Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 6:01 AM
29 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1 of 312 (317413)
06-03-2006 11:41 PM


It is not uncommon for someone with a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) belief system to state that they do not have a problem with science at large, just with evolution or more expansively, the parts that may disagree with a literal, and inerrant reading of the Bible.

I would like to use this post to determine what parts of science disagree with the YEC belief and therefore would be impacted under a YEC -only educational and research orientation. I would also like to know what would then be left of the sciences after going through the filter of YEC.

For purposes of discussion, I would like to define YEC as a belief that the Earth and cosmos are 6,000 years old, that a great flood covering the planet occured around 2300 BC, and that life did not evolve but rather was specially created within this time frame.

To get such a discussion started, I would like to point out which fields I know of off the top of my head would be impacted. This is by no means comprehensive, so please add what I have left out, as per the purpose of this proposal.

Because I have a little more familiarity with the geosciences than other fields, I will start there.

Geosciences:

Historical Geology - geologic eras and periods of Earth's history as commonly defined would require considerable contraction.

Sedimentary Geology - principles concerning sedimentary layering, deposition rates, uniformitarianism, and age of formations would all have to be revised.

Structural Geology - events concerning large scale deformation would have to be retimed and speeded up.

Paleontology - ages of fossils would require recalibration, current evolutionary relationships would be nonexistant.

Tectonics - would require continents to move at extraordinary speed, then slow to historically observed rates.

Volcanism - no volcanoes prior to 6000 yrs ago would indicate massive simultaneous eruptions.

Paleomagnetism - would require massive revision of observed change in polarity of Earth to fit 6,000 year timeline.

Dendritics - tree rings would have to be recounted and model of annual growth changed to fit in with young Earth, also applies to varves and ice cores.

Geochemistry - role of isotopes in geologic dating would require massive change in model.

Hydrology - ages of water in confined subsurface aquifers would require revision to fit 6K Earth. Models concerning hydraulic conductivity and recharge rates would require significant revision.

Geophysics - various models of formation and age of Earth would require massive revision. Even heat dispersion as outlined by Kelvin would need revision to fit YEC.

Minerology - only area of geology unaffected by YEC (so far as I know at moment)

Physics:

Nuclear - models of decay would require massive revision due to age of half-lives (see geochemistry).

Cosmology - entire universe would have to be contracted to 6,000 year radius to fit in with Genesis account of creation and observed speed of light. Hypothesis of stellar formation, distances, evolution, would be revised. Galaxies must all fit in with young age. Background radiation from singularity event would have to be reexplained.

Particle - Proton decay models out.

Atmospheric - climate models including ice core data would require revision.

Chemistry:

Isotope decay models would be massively revised. see geochemistry

Biosciences

Central model of evolution would have to be discarded. Results would be too many for me to list, will defer to experts.

{this is really outside of my area, please contribute as see fit}

Anthropology

Physical - since human evolution would be out, whole field gone.

Cultural - see linguistics.

Archeology - all models and interpretations concerning digs older than 6,000 years would require revision.

Linguistics

Models of language development, dispersal, and evolution would require revision to fit in with Tower of Babel.

Also history that goes too far back would require rewriting. Accounts of early history of Chinese, Indus Valley, Mesoamerica, Sumeria, Egypt, etc. would require rewriting. Oral history of Australian Aborigonies going back 40-50,000 years would have to be discarded.

I'm sure I left out a lot, so should this topic be promoted, would like to hear about other areas for purposes of learning. Also, I would like to hear from the YECs to explain how such an orientation would have little or no effect on these subjects.

Thank you. Hope the topic is not too broad.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by hitchy, posted 06-05-2006 11:20 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Jazzns, posted 06-06-2006 3:52 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 2:57 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-22-2006 9:15 PM anglagard has responded
 Message 43 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-23-2006 5:25 AM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Quetzal, posted 06-23-2006 10:24 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 312 (317422)
06-04-2006 12:13 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
hitchy
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 3 of 312 (318176)
06-05-2006 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
06-03-2006 11:41 PM


Welcome to the Dark Ages!
At the beginning of the so-called Dark Ages, the Church fathers decided that it was no one's job to seek knowledge anywhere outside of Church doctrine. Every "educated" person was supposed to only rely on what was already known through the Church. They surmised that every important idea and fact was already known through the Bible and Church teachings. So, there was no need to look any further for the truth than what they had already known. Europe languished in intellectual poverty while the rest of the world moved forward.

I remember reading the words of a Saracen (I think that is how you spell it) prisoner of the Crusaders discribing how a European treated a soldiers leg wound by cutting of the leg and shattering the bone as he cut. The wounded knight died, of course. The Saracen was horrified b/c all the knight needed was a certain type of poultice to be placed on the wound so that it would not become infected (he didn't say "infected" but I think that is what he meant)! When he said something to the European, the man simply said that if the knight was meant to live, God would have saved him!!!

