Most aircraft accidents the FAA investigate are small to mid size planes with no black box recorder. That’s why I stressed accident reconstruction just from the physical evidence at the crash site.
3 Likes
Likewise, millions of not-so-recent models of cars on America’s highways have no equivalent to a black box recorder. When they are involved in accidents, forensic investigators are sometimes called in by various parties to prepare accident reconstruction reports. The forensics often overrule eye witness claims. (Indeed, this scenario happened to me—when the sole third-party witness to an accident happened to be a friend of the other driver and skewed her observations accordingly. Photos of the forensic evidence settled the matter.)
2 Likes
I was asked what the main issue was for YECs. I gave my answer. If you want to convince YECs then you will have to address it. Most of us do not have the kind of religious faith in the accuracy of currently fashionable scientific ideas that you do. We do have faith in the Genesis account. That’s the main issue.
What you gave wasn’t any sort of scientific problem for evolutionary theory or the sciences which support old age dating. You merely gave indications you have a severe lack of understanding of how science actually investigates historic events. Lots of people here can help you overcome your ignorance but first you have to want to learn, something you’ve already indicated you are not willing to do.
2 Likes
@Timothy_Horton, given that the sticking point is not about science, it’s probably not productive to pursue the scientific aspects or even more generally, epistemology.
Which is exactly why I made the points I did. BK has already said he’s not interested in the science although he did once say he wished someone would try.
I can understand the rationale for that. But I think the key is that for someone who embraces YEC, it’s never* about science. It’s faith. And it’s a particular version that not even most Christians share.
*well, ~99%
2 Likes
I never said I wasn’t interested in science. I would also say that my comments were in fact about epistemology, contra Argon.
What sciences are you interested in?
Only ones accessible to those with a severe lack of understanding.
1 Like
It is always interesting when creationists try to apply the religion label to scientific theories in order to dismiss them. It seems to be a tacit admission that religious beliefs are less reliable than scientific theories. I have never seen a scientist try to dismiss creationism by calling it scientific, and yet you see creationists trying to dismiss scientific findings by calling them religious.
It is also worth noting that YEC’s try their hardest to make their ideas appear scientific.
1 Like
Now @benkissling try to unravel that bit of confusion.
And with that slap in the face you have been welcomed to the forum. Good luck!
1 Like
These people lift forensic science out of context in a reckless manner. Forensics is about what distinguishes us as individuals in order to narrow down a field of suspects and to hopefully nab a perpetrator.
Evolutionary science on the flip side is about what makes us all similar so that eventually - after many stories have been fabricated, pieced together, and perpetuated - it tries to inform us that we all came from the same lower life forms.
These people continually confuse their brand of science with the real science of forensics.
Haven’t you heard of scientific creationism?
2 Likes
Evolutionary science is about both similarities and differences. Also, those similarities and differences are facts, not fabrications.
1 Like
I am just now inventing a new theory about life and origins. Want to hear it? God created us with similar genetic material to the animals. In some cases - like the chimpanzee - our material is so very close in nature as to possibly even fool the unwary among us that we are all related. But the truth is far from that. The truth is that God created us - man and animals - similar in nature for man to assert his domination over the earth and all animals kingdoms, to study in depth - in future generations, of course, like ours today - those similarities so that we might exploit them to our benefit and continuance as a race. Specifically, we should be using science to exploit genetics in the ongoing war against disease and injury.
New theory. Can you refute it? I say that God created us similar to the apes for sheer exploitation purposes.
It isn’t just plain old similarities that points to shared ancestry. It is the PATTERN of similarities and differences that points to common ancestry. That pattern is a nested hierarchy, in addition to other patterns such as the pattern of substitution mutations. Your theory needs to explain these patterns.
What would refute it? If it isn’t falsifiable, then it isn’t scientific.
2 Likes
Ah, there are things that even you - a God-defying atheist - would detest and consider abominable. You did not exist during the wicked world before the Flood, did you. That is apparent. Beastiality was no doubt a part of the aberrant culture. That easily explains what you misunderstand to be a human-chimp ancestry.
Beastiality has appeared among some humans throughout history, both ancient and modern. So it is certainly safe to say that bestiality happened before the Flood. So I’m not clear where you are going with your statement about beastility in pre-Flood culture.
What does “human-chimp ancestry” have to do with bestiality? And what exactly is a “human-chimp”?
1 Like
Yes. It makes no sense. Most importantly, purposes of exploitation would not require a consistent nested hierarchy. They would not require genetic similarity at all. And how are we supposed to exploit these chimps, anyway?