I then left a comment on his page seen here http://www.youtube.com/profile_comment_all?user=CreationHelp welcoming him and asking a few questions. He responded with a comment on my channel on the 15th saying:
What four conflicting statements? Yes, I am saying that Young Earth Creationism is what I beleive, instead of the theory of evolution taught in biology. No I do not disagree with science, just the theory of evolution.
I appreciate that you watched my video. I am going to make some more soon.
Thanks, Jack.
I responded the same day stating that:
I am also glad to hear you say that you will be only discussion Biology as most YECreationists do not seem to understand that Cosmology (with theories based in Physics about the Big Bang), Abiogenesis (with theories based in Chemistry about life coming from non-life), Radioactive Decay (Physics again used to date the age of the Earth at 4.56 Billion years old), Plate Tectonics (with theories based in Geology about how land masses over the Earth have changed over billions of years), etc..... are scientific ideas that are NOT part of Evolutionary Biology.
Later that day he retracted his previous statement with this correction:
am sorry if I did not use the correct words when writting my reply to your previous comment. I do not beleive in the theroy of evolution, I also don't beleive in...
the big bang
life coming from non-life
and the earth being 4.56 billion years old (I belieive 6000)
I do belive in Plate Tectonics, however I beleive it happened about 4000 years ago, during the tower of babel, as described by the bible.
I will tell you some of what I beleive:
6000 year old earth
six day literal creation of time, the earth, all of space, and heaven.
that God only created two original humans to populate the earth.
Cain married his sister.
Noah's year-long-global flood.
tower of bable being destroyed, followed by movement of the earths continental plates, and the seperation of languages.
Thank you,
Jack
I wanted to respond, but the comment section does not allow large posts so I will post my response here...
Jack,
I’m sorry to hear you retract your previous statement and now claim to not be in support of science at all. I feel this is a correct assessment of your statements (that you are against ALL of science) and let me explain why.
At first you had said that “I do not disagree with science, just the theory of evolution.” Which meant that the only science you did not accept was Evolutionary Biology (and maybe just some parts and not all of it, but we will have to discuss that later). NOW you have said that you do not accept theories of Cosmology, giving the big bang as an example, or Atomic Theory, saying that the Earth is only 6000 years old. By making these statements you have said, in essence, that you do not accept ALMOST EVERYTHING in the field of Physics, even though Atomic theory is used every day for Nuclear power, Chemotherapy, and in your statement also means that you do not accept that atoms or the discrete parts of atoms (like the electron or proton) exist. Since isotope ratios are also used to date the Earth, and you stated that Abiogenesis (life from non-life) is incorrect, then you have also made a claim that ALMOST EVERYTHING in the field of Chemistry is also wrong. By stating that 2 humans populated the Earth starting only 6000 years ago and that “Cain married his sister” you have said that ALLMOST EVERYTHING in the field of Archeology, Anthropology, and Genetics is incorrect. By making the statement that there was a yearlong global flood and that the Earth’s plates moved to their current positions in the last 4400 years (James Ussher gave the date as 2349 BCE and Kent Hovind states a similar date of around 2400 BCE) and that this was the time that all languages appeared then you are claiming that ALLMOST EVERYTHING in the fields of Geology, Archeology (again), Anthropology (again), Electromagnetic theory, Linguistics, Chemistry (again due to ocean isotopes), Physics (again due to laws of motion among other things), Ecology, and , of course, Biology are incorrect.
I’m sure I missed a few examples from your last claims of particular fields of science you are asserting to be incorrect, but as you can see just by your few simple statements you have made it seems like you are declaring ALL science to be incorrect. Before you make the statement that “if we cannot observe it in a lab it is not science” then do some research about how science works as scientific explanations can be formed not only by “Experimental Science”, but also by “Historical Narratives” which in the field of Archeology, for example, have been used to explain who wrote the “Dead Sea Scrolls” and when as have other parts of Scripture (not to mention that they were dated using Carbon 14 radiometric dating and isotope ratios along with other experimental and non-experimental methods).
The last thing I would like to clarify is your use of the term “belief” when talking about science. In science theories are provisionally accepted explanations of the facts (available evidence) and can never be shown to be absolutely correct. This is easy to understand since as technology advances we are able to learn more and more about the natural world AND as more and more research is conducted we find new facts (evidence) that can change, update, clarify, support, or deny our current understanding of a theory. So a theory in science is never “believed” as this term does not apply to scientific theories. I do not “believe” in gravity since I accept the fact that objects are attracted to the each other with a strength in ratio to the objects mass AND our understanding of how that attraction occurs is EXPLAINED by a scientific theory. I don’t “believe” that the Earth rotates around the Sun, but instead I understand how it does so by a theory called Heliocentrism. (BY THE WAY both of the previously mentioned theories have far less evidence than the theory of Biological Evolution through Natural Selection.)
Science is a manmade way to understand reality. If you read Stephen J. Gould’s “Rocks of Ages” and understood his concept of Nonoverlapping Magisteria you will find that there are other ways of understanding reality, BUT those other ways start with different assumptions and answer different questions. Theology asks and answers different questions, and uses different methods in doing so, than Science. Science is based in starting assumptions and methods that Theology does not use. Science cannot say ANYTHING about the existence or workings of God for if it did then we would be out of the realm of science. Theology cannot say how purely natural forces lead to changes in species over time OR how these same natural forces have lead to the formation of the Earth, solar system, galaxy, or the Universe since the limit of a purely natural explanation denies the supernatural and therefore God.
In my studies to obtain a Bachelors of Science in Evolutionary Biology I took many classes in philosophy of science, epistemology, and even theology. If you would like further clarifications on the subject I offer my assistance.
S.P.
I feel that it needs to be pointed out that Young Earth Creationists are anti-science as you can see from my reply as, by their statements, they don't accept ALL of science.
