Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[Frank Robert]

You can find some of them, and their articles, on www.creation.com.

Problem. Creation.com lists the articles but not the bios or credentials or professional articles that they wrote for the writers. Perhaps you can fill in the blanks.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Problem. Creation.com lists the articles but not the bios or credentials or professional articles that they wrote for the writers. Perhaps you can fill in the blanks.

Problem. You are too biased to even look.

Who we are · Creation.com

The people involved

creation.com

 

[Frank Robert]

Problem. You are too biased to even look.

Who we are · Creation.com

The people involved

creation.com

You are making an erroneous assumption, otherwise thank you for the link.

I checked the bios and additionally checked with a google search on each of the writers who had DR before their name which would indicate a high degree of intelligence. All but one or two of the DRs were primarily associated with Creationist.com and other creationist organizations and ministries.

I checked a few of the DRs on google.scholar and what writings found were were mostly pdfs at Academia.edu which is a for-profit open repository of academic articles free to read by visitors. Uploading and downloading is restricted to registered users. I was underwhelmed.

I am not against peoples religious beliefs not even creationists beliefs. What I dislike about creationism orgs is that they attack science apparently because science is quiet about gods religions. Yet it is estimated that 40% of scientists believe in God and an additional 29% of atheist scientists (in the US) also say they are culturally religious. That is, despite their lack of belief in God, they routinely interact with religious individuals or organizations.

 

[Shemjaza]

You can find some of them, and their articles, on www.creation.com.

I clicked on tbe very first article I read and they were multiple mistakes.

Assumed that transitional means ancestral.

Implied that modern legged fish are identical to primordial examples.

Doesn't acknowledge that evolutionary theory describes variation in function.



This means I'm not particularly inclined to trust your source over all, but it's be happy to talk about specifics if you have them.

But to keep to the exact topic of the thread, that YEC is science, could any hyperthetical evidence disprove Young Earth Creationism?

(Personally I think it's impossible as the idea includes God who is both mysterious and omnipotent... so literally anything is possible).

 

[Astrid]

You can find some of them, and their articles, on www.cre

ation.com

You can find some of them, and their articles, on www.creation.com.

Right, a creationist site. As if.
Just admit you've zero.

 

[Astrid]

You can find some of them, and their articles, on www.creation.com.

I'm not prejudiced against creation.com.
It's actually postjudice.

Like a dog that always tries to bite,
it isn't prejudice to figure he's dangerous.

I know a pathological liar. Same thing.
There's no bias in not trusting them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know a pathological liar.

One knows you too.

 

[rjs330]

Interesting how he could have made the universe any way at all, but he chose to make it in the exact way we'd expect it to be if he hadn't done anything and instead natural forces were responsible for everything.

Interesting how natural forces work exactly how God intended and set it up.to be, including putting oil in the earth. You know science is discovering that even now oil is being renewed and it's not finite after all.

There is so much we dont know and do t understand. What make you think we really fully grasp that everything is how we predict it to be?

 

[Shemjaza]

Interesting how natural forces work exactly how God intended and set it up.to be, including putting oil in the earth. You know science is discovering that even now oil is being renewed and it's not finite after all.

There is so much we dont know and do t understand. What make you think we really fully grasp that everything is how we predict it to be?

I'm dubious about that comment about oil. Do you have a source for that?

 

[driewerf]

I don't think there is one single idea or way of thinking that should have a monopoly on what is considered science.

Different sciences have indeed a slightly different emphasis on experiment, passive observation or theoretical deduction – you can’t put a sunspot in a test tube after all – but all sciences are in the end evidence based. That is a point from which no scientist will back pedal. Sure, at the edge of our knowledge, there where “Terra Incognita" begins there will be different hypotheses and theories. That’s is what scientific research means, expand our knowledge and push back our ignorance, correct mistakes where mistakes are made, improve our explanation and understanding of the physical world.

Science needs to be open to alternative theories.

It is. As long as there is evidence for it. The history of the different sciences is a full of controversies. The most famous example is the replacement of the Ptolemaic geocentric model by the Copernican heliocentric model in which planets orbit the Sun in circles. This has been replaced by the solar system of Keppler in which the planets orbit the sun in ellipses. But at each step, it was the observed evidence that was the critical factor in rejecting or accepting a model.

It should be okay to challenge current theories and have discussions, even if some theories are based on faith.

