Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[driewerf]

Here's the bottom line. Science can only prove similarities. They cannot prove evolution from a common ancestor. There is no way to test or reproduce it. They haven't even been able to test or reproduce evolutionary processes they say happened.

This post is just wrong in everything it says.

Here's the bottom line. Science can only prove similarities.

Here is the bottom line. It is the task of the different sciences (!) to describe the physical world and explain it in more fundamental terms. Within each science’s field of applicability, it can prove certain claims about the physical world more or less. Chemistry can prove the stabilizing effect of the resonance of electrons in the benzene structure. Astronomy can prove the heliocentric model. X-ray spectroscopy can prove the structure of DNA. And so on. So here the post is already wrong.

Science can only prove similarities. They cannot prove evolution from a common ancestor.

Who are these “they”?
Good let us assume these “they” are palaeontologists and evolutionary biologists. No, they can’t indeed prove with the rigor of a mathematical poof. But palaeontologists can assign a common ancestry with varying degree of certainty, and sometimes with very high degree of certainty, like in the case of the Equidae.

There is no way to test or reproduce it.

No. Past events can’t be reproduced. We can’t reproduce the volcanic eruption that destroyed Pompei. We can reproduce the building of Stonehenge. We can’t reproduce yesterday’s weather. Shall we discard archaeology, history, meteorology?
But common ancestry can be tested. It can be tested by looking at the pattern of differences and similarities that different species have among each other. This needs to have the form of a nested hierarchy. Better, we can sequence protein after protein, construct a phylogenetic tree for each different protein, and all these phylogenetic trees need to correspond. This pattern can not be explained by the Intelligent Design or creationism.

They haven't even been able to test or reproduce evolutionary processes they say happened.

Past events are past events. But evolution can be observed both in the wild and in the lab. Plenty of experiments have been performed that demonstrate the change in allele frequency in a population under stress. See for example the experiment performed by Roy Kishony.
A simple and elegant way to show evolution in action was set up by professor Kishony and his team. A gigantic petri dish was divided in lanes with increasing concentration of antibiotics, from (0 , no antibiotics: 1 just enough to kill all bacteria, gradually up to 1000 x the concentration of 1). Different strains of Escherichia Coli were spotted in the 0 lane. As this lane got filled and the places for new bacteria got depleted the bacteria were pushing against the boundary of the 10 lane. Only those bacteria and their descendants that got the suitable mutations for surviving in a higher concentration of antibiotics made it to the next lane. The experiment filmed over 11 days shows clearly that bacteria can evolve a resistance to a 1000 fold stronger concentration of antibiotics than the wild type bacteria.

Here you have the same experiment, but with professor Kishony explaining the experiment

It shows that evolution is cumulative. Each mutation increases the resistance to the antibiotics in an incremental way (see how the growth of the culture pauses at every boundary and how the growth always start at one tiny spot).

a technical paper published by the team

Spatiotemporal microbial evolution on antibiotic landscapes - PMC

A key aspect of bacterial survival is the ability to evolve while migrating across spatially varying environmental challenges. Laboratory experiments, however, often study evolution in well-mixed systems. Here we introduce an experimental device, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

the website of Roy Kishony's research institue:

Home - Kishony lab

Can the future of antibiotic resistance be predicted? How can Computational Biology change the foundations of infectious disease diagnostics? Can antibiotic resistance be reversed? Combining novel quantitative experimental techniques and clinical studies with mathematical modeling and advanced...

kishony.technion.ac.il

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Belief is, in my view, a treacherous bedfellow and I try to avoid it in all aspects of life. My goal, which I've pretty well achieved, for all practical purposes is to belief nothing. Believing is foolish, counter-productive, misguided and a host of other negatives. Belief systems are even worse, since they create a constraining structure of misguided, counter-productive, foolish notions.

