Summations Only

You are only partially right Faith. It is the only evidence for those claims but everything in reality, in real life refutes those claims.As a Christian we can believe such thing but the only basis for those beliefs is faith. There is not actual evidence outside those claims to support them. In addition, the Bible itself is a poor and unreliable witness since it contains so many different versions of the tales, so many contradictory and mutually exclusive versions of the tales and so many incidents that are flatly refuted by reality.To be scientific or even just honest, we MUST recognize and acknowledge those errors in the Bible that are simply factually false.

That only proves that you can't support YEC when using the rules of science.

If the genes found on the chimp Y chromosome are required for humans to survive, then how are we surviving without them?The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Humans survive just fine without those genes, so it appears that they were available for deletion. We are glad to see you admit that macroevolution does not require an increase in information.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Stories in books are not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence must be observable and repeatable. Stories in books are not observable or repeatable.One of the earliest slogans in modern science is found in the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verbaNullius in verba - WikipediaIt means, "take no one's word for it". Stories in books need scientific evidence to back them. They are not evidence in and of themselves.

quote:

---

STOP TELLING ME I'M NOT BEING SCIENTIFIC WHEN I KNOW I AM.

---

If you are going to take obviously unscientific or anti-scientific attitudes you will be called on it. Even if you "know" otherwise. You can't put false claims beyond challenge or correction by wrongly calling them "knowledge"

You're not being scientific. You can't be scientific all by yourself. It's a collective endeavour.If all creationists could get together and provide an alternative explanation for what is observed in biology, that could conceivably be called science. Your individual wild guesses can not.

Scientific theories (and data) must be susceptible to falsification.If it is claimed that certain theories and data can't be falsified, then that's not science.Its that simple.

Was Hutton doing science before anyone accepted his theories? Or any other pioneer?

Then goodbye, who needs it.

Of course there's always a beginning. What followed AFTER Hutton et al. was what made it science - the testing and confirmation.There is nothing following after your mad speculations. You propose no testing. Nobody is trying to test creationism. THAT is why it is not science.

Obviously, YEC's think they need science in order to justify their belief in creationism. Otherwise, why would they work so hard to claim it is scientific? Why not just say it is unscientific and a faith based religious belief upfront instead of trying so hard to pretend it is scientific?

More to the point, without a null hypothesis (i.e. potential falsifications) you can't test creationist claims to begin with. For example, no matter what characteristics a geologic formation has they will claim it was put there by a recent global flood. No matter what features a fossil has they will never accept it as being transitional. No matter what genetic markers two species share they will never accept it as evidence for common ancestry. Their claims related to biology and geology are entirely unscientific because their claims are dogmatic.added in edit: apologies to Coyote for the initial misattributionEdited by Taq, : No reason given.

Please edit.That was not my comment.

I think there is a serious disconnect between the evidence and the conclusion, but I can't prove it.

No you don't, you believe in something that is contradicted by science so you have chosen to ignore it that's all.Creationism as awhole has found it impossible to either produce its own science to confirm its own belief or disprove science's facts that prove ye creationism wrong. You're simply an anachronism - a throwback - in denial.