Young Earth Creationists scream for equal time because it is democratic. YEC's say that evolution is leading our country into godlessness. I wonder if any YEC has really thought about what he or she is advocating. Essentially, they are calling for the end of modern life and a return to the Dark Ages!

YEC-only education and research would not just destroy science, it would destroy everything mankind has accomplished to this point in our history. Of course, we could just pray for everything to be OK, right!?!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 06-03-2006 11:41 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 11:25 PM hitchy has not yet responded
 Message 5 by rgb, posted 06-06-2006 1:38 AM hitchy has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4 of 312 (318178)
06-05-2006 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by hitchy
06-05-2006 11:20 PM


sorry, my mistake
deleted. Sorry. Realized I don't want to get into this discussion.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by hitchy, posted 06-05-2006 11:20 PM hitchy has not yet responded

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 312 (318191)
06-06-2006 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by hitchy
06-05-2006 11:20 PM


Re: Welcome to the Dark Ages!
In a way, the church did do a lot of good during the dark ages. While the classical civilizations were collapsing everywhere in Europe, the monks were the only ones that kept the records. The church was the only organization that preserved the engineering know-how at the time.

The problem came in when the church didn't want to make public what little knowledge they had left because they knew that knowledge was power.

For the common serfs, who made up the main bulk of the European population at the time, life was absolutely terrible. The hope for something better in the afterlife was probably the main attraction the church had to offer. For the lords and knights, faith was a way of keeping the peasants in line.

Ok, to the point. I think YECs don't fully appreciate just how harsh everyday life was for the common serfs and peasants during the dark ages. To the YECs, the one thing that was most desirable for them happened during the dark ages, total faith in religious doctrine. And I think what was even more attractive about the dark ages to the YECs was that the it lasted for so long. 800 long hard years of bliss, when science was declared plasphemy.

Nowadays, we actually need to go to school and learn what had already been invented and what had already been discovered. Things are no longer as simple as making up answers to satisfy people's curiosity (like the way certain adults make up bogus answers to answer their children's questions). We actually go out and investigate, experiment, share our findings with one another, and try to explain the events without having to resort to lazy thinking of goddunit.

200 years of scientific inquiry is a lot of knowledge to absorb, and I suspect very much that this is why YECs are so uncomfortable with science these days. They can no longer read a sentence to learn a particular subject. They actually have to go through years of schooling and hands-on experience to just scratch the surface of what's out there. Imagine how scary this all is to someone that has always been making up answers to appear "wise". Nowadays, people can actually call on their bullshit.

A return to the dark ages is exactly what YECs want simply because they'd be the wisemen. They'd be the ones that everyone else looks up to for all the answers. They'd be the ones that can order the next inquisition. And by golly, they'd be the ones to do something that previous inquisitors tried but failed to achieve: exterminate the cats!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by hitchy, posted 06-05-2006 11:20 PM hitchy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by hitchy, posted 06-06-2006 12:51 PM rgb has not yet responded

hitchy
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 6 of 312 (318327)
06-06-2006 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by rgb
06-06-2006 1:38 AM


Re: Welcome to the Dark Ages!
I agree with the "we're the wisemen now" assertion for the people who know better, were actually exposed to science and decided against the method in order to control others. However, I am more interested in the sheep that follow the shepards to the slaughterhouse.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by rgb, posted 06-06-2006 1:38 AM rgb has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2139 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 7 of 312 (318380)
06-06-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
06-03-2006 11:41 PM


You are forgetting someting a little more fundamental. Science itself as a concept would be destroyed. Anything that cannot defer to God as an explanation is therefore useless.

I mean, the rapture is going to be like any second now so what does it matter what the gravitational attraction between two objects is? School needs to be about the basics you need to live to make sure you can survive until Armageddon happens. Anything that you learn beyond that is extra and unnecessary especially if it does not include God.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 06-03-2006 11:41 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Jonson-Needs_proof, posted 06-22-2006 2:04 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Jonson-Needs_proof
Inactive Junior Member


Message 8 of 312 (324901)
06-22-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jazzns
06-06-2006 3:52 PM


Reading the first post here, looking at the extensive list of fields of knowledge that would have to change or dissapear in order for the YEC theory to even be considerable, it makes me wonder how can anyone begin to believe YEC.
I like what RGB has said here about knowledge is power (and i'm beginning to guess that something you said in the morality forum was a joke).
Religion has always been about power. Those who pass down the teachings claim they KNOW for sure that its true and those who listen are dumbfounded. Do they think that the teacher is some supreme chosen one with all the answers. Surely with an ounce of sence you'd see through it all.
But what about if thats what you've been told your whole life, maybe you'd believe it. And that is why YEC should be kept out of schools no question.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jazzns, posted 06-06-2006 3:52 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 312 (324941)
06-22-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
06-03-2006 11:41 PM


Some YEC answers off the top of my head
Geosciences:

Historical Geology - geologic eras and periods of Earth's history as commonly defined would require considerable contraction.

