Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[GenemZ]

If its so simple and you know so much how
do you make such a pre- beginner mistake?

I have my own specialized areas of knowledge, and know how those who do not have the same can make themselves feel stupid when explaining things. Unless they want to learn? They can become defensive and negative in the process of shielding their pride.

"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but whoever hates correction is stupid."

Psalm 12:1​

To the point? God does not like closed minded Christians either and is quite blunt about it!

 

[Bradskii]

They cannot prove evolution from a common ancestor.

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

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting... That flood was not world wide as we know that to mean. It was designed to wipe out all the known evil men in the world at that time. It was restricted to the area of landmass that it was designed to destroy. That landmass was the entire earth inhabited by man. After all? Men had to be living close enough to hear the preaching of Noah in order to be warned to repent. God does not judge until after a soul rejects the truth.

Keep in mind, mankind was in his infancy at the time of the flood. Low population in numbers compared to today. Men were living together in an area that was not very large. Man did not scatter to populate the entire surface of the planet until after the flood ended. That flood (of Noah) was designed to wipe out evil mankind, where men lived, and needed to wipe out the indigenous animal life in that same area.

God had no reason to flood the earth in areas where man was not dwelling. For it was designed to destroy men who were evil.

Why just men?

 

[GenemZ]

Why just men?

Man was the problem. But, animals indigenous to man's location were to be caught up in the flood. A flood that was to take everyone by surprise.

I do recall how one night driving home from work a herd of cows I drove by every night had gotten out on the road walking to wherever they were heading. It was confusing at first. The next day when I drove by that same field? It was flooded.

God did not want all the animals taking off and leaving man alone possibly to scatter sensing that something was wrong.

It was man who was bent upon evil whom God needed to destroy. The animals were counted as peripheral damage. Animals do not have eternal life.

Yet, God made sure to preserve enough animals to replenish the eco system after the land was to be restored.

 

[Bradskii]

Random chance that biogenesis waves as its banner is not for the critical thinker. Its for the naïve.
Its "secular Sunday school."

Biogenesis is the process whereby life can only emerge from life, as opposed to spontaneous generation. It's therefore part of the evolutionary process. Which is not random.

Maybe you meant abiogenesis. Which was most definitely not spontaneous (see any 747 in a junkyard argument for details).

 

[Bradskii]

Man was the problem.

I do recall how one night driving home from work a herd of cows I drove by every night had gotten out on the road walking to wherever they were heading. It was confusing at first. The next day when I drove by that same field? It was flooded.

God did not want all the animals taking off and leaving man alone possibly to scatter sensing that something was wrong.

It was man who was bent upon evil whom God needed to destroy. The animals were counted as peripheral damage. Animals do not have eternal life.

So just men were drowned? No women? No pregnant women? No babies a few hours old? No children? Maybe just peripheral damage perhaps.

 

[Saucy]

I think there is bias in all science. Isn't that how you start? An idea that needs to be experimented and tested? An evolutionist has a naturalistic bias. A creationist has a bias towards a supernatural creator.

In the bible, Adam and Eve are created as fully-functioning adults. The land is plentiful. Trees are full of fruit. The stars are in the sky to be used to mark seasons and for travel. If you drop an evolutionist into that world, he or she will assume Adam and Eve have been around 30 years, but they were just created yesterday. He or she will assume that the trees and plant life were of a certain age to be able to produce fruit. The universe would have to be billions of years for all the starlight to travel here.

But the evolutionist had no idea that a supernatural creator God wove it all together in a perfect system so that life could exist. God is not something or someone you can figure out with an experiment.

 

[GenemZ]

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

It would require a common ancestor. That is, unless you believe all the animals that share a same biological schematic (lungs, heart, brain, spleen , sexual organs, liver, etc) all individually began evolving and ended up with such a functional format coincidentally.

All having Bones? Muscles? Ligaments? Skin? Eyes? Ears? Tongues? Teeth? and the list goes on.

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting... That flood was not world wide as we know that to mean. It was designed to wipe out all the known evil men in the world at that time. It was restricted to the area of landmass that it was designed to destroy.

If you want people go believe in a flood, then you really need to agree with your chums exactly how much of the planet was affected. Some in this thread insist it was global. I look forward to seeing your arguments that you'll be using against them.

 

[GenemZ]

So just men were drowned? No women? No pregnant women? No babies a few hours old? No children? Maybe just peripheral damage perhaps.

Man refers to the generic term for homo sapiens.

Only God can make such a judgment while knowing all the facts needed to do so.

 

[GenemZ]

If you want people go believe in a flood, then you really need to agree with your chums exactly how much of the planet was affected. Some in this thread insist it was global. I look forward to seeing your arguments that you'll be using against them.

I do not have to agree with any of my 'chums.'

Its good that we do when we know what we are talking about. But, the Bible warns that many will lean towards a preferred subjective error in their thinking.

For the time will come when they will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3

That's the frustration some Christians must face.

 

[Bradskii]

It would require a common ancestor. That is, unless you believe all the animals that share a same biological schematic (lungs, heart, brain, spleen , sexual organs, liver, etc) all individually began evolving and ended up with such a functional format coincidentally.

All having Bones? Muscles? Ligaments? Skin? Eyes? Ears? Tongues? Teeth? and the list goes on.

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...

 

[Bradskii]

Man refers to the generic term for homo sapiens.

Only God can make such a judgment while knowing all the facts needed to do so.

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

 

[Bradskii]

I do not have to agree with any of my 'chums.'

Its good that we do when we know what we are talking about. But, the Bible warns that many will lean towards a preferred subjective error in their thinking.

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?

 

[Astrid]

I have my own specialized areas of knowledge, and know how those who do not have the same can make themselves feel stupid when explaining things. Unless they want to learn? They can become defensive and negative in the process of shielding their pride.

"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but whoever hates correction is stupid."

Psalm 12:1​

To the point? God does not like closed minded Christians either and is quite blunt about it!

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

 

[Astrid]

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

I'd like that answered too

 

[AV1611VET]

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

I'd like that answered too

I don't know.

I wasn't there.

It could be that He raptured the babies and small children prior to the Flood.

But if He didn't, then YES, they drowned in the Flood.

But don't blame God for it.

He gave them 120 years advanced warning.

 

[Bradskii]

But if He didn't, then YES, they drowned in the Flood.

But don't blame God for it.

He gave them 120 years advanced warning.

He gave the babies advance warning?

'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'.

And you probably realise that these type of questions are asked in order to throw some light on the type of person who accepts the event. Not to blame the one who they believe created it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I too did not care about the Bible.... Until I entered into the shock of discovering something much deeper than mere 'data.'

I was a Jew. No Christ. The Bible was a guide for Jewish tradition and ethnic pride. Then one day in college after being handed a tract, I broke down and asked Jesus to save me. I really did not expect anything to happen after I did. It was simply something I found myself wanting to do.

The foundation for science existed when the Bible was written. Man is slow.

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.

 

[rjs330]

Interesting how you claim God made everything work in exactly the way it would work if he wasn't around at all.

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