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.
™ Version 4.2
