Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[Bungle_Bear]

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

That was not your answer. Before you double down, take time to review what you actually said.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

There you go, again.

Distorting what I wrote, again.

We had no such legends of nephilms.

 

[AV1611VET]

There you go, again.

Distorting what I wrote, again.

We had no such legends of nephilms.

I was asked if I thought Paul Bunyan was a real person.

I answered YES, and I'm not about to change it.

 

[Kylie]

I was asked if I thought Paul Bunyan was a real person.

I answered YES, and I'm not about to change it.

Your reason for believing he was real seems to be only that the story seems to be compatible, therefore it must be true.

That line of reasoning is ridiculous.

It's like saying that Star Wars and Star Trek are compatible (there's nothing in either one, after all, that contradicts the other franchise), therefore they MUST take place in the same universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your reason for believing he was real seems to be only that the story seems to be compatible, therefore it must be true.

That line of reasoning is ridiculous.

It's like saying that Star Wars and Star Trek are compatible (there's nothing in either one, after all, that contradicts the other franchise), therefore they MUST take place in the same universe.

I was asked if I thought Paul Bunyan was a real person.

I answered YES, and I'm not about to change it.

 

[dlamberth]

I was asked if I thought Paul Bunyan was a real person.

I answered YES, and I'm not about to change it.

And, you said, Paul Bunyan is a nephilm.

 

[AV1611VET]

And, you said, Paul Bunyan is a nephilm.

That is correct.

IN MY OPINION, Paul Bunyan was a nephala.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is correct.

IN MY OPINION, Paul Bunyan was a nephala.

The tales of Paul Bunyan aren't antediluvian, but post-Columbian American tales. Quit trying to take our folk tales and overlaying Middle Eastern religion on them. The two aren't even *closely* related:

Paul Bunyan - Wikipedia

 

[AV1611VET]

The tales of Paul Bunyan aren't antediluvian, but post-Columbian American tales. Quit trying to take our folk tales and overlaying Middle Eastern religion on them. The two aren't even *closely* related:

Paul Bunyan - Wikipedia

Even though you guys came from Noah's son, Japheth?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Even though you guys came from Noah's son, Japheth?

I do understand you have a very muddled view of time, but could you at least try to understand the difference between tall tales set early in US history versus those set in the times of the 3rd Dynasty?

 

[Astrid]

The tales of Paul Bunyan aren't antediluvian, but post-Columbian American tales. Quit trying to take our folk tales and overlaying Middle Eastern religion on them. The two aren't even *closely* related:

Paul Bunyan - Wikipedia

There is also Pecos Bill.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is also Pecos Bill.

Don't forget King Arthur or Prester John.

Do you include Moses in there as well?

 

[mindlight]

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.

In other words, there are no facts that directly support this hypothesis, there is no way of supporting or demonstrating it with the empirical method and there are a few speculations about how the current hypothesis might work but nothing concrete. Thanks for supporting what I said here.

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.

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.

There are facts that can be related to Big Bang for example (red shift and background echo) but nothing conclusive. Abiogenesis does not even qualify as a theory in your view so we agree on that. Saying all the theories were fact-free was erroneous of me but the basic notion that the factual basis of the other theories is very weak remains and that nothing can be conclusively proven is pretty much unchallengeable.

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.

I have read the same books and even shared your view at one point. Now it just does not seem that convincing. It is all about how you put the known facts together and the overall perspective you take. We are never going to agree on this and you cannot prove me wrong.

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.

Miracles are by definition rare and exceptional events that do not conform to generic patterns. The scientific method seeks to duplicate in controlled conditions the effect of certain patterns and combinations of ingredients and circumstances. No scientist will ever duplicate a miracle so it will never be something within the scientific scope that can be measured and analyzed in a scientific way. But the lame man walks, the cancer patient is healed and the blind man sees nonetheless. But if even one miracle occurs what that says is that the scientific way of looking at the world is insufficient to explain it and must recognize the limits of the effectiveness of its analysis of the world. Since miracles do occur, science is a limited perspective on reality.

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.

You could have a considerable diversity of genes carried through from the ancient world by the original 3 sons of Noah and their wives inherited from the previous world, given lifespans, ages of procreation, and the fact that a great-grandfather could remarry and reproduce, there is great scope for diversity and masking any bottlenecks. So maybe YEC scientists are wrong about there being any evidence of a bottleneck. We do not have an accurate 'before the flood' picture of human genetic diversity and the post-flood situation, would by creationist definitions be spread out. I might agree with your science and still hold a creationist viewpoint here.

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.

Whole clumps of existing earth with their features could be included in sedimentary rock. The flood event is without analogy.

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.

It is a pretty light show. Reading into the fact that the lights pop in and out of existence does not imply deceit of any kind, just purposes we have not worked out yet. But it would require a supernatural explanation here to explain why our perception of what was out there dropped from near-instantaneous to that of light-speed following the fall.

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.

As I said, so what, you cannot do anything with that knowledge, least of all create biological organisms from chemistry, so there is no real scientific understanding here.

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.

This has to be taken case by case and there are doubts about every so called piece of evidence here that has been used to dispute timespans.

 

[mindlight]

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.)

A pillar would imply that these theories could support the weight of the edifice placed on them which they cannot. So maybe pillar is the wrong word. If that is the entire point of your post then I concede the point.

