Once. And you’ve made many statements that you should retract.
9 Likes
I just mean consistent with all the relevant data.
Yup, that was a false accusation.
I stated that they are #2, but occasionally make references to #3. If they’d like to move over to #3, they can, but should be upfront that #2 doesn’t work. Then they are still left with the problem of TMR10A. At that point, they could move over to something like #4.
3 Likes
I didn’t mean it to be rude. I’m sorry it came off that way. I won’t ask that question again of you.
2 Likes
Oh PaLeeezzze. If some creationist claim is examined and found to be wrong, or in many cases disingenuous, that does not entail that there has been any failure to understand. Quite to contrary, what Sanford and Jeanson has put forward has been understood comprehensively and exactly, and found to be inconsistent with observation. There have been extensive rebuttals on this site and in linked articles. Your choice is to deal with that, or retreat into a fantastical bubble inflated by innumerable YEC publications, web sites, and conferences where the only real metric is conformity to some narrow interpretation which has eclipsed scripture itself.
If you review your own recent posts, they sort into “I do not know what I’m talking about, but once I do, I’m sure I will be right”, or “did you read the book? I’m sure he is right”, or “the reason you do not get it is your heart is hard”, and “quarks and dark matter and stuff is water”. This is not compelling. Regardless of how you arrive at your worldview, you are not entitled to choose your own facts. If YEC were aligned with what we know about nature, I would be on board right now - I do not hold presuppositions against the concept of God working miraculously in our world. But YEC is pseudoscience at worst or metascience at best, persistently churning out bizarre and inconsistent reinterpretations of nearly the entire body of scientific understanding.
9 Likes
Exactly. It’s an idol worshipped by a tribe.
This. Also not compelling is the aversion to engaging with the evidence itself, always keeping it at arm’s length by cutting and pasting rhetoric.
People who are confident that they are right, as well as people who want to know if they are not right, dive into the real evidence.
1 Like
I don’t think that’s a correct assessment. Valerie is confident that she’s right, and she’s confident that the evidence will eventually support her even though it doesn’t now. Evidence by definition must support her, in which case it’s right, or fail to support her, in which case it’s wrong. Given that the current state of evidence is irrelevant to her conclusions (correctly so, in her view), there’s no need to look at it or consider it.
3 Likes
I think that both are going on, but at different levels of cognition.
I haven’t seen her acknowledge that it doesn’t support YEC now. Have you?
2 Likes
Except that she also keeps insisting that the evidence, as it exists, does not support evolution but does support YEC. She has no understanding of the evidence, of course, and actually admits that at times. Nonetheless, she still knows this to be true somehow.
Contrast this with the position of Todd Wood, who also takes it as a matter of faith that YEC is true but also acknowledges the unavoidable fact that the evidence as it now exists supports evolution and an old earth beyond any reasonable doubt and there is no way it can be made to fit the YEC model.
5 Likes
But it also appears that at some level, she is not confident, as she prefers cutting and pasting what people say about the evidence instead of getting into the evidence itself. That’s the fascinating part.
1 Like
I think you get me John, other than that I do really like evidence. I’m really enjoying learning about the science of everything. Whatever God did in the flood is something crazy - that’s the hardest evidence to figure out.
This is cool evidence that what God created is amazing. 
Does the notion that this evolved from stardust or some random molecules seems absolutely bonkers to me? Yes. I don’t know how you guys can argue this with straight faces, tbh.
He absolutely does not say this. Listen to the first two minutes.
Done. He did not say anything that contradicted what I said.
I have a hard time believing you actually understood what John wrote.
You should listen to the whole thing then. Your hyperbole is nothing like what he actually says in the video.
Feel free to point out what you think I didn’t understand.
You said that about the first two minutes. You were wrong. Why should I believe you about the rest of the video?
If you did understand what he wrote, and agree it was accurate, I don’t really see why anyone should take seriously anything else you have to say. But maybe you don’t think we should?
