Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 256 of 312 (325966)
06-25-2006 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
06-25-2006 12:33 AM


Re: that same old deception again
Well, if you want to put yourself in the place of Pilate and question the truth of God I'm afraid that's very appropriate in this context.
i find in Him no fault at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:33 AM Faith has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 257 of 312 (325967)
06-25-2006 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
06-25-2006 12:34 AM


Re: that same old deception again
I am saying nothing against God's truth. I am criticizing your interpretation of it.
I my classes, I will often give an oversimplified description at the beginning of the semester. If I were to give the full details, that would be too complex for the students at that stage. I come back to it later in the semester, when the students have the needed background, and give the full details. That isn't telling lies to my students. That is being an effective teacher.
Why couldn't God have been an effective teacher, giving the people an oversimplified account that would serve their needs at that time, yet leaving the full details in the world in the form of evidence for people to discover them when they were ready for it.
It seems to me that you are the one who is questioning God. You are insisting that God must fit your own rigid stereotype.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:34 AM Faith has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 258 of 312 (325968)
06-25-2006 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
06-25-2006 12:30 AM


Re: that same old deception again
Faith writes:
You actually think that YOUR OWN JUDGMENT of the evidence IS the evidence.
No Faith, that is not what we think at all. The evidence is the evidence. The fact is that every line of evidence refutes the idea that there was a flood 4000 years ago.
We have pointed out to you the evidence that GOD gave us. GOD says that there wasn't a flood.
If there was a flood where the only critters in the world that survived would fit on one or a few football fields, we should see
  • a genetic bottleneck common to all critters all dating to about 4000 years ago
  • hypermacroevolution to create the variety we see today, particularly in humans
  • a single flood layer easily identifiable all over the world
Those are just a few of the things specifically related to the alleged flood.
But GOD left no such evidence. GOD says that there was no worldwide flood 4000 years ago.
But that's okay, GOD says that there wasn't a Fall 5990 years ago too.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:54 AM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 259 of 312 (325969)
06-25-2006 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by jar
06-25-2006 12:38 AM


Re: Design, not descent
believe I said conditions might have been appreciably different than they are now so that decay rate would be very different than a uniformitarian assumption would dictate.
Okay, so are you saying that the decay rates changed at the fall? That really is just a yes or no question.
Probably more so at the Flood than the Fall. And again, I said it is a POSSIBILITY.
The Flood would of course have eliminated a LOT of genetic potentials from all Kinds.
Why? Every KIND was on the boat. Is that correct? So how would the flood eliminate genetic potential?
The way a bottleneck always does. Or any selection event for that matter.
And we agree that at the time of the Fall Adam and Eve were the only humans.
The flood by the way eliminated all of the races except for eight people IIRC. So it doesn't much matter if there were other races before the flood, and races existing after the flood have to be descendants and descendents of Noah and company.
Is that correct?
That is correct, as I believe I have affirmed many times, even a few times on this thread.
jar said:
You seem unable to tell us what the hell the YEC position is, when things happened, what happened, in fact NOTHING of any significance.
to which Faith retorted:
Who said I'm unable? Your demanding that on this thread is off topic and bullying as usual. I was doing some decent work supporting the YEC position on everyday science in relation to the OP list of sciences before you decided to derail it.
How can it be off topic if the topic is "YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution?"
You are changing it into YOUR problem with YEC it appears. The topic is to what extent the YEC position supports or contradicts existing science. You are just running some kind of rabbit trail away from this topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by jar, posted 06-25-2006 12:38 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by jar, posted 06-25-2006 12:54 AM Faith has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 260 of 312 (325970)
06-25-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
06-25-2006 12:42 AM


Re: that same old deception again
Nobody is against using your intellect. The point is your intellect is flawed and you misjudge the evidence and refuse to recognize that.
Or maybe your intellect is flawed, and you are misreading the Bible. Maybe you are not reading it the way it was intended to be read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:57 AM nwr has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 261 of 312 (325972)
06-25-2006 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
06-25-2006 12:48 AM


Re: Design, not descent
You are changing it into YOUR problem with YEC it appears. The topic is to what extent the YEC position supports or contradicts existing science. You are just running some kind of rabbit trail away from this topic.
I have no real problem with thae YEC position, we cannot get anyone to tell us what it is so it's hard to have a problem with it.
The way a bottleneck always does. Or any selection event for that matter.
So you agree that we should be able to see such a bottleneck?
You agree that since EVERY creature living is descended from those few critters that were on the boat, that bottleneck should show a most distant common ancestor about 4000 years ago?
Is that correct?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:56 AM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 262 of 312 (325973)
06-25-2006 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by jar
06-25-2006 12:47 AM


Re: that same old deception again
You're great at reciting the evo credo. Stand up and salute. But you are wrong.
The multilayered geological column {with all kinds of fossilized dead life forms contained therein} is EXACTLY what would be expected from a worldwide flood, not some "single flood layer."
"Hypermacroevolution" is some kind of made-up nonsense. All the variety we see today is easily accounted for by normal reproduction starting with very great original genetic potentials in each Kind on the ark.
There was such a bottleneck. Perhaps you have wrong expectations about what would be evidence of it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by jar, posted 06-25-2006 12:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 12:59 AM Faith has replied
 Message 269 by jar, posted 06-25-2006 1:04 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 263 of 312 (325974)
06-25-2006 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by jar
06-25-2006 12:54 AM


