Young Earth Creationist

Ian	Big Think "The existence of God is not testable because such a review is not reproducible or falsifiable, as most scientific investigations are". The theory of evolution is not testable, according to its believers, and cannot be scientifically observed. So is not reproducible or falsifiable. So evolution is unscientific, as it matches the same testing criteria as the existence of God. We have to 'believe' in evolution without testing or seeing it, so that's a religious belief, not a science. The Bible says that we are created by God, evolution theory says we're created by a rock. The Bible says we are here for a purpose, evolution says life is totally pointless. The Bible gives us morals and laws, evolution says that everything is permitted. So we don't have a battle between science and religion, but a war between two competing religious beliefs. On one side we have God, the Bible and Jesus Christ, on the other we have life from rocks, a purposeless life and the anti-Christ, Satan.
Tom	Ian Macnaught the theory of evolution is falsifiable. Natural selection is observable. The evidence supporting it is reproducible. The theory is scientific
Ian	Maybe post some reproducible evidence for evolution being 'observable' during a scientific test, creating any new kind of creature in the last 6000 years.
Tom	Reproducible evidence for evolution isn’t just observing new animals appear. It is also that different scientists can find the same fossils in the same strata. It is that different scientists can sequence the the genes of different species and see that that the same coding errors appear more often in species that are more closely related. It that scientists can test for viruses that insert themselves in sperm or egg cells and get passed down from parent to child (endogenous retro viruses) and we can see that the more closely related species are the more of these viruses they share. And the evolutionary tree that can be deduced from these different forms of DNA evidence match the tree that was deduced from the fossil record and from other lines of evidence. Having said all that we do observe selective pressures all the time both in laboratories and in the wild in the viruses, bacteria and other animals. It’s not like we have to see a new species of monkey pop into existence from one day to the next to confirm evolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution
Ian	Tom: It's a well known scientific fact that the Fossil Record fails to support the unproven theory of evolution, as there are billions of missing-link fossils which don't exist. Hence the new theory of the Cambrian Explosion to try to explain the fact that they're not there. Viruses aren't alive, but require a host to survive. But a virus changing into another virus is a good example of natural selection within the virus kind, not evolution of any new kind. Also a virus will always be a virus, as it can't morph into any other organism. The Evolutionary Tree is a fictional one, with missing branches and trunk and only some meaningless twigs at the top. Bacteria change into other bacteria, again Biblical natural selection, not evolution. So evolution remains an unproven scientific theory, having never been lab tested or any new kind of creature evolving since God made them all 6000 years ago. But I wonder why you 'believe' in evolution ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvqz5YHhbSk&list=LL&index=22&t=74s
Tom	The fossil record does support the theory of evolution. There have been enough fossils found to show the progression of species into other species. The missing link criticism is based on a misconception. Whether a virus is alive or not they still demonstrate adaptation due to evolutionary pressures as do to creatures that are clearly alive. There is no reason to believe that the changes that we see happen to “in kind” creatures won’t continue to keep on happening over time until they are no longer of the same “kind”. Especially since see this in the fossil record. And as I stated earlier our knowledge of DNA has confirmed what we see in the fossil record. How do you explain that we share more of the viruses that get passed down through generations with apes than with monkeys other than a shared ancestry? I wonder why you don’t “believe” evolution.
Ian	Tom: Viruses have always been viruses and are subject to Biblical natural selection, but they've never been observed to become anything else, other than viruses. Of course natural selection will continue to operate in every kind of creature God made. It obeys his design. DNA did for evolution, when science realised how complex it is. They even classed 95% of DNA as 'junk' because they couldn't understand it. Junk DNA has been de-bunked, like other evolutionary theories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_bMPx6gNMQ&list=LL&index=8&t=49s
Tom	Ian: I wasn’t talking about “junk DNA”. I was talking about viruses that insert themselves into germ cells such as sperm and eggs and get passed down from generation to generation. How do you explain the fact that we share more of them with apes than with monkeys other than common ancestry? I was also talking about coding errors in genes. How do you you explain that we share more coding errors with our siblings than our cousins and that we share more with apes than with monkeys? The same type genetic test that we use in the court of law to determine paternity are used to determine how closely related species are.
Ian	Tom: An Intelligent Designer would use common components to create his world. So this proves nothing about evolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KwTl5lUsjM&list=LL&index=10&t=148s
Tom	Ian Macnaught why would an infinitely powerful creator use common parts? It’s effortless for a such a creator to creat different parts. Regardless it doesn’t explain the viruses that get passed from generation to generation. Why do we share more with apes than monkeys? Regardless of whether there is a creator or not this strong indicator that we share a common ancestor with apes and that our common ancestor with apes was more recent than our common ancestor with monkeys.
David	Ian:You are always murdering the ignorance of people on this page!! These are type of people who would believe whole heartedly in anything including a vacillating amalgamation of concepts and theories
David	Tom: All you see is the genetic closeness between organisms...yes is true apes are the closest animals to humans but that doesn't mean we descend from them. God just made things like that... simple
Tom	David: I'm trying to save them from eternal suffering in hell, but most refuse to listen. It's like trying to tell people not to board the train for Auschwitz. "But we're going to be resettled in the East" was their reply.
