Some questions for our YEC friends

  1. YECs Know The Truth. If large swaths of modern science disagree with the Truth which they Know to be True, so much for large swaths of modern science. As for the gadgets in your day-to-day life which wouldn't work if large swaths of modern science were not true, clearly that must mean that Something Else is going on there, Something Else which has nothing to do with the large swaths of modern science which are Known to not be True.

  2. It does have a long history, it just isn’t taught. There were native civilisations in North America going back thousands of years, like the Pueblo, the people of Cahokia and the Mississippi mound-builders. Yet as far as the American school system is concerned, history began on July 4th, 1776.

  3. Though they'd rarely admit it, most creationists believe in a sort of grand conspiracy among scientists. Creationism really can't work any other way.

  4. My mom was a YEC, then when my own research came up with an age of the universe of 13 Billion years, she had to decide if she was going to give that up or if I was part of the conspiracy.

  5. It’s not that all of those things are wrong. It’s that they’re misinterpreted. So you really don’t hVe to throw out the actual data as a YEC. For example, creationists see that natural selection works on random mutations to produce different characteristics in animals. So the data is good. What we don’t do is extrapolate that back to a single cell as the basis of all life.

  6. The problem creationists have is that it's not just some minor flimsy evidence we extrapolate. It's not just looking at bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, and concluding common ancestors from that. It's some very direct and very obvious evidences. That any reasonable person would look at and conclude evolution.

  7. This. Science is the way we explore and learn about what God has created. Romans 1:20. It's not that we disagree with most facts of science, the disagreement comes from the extrapolations of the data.

  8. Science is a global conspiracy against god. Just ignore all the advances it has made. Those are observational science, and have nothing to do with the age of the earth. Including the advances in geology. Anyway, praise god for putting oil in places we can drill for it.

  9. You need to ask this question in a place where creationists won't get downvoted like mad (for answering a question directed at them, no less). You're unlikely to get any meaningful engagement from creationists in this sub.

  10. Can you suggest a place where creationists don't feel at risk of being down-voted, but which at the same time won't perma-ban anyone who discusses the evidence in favor of evolution? In my experience, and not just on reddit, while evolutionists may mock creationists in their own spaces, creationists outright will not let evolutionists speak in their spaces.

  11. And you need to not tell me what I need to do. If you don't like this forum or this post, you are not required to engage with it.

  12. Here is the science. 1. Life only comes from life. Here is evolutionism, it must come from non-life ANYWAY with imagination. 2. Matter and energy can't create themselves. Here is evolutionism, it MUST'VE created itself ANYWAY. 3. Comets can't last "millions of years". Here is evolutionism, "let's make up flying cloud that gives perpetual comets with imagination".

  13. The straight and narrow path of thought on origin matters is that they are really historical subjects and not science ones. To figure out past and gone processes and actions is a different investigation then actual science subjects. So in biology, geology, the rest on origin matters are only dealing with a section of those subjects and its only done by small numbers of people who get paid. it doesn't pay. It doesn't do anything.

  14. You are utterly wrong. And the issues are quite clear: if the world is 10,000 years old or less, than ALL of science is wrong.

  15. Wait, how do you know what happened 100, 50, 25 years ago? That's in the past, and there's no way to know anything about the past using what's available today.

  16. So your position is that we can't use science to learn about things that have already happened? Is that right?

  17. On the contrary, history and science differ fundamentally in the types of evidence they demand. Historians must rely on human accounts. Scientists must rely on present observation. Both of these are of value in reconstructing the past. But of course, prior to human history, science is really all that is of value. The present is the key to the past because the past affects the future and we can see those effects in the present. Repeatability is a requirement for the accumulation of observational evidence. It is not a restriction on whatever science can possibly understand. Inferences about phenomena that aren’t directly observable, such as the past, can be drawn from what IS observable and repeatable. These inferences can change with new observational discoveries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin