Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[Bungle_Bear]

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

That's not what he said. Nice strawman.

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

That's not what he said. Nice strawman.

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

No. But then again nobody has made that assertion. Nice strawman.

 

[mindlight]

That's a lot of waffle right there.

Ad Hominem was your best tactic. It was an unanswerable case.

 

[mindlight]

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.....?

If you cannot demonstrate it with the empirical method then you are not talking about facts. Just because a theory sounds right and seems to explain things does not make it right. I can live without a proper scientific explanation where none is really possible. Simple really. But people seem to be a little obtuse around here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ad Hominem was your best tactic. It was an unanswerable case.

That wasn't an ad hominem in the slightest. If it was an ad hominem, I'd have made a direct attack on you. What I said "That's a lot of waffle right there." is directly referring to what you wrote, which WAS a lot of waffle.

 

[Astrid]

If you cannot demonstrate it with the empirical method then you are not talking about facts. Just because a theory sounds right and seems to explain things does not make it right. I can live without a proper scientific explanation where none is really possible. Simple really. But people seem to be a little obtuse around here.

If you cannot demonstrate it with the empirical method then you are not talking about facts. Just because a theory sounds right and seems to explain things does not make it right. I can live without a proper scientific explanation where none is really possible. Simple really. But people seem to be a little obtuse around here.

Obtuse means slow to understand.
You did not understand a word I said.

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.

Not much of anything is certain.
We go through life playing the odds.
Nobody mangled in a car wreck thought it
would happen.

 

[mindlight]

That wasn't an ad hominem in the slightest. If it was an ad hominem, I'd have made a direct attack on you. What I said "That's a lot of waffle right there." is directly referring to what you wrote, which WAS a lot of waffle.

Thanks for clarifying.

To summarise I said four key scientific theories were worthless waffle that could not be supported by the empirical method i.e proved. You replied saying what I said was all waffle. Glad we were agreeing then and you were not attacking me for my position.

 

[mindlight]

Obtuse means slow to understand.
You did not understand a word I said.

Not much of anything is certain.
We go through life playing the odds.
Nobody mangled in a car wreck thought it
would happen.

If you cannot prove something yet call it science you are just playing the odds and might well be completely wrong.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

I disagree with a lot of your ideas presented here.

For starters I'll assume you are using "proof" and "prove" in their common use not the absolute logical or mathematical sense... because no scientific evidence deals in absolutes.

If we have a "model with scientific explanatory power" then it clearly CAN be proven one way or another.

Your phrase "big 4 pillars of modern science" is a purely made up lumping together of four concepts you don;t like from almost unrelated fields of scientific research,

Using "storytelling power and how they incorporate facts into these narratives" is a manipulative and I think dishonest representation of "can explain the detailed evidence".

Then following on with "absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary (and there isn't any that I have ever heard)" for a literal story that has been directly contradicted by evidence for centuries before the modern understanding of science.

The YEC narrative is only possible with a deliberately deceptive and constantly intervening deity, leaving the concept of evidence impossible,

Genetics demonstrates there has not been a recent bottleneck of human genetics... let alone the rest of life at the same time and also that there is a pattern of similarity in life consistent with branching families and not with hard barriers and separate creation.

Geology demonstrates that has not been a world wide flood any time in hundreds of millions of years and also that there have been hundreds of millions of years of events on the Earth.

Physics demonstrates the mechanisms for measuring time over long periods of time on the Earth and that these are consistent across the universe... it also demonstrates billions of years of events and objects leading back to a point around 14 billion years ago.

Chemistry demonstrates the form and function of the bio-chemistry that make up a human being functions under the same mechanisms as unliving chemicals.

Anthropology and archaeology demonstrate that humans and near relatives have been living across the world for far longer than most Creationist scenarios allow for,

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for clarifying.

To summarise I said four key scientific theories were worthless waffle that could not be supported by the empirical method i.e proved. You replied saying what I said was all waffle. Glad we were agreeing then and you were not attacking me for my position.

No, I was saying that what you wrote was a load of waffle. For example, you claim of 4 'big pillars of modern science' is just... no. There are no pillars of science, since science does not stand or fall with regards to Big Bang Theory, old universe, abiogenesis or common ancestry. Like AV, you're building up a strawman of science, nothing more. THAT is a load of waffle.

