YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

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.

Excluding Faith, of course. She seems to KNOW just peachy-keen fine.

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.

Okay Cora.Please indulge me and lets look at an example in geology like those I mentioned in physics, astronomy and genetics.Assume (we can't get a YEC to confirm) that the basics are that creation happened some 6000 years ago. About 5990 years ago some kinda something called a Fall happened and since then Physics and genetics etal have been just as we see them now.The about 4000 years ago there was some flood.If those things are true, what would we see.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

if all reptiles are one kind, i fail to see why you object to evolution.also, are birds reptiles? on the contrary, birds and crocodiles (crocodiles more than other reptiles, btw) have a ton of homologous features. dinosaurs are even more STRONGLY homologous to birds. faith, you should know better. first of all, we have 7 specimens on that "one" fossil. and second, feathered dinosaurs are making the news all the time these days. we have more than a dozen species of feathered dinosaurs, most with quite a few specimens. we also have tons of primitve birds -- the line between the two is a subtle one. it comes down to stuff like proportion of the maxillary and premaxila bones in the skull. we're talking MINUTE details that make the difference. also false. have a look at the recent thread on gansus, for instance. gansus lived before t. rex. there's nearly modern birds by the k/t event, and lots of mostly modern (but not ancestral) "opposite birds." i fail to see your objection to evolution, if a crocodile can turn into a bird. that's a rather loose definition of "kind."

---

Isn't it obvious?God wanted us to see that the world is billions of years old.God wanted us to see that anatomically modern humans have been around for 100,000 years or more.God wanted us to see that there was no global flood.If God had not wanted this, he could have made the world different from what it is. You are taking the word (the written text) of fallible men, and making it more important that what we can see for ourselves as God's handiwork.

god told me you're wrong.

---

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.

you are a p.r.a.t.t.-machine today, faith! earlier you said that "looks-like" evolution (based on observed "design" characteristics and similarity) was not enough. do you take this back? ok, so we're just gonna remove common descent, but still draw a graph of how things are superficially related? let's ignore that for a second. we'll come back around to it. are you aware that the tree we can draw from genetics is practically identical to the tree we can draw from observation? this much should be obvious: genetics dictates characteristics.agreed? can we now distill this down to a simple point, for the yec-pov? that genetics does not dictate descent?

---

Why should there be? Is this "God" fellow so limited that he has to copy parts of organisms and reuse them in others? Is he unable to create completely unique creatures?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Strawman. YECism has nothing to do with geophysical oil exploration, though YECs and EVOs participate in it side by side using the same tech science. Ditto. Strawman. What is there about Evolutionism or creationism that makes a marketable drug or a floatable ship? Nothing, of course. Again, Regardless of ideology on origins, Christians and Secularists alike use the same technology applicable to the industry. Show us a valid refutation of my message you applied your strawmen to and we'll talk.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

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.

yet totally views the entire geologic column differently. and that doesn't relate to oil exploration at all does it? that bit where viruses and bacteria evolve new resistant strains -- whole separate species that cannot be fought by older drugs. "noah's ark." "christians" and "young earth creationists" are not one and the same. yec's are a subgroup of christians. i used to know a christian geologist. guess which camp he was in?

---

Strawman and also incorrect Buz. To say that Christians and Secularists both work in science has nothing to do with either YECistas or Biblical Creationsist.Of course Christians and secularists work within the same science, as long as they reject the nonsense of Biblical Creationism and YECism.Christian does not equal either YEC or Biblical Creationist.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.