Ian	Tom: You'll have ask the Intelligent Designer. But it would be very foolish just to invent components so as to convince you that he didn't. Viruses aren't alive, they require a host. No host, no virus. Why are monkeys still monkeys ? Evolution should have changed them into humans by now, but monkeys remain in their kind, just as God designed them. In fact every kind in the entire world is in exactly the same position as they have been since God made them 6000 years ago. Proving that evolution is dead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg78UikMaFU&list=LL&index=9&t=57s
Tom	David: I’m not saying we descended from them. I’m saying that multiple lines of evidence indicate that we have a common ancestor
Tom	Ian: You started out by saying that that evolution is not falsifiable or testable. I’m pointing out that it is (unlike religion). Under evolution we would expect that the more closely related that species are the more common their components (such as DNA) would be. Actually, if that wasn’t the case it would show that evolution is false. It would not prove, however, that creationism is false. There is no reason why an all powerful creator would need to use common components, but there is clear reasons why evolution would. So here is a clear example where evolution is falsifiable and creationism is not. Asking why monkeys are still monkeys and haven’t evolved into humans yet assumes that humans are the end goal of evolution. We’re not. Monkeys are continuing to evolve (slowly) but how they evolve depends on a combination of what genetic mutations happen to occur in them and what selection pressures happen to exist in the environment at the time. Also remember that today’s monkeys are not our common ancestors. Their DNA is a little different than our ancestors and thus will not have exactly the same potential for exactly the same mutations. It is extremely unlikely that today’s monkeys will evolve into humans. In fact it is so unlikely that it would almost suggest an intelligence behind evolution if it happens. You’re ignoring the genetic evidence. Why do we have more of the same viruses that are passed down from generation to generation with apes than with monkeys? Why do we have more of they same coding errors? Why do the same type of genetic tests that are used in our judicial system to establish paternity (family relationships) also show that we are more closely related to apes than monkeys? Why did when people figured out how to sequence DNA it led to the same conclusions about family relationships among species that were already figured out by studying anatomy and the fossil records?
Ian	Tom: So how are humans and monkeys still 'evolving' ?
Tom	I should have said that monkeys continued to evolve after the split from the common ancestor. I think that it’s likely that even today there are small adaptations that are occurring in places where there is selection pressures to do so. In our lifetimes it’s unlikely that we’ll see enough change where we would witness a new monkey species. There is no reason to think that as these changes accumulate over long periods of time there won’t be new monkey species (unless of course the environmental pressures happen so quickly that all monkeys go extinct). You’re still ignoring the genetic evidence. What evidence would you accept that would make you a little less confident that evolution is not true?
Ian	Tom: Produce evidence for anything that evolution has created in the last 6000 years. Not Biblical intelligent design, Biblical natural selection or Biblical guided selection.
Tom	Doesn’t your requirement assume that the earth is 6000 years old? What evidence would you accept that would make you less confident that the earth is only 6000 years old?
Ian	Tom: There is no evidence that the earth is older than the Bible indicates. Every scientific measurement method is controlled by members of the evolutionist belief. We can't get our dinosaur samples Carbon 14 tested at any lab, because we don't believe in evolution. They want to know what the results they give are going to be used for, before agreeing to the procedure. Evolutionary dating techniques include 'that fossils are dated by the rock strata they're found in and the rocks are dated by the fossils found in them. This is circular reasoning, but it doesn't make any difference. Lab testing Carbon 14 readings routinely give results of 20 -35,000 years for dinosaur bones, before they were banned. Coal has Carbon 14 readings of thousands of years, but the results are ignored or ridiculed. Then we have the fake missing link ape/ humans, like the Piltdown Man, a forgery kept in the British Museum for decades, where nobody was allowed to see the remains Evolutionary text books continued to show him for years after the fraud was uncovered. But we have plenty other fakes like, Java Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man -he turned out to be a pig's tooth. The list of fakes, frauds and lies is endless, so desperate are the believers in evolution to find evidence to prove their mythical theory.
Tom	Ian: my understanding is that radio carbon dating doesn’t work well for objects over 20000 years old which why other dating techniques are used. But regardless, if you were allowed to date a fossil and it turned out to be older than 6000 years would it change your mind?
Ian:	Tom: Not radio carbon dating, but Carbon 14 dating, which tells you when an organic object died, is good until 50k years, when there's not enough to measure. If evolutionists would accept available scientific evidence for the death of a T-Rex at 25,000 years, it would be pretty earth-shaking, as evolution would be dead in the water, so that's why they're so violent against anyone doing C14 testing. But we think that C14 is only good for 6000 years. The reason is, that the earth wasn't like it is today, when God created it. I could go into this, but it would take a lot of time and it's nearly midnight here, so goodnight.
Tom	I believe that you’re sincere in your belief and in your desire to keep me and others from eternal torment and I see that as an act of kindness. Thank you for that. But I’m wondering what lays at the foundation of your belief. Just as a thought experiment, if you bought your own dating equipment and spent time learning how it works and then tested your own fossil and it turned out to be older than 6000 years would it diminish your confidence at all that the earth is only 6000 years old? Have a good night.