2 Likes
It’s because that’s what the evidence really shows.
But I don’t know how to refute an incredulous stare.
1 Like
I listened to the first two minutes.
There was nothing. I kept listening.
After the 13 or so minutes of the entire video, there was still nothing.
Video title: “Evidence AGAINST Evolution”
Actual content: 13 minutes of excuses, of explaining away why there isn’t evidence against evolution.
2 Likes
Laugh or cry?
You have no evidence of how the systems in a cell evolved from stardust or random molecules at all. None. Zero. There’s a lot of guys in a lab who have succeeded in putting a few molecules together. Please explain how this is evidence of the otherworldly machines in the video.
Also you have no observational or even theoretical evidence of significant genetic information being added to any system by any known process.
I see how you are discussing various new genetic and biological advances. These are highly complex systems - but you say - “look! - it’s not a like a computer program! It’s messy guys - not complex, never designed!” Even though a 3D system is more advanced than any computer program - we don’t have anything else to compare it to, so it’s the best we can do.
And there’s mysteries! But “that’s OK - our model is amazingly wonderful and if you touch it or question it we will resort to calling you ignorant and tell you that you must be beholden to a false religion and this conversation is way too complicated for you or you would not ignore our wonderful evidence that doesn’t explain anything about origins.” 
And because I don’t know some of the basic biology terms and don’t understand them all correctly, I’m the one that’s ignorant? I don’t understand this world where black is white and up is down.
The point of the video was his philosophy on how to look at evidence. I shared it because @Faizal_Ali was sharing Todd’s view incorrectly and Todd explained he’s tired of people sharing it incorrectly on the internet. So at least I figured I’d defend the poor guy. If you had listened at all, he said he’d be sharing evidence in later videos, that was just an introduction to his approach to models.
I’d want you to do both, at different times. Crying is good for you, and so is laughing.
K.
You don’t even know what the word “significant” means, and you couldn’t tell me how to quantify genetic information if you were given a decade to think about on your own instead of having it spoon fed to you.
I noticed that since I asked you for such a calculation in the other thread, you stopped responding. Why is that?
It also seems you don’t even understand what evidence is. Observational vs theoretical evidence? What is that and what’s the difference? You wouldn’t recognize evidence if it was surgically installed in your visual cortex.
1 Like
That is just flat out wrong.
Welcome to the real world. Sure, there are unknowns. But at least there are hypothesis which are consistent with what is known. That is much better than YEC which draws conclusions which are inconsistent with what is known.
While a lot of genetics is pretty specialized, many of the concepts are accessible enough to be well within your grasp. It is not understanding, but acceptance, which is at the root of your confusion. It is hard to learn something you are fighting against.
1 Like
I certainly agree with that.
Are you denying that humans are made from that which is ultimately stardust or just denying that anything in that path of development “evolved”?
I would agree that when I first learned about the evidence which tells us that we all come from stardust, I thought it mind-blowing. Not in the sense of denying it as far-fetched. I just thought it was amazing and spectacular. I also thought that such an impressive history for all the matter we observe on earth today was quite consistent with the powerful YHWH described in the Bible.
So are you implying that you think “the dust of the ground” in Genesis could not have its ultimate origin in stardust? Why couldn’t God have used stars to create the chemical elements we know on earth as being the fundamental building blocks of both inorganic and organic chemistry.
Also, your mention of “some random molecules” gives me the impression that you aren’t comfortable with the idea of God using random processes for his purpose. (Perhaps you and I define “random” differently??) We observe random processes at work throughout God’s creation and the Bible says that God is sovereign over random processes. So I’m not a aware of any conflict.
What specifically surprises you that is accompanied by straight faces here?
As a Christ-follower, I would expect the God described in the Bible to be fully capable of using stardust and random processes for his amazing purposes. (And I appreciate all of the assistance scientists provide in helping people like me to understand that history of God’s creation. The Bible tells us that God made the world we observe and science describes the associated processes.)
3 Likes