Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 312 (325131)
06-23-2006 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by subbie
06-22-2006 9:20 PM


Re: "Workaday science"
You demonstrate a deeply flawed understanding of science of you truly believe that it wouldn't make any difference.
I don't mean to say that it wouldn't make ANY difference, just that it wouldn't bring science to a grinding halt. Facts are facts, data is data. Daily work on that level would continue it seems to me.
If it is more of a big deal than that, then, please, you explain how it is. This thread isn't going to go anywhere interrogating me. I gave my YEC point of view, largely agreeing with the OP presentation. I don't argue science. That's not my angle on this. There's no point in haranguing me on that level.
So if my understanding is so deeply flawed, kindly specifically describe just how the everyday work done by scientists would change.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 06-22-2006 9:20 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by subbie, posted 06-23-2006 2:10 AM Faith has replied
 Message 109 by nator, posted 06-23-2006 7:07 PM Faith has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 32 of 312 (325136)
06-23-2006 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
06-23-2006 1:52 AM


Re: "Workaday science"
Well, I pretty much did in my previous post, but I'll give it another go.
Every scientific discipline has certain basics that have been established over the years. These basics form the foundation of all work that is being done in the various disciplines. To take an example from the OP, one of the foundations of nuclear physics is our understanding and theories about how atoms decay. Virtually everything we think we know about the atom would need to be tossed out if we abandon our understanding of atomic decay.
This is just one example. A similar consequence will follow in every field that anglagard mentioned, as well as many, many others. In fact, we would need to start from scratch in just about everything.
Gathering data, making observations, building theories, all these things require that certain facts and theories be accepted by those doing the observing, etc. Those facts and theories are accepted because they have been well-established by scientific standards. What's more, they work. To simply discard them without replacing them with something that does a better job than they do is insane.

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 31 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 1:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 11:21 AM subbie has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 33 of 312 (325140)
06-23-2006 2:25 AM


suggestion
faith feels piled on here, and subbie seems to be doing a very good job of arguing the point. i suggest that other members lay off for a while, and let these two duke it out for a while. treat it kind of like an informal great debate, take a seat and grab the popcorn. or peanuts, as the case may be.


Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 2:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 312 (325146)
06-23-2006 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by arachnophilia
06-23-2006 2:25 AM


Re: suggestion
I don't want to duke it out with anyone. I simply don't want to be interrogated. I'd like to see the scientists give their descriptions about how science would be affected by the YEC assumptions. And in particular by the shortened time factor of Earth. Subbie gave a rough description. I don't have any interest in duking anything out with him. He gave a good example. I think I'll leave it at that. The shortened time factor shouldn't have so many consequences.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by arachnophilia, posted 06-23-2006 2:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 06-23-2006 3:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 06-23-2006 10:58 AM Faith has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 35 of 312 (325147)
06-23-2006 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
06-22-2006 2:57 PM


Re: Some YEC answers off the top of my head
Faith writes:
The mountains of data are not affected, only the interpretive scheme.
Yes the whole interpretative scheme called science would have to be trashed. because the YEC sages tell us to do so.
I don't see that these changes are that enormous.
You got to be kidding. the whole thing would have to go and you say you don't think the change would be big?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 3:14 AM fallacycop has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 36 of 312 (325150)
06-23-2006 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
06-23-2006 2:57 AM


Re: suggestion
I don't want to duke it out with anyone.
one on one is too few? but one to four is too many? what'll make you happy, faith?
He gave a good example. I think I'll leave it at that. The shortened time factor shouldn't have so many consequences.
he just described the breakdown of nuclear physics, and mentioned that similar problems are present in all areas of science. that's an inductive argument, using and example of how science works. things are built one on top of the other, much like in math. if a lower level if removed, everything above it comes toppling down.
you agreed, at the beginning of the tread, just how many different areas would be similarly affected by the requirement that science be made to fit yec assumptions. do you now disagree that it would have that many consequences?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 2:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 3:16 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 312 (325153)
06-23-2006 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by fallacycop
06-23-2006 3:00 AM


Re: Some YEC answers off the top of my head
Please tell us exactly how you believe the change would affect science, or a particular science.
{Edit: I mean the daily work of the scientist, the dealing with data and facts. How does not assuming the evolutionary time table affect that?)
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by fallacycop, posted 06-23-2006 3:00 AM fallacycop has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 38 of 312 (325155)
06-23-2006 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by arachnophilia
06-23-2006 3:09 AM