What I do instead is to provisionally accept those explanations for phenomena that, currently, have the best supporting evidence. If the quality or quantity of the evidence change then I will change the explanation I accept accordingly. This approach makes a nonsense of what you assert is true of me.

The observed anatomical, biochemical, geographical, chronological, behavioural, genetic and developmental relationships between organisms is huge, representing millions of research papers by hundreds of thousands of researchers over the span of centuries. This body of work has clarified and organised and validated these relationships. The best current explanation for these established relationships is evolutionary theory.

Belief has nothing to do with it, unless one is a casual passer-by who believes what people tell them to believe, or what seems the most popular, or the most convenient.

I like change, I like revolution, I like uncertainty*. I would be over the moon if tomorrow evolution were shown to be false. What an exciting world of novelty and exploration that would open up. Sadly, this seems most unlikely, so I shall be forced to continue accepting evolution as the most likely explanation for that vast body of observation and experiment. I'm sorry you can't join me in the wonder of it.

*I would prefer a little less uncertainty as to my income and expenditure.

 

[driewerf]

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.

Every piece of evidence for evolution you just said is equally applicable to creation if you believe in those things.

No. This is false.
For starters, we observe in the living world, in the animals and plants alive today, a pattern of similarities and differences that fits a nested hierarchy.
Creationism can explain every and any pattern as just “that’s the way god did it”, the Theory of Evolution predicts the emergence of a nested hierarchy. Deviation from that pattern would invalidate the ToE.
So no, not every piece of evidence can equally be applied to evolution and creation.
The same with the fossil record.
We see extinct species appear in the fossil record throughout the whole history of the earth. Because species evolved over time. We don’t see primate fossils in the Jurassic because they hadn’t evolved yet. Creation can’t account for that. If all species were created at the same time we would find all fossil species in all layers. Which is not the case.
So no, not every piece of evidence can equally be applied to evolution and creation.

Evolution form a common ancestor is not massive, objective, validated, or quantified.

No. This is false.
• Massive: Everyone of us carries evidence of our evolutionary history in his or her blood: in the mitochondrial DNA that still has features of bacterial DNA, in our autosomal chromosomes that harbours traces of past viral infections in the form of ERV’s. 5 to 8% of the total human genome or 98.000 fragments is estimated to be viral. I call that massive
• Objective: The mitochondrial features do exist. The ERV’s do exist, the fossils do exist. The layers in which the fossils are easily identified. These pieces of evidence are objective. You fail again.
• Quantified. Just to give you sample of how current research is done, here are some links to recent papers about ERV’s. Quantified it is.

Frontiers | To ERV Is Human: A Phenotype-Wide Scan Linking Polymorphic Human Endogenous Retrovirus-K Insertions to Complex Phenotypes

Approximately 8% of the human genome is comprised of endogenous retroviral insertions (ERVs) originating from historic retroviral integration into germ cells...

www.frontiersin.org

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2448423/pdf/CFG-03-494.pdf

Evolutionary History of the Human Endogenous Retrovirus Family ERV9

Abstract. Several distinct families of endogenous retrovirus-like elements (ERVs) exist in the genomes of primates. Despite the important evolutionary cons

academic.oup.com

I challenge any creationist who agrees with RSJ330's post to open the links and check for himself/herself. Go ahead, prove yourself you are not afraid of the truth. Show us you are not afraid to be shown wrong. Show us you prefer truth over comfortable error.

Because it's never been observed, never been tested or never been reproduced.

Past events are past events. But evolution can be observed both in the wild and in the lab. Plenty of experiments have been performed that demonstrate the change in allele frequency in a population under stress. See for example the experiment performed by Roy Kishony above. See the Lenski experiment. See the experiments on multicellularity. All reproducible.

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.

False again. Scientific theories are not a matter of believe, but of evidence. Above a few examples of this evidence has been cited. There is many more, but this is enough to conclude that close to everything that rjs330 wrote is counter factual.

