Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

Here's an old trick I learned from Ken (do we really need two threads for the same point?)I feel your logic is somewhat flawed - you could just as well extend this thinking back to the big bang and demand that that is proven before ANY science has validity. Gravity doesn't require an explanation of the big bang in the same way evolution doesn't require an explanation of abiogenesis.

Ken, you've taken seven paragraphs to say the same thing repeatedly. Worse still, you're just saying the same thing you said in post 155, which I originally replied to. If you want to try again, please do so, but I'd rather like to see your replies to schrafinator, loudmouth, chiroptera and paulk too.

The title also contains "macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid". You've failed to address this. No. You've completely failed to address this issue. Abiogenesis != evolution.To use your own tactics, please provide emperical, observable and repeatable scientific evidence of your god's existence. Without this, creationism is not valid.

Creationism makes a special plea to the supernatural all the time. Are you trying to stack the deck? Can you show how a theory which describes the origin of scientific laws would be subject to those laws? I still can't follow your logic ken. I don't know how the universe started either, but that fact does not point in any way to creationism as a conclusion. See Non sequitur - Wikipedia

Hi Ken, Chiroptera didn't say that it did. You need to re-read the post. No, you don't have a stronger hand, just a different one. We don't know how the universe began, so why is your speculation "stronger" than Chiroptera's? If those laws were created as a consequence of the big bang, could they still trump the big bang? You can declare what you like, but the universe is still measurably billions of years old, and creationism still has no positive evidence. Sometimes attack is the best form of defence. Creationists almost always use this tactic, why shouldn't I? If materialism did fail, why would the Christian God logically be necessary? Why not a different god or gods, or the good old pink unicorn? (I don't need an apologetic response, but a logical one)

In terms of what we can currently observe, materialism does just fine. With regards to the origin of the universe, I don't know what trumps what - it's just idle speculation.

Of course not. That's the point, but you can't prove otherwise. You're speculating that the laws existed prior to the big bang - we don't know if they did or didn't, so it's not a reasonable argument against the big bang theory.

You can't derail it anymore than it is... very little of this thread has anything to do with evolutionary theory.

Please stop preaching at me. I've read "The Inerrant Word of God(tm)" and was unimpressed. Nice try. Your question was so vague it could only get a vague response. There are other questions I posted in post 184 which you haven't even attempted to answer, please do so if you wish.

Hi Ken, Not quite what I said, but you have evidence that science laws "pre-date" the universe? Please share. I am quite serious.A question unanswered from post 184:If materialism did fail, why would the Christian God logically be necessary? Why not a different god or gods, or the good old pink unicorn? (I don't need an apologetic response, but a logical one)