Re: suggestion
He said how a different understanding of how atoms decay would affect physics. If he wants to elaborate further, fine.
I'd like to hear how the shortened time factor would affect science myself.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 06-23-2006 3:09 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2006 3:46 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 312 (325164)
06-23-2006 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
06-23-2006 3:16 AM


Radioactive Decay
YEC ideas about radioactive decay would require rewriting fundamental physics.
The two main scientific problems are:
1) There's NO known method of significantly accelerating radioactive decay under the conditions that would apply.
2) ALL the relevant radioactive decay modes would have to change proportionally to account for the data. Even fiddling with fundamental constants wouldn't be likely to do it (if it's even possible, such a change would have to be "fine tuned")
In terms of everyday science, scientists simply wouldn't go for this. The idea would - quite rightly - be generally ignored. Throwing out a working theory in favour of speculative ideas which only create problems isn't done and shouldn't be done.
So what you seem to be actually asking for is some sort of "Theology Police" to force scientists to stick to YEC-approved hypothesis, to suppress evidence that causes problems for YEC and to generally force scientists to toe the theological line.
And that really would be a major change. One of the strengths of science is that it is not forced to hold to one sectarian line. Scientists can and do disagree, but the scientific method provides a far better way of resolving such disputes.
YEC had it's chance and lost on the scientific merits of its case. The only way to change that is to fundamentally change how science is done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 3:16 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 5:01 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 312 (325167)
06-23-2006 3:55 AM


I would like to hear how the shortened time frame to 6000 years would affect the everyday work of the earth scientists, the geologists, the biologists. Exactly what would have to change in the work they actually do every day.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 10:33 AM Faith has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 41 of 312 (325181)
06-23-2006 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by PaulK
06-23-2006 3:46 AM


Re: Radioactive Decay
How do you believe that the radioactive elements were formed.
Big bang ? If so then the radioactive elements great suggestive ages has no bearing to when the earth was formed from said elements.
This thought was on another website evolutionists putting the cart ahead of the horse.
Physics simply supports the YEC's because it puts the horse in front of the cart.
If you don't believe the elements formed in the big bang then pray tell how you put the horse in front of the cart.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2006 3:46 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2006 5:15 AM johnfolton has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 42 of 312 (325184)
06-23-2006 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by johnfolton
06-23-2006 5:01 AM


Re: Radioactive Decay
Some points for you to consider.
1) Heavy elements are mainly formed by supernovae. Some are formed by radioactive decay of still heavier elements.
2) Radioactive dating methods do not measure the age of the elements. They typically measure the time that those elements have been locked in place in the rocks they have been found in. (If the rock gets hot enough it can reset the "clock").
3) Even if the dates measured the age of the universe they would still disprove the typical YEC position which holds that the universe is no more than ~10,000 years old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by johnfolton, posted 06-23-2006 5:01 AM johnfolton has not replied

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 43 of 312 (325187)
06-23-2006 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
06-03-2006 11:41 PM


Deep sea corals
While much attention is paid to coral reefs, which are very datable ancient forms, little is said about deep sea corals. Amazingly enough, non-reef forming corals are found world wide. I worked in 2004 on a study in Hawaii on deep sea corals. Part of that project was aging deep sea corals where they found living coral colonies (these are single branching 'sea fans', not reefs) over 7,000 years old. These are dated using C-14 and growth rings as two separate methods. Even assuming we found the oldest known black coral in existence (which is unlikely) this puts this individual older than Noah's flood and creation. The reason Noah's flood is important is that the Hawaiin Islands are volcanic, and Faith has stated that volcanism started after that point. One more point against YEC

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

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 44 of 312 (325253)
06-23-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
06-03-2006 11:41 PM