 

[driewerf]

Of course I don't have a problem with anything God did. Why would I?

Führer will hatt Gesetzeskraft.

 

[ruthiesea]

Here's the bottom line. Science can only prove similarities. They cannot prove evolution from a common ancestor. There is no way to test or reproduce it. They haven't even been able to test or reproduce evolutionary processes they say happened.

Theories, by their nature, cannot be proven. Experiments can either support a theory or invalidate (disprove) it.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. ~ Albert Einstein

 

[GenemZ]

There's your problem.

You believe in the Gap Theory, don't you?

The Gap Theory says the earth WAS MADE formless and void; whereas the Bible only says the earth was without form and void.

Not MADE formless and void.

Someone's playing loose with the Bible, isn't he?

Not quite.... The Hebrew actually confused some scholars because they failed to realize how the Creation account was originally to be presented to the hearers. It was a form of theatrics in a sense. For creation account as given orally from a speaker. Genesis One is a very dramatic type presentation. It was not a simple data report as some read it to be. The message grabbed the imaginations of the Jews listening, like when radio was king people sat by their radios and their imaginations created scenes in their own minds. THAT! Was the original format for the teaching of the creation account. Keep in mind. Moses read this to the people and they learned from it.

In the Massoretic Text in which the Jewish scholars
tried to incorporate enough "indicators" to guide the reader as to
correct punctuation there is one small mark which is technically
known as Rebhia which is classified as a "disjunctive accent" in-
tended to notify the reader that he should pause before proceeding to
the next verse. In short, this mark indicates a "break" in the text.
Such a mark appears at the end of Genesis 1.1. This mark has been
noted by several scholars including Luther. It is one indication
among others, that the initial waw (

) which introduces verse 2
should be rendered "but" rather than "and", a dis-junctive rather
than a con-junctive. Without Form and Void - Chapter 1 - page 4, about 4th paragraph down



With that in mind? The word "Was" works just fine!
For they were entering into a scene of how things were, because of how they became. They were seeing what became as in the present tense.

For when Moses gathered the people before him to hear about the creation, the Jews heard a dramatic, thundering intro ...

"In the beginning God created the heavens and earth!

Then there was silence.... a pause. A moment contemplating and for fading out in the mind of the listener....
Then the next scene. It was fading in with a different tone. One of making one an observer of the state of the earth as if it were in the present. We see that effect used in movies all the time. We go back to another time, and begin to relive it as if it were happening at that present moment.

Likewise. Gen 1:2 is a scene that takes place at a different point in time in the future of the original moment of the creation in Gen 1:1.

So... We have God creating the heavens and earth. Over and done deal. Heavens and earth were created. Finished!

Then at some undisclosed point in time? After that Gen 1:1 creation? The listeners find themselves looking at a future time, yet in a present state of how the earth 'was.' Like in a movie scene. We see in a present tense what had taken place in some time in the past... The earth had been destroyed. It 'was' ruined. It 'was' chaotic. But we are now entering into its view to see it as it was being at that time of viewing.

Some scholars knowing that God could have never created the earth that way? They tried to explain how it got that way, while failing to see how the lesson was originally to be presented. They chose "became" because they knew what the Hebrew indicated. But, "was" shows in the Hebrew if you wish.

Nothing changes in one sense. There is to be no argument over "was" and "became" once the following is to be understood.

Yes, logic dictates that it had to 'become' that way. Logic demands that we accept that. For God would never have created such a mess to begin with.

But, the listener in Gen 1:2 was being placed at the time of the scene to see what 'was' the state of the earth.

This is what we need to realize... Jeremiah understood perfectly well that the earth had been ruined and destroyed in Gen 1:2.

How can we know that? Hebrew was his native language of Jeremiah and he understood how Gen 1:2 was meant to be read.
How do we know Jeremiah understood it that way?

For Jeremiah cited the exact words found in Gen 1:2 as a extreme warning of horrible destruction coming to the Jews who were rebelling against God.

