Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[sjastro]

Moses compiled the many books written into one book, called Genesis.

That's why it's called "The First Book of Moses."

It doesn’t matter if it was Moses or the blue smurf who compiled Genesis; it is the content which counts.
You have failed to address the issue of Noah’s name having an Aramaic origin when according to your nonsense the Aramaic language did not exist during Noah’s lifetime.
You can’t even show where Moses in his Genesis compilation informs the reader that Jacobean English was the progenitor language or the archaeological evidence to support it.

This is yet another example of your grotesque distortion of the Bible and deserves another reference to the Peter quote.

..knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1: 20-21)

 

[AV1611VET]

You have failed to address the issue of Noah’s name having an Aramaic origin when according to your nonsense the Aramaic language did not exist during Noah’s lifetime.

Remind me to ask Lamech when I see him later.

Genesis 5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

 

[sjastro]

Remind me to ask Lamech when I see him later.

Genesis 5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

You are incapable of putting together a coherent post.
OK since I have to communicate at your level ask Lamech what his name means in Jacobean English.

 

[Kylie]

So Houston doesn't have a problem.

When you miss the point by this much, I can only assume it is deliberate.

Let me be very clear for you.

The fact that tradition says a particular person wrote a particular text does NOT mean the person actually wrote the text.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you miss the point by this much, I can only assume it is deliberate.

Let me be very clear for you.

The fact that tradition says a particular person wrote a particular text does NOT mean the person actually wrote the text.

So either way, it's not a problem?

Or is it a "problem," because some Christian dares say who he thinks wrote it?

Let's simplify this.

God wrote it ... period.

 

[Kylie]

So either way, it's not a problem?

Or is it a "problem," because some Christian dares say who he thinks wrote it?

Let's simplify this.

God wrote it ... period.

And where is your evidence for this?

 

[AV1611VET]

And where is your evidence for this?

It's a miracle.

So why are you asking for evidence?

 

[ruthiesea]

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).

By that definition it is a valid scientific theory.

 

[sjastro]

So either way, it's not a problem?

Or is it a "problem," because some Christian dares say who he thinks wrote it?

Let's simplify this.

God wrote it ... period.

The Christian concerned is not questioning the authorship of the Bible but the boneheaded idea of another Christian who thinks Jacobean English was the original language.

Now that we have the sworn declaration God wrote the Bible, why did God not write the story of Genesis in Jacobean English up to the time of Babel when this was the only one language in existence at the time?
So the 64 million dollar question is why Moses would edit God’s version of events as Genesis according to Moses makes it perfectly clear Hebrew was the original language.
Throwing Lamech into the picture only strengthens the Mose’s account as Lamech, like the name Noah is not a Jacobean English name.

As mentioned previously the Houston problem disappears when the conservative literal interpretation of the Bible is taken where the original language is Hebrew.

 

[Kylie]

It's a miracle.

So why are you asking for evidence?

How do you know a miracle happened if there is no evidence that it happened?

 

[Kylie]

By that definition it is a valid scientific theory.

How so? Part of the definition of a scientific theory is that it "has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false."

I'm not aware of YEC passing any such test. Can you show me where it has done so?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know a miracle happened if there is no evidence that it happened?

I somethings think you ask me [good] questions over and over, expecting me to answer differently.

 

[Kylie]

I somethings think you ask me [good] questions over and over, expecting me to answer differently.

Oh, I know how you are going to answer. You'll say it's faith.

But at the end of the day, it just boils down to you deciding to believe that it's true. And that's no way to actually find the truth.

 

[driewerf]

No, He didn't "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."

He even documented and preserved what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

Unsupported assumptions. There is a book that is allegedly divinely inspired – as there are so many books that are allegedly divinely inspired – that describes the creation of the world in 6 days. But nothing indicates that
• Any divine being exists
• The specific divine being to whom the bible is ascribed exists
• The bible is indeed the work of this alleged divine being
• The bible has been maintained and passed correctly through the ages (the Deuterocanonical Books, anyone?)
• The bible needs to be read literally.
On the other hand, we have a multitude of sciences that point toward very different conclusions (astronomy, geology, molecular genetics, population genetics, glaciology, sedimentology, archaeology, Egyptology, astrophysics, palaentology, etc).
Unless all the bullet points can be proven and all the findings of all the science mentioned above can be invalidated – and just saying “no” wont make it, there needs to be an in depth technical analysis of what is wrong with there findings – I will take the “documentation” about … “what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.” with a proverbial grain of salt.

 

[AV1611VET]

On the other hand, we have a multitude of sciences that point toward very different conclusions (astronomy, geology, molecular genetics, population genetics, glaciology, sedimentology, archaeology, Egyptology, astrophysics, palaentology, etc).

That is correct: you do.

And to make them agree with each other, I'm sure you have to go through a series of do-overs until you get them all in agreement.

Fitting and force-fitting and trial-and-error and moving the decimal place back and forth and ... most of all ... having to use computers to do it.

 

[sjastro]

That is correct: you do.

And to make them agree with each other, I'm sure you have to go through a series of do-overs until you get them all in agreement.

Fitting and force-fitting and trial-and-error and moving the decimal place back and forth and ... most of all ... having to use computers to do it.

As a mathematician I find it very difficult to force fit astrophysics and Egyptology into a coherent mix using computers.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a mathematician I find it very difficult to force fit astrophysics and Egyptology into a coherent mix using computers.

I would like to assume it would take more man-hours to force-fit the history of the earth into one coherent story that would satisfy all scientists across the board, than you have been alive.

 

[sjastro]

I would like to assume it would take more man-hours to force-fit the history of the earth into one coherent story that would satisfy all scientists across the board, than you have been alive.

You failed to see the joke.​

 

[driewerf]

That is correct: you do.

And to make them agree with each other, I'm sure you have to go through a series of do-overs until you get them all in agreement.

Fitting and force-fitting and trial-and-error and moving the decimal place back and forth and ... most of all ... having to use computers to do it.

Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, George Lemaître, Lord Kelvin, none of these used computers. Yet found results that contradict a literal reading of the bible. So you fail at that already.
But more fundamentally, I see that you are at smearing the sciences again, at depicting it as one big anti christianity conspiracy.
In your Daffy Duck thread you tried to pretend that creationists don't hate science, knowledge and intelligence. You should at least try to keep your story straight.

 

[driewerf]

That is correct: you do.

And to make them agree with each other, I'm sure you have to go through a series of do-overs until you get them all in agreement.

Fitting and force-fitting and trial-and-error and moving the decimal place back and forth and ... most of all ... having to use computers to do it.

You deleted this part from the post you replied to:
Unsupported assumptions. There is a book that is allegedly divinely inspired – as there are so many books that are allegedly divinely inspired – that describes the creation of the world in 6 days. But nothing indicates that
• Any divine being exists
• The specific divine being to whom the bible is ascribed exists
• The bible is indeed the work of this alleged divine being
• The bible has been maintained and passed correctly through the ages (the Deuterocanonical Books, anyone?)
• The bible needs to be read literally.

As long as not all points are proven, there is no reason to take the following claim seriously: “what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.”
I invite you to support your claim, to provide any evidence for it and to answer the bullet points above.