Ian>	Tom; That would be 'testing' God. If God is all powerful, ever present and knows everything. If I don't trust Him enough to think that He made a mistake and got the Bible wrong and that He hasn't a plan for our lives, then that's lack of belief on my part. Our problem is, we have no conception of the holiness of God. We imagine Him like us, with all our limitations. But God is eternal, created the universe and knows what you're thinking before you speak. I'm in total awe of God. Amazed that He would be mindful of me and my fellow human beings. To demonstrate his love, He wants you to be saved, but gives you the sovereign right to reject Him and will abide by 'your' decision !
Tom	Ian: are you saying, and correct me if I’m wrong, in the hypothetical situation where you had your own dating equipment and you studied it to the point where you were 100% confident that you could operate it and the results you got back would be accurate and if you then tested some fossils and the results came back where they were much older than 6000 years your confidence that the earth is only 6000 years old would not change at all?
Ian	Tom: You're posing a hypothetical question, as I'm not going to test God by buying expensive dating equipment and attending courses to operate it, to prove the Bible wrong. If I say black and the Bible says white, the Word of God trumps me. If I don't understand something in the Bible. it's not God who made a mistake, but me who's incapable of comprehending. Moving to deeper questions. God obviously allows Satan to use evolution and manmade dating methods to delude many, but He's told us in the Scriptures that this will happen. God didn't prevent 6 million of his chosen people from being brutally murdered by the lie of Darwinian evolution, by saying that they were evolutionary Sub Humans. Neither did God stop Adam sinning and bringing death into the world. Or watching his son being cruelly crucified was part of his plan to save us. We cannot fathom God's thoughts, nor can we comprehend his plans. There's a Scripture that worries me in Revelation. The sign that God was with an Old Testament prophet was 'God would bring fire down from heaven'. So as Christians we would normally 'have' to believe the obvious, as we can see it happening, but Revelation says "The Beast performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth". Chapter 13 v 13 &14. I could be deceived. So to return to your question. Even if I was to go ahead with your suggestion about dating, and 100% prove that something was far older than 6000 years. I couldn't accept it. Nothing can defeat the Word of God, even scientific evidence.
Tom	Ian: again correct me if I’m misinterpreting you, but you’re saying that there is no evidence that would change your mind even a little bit? If that is the case, how would you ever know if your wrong?
Ian	Tom: I trust in God, not the fallible sinful thoughts of mankind. Let me pose you a question. If Jesus was appear in front of you, would you believe in Him ?
Tom	Ian: sure, if I witnessed miracles I would start to reevaluate. That would be evidence. I’m still wondering how you concluded that no evidence is needed. If our thoughts are fallible how did you come to such confidence to think that your thoughts about evolution, the age of the earth, God, etc are not mistaken and that no testing of those thoughts should be done?
Ian	Tom: I take it that your answer is no, you wouldn't.
Tom	Ian: it takes a lot to change a world view. I don’t know if I would suddenly believe, but I would start to reevaluate what I think. Confronted with evidence my confidence that my belief is correct would start to diminish. Again correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t want to misrepresent what you think, but it sounds like you’re saying that there is no evidence that could diminish your confidence that you’re correct. Indeed you seem to be saying that it would be wrong to even consider any evidence. If you don’t use evidence, what method did you use to arrive at your conclusion?
Ian	Silence...

Several days go by and I seen Ian continue to post that Evolution isn't "scientific" in other posts. After ahwile I decide to no longer refrain from commenting.

Ian	Evolution is an unproven scientific theory, since it's never been scientifically 'tested' and nobody's seen it create any new kind of creature since 4000 BC, when God made Human beings along with everything else. Evolution is a dead theory, Creation is a scientific fact as all creatures carry-on exactly as God designed them, including us. So Creation passes the 'scientific method' test and is scientific.
Tom	Ian, the theory of evolution is falsifiable. Natural selection is observable. The evidence supporting it is reproducible. The theory is scientific
Ian	Tom, The theory of evolution's never been scientifically 'tested' or 'observed', so fails the 'scientific method' examination. Therefore it's a religious belief. Biblical natural selection has been scientifically 'tested and observed' so it's scientific fact. Therefore the Creation of kinds of animals, plants and organisms is testable and observable, making Creation scientific.
Tom	Ian, in our last conversation I gave you some ways that evolution is testable and falsifiable (and religion is not). In our last conversation you said that there was no evidence possible that would diminish your confidence that the earth is not more than 6000 years old or that evolution is false,”? You said that even if you bought testing machines, and even if you studied the machine until you were convinced that it was 100% accurate, and then even if the tests that you conducted showed that some objects are much more than 6000 years it wouldn’t diminish your confidence one iota. If there is no evidence that would convince you why would care if evolution is testable?
Ian	Tom, So that others won't be duped by Satan's lie of evolution creating them, instead of God.
Tom>	Ian, in our last conversation you said that human thought is fallible. I agree with that. But doesn’t that mean that your thoughts and conclusions can be as wrong as mine? If you don’t use evidence to verify whether your thoughts are true or not, what method do you use?
Ian>	Silence ....