Are ID/YECs right about anything?

No, I'm saying like Galileo we are to use reason, but we are flawed people. I have not limited myself to the Bible but feel no hesitation in doing so, I do believe it is the revealed Word of God. As I told you there is truth, not scientific truth and religious truth, there are no shades of truth. You don't have an issue finding ways to discredit scripture while propping up a theory with huge holes in your rational thinking. I've not given you biblical references to prove my points I've given you things to think about that we see in the here and now, while you tell me stories about millions of years ago. Inevitably those that don't like where the evidence points, do tend to bring up scripture to discredit the points being made. All it takes to wash away logic or evidence is simply to draw a connection between logic or evidence that points to something beyond the material world, the connection alone, will be enough to justify some to cast it out as meaningless. Turn me into a Bible thumper, you don't have to listen to what my mind, reason, and intellect have to say.

If any text or work makes one or more propositional claims and it's said that such a text reflects only 'truth', then all the propositional claims in it must be true.

If even one of the propositional claims can be demonstrated to be false, then the text can no longer be said to reflect only 'truth'.

I have been suggesting, informational instructions are not the product of a mindless activity, this does promote an agency without question, but that is as far as that can go, that alone doesn't say God did it, but it carries more weight than not having a clue how it got into life, and that takes a lot less faith to say that it is true than suggesting it is a product of a mindless activity. Taking into account the entire universe from the grand forces that hold it together down to the microscopic ones together, is more like a highly complex jigsaw puzzle that fits just right, the fine-tuning argument is stronger than it just is, which is not an argument, its a concession of having no clue.

Was Galileo trying to find "ways to discredit scripture," or simply communicating what he observed?

On that subject I remember doing some background reading on Galileo and found a rather nice quote that's attributed to him. It was when he was being denounced as a heretic for daring to challenge the teachings of the Catholic Church...

To paraphrase: "They condemn me but they will not come and look through my telescope"

I suspect T_M had an ancestor who flatly refused to look through Galileo's telescope! If he had he would have seen the moons of Jupiter, contradicting the firmly held belief that all  celestial bodies orbited the Earth.

Perhaps they should have put the telescope on trial?  😄

That's actually a myth that unfortunately keeps getting propagated. The church *did* look through Galileo's telescope (including the pope). And Jesuit priests/astronomers of the church looked through *their* telescopes and confirmed Galileo's observations (Galileo did not invent the telescope). And Galileo's discovery of moons orbiting Jupiter did not contradict any church teaching, and was also confirmed by Jesuit astronomers to be true. And, in fact, the church praised Galileo's book that announced this discovery about Jupiter's moons. And a cardinal of the church praised Galileo's discovery in a poem that the pope himself later praised!

"Still another marvels at the heart of the Scorpion,
or at the blazing Dog Star,
or at the attendants of Jupiter, or of Saturn (his father),
that were discovered by your glass, learned Galileo!"

The truth of history is often more complex (and boring and mundane!) than popular myths today would have us believe. But those myths do make for better movies, and conspiracy theories, and hero-underdog stories. Everyone loves to get mad and incensed at perceived injustice, so it's natural (though wrong) for people to skew history to accomplish this and appeal to public outrage (which, of course, is the whole point of propaganda). It is ironic (and unfortunate) that key figures in the advancement of post-enlightenment ideals about 'truth' would resort to such lies and propaganda tactics to advance their agendas.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church was not opposed to science and relied on the expert scientists and mathematicians and philosophers of the time to inform the church on such matters. The pope also asked Galileo to write works that presented the pros and cons of heliocentric theory. The simple fact of the matter is that Galileo (who in an ironic twist rejected Kepler's mathematical calculations that would have supported Galileo's beliefs) did not have sufficient evidence to overturn the SCIENCE of the day.

Whatever you think he was doing justifies you?

Nothing about anything we find truth in science I think of as a threat to anything I believe, what I the think, however, what we think about what we find in science is different than the things we see. Those areas where people feel they know what happen millions or billions of years ago are as factual as the sun rising each day I think says a great deal about those things that are true and those things we think are true.

@TruthMuse, all I have done is communicate what we observe to be true (as sure as the Earth is round and rotates on its axis and orbits the sun). If you think that conflicts with scripture, then maybe it's not scripture but your interpretation of scripture or postbiblical doctrine you impose upon scripture that's in error.

What scripture have I imposed over your observations?

You tell me. You're the one accusing me of trying to "find ways to discredit scripture," when I rarely ever even refer to scripture in this forum. Like I said, all I've done is communicate what we observe to be true. If you have a problem with that, then that sounds like your issue. If you think I'm wrong, then provide observational evidence to counter what I say.

I take the observational evidence everyone has and do not always prescribe to the interpretations given to them as many do. There is no evidence for this side, and other evidence for that side it is all evidence to be discussed.

I think we had this conversation once before? But while I accept he (probably) didn't ever say that in respect of his observations of the moons of Jupiter, it might still be said to be the case in a metaphorical sense?