Certainly would. As presently constructed they are all false.

Sedimentary Geology - principles concerning sedimentary layering, deposition rates, uniformitarianism, and age of formations would all have to be revised.

Totally. Completely false as it stands.

Structural Geology - events concerning large scale deformation would have to be retimed and speeded up.

Absolutely. Times are WAY too slow. No need for them to be so slow.

Paleontology - ages of fossils would require recalibration, current evolutionary relationships would be nonexistant.

That is for sure.

Tectonics - would require continents to move at extraordinary speed, then slow to historically observed rates.

That is so. Current notions need a lot of rethinking.

Volcanism - no volcanoes prior to 6000 yrs ago would indicate massive simultaneous eruptions.

Yes. Underwater volcanoes first. The most likely origin of volcanoes was the breaching of the ocean floor as part of the great Flood.

Paleomagnetism - would require massive revision of observed change in polarity of Earth to fit 6,000 year timeline.

Could be.

Dendritics - tree rings would have to be recounted and model of annual growth changed to fit in with young Earth, also applies to varves and ice cores.

Certainly.

Geochemistry - role of isotopes in geologic dating would require massive change in model.

Yes. There can be no verification that the rate of decay holds up before the Flood.

Hydrology - ages of water in confined subsurface aquifers would require revision to fit 6K Earth.

Yes. They are certainly left from the Flood.

Models concerning hydraulic conductivity and recharge rates would require significant revision.

I wouldn't know.

Geophysics - various models of formation and age of Earth would require massive revision. Even heat dispersion as outlined by Kelvin would need revision to fit YEC.

Not sure if this is so.

Minerology - only area of geology unaffected by YEC (so far as I know at moment)

And the effects mentioned above do not affect the daily work of any of those sciences either. It's all superimposed theory, nothing that affects practical science.

Physics:

Nuclear - models of decay would require massive revision due to age of half-lives (see geochemistry).

Rates of decay can't be assumed past a certain age range. Problem of uniformitarian presupposition.

Cosmology - entire universe would have to be contracted to 6,000 year radius to fit in with Genesis account of creation and observed speed of light. Hypothesis of stellar formation, distances, evolution, would be revised. Galaxies must all fit in with young age. Background radiation from singularity event would have to be reexplained.

Possibly. I don't know. Could be that science can just go on hypothesizing in this realm as it does, since there is no way to do anything different. Just have the humility to suppose it could all be wrong. Pray a lot.

Particle - Proton decay models out.

I wouldn't know.

Atmospheric - climate models including ice core data would require revision.

Yes. Needs rethinking.

Chemistry:

Isotope decay models would be massively revised. see geochemistry

I think this is the third time this same thing has come up. So see above comments.

Biosciences

Central model of evolution would have to be discarded. Results would be too many for me to list, will defer to experts.

Absolutely, evolution has to go.

{this is really outside of my area, please contribute as see fit}

Anthropology

Physical - since human evolution would be out, whole field gone.

And good riddance.

Cultural - see linguistics.

It's all a bunch of wild conjecture anyway.

Archeology - all models and interpretations concerning digs older than 6,000 years would require revision.

Absolutely. Obviously wrong time frame.

Linguistics

Models of language development, dispersal, and evolution would require revision to fit in with Tower of Babel.

Yes. There is only the most artificial reason, based purely on evo assumptions, to construct any other notion of language.

Also history that goes too far back would require rewriting. Accounts of early history of Chinese, Indus Valley, Mesoamerica, Sumeria, Egypt, etc. would require rewriting. Oral history of Australian Aborigonies going back 40-50,000 years would have to be discarded.

You betcha.

I'm sure I left out a lot, so should this topic be promoted, would like to hear about other areas for purposes of learning. Also, I would like to hear from the YECs to explain how such an orientation would have little or no effect on these subjects.

I don't see that these changes are that enormous. The mountains of data are not affected, only the interpretive scheme.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : added title, corrected quote box inclusion.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 06-03-2006 11:41 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Heathen, posted 06-22-2006 6:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 35 by fallacycop, posted 06-23-2006 3:00 AM Faith has responded

  
Heathen
Member
Posts: 1058
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 10 of 312 (324993)
06-22-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
06-22-2006 2:57 PM


Re: Some YEC answers off the top of my head
Faith,
can I ask you something that Iano has declined to answer?

You believe.. or 'know' that scientists for the last couple of hundred years (and maybe longer) have got it wrong with respect to the subjects listed in the OP. This is because of their (our) Fallen nature, and resulting inability to see what is truth. have I got that right?