My main point was that these 4 are unprovable doctrines in the scientific world. They are all examples of scope creep in the scientific world. Scientists are making claims they cannot prove with the scientific method in each of these four areas. So it does not matter to me if they are related or not in the eyes of those working within the bubble of one discipline or another.

Abiogenesis is the perfect example of fact-free speculation. Without it, there is no naturalistic explanation for the emergence of life on earth and scope creep based on this assumption becomes completely questionable.

Big Bang has two main facts (redshift and background echo) supporting a 13 billion-year-old theory about the formation of the universe. It is a grand theory and an awesome story but we cannot know if it is true or not.

Geology has a lot of speculations about the age of the earth based on a lot of dubious assumptions which no doubt we will disagree on.

Some of your statements were true but irrelevant e.g.

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

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

 

[mindlight]

That was not your answer. Before you double down, take time to review what you actually said.

Actually, that was, and is, my answer, read my entire contribution to the thread and you will see that. God did it and we do not know how. There are major reasons to be skeptical about all the major 4 theories/hypotheses that challenge a literal interpretation of Genesis, or indeed any other theory of creation for that matter.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, that was, and is, my answer, read my entire contribution to the thread and you will see that. God did it and we do not know how. There are major reasons to be skeptical about all the major 4 theories/hypotheses that challenge a literal interpretation of Genesis, or indeed any other theory of creation for that matter.

There's a confusion even within that short post. Even if you believe that god is ultimately responsible, then to say that 'we don't know how He did it', followed by what is effectively 'Except that I personally do know how He did it (it tells me in Genesis)' is, to put the best spin on the statement as I possibly can, disingenuous.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Actually, that was, and is, my answer, read my entire contribution to the thread and you will see that. God did it and we do not know how. There are major reasons to be skeptical about all the major 4 theories/hypotheses that challenge a literal interpretation of Genesis, or indeed any other theory of creation for that matter.

Didn't I ask you not to double down before reviewing what you actually said in your earlier posts? If you insist on changing argument as you go along it makes discussion difficult. Please, try to be consistent in what you say.

 

[mindlight]

There's a confusion even within that short post. Even if you believe that god is ultimately responsible, then to say that 'we don't know how He did it', followed by what is effectively 'Except that I personally do know how He did it (it tells me in Genesis)' is, to put the best spin on the statement as I possibly can, disingenuous.

Didn't I ask you not to double down before reviewing what you actually said in your earlier posts? If you insist on changing argument as you go along it makes discussion difficult. Please, try to be consistent in what you say.

Good grief. Disingenuous and illiterate team up.

Disingenuous because Genesis does not say how nor did I ever imply it did. My argument has been consistent that science cannot answer these questions and that the four theories I mentioned were speculative. But yes I believe by faith that God did it.

Illiterate because apparently unable to read.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Good grief. Disingenuous and illiterate team up.

Disingenuous because Genesis does not say how nor did I ever imply it did. My argument has been consistent that science cannot answer these questions and that the four theories I mentioned were speculative. But yes I believe by faith that God did it.

Illiterate because apparently unable to read.

My point still stands, no matter how many ad homs you wish to throw out there.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A pillar would imply that these theories could support the weight of the edifice placed on them which they cannot. So maybe pillar is the wrong word. If that is the entire point of your post then I concede the point.

And yet you don't see that these aren't "pillars". (some of them are facts, some of them are components of theories, ...)

My main point was that these 4 are unprovable doctrines in the scientific world. They are all examples of scope creep in the scientific world. Scientists are making claims they cannot prove with the scientific method in each of these four areas. So it does not matter to me if they are related or not in the eyes of those working within the bubble of one discipline or another.

OK, you clearly don't understand how we do science.

Abiogenesis is the perfect example of fact-free speculation. Without it, there is no naturalistic explanation for the emergence of life on earth and scope creep based on this assumption becomes completely questionable.

See other posts. As I noted abiogenesis is not the basis of any science, not even biology.

Big Bang has two main facts (redshift and background echo) supporting a 13 billion-year-old theory about the formation of the universe. It is a grand theory and an awesome story but we cannot know if it is true or not.

1. Redshift *is* part of the evidence for the BB.
2. "echo", do you mean background radiation?
3. The BB theory is only about 100 years old. It is not a 13 billion-year-old theory.
4. The BB isn't a theory about the *formation* of the universe if you mean "creation" or "start". It is a theory about the "development" of the universe from the expansion from a hot dense state.
5. We have enormous amounts of evidence behind the BB.
6 "true" or "not true" is not a question science addresses, but the the basics of the BB are very well established.

Geology has a lot of speculations about the age of the earth based on a lot of dubious assumptions which no doubt we will disagree on.

I'll let some other poster tear apart your misunderstandings about geology.

Some of your statements were true but irrelevant e.g.

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

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

Not irrelevant, but the most important part of my argument. It grids your argument to dust and blows it away with the slightest puff of air. I'm not surprised that you didn't get it.

Your claim was that these 4 things were the pillars upon which science rests, yet for these sciences THEY JUST DON'T MATTER. These sciences would work just fine if a god had created the world and the laws of physics 6000 years ago. This means that the so-called "pillars of science" are not actually so.