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks for clarifying.

To summarise I said four key scientific theories were worthless waffle that could not be supported by the empirical method i.e proved. You replied saying what I said was all waffle. Glad we were agreeing then and you were not attacking me for my position.

I'm afraid I will have to concentrate on the poster in this case. Theories can't be proved. That's just about the first thing anyone learns about scientific theories. If you state that 4 key theories can't be proved, all you are doing is exhibiting the fact that your scientific knowledge is such that any discussion about the theories themselves would be a waste of forum bandwidth.

The empirical method determines facts which supports the explanation of other facts (the theory). Or not, as the case may be. So if you have any evidence that does not support any of of the 4 theories you mentioned, then I'll really look forward to hearing about them.

Over to you.

 

[Astrid]

If you cannot prove something yet call it science you are just playing the odds and might well be completely wrong.

Proof is only applicable to alcohol and math.
But never mind, I will let others carry on if they will.

 

[mindlight]

I disagree with a lot of your ideas presented here.

For starters I'll assume you are using "proof" and "prove" in their common use not the absolute logical or mathematical sense... because no scientific evidence deals in absolutes.

If we have a "model with scientific explanatory power" then it clearly CAN be proven one way or another.

There is no proof of the emergence of biology from chemistry. There is a theory about it and an explanation about how it might have occurred but no facts, and nothing like the kind of understanding that could even begin to duplicate the effect.

Your phrase "big 4 pillars of modern science" is a purely made up lumping together of four concepts you don;t like from almost unrelated fields of scientific research,

This is a memory aid for me, these are the fact-free four theories that most impact a Christian worldview and cannot really be properly supported by the scientific method. I do not care if scientists think they are unrelated. The real relationship between them is that they represent a growth of scientific scope beyond what the empirical method can actually support.

Using "storytelling power and how they incorporate facts into these narratives" is a manipulative and I think dishonest representation of "can explain the detailed evidence".

Not really when, for example with abiogenesis, there are no facts. Each theory is really assessed on how plausible it sounds and how well it uses the jargon. The stories bear little relation to actual reality, if they did we would be growing biological organisms from purely chemical inputs by now.

Then following on with "absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary (and there isn't any that I have ever heard)" for a literal story that has been directly contradicted by evidence for centuries before the modern understanding of science.

What evidence? Maybe you have lower standards of what qualifies here.

The YEC narrative is only possible with a deliberately deceptive and constantly intervening deity, leaving the concept of evidence impossible,

It is dishonest to assume the irrelevance of the supernatural to the natural order. Miracles happen even today.

Genetics demonstrates there has not been a recent bottleneck of human genetics... let alone the rest of life at the same time and also that there is a pattern of similarity in life consistent with branching families and not with hard barriers and separate creation.

Since most life was wiped out by the flood and in fact decimated by it it would be hard to identify a bottleneck by comparing before and after. How much of the previous diversity of life could have been passed on by 3 pairs of humans from this era (excluding Noah and his wife) is a matter of guesswork. Also, there are a whole host of assumptions that are going to differ about the age of breeding afterward, lifespans, etc in the crucial era. Nothing definitive here.

Geology demonstrates that has not been a worldwide flood any time in hundreds of millions of years and also that there have been hundreds of millions of years of events on the Earth.

The whole geological record screams sudden catastrophe and sedimentary rock. This is really just a matter of perspective that cannot be proven either way.

Physics demonstrates the mechanisms for measuring time over long periods of time on the Earth and that these are consistent across the universe... it also demonstrates billions of years of events and objects leading back to a point around 14 billion years ago.

Personally, I think the old universe brigade has the strongest case of the 4 theories I mentioned. But again nothing definitive.

Chemistry demonstrates the form and function of the bio-chemistry that make up a human being functions under the same mechanisms as unliving chemicals.

