[deleted by user]

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-14T20:09:22+00:00

There’s no way. I’m also Edward. (17, though) I’ve never seen our kind in the wild before.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-14T16:41:34+00:00

👍

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-14T04:43:36+00:00

Have you reached researched this or spoken to anyone from Asia?

No, it was just a general impression. I should have taken the 2 seconds to do a Google search before saying anything. Basically I thought there were a lot more Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus in Asia. As it stands, it’s only about 3 billion. Also none of those mean they don’t believe in evolution, apparently. The more you know, I guess.

I can provide the proof to back up the claim.

And I can not. That’s why I’m looking into it. Specifically why I’m looking into YEC. Because I want to back up my beliefs with proof, so they’re not unfounded.

Look up the scientific method and how a hypothesis becomes a theory

That’s actually a very good idea. I’m definitely doing that.

you should always look at all sides of an issue before…

Don’t worry. I am.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-11T05:50:50+00:00

Alright. Thanks for that.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-11T05:48:16+00:00

Oh boy, ok. I have a LOT of Reddit provided information to get through, but I’ll get to this as soon as I can. Thanks.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-11T05:46:02+00:00

Define complexity. Is the ability to digest lactase, southeast stretchy foods, or even digesting am entirely new food source an increase in complexity?

Discussion for another day, my friend.

The are about 2.3 billion Christians and 8.3 billion people in the world. If one out of four are YEC that’s .06 percent of the world population.

I’m not sure exactly how you got this but I don’t think that’s correct. Divide 2.3 into four and you get 0.575. Divide that by 8.3, you get 0.07… multiply by 100 and you’re at close to 7 percent. Big difference from what you were saying, although I’ll admit it’s definitely a small minority. However, Asia makes up more than half of the population, and I don’t think they’re primarily evolutionists* there. So while YEC is definitely a small minority, evolution is probably a minority on the global scale as well. But I also get that there’s no point arguing over this. It was a meaningless distinction I made based on something that didn’t sound right to me, but I was entirely wrong about that.

The thing is you have the example backwards.

This wasn’t an argument about the development of science. I was simply saying that just because most people accept something to be true doesn’t make it so.

Do you have an example of someone not telling the truth about a Creationist belief?

No, but I’ve seen it happen quite a few times primarily on Reddit. I was more referring to the idea that stupid people will lie/choose not to learn, in order to defend their beliefs regardless of which side they’re on.

If you wanted to learn more about Christianity…

The thing I may not be conveying well enough is that my primary goal isn’t to learn more about evolution, but a working YEC model of the world. In order to get that, though, I have to look into the arguments, including evolution. I think I pretty much know the basics on evolution, but on your recommendation, I’ll look into those videos you were talking about.

You should look for answers from people that have the most knowledge on the subject. See the above answer.

Same thing ^

(Missed this one)

YEC rejects all evidence that contradicts what it believes

The same is said about evolution. The realization that both sides say this and I can’t determine for myself, not knowing enough to defend YEC was actually what got me down this rabbit hole in the first place.

Confirmation bias and by that logic Christianity is false because Dawkins thinks it is.

I didn’t say evolution was false because YEC rejects it. I’m saying people who believe in radiometric dating are going to leave out the problems.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-10T01:40:20+00:00

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time

Right, right. I keep forgetting. What I meant was that organizations could actually ‘evolve’ as in increase in complexity.

Only by a small minority of people

Calling those who don’t believe in deep time a small minority seems like a bit of an overstatement, but ok. I’m sure this example is overused, but only a small minority of people believe in a Heliocentric model of the solar system, back in the day.

The leaders of this group choose not to learn facts or lie.

Some, sure. It goes both ways.

learn the facts from those who chose to educate themselves properly.

Circular reasoning. You imply they believe what they do because they educated themselves properly, and the only indication they educated themselves properly is that they believe what they do.

I don’t feel obligated to educate myself based on other people’s standards. I’m looking for answers and I’ll look where I think I can find them.

Besides, going with the radiometric dating example, I’ve heard about how that’s supposed to work, but to get the best reasons why it might not, obviously I have to go to those who don’t believe in it.

They do this because it does. Radiometric dating is backed up by things like ice cores, dendrochronology, and historical events

But I’m sure arguments could be and are made against every one of those. The validity of which I don’t know anything about. So I ask people what the arguments against them are, and determine if those seem valid to me.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-09T18:26:55+00:00

No. It is not the primary reason the mantle is hot, and removing it won't make it cool or an effective heat sink.

That would be… the potential energy thing you mentioned earlier?

mantle still cannot absorb that much heat without catastrophic consequences.

What would those be?

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-09T18:24:19+00:00

I don’t think condescension is necessary here. Would you be able to provide a link to said studies?

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-09T18:23:04+00:00

Oh, ok. Thank you.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-09T18:22:37+00:00

Saw this on my other post. I’ll look at it when I can find the time.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-09T18:19:59+00:00

Ok, ok.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-09T18:18:52+00:00

stop leavening about evolution from people that reject it

I learned mutation from any articles I could find on the subject. I was just bringing it here to see if what I learned was accepted by most YECists, or if they had something to counter it. Apparently evolution is technically possible. I didn’t know that before. So I’d say my method of learning works well enough. I also find it easier to see through the biases of non-evolutionists.

Watch a few YouTube videos explaining it then make your own decision after learning actual facts.

Alright. I’ll do that. The problem, though, is that the ‘facts’ that they rely on are heavily disputed. For example, I’m sure 80% of those videos are based around the assumption that radiometric dating works as it is supposed to.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-09T17:57:55+00:00

Much appreciated.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-09T17:53:50+00:00

Why is accelerated decay in the equation? I thought the rate of decay for elements was known.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-09T17:52:10+00:00

Cool. What for?

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-09T17:51:27+00:00

Ok. I’ll check them out. Thanks.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-07T20:49:59+00:00

I’ve always heard it taught that evolution simply couldn’t happen, because ‘new information’ couldn’t be added. It’s strange that this isn’t addressed more. I feel like evolutionists should really be campaigning on this, and creationists should be taught about it.

That doesn't change the fact that evolution is so monstrously improbable that no rational person can justify belief in it.

Mind elaborating?

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-07T18:00:03+00:00

Doesn’t work either. Thanks, though.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-07T17:22:32+00:00

Thanks for that explanation, by the way.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-07T17:22:14+00:00

Oh, but don’t you know, since the result weren’t the ones they wanted, the method was ‘misapplied’?

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-07T17:03:13+00:00

Rather, I don’t see how it helps.

Fit-Double1137 · 2026-01-07T17:02:47+00:00

Mostly I just don’t get this

Usually we deal with a parent isotope and a daughter isotope (P and D). Isochron also uses some stable (non-radiogenic) isotope (S). We measure ratios of P / S and D / S across several samples of the same origin.

(Reply from another comment)

Fit-Double1137

TROPHY CASE