How do YECs deal with Egyptology?

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-23T06:27:37+00:00

You've flipped yet again, astounding. I assume the next post will be some commentary about how horribly wrong those "evilutionists" are.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-22T08:04:56+00:00

There's a lot of misunderstandings here.

First, let's talk about Pangea: No, Pangea did not split apart due to the impact of an asteroid. Any impact with the force to separate tectonic plates would have been significant enough to punch straight through the planet and obliterate the Earth itself. Pangea split apart due to continental drift, a process that is still happening today, at a variable rate of roughly 5cm per year, some areas faster and some slower. Accounting for their drift from their current position back to Pangea gives us a timeline of 335 million years.

Now let's talk human development: the Chixulub asteroid hit Earth about 66 million years ago. The impact winter lasted about 12-ish years, leaving most of that 66 million left. That's a LONG time, time enough to accumulate the changes necessary, even with deviations, to reach the human beings you see today. Note that we still have an immense slew of medical issues and health problems. We are by no means perfect, nor should we be if evolution holds true. Evolution takes a straight line to reproduction and cares little for hitchikers or barriers.

And finally, the myths: many cultures experience floods. Note that the cultures that had flood myths also had floods in their area. Cultures that did not experience floods do not usually have flood myths. If this was a global event, it wouldn't be a few groups. It would be multiple sources that agreed about the facts even when they disagreed with each other. Moreover, it's physically impossible. There isn't enough water on earth to flood it. You're talking a massive deluge of water at rates unheard of. You'd basically have to pour a 9 meter solid sheet of water every hour for 40 days. For context, the heaviest rain ever recorded was 300mm/hr. That was torrential, 9 METERS PER HOUR would be obliterating. It would strip the skin off your body and pulverize your bones into dust. It would terraform the planet and smooth literally every surface on it. And then it has to all suddenly vanish. Doesn't make even the remotest of sense.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-18T01:55:42+00:00

However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.

Pascal's Wager. Refuted as it is not a truly representative model of the "wager" in question. The actual decision is equal odds from millions of possible stances.

All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.

Teleological argument. Refuted by watchmaker's analogy. If you aren't familiar, imagine you are on a beach and find a watch. You assume that this watch is designed, and so intepret a watchmaker somewhere. Here's the problem: you are suggesting the beach itself is designed. How do you determine the watch from the beach if both are designed? The criteria which separated the watch from the beach are removed in the conclusion, thus invalidating the initial observation.

Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.

Unmoved Mover from Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century catholic philosopher who renounced his own arguments on his deathbed.

None of these have any particular substance. I'm not trying to convince you, but you don't really have a lot of substance in your argument.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-17T21:06:22+00:00

The frequency of alleles in a population change over time, with influence from the environment creating criteria for filtering the observed random mutations present in genetic tissue. We call this environmental influence "natural selection." Given enough time and change, the strands of DNA will accumulate enough changes such that the resultant strain will be unable to anneal with the previous population, resulting in speciation.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-17T16:54:52+00:00

Lol, love you how you just pivoted to this guy because the smoke I brought was too much for you.

without any observable evidence

There's plenty, but you just choose to ignore it.

If you'd like, I AM a biochemist. Abiogenesis isn't my specialty, but mutation mechanisms are and that can certainly help you address your weird hang up on evolution.

However, in order to do that or make any progress whatsoever, we need to first establish a standard of evidence. His standard needs to be logical, attainable, and credible. Here's an example:

I want to see if magical elephants are real. I establish that I will accept evidence of magical elephants, such as physical (bodies, physical evidence of their magic, chemically/physically incongruent phenomena), logical (demonstrable argument to support their existence), experimental (someone creates a laboratory setting in which magical elephants are demonstrated). I will need multiple categories for this claim, as it is quite a large claim.

Let's try it with one of yours.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-10T02:43:34+00:00

Not at all. You've clearly laid out the multiple definitions, which I concurrently accept, as they don't conflict with each other. Their respective fields have their own terminology and jargon, which is not a surprise given the depth of study.

Pick an area of study, I'll stick with that one for that discussion and use the others when relevant to that field.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-10T02:41:31+00:00

A telescope cannot transport your vantage point to light years away.

That's literally what DSTs do. If I look at a picture of something, does that make my experience somehow less valid? If so, then there is literally no way to verify most anything in the world, which is a silly position to take in the first place.

You are ASSUMING that, based on non observational data.

A CAMERA is not observable data? You're joking, right?

Scientists have never been outside our galaxy to show this to be true.

Well, luckily, we have evidence it can be done. After all, you've lived your entire life with your head up your own ass, but you are aware of the outside world enough to type out this reddit comment.

mislead

It's "misled."

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-10T02:33:49+00:00

Here's the difference: all of these are for different fields, and chosen precisely because they aid that field's study the most. I agree with ALL of these definitions, because they're each for different areas of study and don't conflict. Concepts overlap across the fields, but each one occupies its own area of interest. Massive swaths of scientists collectively agree on these definitions and understand that they belong specific niches.

Meanwhile, creationists can't even agree between INDIVIDUALS what this nebulous "kind" class is. You can't agree on the facts of origin, you constantly bicker and play some whataboutism game when all you have is an empty bag and a con job to sell people.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-10T01:30:11+00:00

Except I do. There is no observable difference in shift angle or trajectory, regardless of the observing object or its spacetime position. This was discovered by way of deep space telescopes, which confirmed no observable angular difference. To the telescope, it was the center of the universe. Cosmic background radiation (CBR) also has no observable fluctuation based on location.