Analogous reasoning is not proof of anything. That is like comparing two pieces of computer code and telling me they are written in the same language - so what!!! My assessment of your capability to programme will be based on the results you can produce with that understanding, how well you can utilize the code libraries, and the ways in which you have demonstrated an understanding by doing something with it. The chemistry of rocket engines is convincing because we can build rockets but saying biological organisms have chemistry is meaningless if the implication is that biological organisms emerged from that Chemistry. Duplicate it or even give me a faint approximation and I will believe you understand it and that the theory has credibility. Shared patterns are nothing and are a very low standard of proof. well, in most cases no proof at all really.

Anthropology and archaeology demonstrate that humans and near relatives have been living across the world for far longer than most Creationist scenarios allow for,

They mainly show how human beings lie about their history and reflect the assumptions of the people doing the surveys. There is a considerable amount of circumstantial endorsement of scripture from these also. There is nothing to be afraid of here and the church has mainly digested the worst accusations and spat them out by now.

 

[mindlight]

I'm afraid I will have to concentrate on the poster in this case. Theories can't be proved. That's just about the first thing anyone learns about scientific theories. If you state that 4 key theories can't be proved, all you are doing is exhibiting the fact that your scientific knowledge is such that any discussion about the theories themselves would be a waste of forum bandwidth.

The empirical method determines facts which supports the explanation of other facts (the theory). Or not, as the case may be. So if you have any evidence that does not support any of of the 4 theories you mentioned, then I'll really look forward to hearing about them.

Over to you.

So where are the facts supporting abiogenesis?

 

[AV1611VET]

Speaking of fact-free. Flood?

Would you recognize these facts, if you saw them?

Would you cross meandering rivers looking for facts supporting a global flood?

Would you look around, with white cliffs in the background, looking for facts supporting a global flood?

I assume you would.

 

[Bradskii]

So where are the facts supporting abiogenesis?

There was no life on this planet, and as you are sitting there reading this, obviously there was. I think you meant to ask how it happened. God moves in mysterious ways, so we're still working that out.

That one was easy. Let's do another.

 

[Shemjaza]

There is no proof of the emergence of biology from chemistry. There is a theory about it and an explanation about how it might have occurred but no facts, and nothing like the kind of understanding that could even begin to duplicate the effect.

The point is that there is evidence for there not being life on the Earth and later evidence for it existing.

Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory, it's a very young area of research in a number of hypothesis about the formation of living bio chemistry in evidence from unliving bio chemistry in evidence given conditions and scenarios.

We don't have "proof" as you'd call it for abiogenesis, but we have evidence and research into the topic.

The difference is that the mechanisms of spontaneous polyimerisation of natural bio chemicals is demonstrable, so the formation of RNA or DNA is a field of study that can continue.

This is a memory aid for me, these are the fact-free four theories that most impact a Christian worldview and cannot really be properly supported by the scientific method. I do not care if scientists think they are unrelated. The real relationship between them is that they represent a growth of scientific scope beyond what the empirical method can actually support.

This demonstrates that you are mistaken in multiple ways.

They are definitely not fact free and defining them as connected pillars when it is solely of concern to your personal religious convictions gives the impression of consideration and awareness you don't have.

Not really when, for example with abiogenesis, there are no facts. Each theory is really assessed on how plausible it sounds and how well it uses the jargon. The stories bear little relation to actual reality, if they did we would be growing biological organisms from purely chemical inputs by now.

Your only example is the scientific research that is not even described as a theory because it is so tentative.

As I stated above abiogenesis is not without facts for it to be researched it is a study of actual chemical interactions and how they interact with evidence for the natural presence of bio chemicals now and in the past.

What evidence? Maybe you have lower standards of what qualifies here.

No, I really don't.

When describing centuries old evidence I am primarily talking about geological evidence that indicates many thousands of years of a world without a global flood found by early naturalists and archaeological evidence for an ancient world inconsistent with with a literal reading of genesis.

It is dishonest to assume the irrelevance of the supernatural to the natural order. Miracles happen even today.

Except they haven't been reliably demonstrated, measured or detected.

The issue is not just that miracles are required for the YEC narrative to be possible... it's that miracles that create a false narrative of a history of events leading to a different reasonable conclusion must be in place as well.