It is very normal to challenge proposed hypotheses and theories. That is what happened at scientific conferences and conventions. That is what can be read in different scientific papers and in the letters to the editors. The theories and discoveries that we read about in about in books or see in science documentaries are forged through this previous back and forth debate among experts. Because here comes a critical point.
Like it or not, but the different sciences are difficult. Our understanding of nature has expanded so much that to have a meaningful voice in the debate requires study. Years and years of hard, time consuming study. Nobody will be impressed by some creationist just saying “I don’t believe that”. It is cute that you don’t believe some of the findings of modern science, but as long as you can’t point out why or what a proposed theory is wrong – and then I mean going into the technical details – your non-believing will be irrelevant at best and irritating at most.
As for the “faith” part of your post. That’s just a big “No”. All sciences are evidence based. It’s unexplained or contradictory observations that push scientists to review, re-question or adapt existing theories. And then these reviewed, adapted improved theories are tested against new data and empirical evidence. Faith doesn’t come into play.

There are brilliant PhD-level scientists who are creationists and can explain certain phenomena within the creationist view.

• What phenomena can these “brilliant PhD-level scientists” explain?
• What is their explanation?
• How well does it fit in our understanding of other sciences like physics and chemistry?
• And what about phenomena they can’t explain?
Such vague assertions are easy to made, but not very convincing. As said earlier, one needs to go into the technical details. Or at least be more specific.

Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in a Creator God.

*sigh*
Yes indeed. Scientists living before the 19th century. When our understanding of the world wasn’t as sophisticated as now, when we knew much less than today, it wasn’t illogical to believe in the creation story. But as our understanding expanded, more and more observations showed that the world is much older than 6000 years, that there was no Great Flood and that species could go extinct and new species evolved. But as you might have noticed, we know currently a tiny little bit more than 150 years ago. We know about plate tectonics, the structure of DNA, nuclear physics and about the presence of other galaxies. We discovered geological features like the Deccan Trap and the Grand Canyon. We mapped the Great Barrie Reef. We measured the expansion rate of the Atlantic Ocean and observed the magnetic strips with alternating polarity. None of these are consistent with a 6000 years old earth.

In many ways, current science has led some former atheists to consider the possibilities.

Possibly. So what? Why do you think this is relevant. Do you think we will destroy all our physics textbooks in the shredder because “some former atheist” are considering possibilities?

The universe is so finely-tuned that one cannot fully, totally deny the possibility that it was created by an intelligent being.

And neither can it be confirmed.
In the mean time quite a lot of the statements of creationism have been shown flat out wrong, as illustrated above.
But above all, creationists display a staggering ignorance of science and philosophy of science.
At least twice did you use an argument from authority: “There are brilliant PhD-level scientists who are creationists” and “Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in a Creator God”, which is again a sign of no compelling evidence whta so ever. If you want to be taken seriously you will come with data. Empirical evidence. Vague appeals to authority – some of the greatest scientists – wont make it. Even if we ignore your lack empirical evidence, the very phrase you use contains a refutation of your point. “Some”, so not all. So what about the greatest scientists of all time who don’t believe in a creator god? Shall we discard them? Aren’t they great enough?
Through out this post I have asked a lot of questions. I look forward to the answers.

Kind regards,
Driewerf

 

[Astrid]

Different sciences have indeed a slightly different emphasis on experiment, passive observation or theoretical deduction – you can’t put a sunspot in a test tube after all – but all sciences are in the end evidence based. That is a point from which no scientist will back pedal. Sure, at the edge of our knowledge, there where “Terra Incognita" begins there will be different hypotheses and theories. That’s is what scientific research means, expand our knowledge and push back our ignorance, correct mistakes where mistakes are made, improve our explanation and understanding of the physical world.

It is. As long as there is evidence for it. The history of the different sciences is a full of controversies. The most is the replacement of the Ptolemaic geocentric model by the Copernican heliocentric model in which planets orbit the Sun in circles. This has been replaced by the solar system of Keppler in which the planets orbit the sun in ellipses. But at each step, it was the observed evidence that was the critical factor in rejecting or accepting a model.

It is very normal to challenge proposed hypotheses and theories. That is what happened at scientific conferences and conventions. That is what can be read in different scientific papers and in the letters to the editors. The theories and discoveries that we read about in about in books or see in science documentaries are forged through this previous back and forth debate among experts. Because here comes a critical point.
Like it or not, but the different sciences are difficult. Our understanding of nature has expanded so much that to have a meaningful voice in the debate requires study. Years and years of hard, time consuming study. Nobody will be impressed by some creationist just saying “I don’t believe that”. It is cute that you don’t believe some of the findings of modern science, but as long as you can’t point out why or what a proposed theory is wrong – and then I mean going into the technical details – your non-believing will be irrelevant at best and irritating at most.
As for the “faith” part of your post. That’s just a big “No”. All sciences are evidence based. It’s unexplained or contradictory observations that push scientists to review, re-question or adapt existing theories. And then these reviewed, adapted improved theories are tested against new data and empirical evidence. Faith doesn’t come into play.