What, then, make you so sure that your ability to discern the truth (ie your interpretation of the bible) is not also fallible?

Could it be that your fallen nature has clouded your judgement with regard to a Y.E. scenario? Could it be that God has equiped us with scientific minds, intelligent enough to investigate, and experiment, and enquire and challenge so that we may overcome the disability with which God has burdened us as a result of Adam's actions all those years ago?

Edited by Creavolution, : Typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 2:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 7:19 PM Heathen has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 312 (325006)
06-22-2006 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Heathen
06-22-2006 6:15 PM


Re: Some YEC answers off the top of my head
can I ask you something that Iano has declined to answer?
You believe.. or 'know' that scientists for the last couple of hundred years (and maybe longer) have got it wrong with respect to the subjects listed in the OP.

Only with respect to the EVOLUTIONIST ASPECTS OF THOSE subjects, which are delineated in the OP. I still say that doesn't appreciably affect workaday science.

Scientific method does work, in a way that keeps fallen intellect honest too, but it isn't even applied to evolutionism. It can't be. There are no definitive tests or verifications possible, it's mostly speculation, often sheer fantasy, and I know everybody thinks I'm nuts for saying that but it's true. I've said all I know how to say on that subject.

This is because of their (our) Fallen nature, and resulting inability to see what is truth. have I got that right?

Well, I suppose so, but I think fallen nature COULD get it righter except for the stubbornness and arrogance that dismisses the Bible as a mere ancient myth written by pre-scientific humans. And also because of the imperviousness of evolution theory itself to scientific method or indeed any rational means of investigation.

What, then, make you so sure that your ability to discern the truth (ie your interpretation of the bible) is not also fallible?

Because I don't trust in myself, I trust in the collected wisdom of the church over the millennia and I know I'm in accord with a majority of traditionalist interpreters from a variety of denominations. I've read a lot for a non-seminarian. I also don't expect to be totally right, just mostly right. And I trust in God. I know when I'm led by the Holy Spirit. That part is too subjective for you I'm sure, but I pray for guidance on many of my postings here and I often surprise myself with my own understanding. That's got to be because it's from God, not from me.

Could it be that your fallen nature has clouded your judgement with regard to a Y.E. scenario?

The YEC scenario is based strictly on Genesis. Genesis is regarded as history by conservative traditional Bible interpreters, and it reads like history to my reading. I see no cause in the text itself to read it any other way. It's not that theoretically I couldn't be misreading it somehow, it's that I have considered and reconsidered it and I do not see that I am misreading it, and I'm in accord with conservative Bible scholars. It reads quite straightforwardly it seems to me. Those who inject billions of years into it seem to me to be forcing it to fit their own preconceptions. I see no room there for billions of years. Those who turn it into a parable have not a shred of justification that I can see. They are certainly imposing it on the text from some preconceived belief they acquired elsewhere. Beyond that I've read Bible interpretations here at evc that just hit me as whimsically bizarre and totally irrationl. I believe what I believe because I'm convinced it's true and based on good reason too.

Could it be that God has equiped us with scientific minds, intelligent enough to investigate, and experiment, and enquire and challenge so that we may overcome the disability with which God has burdened us as a result of Adam's actions all those years ago?

Not according to the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Heathen, posted 06-22-2006 6:15 PM Heathen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 06-22-2006 7:34 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Heathen, posted 06-23-2006 11:50 AM Faith has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 312 (325007)
06-22-2006 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
06-22-2006 7:19 PM


"Workaday science"
Only with respect to the EVOLUTIONIST ASPECTS OF THOSE subjects, which are delineated in the OP. I still say that doesn't appreciably affect workaday science.

Please detail the experience you have in "workaday science" in each of the fields described that is the basis for your opinion.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 7:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by iano, posted 06-22-2006 7:36 PM subbie has responded

iano
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 13 of 312 (325008)
06-22-2006 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
06-22-2006 7:34 PM


Re: "Workaday science"
This is a social and religious issues forum Subbie. The level of evidence you require seems somewhat outlandish.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 06-22-2006 7:34 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 06-22-2006 7:44 PM iano has not yet responded

subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 14 of 312 (325012)
06-22-2006 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by iano
06-22-2006 7:36 PM


Re: "Workaday science"
Faith made a statement about how science is done on the workaday level. I'm simply inquiring what her experience is to support that opinion. If you think it's "outlandish" for me not to accept every opinion that anyone expresses without wondering whether they have a basis for that opinion, I guess I can live with you thinking me outlandish.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by iano, posted 06-22-2006 7:36 PM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 7:49 PM subbie has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 7:50 PM subbie has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 15 of 312 (325015)
06-22-2006 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by subbie
06-22-2006 7:44 PM


Re: "Workaday science"
My opinion is based on reading, much of it at evc.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 06-22-2006 7:44 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019