cover then contact me with the ten points you find most improbable and why, and I shall respond in detail. We can take it from there.

 

[Torah Keeper]

I didn't mention abiogenesis

Uh oh....someone is dodging the question because they can't answer it. Now let me educate you.

Abiogenesis is the beginning of evolutionary theory. It is the foundation. You can't have a working theory without a beginning. If I ask you, how did life begin? The atheist answer is always the same. You avoid the question. If abiogenesis is not true, then you must accept the existence of an eternal, uncreated God. Louis Pasteur proved that abiogenesis is not true. So there is your evidence for an eternal, uncreated God. Unless you provide evidence that abiogenesis is true, then evolutionary theory collapses into the hole where it's foundation should be.

So again, please tell me if Dawkins presents evidence for abiogenesis in his book, or if he is just blowing hot air from both ends.

 

[Bradskii]

This is very interesting.

Darn tootin' it's interesting. First you say something can't happen then you are shown it can. Then you deny it and you are shown that it actually does happen in nature. Then you are shown that not only does it happen now but it likewise happened when dinosaurs were about.

So your response? It's effectively 'Well, I may be wrong but it doesn't matter anyway 'cos they might have been designed that way'. Why gee, you're correct. So when you have the evidence for that proposal that will counter the galactic amount of scientific evidence, please feel free to post it. And anything that starts with or even is based on 'it says in Genesis...' will be discounted.

 

[Bradskii]

What I find interesting as the you seem to think God couldn't do any of that.

Don't be silly. I'm an atheist. You might as well say that I think Zeus could do something I thought to be evil.

As I said upstream, the question 'Do you think it happened?' has literally nothing to do with me questioning the morality of God. I know it didn't happen. I am more interested in whether you follow a God that you think could do such a thing.

When the question is asked, there are a couple of options available.

One, it didn't happen. God would never do such a thing.

Two, it did happen. And drowning babies is perfectly fine if God decides to do it. Followed by some facile argument that He knew that they were going to turn out bad. Meaning he created the human race knowing He was going to drown them. Where's the free will in that situation? What's that? He gave them every opportunity and plenty of warnings to change their ways you say? Well, except for the little children. And if He knew that they were going to turn out bad, then He knew the parents would as well. So the warnings were a waste of everyone's time.

This might just be me, but anyone selecting Option One comes out of it looking good. They are against drowning children. I class that as a plus. But those selecting Option 2 indictate to me that firstly they have no problem in having kids drowned just because God says so (which is seriously a major problem for me, as if God can do what He wants and it's accepted as being OK, then He can demand anything He wants and there will be no argument). And secondly, they have put no thought into the implications whatsoever.

Thank you for your answer.

 

[rjs330]

Evidence for evolution - massive, objective, validated, quantified, etc
Evidence for design - superficial, colloquial, unconvincing

Other than that you are correct.

Every piece of evidence for evolution you just said is equally applicable to creation if you believe in those things. Evolution form a common ancestor is not massive, objective, validated, or quantified. It can't be. Because it's never been observed, never been tested or never been reproduced.

You have to believe it's true. It's a belief system because you want to believe that's the way it happened. When you believe something that strongly suddenly everything meets your belief.

 

[Bradskii]

We already have the answer. You just have chosen to believe the other man made answer. That's why it's a belief system.

We know it happened. If you want to claim that God did it, that really is fine with me.

Now, if you don't mind, the rest of us will carry on trying to determine how He did it. We know what process He employed to get from abigogenesis to here. We'll let you know in due course how He managed the first part.

Unless you think we should stop looking? Do you actually want to suggest that?

 

[rjs330]

Darn tootin' it's interesting. First you say something can't happen then you are shown it can. Then you deny it and you are shown that it actually does happen in nature. Then you are shown that not only does it happen now but it likewise happened when dinosaurs were about.

So your response? It's effectively 'Well, I may be wrong but it doesn't matter anyway 'cos they might have been designed that way'. Why gee, you're correct. So when you have the evidence for that proposal that will counter the galactic amount of scientific evidence, please feel free to post it. And anything that starts with or even is based on 'it says in Genesis...' will be discounted.

No that's not true I explained my answer to you. I misunderstood what you were talking about. I told you I thought you were talking about lizards scales. Cold blooded creatures like snakes. Why did you dismiss that explanation?

There is no galactic amount of evidence unless you believe that there is. There isn't. You assume everything because you believe in it.

Everything you assume can also show similarities created by a design which means there had to be a designer.

You have zero evidence that anything that evolution claims happened actually did.