Re: Design, not descent
So you agree that we should be able to see such a bottleneck?
No I don't expect you to be able to see it. I think probably what is considered to be evidence of such things is far from reliable that far back. Or there is evidence but you don't recognize it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by jar, posted 06-25-2006 12:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by jar, posted 06-25-2006 1:07 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 264 of 312 (325975)
06-25-2006 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by nwr
06-25-2006 12:49 AM


Re: that same old deception again
The messages of the Bible we are discussing are not ambiguous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by nwr, posted 06-25-2006 12:49 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by nwr, posted 06-25-2006 1:01 AM Faith has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 265 of 312 (325976)
06-25-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
06-25-2006 12:54 AM


Re: that same old deception again
The multilayered geological column is EXACTLY what would be expected from a worldwide flood, not some "single flood layer."
actually, we'd expect a world-wide floodplain, composing one stratum. it would be like the k/t boundary, in that it covers the entire world, only it would have the characteristics of a floodplain.
but, you know, that's only the educated geology expectation -- creationists are more than happy to postulate the effects of the flood doing all kinds of strange and wonderful things, and having whatever effects they wish to ascribe to it.
you can't just pretend that the flood predicts something you are using it to explain. especially not when this prediction is absolutely contrary any established geology -- it involves throwing out everything we know about geological records of floods.
(which, in turns, continues to screw paleontology...)
There was such a bottleneck.
genetically? no. the evidence does not say so.
Edited by arachnophilia, : better wording


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 1:19 AM arachnophilia has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 266 of 312 (325977)
06-25-2006 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
06-25-2006 12:30 AM


Re: that same old deception again
You guys have the most absurd delusion going here. You look at the universe and say there was no flood and claim the universe said that instead of that it's your looking-at-it that's getting it wrong. You don't even know you are believing your own senses over God.
i think you need to calm down a bit, that makes no sense
you are not even talking about what god says, you seem to still be equating god with the bible. when what the bible says in relation to the universe and reality is wrong, some how the universe is wrong, not the bible!
come on faith you trust a book over the creation itself? god created the universe, you are arguing with god, filtered through a book written by people who have no clue about the universe
You actually think that YOUR OWN JUDGMENT of the evidence IS the evidence
i guess trusting science that has itself shown it works is wrong then? that we shouldn't trust in things that work?
go read a book on floods faith i mean a book written by someone who daily studies floods, then come back and tell me if the YEC flood garbage bares any relation to a real flood and how a world wide flood would work
You're just trusting your own subjective reading and you don't even recognize it.
i guess god is a lier then since he created us with working brains and senses that show us the evidence we have for geological time, that doesn't show a flood. take this up with god if you think his creation doesn't jive with your beliefs about it
This is exactly WHY God inspired His word, because people are such idiots they think what they think is the truth.
i guess belief without evidence makes things right then? i mean one line in john makes the bible the imspired work of god, i mean john thought scripture was the god-breathed so its all true!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 1:22 AM ReverendDG has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 267 of 312 (325978)
06-25-2006 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
06-25-2006 12:57 AM


Re: that same old deception again
The messages of the Bible we are discussing are not ambiguous.
I agree. The description of the sky as a luminous domed ceiling above the earth is quite unambiguous. The description that the luminosity of the sky is independent of the sun is umambiguous.
That the description is wrong, is also unambiguous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 1:03 AM nwr has replied
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 1:36 AM nwr has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 268 of 312 (325979)
06-25-2006 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by nwr
06-25-2006 1:01 AM


Re: that same old deception again
I agree. The description of the sky as a luminous domed ceiling above the earth is quite unambiguous. The description that the luminosity of the sky is independent of the sun is umambiguous.
That the description is wrong, is also unambiguous.
solid, too. to keep out the water.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by nwr, posted 06-25-2006 1:01 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by nwr, posted 06-25-2006 1:11 AM arachnophilia has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 269 of 312 (325980)
06-25-2006 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
06-25-2006 12:54 AM


Re: that same old deception again
The multilayered geological column is EXACTLY what would be expected from a worldwide flood, not some "single flood layer."
You have had opportunities to support that assertion, in fact there is a thread on the Grand Canyon where you are welcome to explain how the flood can create the individual layers see there.
"Hypermacroevolution" is some kind of made-up nonsense. All the variety we see today is easily accounted for by normal reproduction starting with very great original genetic potentials in each Kind on the ark.
Now that just sounds really silly Faith. Is it possible to assemble from two to seven of every species currently alive as well as an assortment of humans and fit them all into one or even a few football fields?
Faith, to get from what the Bible says was left to what we see today can only be done with some bodacious hypermacroevolution.
There was such a bottleneck. Perhaps you have wrong expectations about what would be evidence of it.
OKAY!
Very important point. You agree that current genetics does not show the bottleneck when it should. Thank you, you have refuted current genetic theories and practice.
So now according to you we need to throw out:
  • astronomy
  • genetics
  • and IIRC Paleoclimatology as well as
  • Palaeontology
Shall we go on?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:54 AM Faith has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 270 of 312 (325981)
06-25-2006 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
06-25-2006 12:56 AM


Re: Design, not descent
No I don't expect you to be able to see it. I think probably what is considered to be evidence of such things is far from reliable that far back. Or there is evidence but you don't recognize it.
It's not that far back Faith. The Flood you are talking about is more recent than the Pyramids, about 5000 years more recent than the earliest buildings at Jerico, over 20,000 years more recent than the Venus of Willendorf, at least 10,000 years more recent than the Topper settlement.
Four thousand years is almost yesterday.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 12:56 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024