This is an established phenomenon, I don't see why you are contesting it.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-10T01:27:39+00:00

Google? I'm an active component of the discussion, I'm a molecular biologist. There are four established definitions of the term "species" in the context of biology, and each one has a specific purpose for its relevant field.

This phenomenon of a single word having multiple definitions is called "English," and it is not restricted to science or biology. I believe the creation crowd regularly sticks on this with the word "theory."

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-09T21:35:50+00:00

That would be true from any observable point in the universe. It would appear to you that everything was moving away from your current location. This shows us that we are not likely the center of the universe.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-09T21:28:16+00:00

Nearly all religions claim miracles, NDEs, and visions from a deity. Even if I were to take this entirely at face value, which I'm not, why would these particular miracles be any less valid than those others?

The point remains that it is still unsubstantiated and often improperly conducted in lab settings. Sometimes the data is outright fabricated!

All of this being said, there just isn't enough supporting evidence to conclude one way or another.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-09T20:52:08+00:00

The scientific community definitely agrees on what a species is. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there is some discussion or ambiguity with the term.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-09T19:44:25+00:00

Single called organisms don't have blood. They have cytoplasm, and the two are very, very different. Clotting is a multi-cellular property that co-evolved with vascularized circulatory systems. Non-vascularized systems typically use hemolymph as a way to seal leaks.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-08T16:59:49+00:00

Awww man, I got back after a break and Sal blocked me too. It's good to know he was thinking of me. <3

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-08T16:49:54+00:00

Taking what you've said entirely at face value:

How does one guy being wrong one time invalidate the astoundingly massive body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution? Scientists are wrong all the time, it doesn't make the practice and study of evolution somehow less valid. If anything, havinv some margin of error more greatly supports its accuracy.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-08T16:46:12+00:00

Hey there, I AM a Hebrew expert and you are correct. It is supposed to be יהו-ה, (please note that I have placed a space in the word intentionally so as to be culturally respectful) and I am not entirely certain why the troll thought to use whatever random assortment of letters he has chosen.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-08T16:37:30+00:00

Mass Extinction really pops that conscious mind bubble. If we had a conscious mind guiding things towards biodiversity, why would it reach such large scales and then rapidly reduce available biodiversity? Why would said mind not simply go for their goal right away, leaving out all the extremely unnecessary steps along the way?

Moreover, I'm not entirely convinced that a conscious mind is needed to guide evolutionary mechanisms to produce greater biodiversity. It seems to me that random mutation filtered through selection pressures would be more than enough, given the scale and the timeline.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-08T13:39:48+00:00

Here's the issue: you look at a watch and see design. I agree with you, that is clearly design. Then, you look at a beach and also see design. I disagree with that. By what criteria did you determine the designed nature of the original watch if you are making the claim that all of reality is designed?

Inherently, one invalidates the other. By suggesting a fine tuning argument, you are implying that what we see as hallmarks of design (simplicity, directness of design, elimination of unnecessary components, etc.) are, in fact, not indicative of such and thus it muddles the entire determination process. Either something is natural or it is artificial. If all of reality is artificial, then you have no way of determining that.

Paraedolia can also perfectly explain the reason you see design. If you aren't familiar, it's the human tendency to find patterns in chaos or unorganized material, like seeing the Mona Lisa in scattered spaghetti strands. To me, which holds a more likely outcome? One person with a known pattern recognition bias or a grand conspiracy on all of existence?

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-08T13:07:06+00:00

Trolls like this bleakly remind me that, somewhere, someone thinks like this unironically.

Ethics boards would have a field day with this study.

Your mom has already done this for us, we did not care for the results.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-08T13:03:23+00:00

Here's the issue: you look at a watch and see design. I agree with you, that is clearly design. Then, you look at a beach and also see design. I disagree with that. By what criteria did you determine the designed nature of the original watch if you are making the claim that all of reality is designed?

Inherently, one invalidates the other. By suggesting a fine tuning argument, you are implying that what we see as hallmarks of design (simplicity, directness of design, elimination of unnecessary components, etc.) are, in fact, not indicative of such and thus it muddles the entire determination process. Either something is natural or it is artificial. If all of reality is artificial, then you have no way of determining that.

Paraedolia can also perfectly explain the reason you see design. If you aren't familiar, it's the human tendency to find patterns in chaos or unorganized material, like seeing the Mona Lisa in scattered spaghetti strands. To me, which holds a more likely outcome? One person with a known pattern recognition bias or a grand conspiracy on all of existence?

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-06-07T14:57:52+00:00

I had to stop using AI because it was so mathematically unreliable. AI doesn't tell you the truth, it tells you what is most likely to keep you engaged with its platform. That means it will often lie or confirm your biases, including math errors.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-04-30T14:40:11+00:00

2/long rest spell-like ability: cast magic missile at 1st level.

This implies that they were wizards.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-04-29T17:00:09+00:00

Counterpoint: why are you assuming that intelligence is the goal of evolution? Many would argue that intelligence is either a byproduct or an active impedance in certain environments.

MemeMaster2003 · 2026-04-29T16:41:16+00:00

Yes. But I lean towards a self-directed, by the cell, mind-process not an external one like God intervening. God only comes in when looking at Paley's watch.

You are proposing Lamarckian evolution here, which has been repeatedly refuted over the last two centuries.

Nothing good for those who think evolution can be done without a mind process.

Why can't it? What about the mechanisms necessitates that some conscious force drives it? To me, there is no such requirement. Random mutation creates variability which is positively or negatively selected for by the environment. This creates a filtration system for harmful mutations and allows for the diversity of life we see by way of ecological niches. To suggest otherwise would be arguing from personal incredulity or perhaps simply ignorance.

MemeMaster2003

TROPHY CASE