YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

I have no clue what you are asking in this paragraph. Lack of what? What practice? I don't know what you are saying. So maybe it's screwed. So what? I never said ALL of science was OK with YEC. Go read my Message 9 again. This is about the YEC claim that MOST WORKADAY SCIENCE is perfectly legitimate according to YEC. Good grief, I don't understand what you think you are doing here.I nevertheless added that maybe some of paleontology is not a problem too. Why not? Wherever it deals with the simple facts and disposition of fossils themselves there is no problem. BUT AGAIN, IF THERE IS,SO WHAT????Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OFF TOPIC!!!!

​

HOW ARE YOUR QUESTIONS AT ALL RELATED TO THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH SCIENCE AS PRESENTLY PRACTICED IS HUNKY-DORY WITH YEC?????

​

ALL THAT BELONGS ON ANOTHER THREAD!

​

OFF TOPIC!!!!
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Look at that LONG list in message 1. ONLY astronomy and paleontology are the only whole sciences mostly at odds with YEC.And you are wrong. The two examples from biology so far are no problem whatever.I don't understand your 116 and it doesn't interest me. I believe it is any poster's prerogative to ignore any post for whatever reason. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh nonsense. Reconstructing them, studying their anatomy and physiology and figuring out how they would have lived are all perfectly legitimate and unobjectionable science. You don't need to assume they are millions of years old to do that.

You haven't shown anything. You're just blowing hot air. There is no problem with genetics. Just another case where evo assumptions are tacked on and assumed but have no practical bearing whatever on the work of genetics. I've already put astronomy in the Con list. Why don't you pay attention? And 98% of physics is perfectly fine.The YEC "basics" as you call them, have no bearing on what I am discussing here. If you want to make a case for it go ahead, but I am going to continue to ignore your totally irrelevant interrogations.

No.

The "evolutionary" tree has no bearing whatever on practical science. It's all theoretical navel gazing.

That's stupid. You can do all that without reference to anything macroevolutionary at all.

*******OFF TOPIC TO THE MAX*******

​

This is way off topic jar. This belongs on a thread about the ark. It does not belong here.

​

*******OFF TOPIC TO THE MAX******* Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have a LOT of trouble following you Arach. What is your point?It is POSSIBLE ALL REPTILES are a Kind. Or it is POSSIBLE there are a number of reptile Kinds. It is CERTAIN that crocodiles descended from either the one reptile kind or one of the reptile kinds.Birds have nothing to do with reptiles. That's an artificial notion based on nothing but one reptilian feathered fossil and the fact that there are no birds in the layer inhabited by the big reptiles. Which to a YEC means nothing other than that birds were not hanging about with the dinosaurs at the time of the Flood and got caught in a different wave. But I do believe that it is possible that a reptile Kind contained the genetic potential of wings and flight. It may not really be possible, I don't know, but that's how rich I think the original genetic potential of each Kind was.

NOBODY has any way of knowing that millions of years were involved, or that drastically different conditions wouldn't explain temperatures in a much shorter time period. Oh I know there are calculations, and I've run across the same information you've given before, and got ferociously upbraided for my chutzpah that time, but I don't care. NOBODY CAN POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT they claim to know about the distant past. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have the benefit of divine revelation.Based on that everything else is a guess.Just as based on blind faith in unprovable evo theory everything you guys do is also a guess.

1) The original taxonomic tree was based on observed design characteristics of the various animals.2) The idea of descent was supposed later and changed its name to the evolutionary tree.3) Genetics is also a design factor. Why shouldn't there be similarities to the design characteristics of the animals on the taxonomic tree quite apart from any notion of descent?4) The correspondences are no doubt FAR from perfect. It's just fun to sound like they are to snow YECs and lurkers.

I don't know. It's the definition I've had in mind all along here. What makes it Kinds rather than evolution is that it has to do with BUILT-IN genetics with built-in limits for each Kind.The enormous varieties of dogs alone ought to be an example of how much potential there is in one Kind, though, and that's a modern Kind -- The varieties of dogs before the Flood must have been astonishing.If there are birds in the dinosaur layers, fine, I heard there weren't any and that that was one reason for the idea they evolved from the reptiles.Feathered dinosaurs, fine. I haven't been keeping up. To my mind they can have all the feathers they want and even wings and still not necessarily be related to birds. DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN. Think DESIGN. Of COURSE there are similarities between kinds of creatures. You can look at them and see that. It's not enough to assume descent has anything to do with it though. God produced an amazing number of potential variations on each theme and each Kind retains unique characteristics nevertheless -- maybe only 5% of the genome reflects the difference but it's a definitive difference nevertheless.But yes, if the Kinds were originally as genetically rich as I think they were, then descent of some pretty widely diverging types is possible from one original. I believe it very likely that ALL the cats that ever lived descended from one original cat Kind for instance. It's possible that cat looked quite different from any living today. The two cats on the ark may have been quite different from that cat AND from living cats now and still had all the potential to produce what we see today. OR there may have been some small number of different original cat kinds. I tend to believe in the single specimen idea myself.I wonder what Adam and Eve looked like. Every single human type came from them. Every skin color, every hair type, every size and shape from the pygmy to the Neanderthal to the giants of the Bible. Actually all that came from NOAH and his family. Wonder what HE looked like. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I already answered what you are asking. First address what I said.And I have no idea what p.r.a.t.t. meansAnd I'd appreciate it if you think I'm contradicting myself to think again. Because so far you've been wrong every time and it's tedious having to correct you. Thanks.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.