Jeremiah said so. Look at Jeremiah 4:23! It cites Gen 1:2!

The following was a warning to the rebellious Jews Jeremiah was dealing with!
He was warning them of their fate because of God's judgment.

23 I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty; (Gen 1:2)
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone."

See? Jeremiah was using Gen 1:2 to cite how horrible the judgment by God was to be!

We get a very mild translation in English in several translations today. In the mean while the Jews in Jeremiah's day understood the severity of judgment indicated by the Hebrew of Gen 1:2!

That is why Jeremiah had to soften it up a bit after citing Gen 1:2. Soften it as to let the Jews know that, unlike Gen 1:2, they would not be utterly destroyed. Destroyed by God as God had destroyed the earth in Gen 1:2.

That unlike the first judged and destroyed earth? That some would survive!

27 This is what the Lord says:
“The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely.

Jeremiah was telling them that they would not end up completely like Genesis 1:2! For, Gen 1:2 spoke to the Hebrew mind of utter destruction and ruin!


In this evil world we live in? Surrounded by fake news and false doctrines to suppress the truth in every facets of life?

God will always clarify for those who truly seek!

Those who can be herded and controlled will not find.

 

[GenemZ]

Again, this does not answer my question.

How do you test your "God did it" position? Show me that creationism, in whatever form you believe is true, is falsifiable.

First know God is real by accepting Jesus Christ.
If you keep rejecting Him dying for your sins?
You will not get your definitive answer you seek to find.
No amount of dogmatism can overcome that haze until you chose correctly.

I was a Jew. I did not know Christ.

Then an "upgrade" from God was given me when I believed.

I began functioning on a different level.

Until then you will remain as being like a DOS computer in the day of wi-fi.

God really changes you and your abilities, if you can believe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

First. Kylie's request was to provide a way to falsify Creationism in a scientific fashion. (If Creationism is a science, it should be falsifiable. That's a fairly common approach to the scientific method. If it is not falsifiable [falisfiable and falsified are *NOT* the same thing], then it is not science.)

Instead you gave some doctrine about Jesus and Jesus is *way* past the creation event in the text. Sigh.

Is this some sort of faith algorithm, let's see...

First know God is real by accepting Jesus Christ.

Yes, under the triune god concept, accepting the existence of Jesus Christ would be accepting the existence of god. But, so would accepting/knowing one of the other parts of the trinity. [And I know which verse you're going to throw back at me, and I don't care.]

If you keep rejecting Him dying for your sins?

This is not logical. None of us were alive when Jesus died, so even if I accepted the notion that a man could die to relieve sins, "mine" hadn't been committed yet. (I also don't believe in "sin".) This notion is fairly easy to reject on a logical basis alone.

You will not get your definitive answer you seek to find.

What makes you think I am looking for any answers about "god"? In fact this was all prompted by Kylie asking for a method to test the creation story, not about some salvation notion from Christian dogma.

No amount of dogmatism can overcome that haze until you chose correctly.

This is rich.

I was a Jew. No Christ.

I was not. Gave up on the "Christ" notion. Not even sure if there was a Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gave up on the "Christ" notion.

Too much of a good thing?

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

 

[Homeowner]

Too much of a good thing?

Proverbs 25:16

 

[GenemZ]

First. Kylie's request was to provide a way to falsify Creationism in a scientific fashion. (If Creationism is a science, it should be falsifiable. That's a fairly common approach to the scientific method. If it is not falsifiable [falisfiable and falsified are *NOT* the same thing], then it is not science.)

Instead you gave some doctrine about Jesus and Jesus is *way* past the creation event in the text. Sigh.

Is this some sort of faith algorithm, let's see...


Yes, under the triune god concept, accepting the existence of Jesus Christ would be accepting the existence of god. But, so would accepting/knowing one of the other parts of the trinity. [And I know which verse you're going to throw back at me, and I don't care.]



