Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[AV1611VET]

Which you are only assuming, since you can't demonstrate it in any way whatsoever.

Total reality is a bear, isn't it?

Really? Is this the level of discussion we're reduced to now?

Cause-and-Effect is a bear, isn't it?

Can you you at least TRY to stay on topic?

Sure thing.

What would you like to know?

And although I'm not a YEC, I'll do my best to answer it.

 

[Kylie]

Total reality is a bear, isn't it?

Yeah, claiming that reality doesn't support your idea and therefore reality has it wrong isn't the winning argument you seem to think it is.

Cause-and-Effect is a bear, isn't it?

No, it's not cause and effect, it's you knowingly going off topic.

Sure thing.

What would you like to know?

And although I'm not a YEC, I'll do my best to answer it.

Give me an example of one of these "dead ends" you spoke of.

 

[AV1611VET]

Give me an example of one of these "dead ends" you spoke of.

The cheetah.

 

[Kylie]

The cheetah.

Wrong!

In post 1091, you claimed that the cheetah was an example of a GAP.

Something I consider a legitimate gap is where a trail goes dry, but picks up later on down the pike with the same kind™.

Like a cheetah being traced back to a gap, but on the other side of the gap is ... well ... a cheetah.

A dead end though, is something quite different.

You were very clear that the cheetah is a gap and that a dead end is quite different.

 

[AV1611VET]

In post 1091, you claimed that the cheetah was an example of a GAP.

I'm sure cheetahs have gaps, just like humans do.

Bob the Cheetah, Bob's dad Joe, Joe's dad Jeff, Jeff's dad Kevin, [gap -- don't know Kevin's dad] [gap -- don't know Kevin's grandad], Kevin's great grandfather Tom ... etc.

A dead end, on the other hand, would be the cheetah's created by God from the ground, during the Creation Week.

Which would be Tom's dad's dad's dad's ... dad.

 

[Kylie]

I'm sure cheetahs have gaps, just like humans do.

Bob the Cheetah, Bob's dad Joe, Joe's dad Jeff, Jeff's dad Kevin, [gap -- don't know Kevin's dad] [gap -- don't know Kevin's grandad], Kevin's great grandfather Tom ... etc.

A dead end, on the other hand, would be the cheetah's created by God from the ground, during the Creation Week.

Which would be Tom's dad's dad's dad's ... dad.

Yeah, but you can't demonstrate that it's a dead end, AND you have already clearly stated that it's a gap and NOT a dead end!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, but you can't demonstrate that it's a dead end,

Must not be science then, ya think?

Maybe it's what I've been saying all along: it's a series of miracles done by God during the Creation Week?

In the case of the cheetah, an act of creatio ex materia?

You don't have to believe it; but you go the extra step of working hard to keep from understanding what I'm saying.

And you're succeeding.

AND you have already clearly stated that it's a gap and NOT a dead end!

Read my last post again.

I showed you BOTH the cheetah's gap AND it's dead end.

Or its point of origination, whichever way to want to look at it.

But you don't know the difference between a gap and a dead end yet, do you?

 

[Kylie]

Must not be science then, ya think?

Maybe it's what I've been saying all along: it's a series of miracles done by God during the Creation Week?

In the case of the cheetah, an act of creatio ex materia?

You don't have to believe it; but you go the extra step of working hard to keep from understanding what I'm saying.

And you're succeeding.

AV, you just don't get it...

I understand completely what you are saying.

I just find it utterly ridiculous.

Don't confuse my lack of belief with a lack of understanding.

Read my last post again.

I showed you BOTH the cheetah's gap AND it's dead end.

Or its point of origination, whichever way to want to look at it.

But you don't know the difference between a gap and a dead end yet, do you?

Yes I do, but once again, you confuse my lack of belief with a lack of understanding.

I understand exactly what you are trying to say.

I just think you are completely wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand completely what you are saying.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Either that, or you're badgering me on purpose as some kind of sadistic punishment for believing what I believe.

But I'll give you the benefit of being above that and just say you don't understand, because you're trying too hard not to.

 

[Kylie]

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Either that, or you're badgering me on purpose as some kind of sadistic punishment for believing what I believe.

But I'll give you the benefit of being above that and just say you don't understand, because you're trying too hard not to.

And yet again I have a Christian deciding they know my position better than I do.

LKike I said, I do understand the point you are trying to make.

But your point is ridiculous and doesn't have an ounce of support, so I don't see why I should accept your point as correct.

It's as simple as that.

 

[AV1611VET]

But your point is ridiculous and doesn't have an ounce of support, so I don't see why I should accept your point as correct.

You need to learn and understand it first.

I find it sad that you say I don't have an ounce of support, when all I would have to do is challenge you to take any cheetah on earth and show me its sire, and its sire's sire, and its sire's sire's sire, etc., until you hit a gap.

And even if you COULD take a cheetah and line up its ancestors all the way back to the first one, I'm sure you'd hit a dead end.

Someone earlier -- (was it you) -- posted a Youtube video of a Futureama conversation between an ape and a college professor, which I thought was very good.