Since most life was wiped out by the flood and in fact decimated by it it would be hard to identify a bottleneck by comparing before and after. How much of the previous diversity of life could have been passed on by 3 pairs of humans from this era (excluding Noah and his wife) is a matter of guesswork. Also, there are a whole host of assumptions that are going to differ about the age of breeding afterward, lifespans, etc in the crucial era. Nothing definitive here.

Not true in the slightest.

A bottle neck is detectable by the amount of genetic diversity in a population. We understand the rate at which this increases (slowly) and so can form a kind of clock as to how long a population has been breeding since the catastrophe.

In the YEC narrative all species should be on the same clock... which is of course ignoring that aside from massive inbreeding all life would have gone extinct without considerably different population proportions of hunters, scavengers, herbivores and other niches.

The whole geological record screams sudden catastrophe and sedimentary rock. This is really just a matter of perspective that cannot be proven either way.

No it doesn't.

The sedimentary layers have delicate structures like individual nests and tracks preserved, indicating they were placed after the lower layers were already hardened.

In addition we have a good understanding of how both floods and deep water behave and it's to mix, crush and destroy... not the evidence we see.

Personally, I think the old universe brigade has the strongest case of the 4 theories I mentioned. But again nothing definitive.

More assertions that aren't justified by the evidence.

There is evidence for the countless beginnings and ends of stars and galaxies in the sky... many of which are pure fiction in the YEC narrative due to them occurring within the light cone of the creation of the universe.

Analogous reasoning is not proof of anything. That is like comparing two pieces of computer code and telling me they are written in the same language - so what!!! My assessment of your capability to programme will be based on the results you can produce with that understanding, how well you can utilize the code libraries, and the ways in which you have demonstrated an understanding by doing something with it. The chemistry of rocket engines is convincing because we can build rockets but saying biological organisms have chemistry is meaningless if the implication is that biological organisms emerged from that Chemistry. Duplicate it or even give me a faint approximation and I will believe you understand it and that the theory has credibility. Shared patterns are nothing and are a very low standard of proof. well, in most cases no proof at all really.

The point is not simply that life is made from chemistry so life came from chemistry... it's that life is made exclusively from chemistry.

I think your issues here is coming from the same place as your "four pillars" concept. The point of this research is that it is both direct evidence and an avenue of further study.

As I've said multiple times, abiogenesis is not even labelled a theory yet... but I notice that even this field you first acknowledge that this is a "low standard of proof" then immediately back track to "well, in most cases no proof at all really" without justification.

They mainly show how human beings lie about their history and reflect the assumptions of the people doing the surveys. There is a considerable amount of circumstantial endorsement of scripture from these also. There is nothing to be afraid of here and the church has mainly digested the worst accusations and spat them out by now.

Quite false.

It's not simply that recorded histories are inconsistent with a YEC narrative, it's that there is vast amount of physical evidence for events occurring leading up to varying levels of civilisation all over the world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You think Paul Bunyan was a real person? REALLY?

Paul Bunyan was a great legend among my people. How else do you think those Great Lakes were formed.

Johnny Appleseed, however, was just a man.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

These are not "pillars of modern science".

Physics is in no way dependent on any of them (old universe, big bang, abiogenesis, or common ancestry).

Astronomy and cosmology *discovered* the old universe and built the Big Bang Model to represent the history of it. (Abiogenesis and Common Ancestry have nothing to do with astronomy or cosmology)

Geology *discovered* that the Earth was old (4.5 billion years) but has nothing to say about the age of the Universe (other than it can't be *younger* than the Earth), or any of the other topics.

Chemistry isn't dependent on any of these "pillars".

Meteorology, Climatology, Oceanography are not dependent on any of these "pillars".

Your claims about "modern science" would be more believable if you knew that none of the physical sciences are *dependent* on these "pillars", though one (Astronomy) did discover two of them. Two of your pillars are only relevant to biology.

(Oh, and the old universe is just one aspect of the big bang, not really fully independent.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Paul Bunyan was a great legend among my people.

Makes sense.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

 

[mindlight]

There was no life on this planet, and as you are sitting there reading this, obviously there was. I think you meant to ask how it happened. God moves in mysterious ways, so we're still working that out.

That one was easy. Let's do another.

So God did it then and you do not know how. That was my answer