This is not logical. None of us were alive when Jesus died, so even if I accepted the notion that a man could die to relieve sins, "mine" hadn't been committed yet. (I also don't believe in "sin".) This notion is fairly easy to reject on a logical basis alone.



What makes you think I am looking for any answers about "god"? In fact this was all prompted by Kylie asking for a method to test the creation story, not about some salvation notion from Christian dogma.


This is rich.

I was not. Gave up on the "Christ" notion. Not even sure if there was a Jesus.

No argument from me.

Just keep in mind this one thing....

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

Its a process. For some its long. For others its not.

If you remain willing? And, want to know? You will.


.........

 

[Hans Blaster]

No argument from me.

Just keep in mind this one thing....

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

If you remain willing? And, want to know? You will.


.........

Like I said, I knew which verse you would quote and I DON'T CARE. I'm not interested in following Jesus or any of that stuff. I'm not interested in "knowing" a dead man. I came here to talk about (pseudo)science. Creationism definitely fits that bill.

 

[GenemZ]

Like I said, I knew which verse you would quote and I DON'T CARE. I'm not interested in following Jesus or any of that stuff. I'm not interested in "knowing" a dead man. I came here to talk about (pseudo)science. Creationism definitely fits that bill.

I would not go where the thinking would bore me. The only practical purpose may be you are being prepared to become a deprogrammer if the government succeeds in oppressing Christianity as it now appears to be heading towards.
At least, that would be practical.
........

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would not go where their thinking would bore me.

The only practical purpose may be you are being prepared to become a deprogrammer if the government succeeds in oppressing Christianity as it now appears to be heading towards.

Oh good grief. This is the C&E board. We debate/discuss creationism, evolution and the like. It's not a place for persecution paranoia.

 

[AV1611VET]

I came here to talk about (pseudo)science. Creationism definitely fits that bill.

Do you know the difference between pseudoscience and nonscience?

 

[GenemZ]

Oh good grief. This is the C&E board. We debate/discuss creationism, evolution and the like. It's not a place for persecution paranoia.

Discuss what?

I was trying to find a practical reason for you doing what you do. Especially, after you said...

Like I said, I knew which verse you would quote and I DON'T CARE. I'm not interested in following Jesus or any of that stuff. I'm not interested in "knowing" a dead man. I came here to talk about (pseudo)science. Creationism definitely fits that bill.

That sounds like good intentions to me?

Not paranoid. "Practical."

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was trying to find a practical reason for you doing what you do.

I came here for the pseudoscience, I'll stay here for the pseudoscience. So after all of this distraction let me answer the question in the title:

Is YEC Science?

Nope. Not even close.

Is it even a theory?

Nope. No predictive power, no explanatory power, no falsifiability.

That was easy.

 

[chilehed]

Is YEC a scientific theory?

Of course not.

 

[GenemZ]

I came here for the pseudoscience, I'll stay here for the pseudoscience. So after all of this distraction let me answer the question in the title:

Is YEC Science?

Nope. Not even close.

Is it even a theory?

Nope. No predictive power, no explanatory power, no falsifiability.

That was easy.

Not every Christian is YEC.

Some Christians (and some ancient Hebrews) understood the Hebrew text in depth and detail, and realized that we are not the first created world to have graced the surface of this earth. Science only slapped the YEC types in the face with the discovery of the prehistoric life. Then science went about it in a secular way by abusing evolution and missed out in better understanding God's plan for man. Both sides are lost to the truth. Each side is trying the break down an empty fort. 'Nothing to find.'

 

[AV1611VET]

I came here for the pseudoscience, I'll stay here for the pseudoscience. So after all of this distraction let me answer the question in the title:

Is YEC Science?

Nope. Not even close.

Is it even a theory?

Nope. No predictive power, no explanatory power, no falsifiability.

That was easy.

Translation: science can take a hike?