But what it HAD TO DO, is eventually change the genus from Homo to Australopithecus -- and that killed it, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kylie]

You need to learn and understand it first.

I find it sad that you say I don't have an ounce of support, when all I would have to do is challenge you to take any cheetah on earth and show me its sire, and its sire's sire, and its sire's sire's sire, etc., until you hit a gap.

And even if you COULD take a cheetah and line up its ancestors all the way back to the first one, I'm sure you'd hit a dead end.

Someone earlier -- (was it you) -- posted a Youtube video of a Futureama conversation between an ape and a college professor, which I thought was very good.

But what it HAD TO DO, is eventually change the genus from Homo to Australopithecus -- and that killed it, as far as I'm concerned.

You just don't get it.

I DO understand it.

What you don't understand is that if you go back far enough, you'll find the animals get less and less like modern cheetahs and more and more like cheetah ancestors.

I've told you this many times, so I have to wonder why you keep bring out this point refuted a thousand times...

 

[mindlight]

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).

Maybe the problem here is a false definition of science and the steady extension of the scientific scope into areas it is really not qualified to comment on. The false notion here is that we need to have a model with scientific explanatory power to explain something that cannot be proven one way or the other.

Ultimately the big 4 pillars of modern science (Old universe, Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Common Ancestry) cannot be demonstrated or proven by the scientific method. Their traction comes from their storytelling power and how they incorporate facts into these narratives. When creationists fail to come up with a scientific story with equal explanatory power they are dismissed or marginalized. But maybe those who say that the story is just a story unless you can prove it and actually no one has definitive scientific answers is the one that is being honest. The biblical story is ultimately held to by faith in the absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary (and there isn't any that I have ever heard). That there are great gaps and in fact, a cloud of unknowing about many issues relating to origins is just a symptom of honesty. Most mainstream scientists are lying to themselves when they express certainty about their theories of origins.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe the problem here is a false definition of science and the steady extension of the scientific scope into areas it is really not qualified to comment on. The false notion here is that we need to have a model with scientific explanatory power to explain something that cannot be proven one way or the other.

Ultimately the big 4 pillars of modern science (Old universe, Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Common Ancestry) cannot be demonstrated or proven by the scientific method. Their traction comes from their storytelling power and how they incorporate facts into these narratives. When creationists fail to come up with a scientific story with equal explanatory power they are dismissed or marginalized. But maybe those who say that the story is just a story unless you can prove it and actually no one has definitive scientific answers is the one that is being honest. The biblical story is ultimately held to by faith in the absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary (and there isn't any that I have ever heard). That there are great gaps and in fact, a cloud of unknowing about many issues relating to origins is just a symptom of honesty. Most mainstream scientists are lying to themselves when they express certainty about their theories of origins.

That's a lot of waffle right there.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's a lot of waffle right there.

Mmm...waffles. We got some maple syrup with habanero pepper I've been wanting to try.

 

[Astrid]

Maybe the problem here is a false definition of science and the steady extension of the scientific scope into areas it is really not qualified to comment on. The false notion here is that we need to have a model with scientific explanatory power to explain something that cannot be proven one way or the other.

Ultimately the big 4 pillars of modern science (Old universe, Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Common Ancestry) cannot be demonstrated or proven by the scientific method. Their traction comes from their storytelling power and how they incorporate facts into these narratives. When creationists fail to come up with a scientific story with equal explanatory power they are dismissed or marginalized. But maybe those who say that the story is just a story unless you can prove it and actually no one has definitive scientific answers is the one that is being honest. The biblical story is ultimately held to by faith in the absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary (and there isn't any that I have ever heard). That there are great gaps and in fact, a cloud of unknowing about many issues relating to origins is just a symptom of honesty. Most mainstream scientists are lying to themselves when they express certainty about their theories of origins.

Talk about false ideas about science!
There's more than these, but-
Your " 4 pillars"! You made that up.

Proof? There's zero proof in science.

Same with that certainty thar you claim is
how "many" scientists lie to themselves.
It's religionists, it's religioridts who are so
certain.
You cannot produce one scientist with such
alleged certainty.
If you have to inventory things in order to
criticize, then maybe.....?

 

[AV1611VET]

You cannot produce one scientist with such alleged certainty.

I'm not buying this "scientists are uncertain" junk.

If they're so uncertain, why do they look forward to sending people to the moon; as well as expecting them safely back?

Would YOU get in a space capsule designed by engineer scientists who are uncertain of their work?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not buying this "scientists are uncertain" junk.

If they're so uncertain, why do they look forward to sending people to the moon; as well as expecting them safely back?

Would YOU get in a space capsule designed by engineer scientists who are uncertain of their work?

Because it's only in doing the uncertain act will you find out with certainty if the result is a success or a failure.
He who dares, wins.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it's only in doing the uncertain act will you find out with certainty if the result is a success or a failure.
He who dares, wins.

Uh-huh.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Uh-huh.

Timidity gets you nowhere in exploration or knowledge.

Plus, as pertaining to space travel, it was the Russians who did the worst mistakes, and NASA just had to not repeat those mistakes.