Is All YEC Really Pseudoscience?

Ah… I see. My mistake… I should not have said “see” as I meant “feel”… Here’s what I intended to say:

Sorry. I was trying to be all-inclusive and it blew up in my face. I’ll definitely not try to be nice or understanding for at least another week.

2 Likes

I dont see any difference with this stance than a scientist who starts with the assumption that life is in existence via purely naturalistic processes. Arnt both in the exact same camp? They are both starting with an equality subjective assumption. And since the laws of entropy strongly suggest that organized energy could not be eternally in existence, Something out of the natural had to have started it all…so out of the gate, the naturalist is behind one length.

So one worldview is developed upon the foundation of a belief that the Bible is right, and the other is developed upon the foundation of the beluef that natural processes are capable of producing results of highly complex bio machines that are even more complex than a diesel engines because they can even fix themselves.

Im not here to defend AIG in everything as in fact i disagree with some of what they do. But if i were a gambling man, and i knew that 1. there was a God who is even powerful enough to create the expanding universe 2. Genetic mutation normally results neutral and many times detrimental traits that, given millions of years should arouse thinking that species more likely to go extinct and NOT increase in complexity 3. Bio machines are irreducibly complex, then regardless of how old this earth is, hands down i place my bet on the creationist belief side for winning a bought of who has the better amount of pertinent truth over the evolution system of belief.

It’s good to recognize different views, but sometimes we still need to be about to say, “No, 1+1 does not equal 3, that is wrong.”

2 Likes

The difference is that you can’t show us any evidence that these scientists are ignoring evidence, nor can you point to a statement of faith where they say they will ignore all evidence of a non-natural origin of life.

The fact that YEC’s refuse to address inconvenient facts makes these types of claims empty.

I think scientists understand why people ignorant of the science can have wrong ideas about the science. On top of that, it is very difficult to find common ground with people who give the appearance of being willfully ignorant of the science. It is rather frustrating to show someone the science and then watch them misrepresent the science they have just been shown.

3 Likes

I understand and agree. It is frustrating to me to observe people who come to preach and lecture, but never to learn. There should always be an exchange of information, that way we can come away from a conversation having learned something. For some, they may have learned more about science and for others, maybe more about human nature or the dialog itself.

It should always be an exchange. We cannot control what others say or how they respond, but we can do so for ourselves. Our own dialog can be one-half of an open conversation. At least then the others who read it can benefit. I think that you are always careful to respond this way and I appreciate you for it.

3 Likes