Best YEC argument

[RaisedCatholic]

A correction to this statement. Jesus can be proven to have been raised from the dead theologically but not historically. History can show that people believed that Jesus rose from the dead but no evidence is available to show it happened historically…only theologically. Even Catholic historians agree.

I think we are on the same page. But just to clarify, when I say we can prove historically Jesus rose from the dead, what I mean is that we can prove this through the same eyewitness methods we can any other eyewitness accounts of anything else historically. Any historical event that occurred beyond the last 100 years or so, nobody alive today has eyewitnessed it, let alone any historical event from antiquity. So, while we can definitely and without question prove the Resurrection theologically, we can also definitively prove the Resurrection historically, just as we can the election of President George Washington, despite no one alive today eyewitnessing it back then.

 

[Gorgias]

The supporters of YEC hypothesis do not see the geological and paleontological data as “tricks” of God almighty

Generally true. They tend to devise rather wild hypotheses that attempt to explain away the data. (At least, IMHO.)

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

No historian AFAIK thinks Romulus existed yet there are entire biographies of him and his brother Remus.

They were written centuries after the supposed fact. On the other hand, the Gospels were written almost 40 years after the facts, when some of the eyewitnesses were still alive. There are lots of historical arguments to prove this.

I won’t get into the arguments of the Gospel writers except to say the were not witnesses but writers of oral tradition of witnesses.

As far as textual criticism has demonstrated, there is no reason to doubt that the four canonical Gospel were written by their traditional authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ).

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

“Can’t” is a negative statement, not a positive one.

It is a positive negation. Wich is still to be proven.

 

[STT]

That’s not much of an argument. It’s just as impossible to prove that the universe wasn’t created 5 minutes ago, as it is to prove that it wasn’t created 6000 years ago, or 13.8 billion years ago.

People can find a way to justify whatever their beliefs require them to justify. So evidence is only relevant in-so-far as it can be reconciled with one’s own personal preconceptions. Which is why even evidence and reason are fairly ineffective tools in any philosophical/metaphysical/religious argument.

That in fact is a very good argument. Even physics is approximation of the reality.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You made a positive statement. That evolutionary theories can’t be tested. Show me one.

The positive statement is that evolutionary theories can be tested. “Can’t” is a negative statement, not a positive one.

Theories by their very definition are testable. If you say that evolution can’t then you are making a claim that it’s not a theory. So you need to give us an example to back up that claim.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Theories by their very definition are testable. If you say that evolution can’t then you are making a claim that it’s not a theory. So you need to give us an example to back up that claim.

Personally, I don’t believe that what we call “evolution” (mankind “evolving” from a less complex lifeform into a more complex lifeform) is not a theory, because you cannot test that either with observation or repeatability. It simply has never been observed.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Theories by their very definition are testable. If you say that evolution can’t then you are making a claim that it’s not a theory. So you need to give us an example to back up that claim.

Personally, I don’t believe that what we call “evolution” (mankind “evolving” from a less complex lifeform into a more complex lifeform) is not a theory, because you cannot test that either with observation or repeatability. It simply has never been observed.

So if you are shown evidence that it can be observed and can be tested and that you can repeat experiments, would you change your mind? https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#e1

 

[rom]

So if you are shown evidence that it can be observed and can be tested and that you can repeat experiments, would you change your mind? https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#e1

Unfortunately, the link you provided did NOT give evidence of the kind of evolution that RaisedCatholic was talking about. He clearly defined evolution as a change “from a less complex lifeform into a more complex lifeform.” That tells me that he was talking of macroevolution, for which the link you provided did not produce evidence.

Undoubtedly there is evidence for microevolution. For example, one of the articles in the links you provided give evidence of fish developing resistance to PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyls). But that is microevolution. I think that what RaisedCatholic needs to see is evidence that shows not merely changes in an organism’s biochemistry, but one that shows large morphological mutations that are not harmful to the organism and which, therefore, can be favored by natural selection. Your link did NOT show that kind of evidence.

The link you provided tried to defend the use of evidences that support microevolution as evidence also for macroevolution, as if it is a form of “extrapolation.” However, we need to distinguish between the extrapolation of data practiced in some branches of science (such as Astronomy) from mere speculation. Good extrapolation always has valid small-scale experimental data that can be extended mathematically in a large-scale phenomenon. For example, from the light emitted by the sun we are able to determine the temperature of its corona. But microevolution does not provide that kind of experimental basis, because no one has shown mathematically how random mutations could lead to the systematic and simultaneous mutations required by macroevolution.

If evolution is defined simply as any change in the genetic makeup of an individual over time, then yes, it is a fact. However, if evolution is defined as the development from a less complex lifeform to a more complex one, then that has NO evidence and remains to be proved.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

There’s some debate in here between people neither of whom are YECs. I am, so you could ask me questions if you wanted instead. Or not, doesn’t matter really.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

The theory of evolution is weak. It’s more of a tool used by secular society to try and wipe away our religion and faith in God. It’s just another battle line in the war against Christianity. Stephen Meyer comprehensively dismantles the theory.

This is a soft science, it’s only theoretical. It is speculative and subjective.
Don’t confuse it with hard science. These are applied sciences like medicine and engineering where there cannot be any conjecture at all.

 

[rom]

There’s some debate in here between people neither of whom are YECs. I am, so you could ask me questions if you wanted instead. Or not, doesn’t matter really.

I’m glad you spoke up. I was earlier trying to defend the YEC at least as a possible hypothesis, although I myself am not a YEC. I do have a question. As a YEC how do you show that the earth is really young (10,000 yrs old or less) when there apparently are geological and paleontological evidences that seem to indicate an older earth? Also, what do you make of the microwave background radiation that some scientists claim to be remnants of the past Big Bang (11 to 15 billion years ago)?

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

Easy. I’m neither a geologist nor am I an astronomer. I do not teach science nor am I involved in research. I have no answer for those questions, because ultimately it is immaterial towards salvation.

I like the Genesis story. I don’t believe it to be true on the basis of the provability of its claims. Neither do I subscribe to the notion that the stories are to be taken as solely literal. I believe it to be true, firstly because I like to take Scripture at face value, then build from there.

Could I be wrong? Certainly, but I don’t think it matters much. Since I don’t try to convince anyone I’m right, it’s likely my beliefs make zero impact on the world.

 

[whatistrue]

medicine and engineering where there cannot be any conjecture at all.

How familiar are you with medicine and engineering? There is a lot of art to medicine, and more “by guess and by golly” to engineering than you seem to think.

 

[Inquisitor85]

I’m not convinced that you understand what a scientific theory is in relation to the colloquial use of the word.

Evolution has a sizable and unusually robust body of evidence supporting it, largely because it is direct conflict with just about every major creation myth. I’d point out that the leader of the project to map the human genome Francis Collins is a devout Christian, and strong proponent of the theory of evolution there is no conflict between the two positions.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

I’m not convinced that you understand what a scientific theory is in relation to the colloquial use of the word.

Sounds like a poor argument to me. Perhaps the scientists who disagree in ToE are also misunderstanding.
Im not sure u understand the difference between soft science and hard science

Evolution has a sizable and unusually robust body of evidence supporting it

None of which can be falsified. They say it’s a transitional fossil, another will say it’s an ape. Their mainly clay sculptures created by an artists imagination from a hand full of bones.

Anyway take it up to the people that argue against it as they have the finer details.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

How familiar are you with medicine and engineering

Im in engineering

and more “by guess and by golly” to engineering than you seem to think.

Ahahaha ye right lets just guess that this material is enough to support this building…
Ooops hundreds of people dead… Please

 

[Freddy]

AlmaRedemptorisMater:

There’s some debate in here between people neither of whom are YECs. I am, so you could ask me questions if you wanted instead. Or not, doesn’t matter really.

I’m glad you spoke up. I was earlier trying to defend the YEC at least as a possible hypothesis, although I myself am not a YEC. I do have a question. As a YEC how do you show that the earth is really young (10,000 yrs old or less) when there apparently are geological and paleontological evidences that seem to indicate an older earth? Also, what do you make of the microwave background radiation that some scientists claim to be remnants of the past Big Bang (11 to 15 billion years ago)?

The way I see it is that ‘not that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and geology cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and those studying evolution cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, geologists can test their ideas about the history of the Earth by making observations in the real world.’

I read that somewhere…

 

[Freddy]

Inquisitor85:

I’m not convinced that you understand what a scientific theory is in relation to the colloquial use of the word.

Sounds like a poor argument to me. Perhaps the scientists who disagree in ToE are also misunderstanding.
Im not sure u understand the difference between soft science and hard science

Evolution has a sizable and unusually robust body of evidence supporting it

None of which can be falsified.

Yes it can. Very easily. Whoever told you that it couldn’t wasn’t being truthful. Tell him or her that they need to study the subject a little more so they don’t end up giving you incorrect information.

 

[rom]

Easy. I’m neither a geologist nor am I an astronomer. I do not teach science nor am I involved in research. I have no answer for those questions, because ultimately it is immaterial towards salvation.

Fair enough.

The way I see it is that ‘not that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and geology cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and those studying evolution cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, geologists can test their ideas about the history of the Earth by making observations in the real world.’

I read that somewhere…

I know. You read it and quoted it from the link you provided. And I have no doubt that scientists, paleontologists, geologists, etc. can learn a great deal about us and our past. But the evolution of complex forms of life from simpler ones is not one of them. There is just no proof that that kind of evolution occurred or is taking place. All the evidence they have consist of small changes in the genetic makeup of a species over time. But extending that idea to big changes happening over millions of years is pure speculation.

Evolution has a sizable and unusually robust body of evidence supporting it, largely because it is direct conflict with just about every major creation myth.

“Sizable and unusually robust”? If you are referring to microevolution, I agree. If you are referring to macroevolution – or the evolution of complex forms of life from simpler ones, - the evidence based on biochemistry is miniscule to nothing. The evidences from paleontology have serious flaws on them.