• What phenomena can these “brilliant PhD-level scientists” explain?
• What is their explanation?
• How well does it fit in our understanding of other sciences like physics and chemistry?
• And what about phenomena they can’t explain?
Such vague assertions are easy to made, but not very convincing. As said earlier, one needs to go into the technical details. Or at least be more specific.
*sigh*
Yes indeed. Scientists living before the 19th century. When our understanding of the world wasn’t as sophisticated as now, when we knew much less than today, it wasn’t illogical to believe in the creation story. But as our understanding expanded, more and more observations showed that the world is much older than 6000 years, that there was no Great Flood and that species could go extinct and new species evolved. But as you might have noticed, we know currently a tiny little bit more than 150 years ago. We know about plate tectonics, the structure of DNA, nuclear physics and about the presence of other galaxies. We discovered geological features like the Deccan Trap and the Grand Canyon. We mapped the Great Barrie Reef. We measured the expansion rate of the Atlantic Ocean and observed the magnetic strips with alternating polarity. None of these are consistent with a 6000 years old earth.

Possibly. So what? Why do you think this is relevant. Do you think we will destroy all our physics textbooks in the shredder because “some former atheist” are considering possibilities?

And neither can it be confirmed.
In the mean time quite a lot of the statements of creationism have been shown flat out wrong, as illustrated above.
But above all, creationists display a staggering ignorance of science and philosophy of science.
At least twice did you sue an argument from authority: “There are brilliant PhD-level scientists who are creationists” and “Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in a Creator God”. If you want to be taken seriously you will come with data. Empirical evidence. Vague appeals to authority – some of the greatest scientists – wont make it. Even if we ignore your lack empirical evidence, the very phrase you use contains a refutation of your point. “Some”, so not all. So what about the greatest scientists of all time who don’t believe in a creator god? Shall we discard them? Aren’t they great enough?
Through out this post I have asked a lot of questions. I look forward to the answers.

Kind regards,
Driewerf

Ifn these " creation scientists' are Sooo
" brilliant" we would like to hear of at least
ONE fact they've uncovered to defeat ToE.

 

[driewerf]

Ifn these " creation scientists' are Sooo
" brilliant" we would like to hear of at least
ONE fact they've uncovered to defeat ToE.

Let us patiently wait.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ifn these " creation scientists' are Sooo " brilliant" we would like to hear of at least ONE fact they've uncovered to defeat ToE.

Genesis 1 is full of anti-evolution facts.

It pwns evolution: cosmic and biological.

But you [appropriately] said "hear," and Jesus talks about our hearing, doesn't He?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let us patiently wait.

Evolution will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in the Tribulation Period, when the Antichrist will make it look so simple, a child will be able to understand it.

Then comes the Truth that will put an end to it.

 

[driewerf]

Evolution will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in the Tribulation Period, when the Antichrist will make it look so simple, a child will be able to understand it.

Then comes the Truth that will put an end to it.

Of course, there is no reason what so ever to believe all this.

 

[Frank Robert]

Genesis 1 is full of anti-evolution facts.

Excellent example of:

Why the Bible Cannot and Should Not Be Taken Literally

ABSTRACT​

​

This paper argues that there are at least five reasons why the claim that the Bible is to be taken literally defies logic or otherwise makes no sense, and why literalists are in no position to claim that they have the only correct view of biblical teachings. First, many words are imprecise and therefore require interpretation, especially to fill in gaps between general words and their application to specific situations. Second, if you are reading an English version of the Bible you are already dealing with the interpretations of the translator since the earliest Bibles were written in other languages. Third, biblical rules have exceptions, and those exceptions are often not explicitly set forth. Fourth, many of the Bible’s stories defy logic and our experiences of the world. Fifth, there are sometimes two contrary versions of the same event, so if we take one literally then we cannot take the second one literally. In each of these five cases, there is no literal reading to be found. Furthermore, this paper sets forth three additional reasons why such a literalist claim probably should not be made even if it did not defy logic to make such a claim. These include The Scientific Argument: the Bible contradicts modern science; The Historical Argument: the Bible is historically inaccurate; and The Moral Argument: the Bible violates contemporary moral standards.​

​

For the record, I am not against people reading the bible according to their beliefs. I am against people not respecting the beliefs of others by doing things such as actively trying to force their faith based biblical version of science into public schools.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, there is no reason what so ever to believe all this.

I'm not obligated to believe what you just said, as I'm not obligated to make any dean's list.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why the Bible Cannot and Should Not Be Taken Literally

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

For the record, I am not against people reading the bible according to their beliefs.

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

I am against people not respecting the beliefs of others by doing things such as actively trying to force their faith based biblical version of science into public schools.

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

 

[driewerf]

I'm not obligated to believe what you just said, as I'm not obligated to make any dean's list.

Of course not. Hence your posts slide away like water droplets from a duck's back.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course not. Hence your posts slide away like water droplets from a duck's back.

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.