"They denounce me but they will not examine the evidence (for the Heliocentric model) as I have done"

But I'm not sure I'm one of the ones that has a skewed understanding of history?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

You portray the Catholic church of the seventeenth century as reasonable, accommodating, tolerant and almost enlightened in its outlook. I really don't think so...

" The Galileo affair (Italian: il processo a Galileo Galilei) began around 1610 and culminated with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633. Galileo was prosecuted for his support of heliocentrism, the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the centre of the universe.

In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the observations that he had made with his new, much stronger telescope, amongst them, the Galilean moons of Jupiter. With these observations and additional observations that followed, such as the phases of Venus, he promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543. Galileo's discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally heretical." Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth.

In 1632 Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633, found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", and sentenced him to house arrest where he remained until his death in 1642. At that point, heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas after the trial.

The affair was complex since very early on Pope Urban VIII had been a patron to Galileo and had given him permission to publish on the Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a hypothesis, but after the publication in 1632, the patronage was broken off due to numerous reasons. Historians of science have corrected numerous false interpretations of the affair"

I believe it's also the case that Galileo was infamously shown the instruments of torture by the Inquisition, at least I've heard that reported a number of times. I believe he was in his late sixties by then and it was enough to coerce him into silence.

Any historical "account" that pits science against religion in such a simplified, reductionist way is a post-enlightenment construct that oversimplifies the complexities of human affairs. Have there been abuses by religion? Of course. Have there been abuses by secular, non-religious? Of course. But any attempt to broad brush stereotype religion (or non-religion) on the 'basis' of such is usually agenda driven instead of a balanced treatment of history. That's all I'm saying. I think we're all smart enough to recognize propaganda and attempts to villianize various groups throughout history.

I largely agree but I was trying to present the bare facts of the case.

And it did seem as if you were trying to sanitise the actions of the Church more than a little?

The Inquisition wasn't some marginal, inconsequential group of cranks. It was used mercilessly to silence those who contested doctrine and the authority of the church.

And 'atheistic' secular regimes have done the same with challenges to the government. No one is denying all sorts of atrocities have been committed by both religious and non-religious people. But I was simply addressing your claims about Galileo, nothing more. (And from what I can tell we seem to be pretty much in agreement).

But you really don't. I've only seen you offer an alternate interpretation of the data/evidence on a few rare occasions. And rarely do you ever "discuss" the evidence. More typically you just deny or dismiss the evidence/data outright. That is NOT the same as providing an alternate way to interpret the *same* data. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here is a small, sample listing of some of the observations made in the past 100 or so years. I challenge you to not simply deny, scoff, or otherwise dismiss said observations out of hand, but to offer a better explanation of these observations than the standard, accepted one:

1. We observe that fossils are stacked in a predictable sequence.
2. We observe different types of coral reefs throughout the fossil record, and not confined to the bottom of the fossil record.
3. We do not observe dinosaurs in the bottom most rocks of the fossil record.
4. We observe that the fossil record of marine animals is not the same throughout but observe different types of marine life at different levels in the fossil record.
5. We observe the ancient shoreline/sea level rising and falling in the rock record six major times.
6. We never observe sea level rising high enough to cover all the land.
7. We observe that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are underlain by 5-6 miles of fossil record.
8. We observe mud cracks and evaporite deposits of salt and gypsum throughout the rock record.
9. We observe ancient soils with plant roots at different levels in the fossil record.
10. We observe successions of fossil forests stacked on top of each other in the fossil record.
11. We observe massive underwater landslides (called "turbidites") occurring on continental shelves that catastrophically deposit thick sequences of sandstone-siltstone-mudstone on top of each other all in a single event. It takes a few days for the silt and mud to settle into layers on top of the sand, but the thick sequence of sediment is still all the result of a single landslide event.
12. We observe corresponding turbidite sequences in the rock record---hundreds of such sequences stacked on top of each other in vertical succession.
13. We observe the geographic spread of different organisms in the fossil/rock record. For example, we observe that archaeocyathid reefs first appear in lower Cambrian rocks in a basin in modern day Siberia. As we go up through the fossil record we can trace the lateral, geographic spread of archaeocyathid reefs from this basin to adjacent basins and then to other continents around the world. We observe changes in the morphology and structure of these reefs as they spread laterally, geographically.
14. We observe speciation and new species being formed in real time.
15. We observe new hybrid species being produced from the union of different species.
16. We observe bacterial DNA in plant cells.
17. We observe >200,000 pieces of viral DNA in the human genome.
18. We observe the same pieces of viral DNA in the same places in the chimpanzee genome.
19. We observe that chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 48 chromosomes, while humans have 46 chromosomes.
20. We observe that one pair of chromosomes in the human genome is actually made of two chromosomes fused together and that these two chromosomes match the structure and sequence of the two extra chromosomes in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. (This is not interpretation. This is what we observe. We observe that chromosomes have structures in the center called centromeres, and end 'caps' called telomeres. We observe that chromosome pair #2 in humans contains two centromeres and four telomeres; two of which are arranged end-to-end; i.e., chromosome pair #2 in humans is actually two chromosomes fused together).
21. 
22. We observe "jumping genes"---pieces of DNA that change locations and modify and edit and change and restructure genomes.
23. We observe "jumping genes" from the genomes of one species being assimilated into the genomes of different species.
24. We observe whole genome duplications in real time.
25. We observe that small scale changes in regulatory genes cause large scale changes in organisms.
26. We observe cellular processes modifying genomes.
27. We observe large scale restructuring of genomes (through cellular processes) when organisms are subjected to stressful environmental conditions.
28. We observe bacteria increasing the mutation rate in their own genomes (not by accident, but by step-by-step cellular and chemical processes that switch to low fidelity replicating enzymes) in response to starvation and limited resources.
29. We observe that most mutations have no effect on the survival fitness of an organism.
30. We observe that mutations do not occur in a random haphazard 'accidental' way, but occur in specific locations in the genome, and that many are the result of cellular processes in organisms.
31. We observe that a person is born with approximately 100 new mutations on average that are not found in the mother or father.
32. We observe radioisotopes decaying at predictable rates.
33. We observe that these rates of decay do not change when subjected to extreme temperatures and pressures.
34. We observe radioisotopes in the rock record at different stages of decay.
35. We consistently observe, repeatedly, over and over and over again that radioisotopes exhibit increasing stages of decay the further down we go into the rock record, with radioisotopes in the bottom most rocks exhibiting the greatest amount of decay, and the top most rocks exhibiting the least amount of decay.
36. We observe seafloor spreading at the mid-Atlantic Ridge and satellites measure the precise rate of spreading day by day, year by year.
37. We observe that rocks closest to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MOR) have radioisotopes with little to no decay. We observe a correlation with distance from the MOR, where the further the rocks are from the MOR, the more decayed the isotopes are.
38. We observe that when we divide the distance of these rocks from the MOR by their raw "age" data that the average rate of seafloor spreading matches the current rate of seafloor spreading that we directly observe and measure.
39. We observe forty different dating methods independently giving us the same raw "age" data.
40. We observe that this raw "age" data is also in agreement with other NON-radiometeric dating methods, such as coral growth layers, tree rings, ice core varves, tidal rythmites, and more.
41. We observe that the iron minerals in lavas that have cooled and solidified into volcanic rock are aligned in the direction of magnetic north in accordance with their latitude and longitude location.
42. We observe changes in latitude and longitude of various landmassess that correspond with our data on seafloor spreading.
43. We observe that the radioisotopes in terrestrial rocks on land match the radioisotopes in ocean rocks from seafloor spreading and that these further match paleomagnetic data about the latitude and longitude position of continents and that this further matches corresponding/matching fossil and rock sequences on different continents.
44. And to this we can add thousands upon thousands of additional observations.

I won't go another 20 rounds again talking about what we think went on millions or billions of years ago with what we see in the here and now. To promote a theory that some believe mindlessness can account for it all, while at the same time, they cannot talk about how it could possibly start and be creative in engineering new forms and features without an engineer.

You don't have to go twenty rounds. You just need to provide a better explanation for the observational evidence. But you never do. You never even make an attempt. That is the number one weakness with your arguments. You say you "take the observational evidence" the same as "everyone" else, but you actually don't. You fail to address and account for the observational evidence at all.

For example, you need to explain why, if most of the rock record is around the same age or the result of a one year global flood, then why don't the radioisotopes in those rocks all show the same amount of radioactive decay? Why do they show different stages of decay that increase the further down one goes in the rock record? Why does the amount of radioactive decay in rocks of the ocean floor increase with distance from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge? Why do the ages of those rocks as determined from radioactive decay match the age that we would expect them to be if the seafloor has been spreading at the same rate that we observe and directly measure it to be spreading today?

A couple of observations - what we see buried within rocks is in its way a little like something laid out in a book with various groups of lifeforms contained within their own 'chapters'. These things tell their own story for those that have the open-minded understanding to read it.

So it's curious that you cling to the contents of one book while brushing aside the geological one but that's your choice.

On this: "To promote a theory that some believe mindlessness can account for it all..." - I'll admit that over the months of this and similar discussions I've come to realise the problems involved in finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life are considerably greater than I'd realised. Notwithstanding, I shall continue to look to those I regard as being best informed (on the planet) on the subject, the research community, to provide a lead and when they admit the search is hopeless, I'll accept that.

I'm someone who strongly believes that what we hold to be the case (our propositional beliefs) should be guided by the available evidence and nothing else. I try to be aware of my own biases and avoid holding prejudiced beliefs to the best of my ability.

So if anyone wants to explore the hypothesis of a non-natural cause of the origin of life I'm up for it but be warned because it's a much more open subject than some seem prepared to admit!