Ecology and Evolution
I’d like to tackle this thread from the angle Adminnwr suggested. Rather than challenging Faith directly on her absurd assertions, I intend to briefly explore how elimination of evolutionary theory would either utterly wreck my science (ecology/conservation biology geared towards protected area management), or reduce it to mere “bug collecting” with little or no practical value.
What I do has been characterized by some as applied science - a definition I find useful for this particular question, so I’ll go with it. Unless Faith or someone else comes up with a better definition of what she terms “workaday science”, I submit that that is precisely what I do. I use the observations and theories of other scientists to address and attempt to solve real world problems on a daily basis. So if the YEC elimination of evolutionary theory has an effect (as Faith asserts it wouldn’t), then it should be manifest in my work. I will use one single example as illustrative of the dangers of allowing the YEC worldview to emasculate science.
One of the most critical problems facing protected area management today is bioinvasion - the introduction of invasive or exotic species into an ecosystem. In fact, bioinvasion has now taken position as the number two reason globally for local population and conceivably species extinction, right after anthropogenic habitat destruction. It has beaten out pollution and over-exploitation for sheer destructiveness. Beyond conservation issues, invasives also have had a significant effect on the agriculture and ranching industries upon which we humans depend. For those who are unfamiliar with the problem, WorldWatch Institute defines bioinvasion as:
quote:
In an increasingly globalized world, plants, animals, and microbes are introduced more and more frequently into regions that had never hosted them. These "invasive" or "exotic" species can be a destabilizing influence in ecosystems that lack the natural enemies needed to check the spread of exotics. Without such checks, exotics can overrun ecosystems, leaving an impoverished and less resilient environment that is more vulnerable to stresses.
Literally millions of dollars are spent annually around the world on attempts to control, reduce, or mitigate the effects of exotics accidentally or deliberately introduced into a region where they are not native. Indeed, during a recent working visit to the Galapagos, I personally witnessed extreme measures being undertaken in the Galapagos National Park on Isabella in an attempt to eliminate feral goats - in this context highly destructive invasives - from the island using helicopters, snipers, sophisticated satellite tracking, etc.
So what does this have to do with evolution? Generally speaking, I can point to three aspects of this problem that, in the absence of evolutionary theory, are intractable: causation, control, and rehabilitation/mitigation.
a. Causation. Although the science of ecology has made great strides in understanding the issue, one salient fact continues to present a very thorny problem: we simply don’t (yet?) know what factors cause an exotic (defined as simply a non-native species) to become invasive. Post facto analysis of individual invasives can in many cases explain the factors that led to that particular organism (plant, animal or microbe) being successful, but in almost every case the factors are different. There is as yet no global, general, theoretical formula that can be used to predict, in advance, whether a given organism will become invasive in a given ecosystem. Many exotics simply fail, many others simply establish a small, discreet population in a corner and never become invasive. Others establish a population - which may persist for years at a very low level - and then for some reason turn into Godzilla literally overnight, rapidly overrunning and destroying the ecosystem it has invaded. In fact, some exotic populations may be utterly benign in one ecosystem, but become ravening monsters in another, very similar ecosystem in another location. In the absence of an identifiable pattern or thread that binds these cases together in the present, research into the issue has fallen back on the evolutionary history of the organisms themselves and how ecosystems evolve over time. Evolutionary concepts such as ecological release, turnover, founder effect, etc - much of them derived from historical (evolutionary) biogeography - have provided much of the framework for research into the causes. This research has proven very promising and fruitful - although not yet solving the problem. In the absence of evolutionary explanations, ecology would be reduced to studying the present natural history of individual invasives (which has been done, and is on-going): an approach that has utterly failed to produce the results needed to understand the global problem.
b. Control. One of the major problems that we face in controlling the spread of invasive species is in understanding the nature of the threat posed by a given exotic in a given ecosystem. Beyond the properties of the invasive itself (which is “merely” natural history - questions that can be answered in the present tense), it is necessary to understand how communities and ecosystems are formed and evolve over time. One of the more useful approaches to the theoretical underpinnings of this question (now subsumed under the discipline of macroecology), is derived from paleoecology and evolutionary biogeography. Studying the broad-scale environmental changes evidenced in the fossil record (paleoecology), and those examples of ecological turnover or community change we can trace in the fossil and sub-fossil record (evolutionary biogeography), has given us tremendous insight into the long-term patterns of ecosystem change. Understanding the long-term trends as a framework has allowed us to make predictions about short-term trends and effects. This in turn has helped us develop tentative hypotheses that allow us to make decisions such as whether or not to introduce another exotic into an ecosystem to control an existing exotic.
c. Mitigation/rehabilitation. As with control, rebuilding a shattered ecosystem destroyed by bioinvasion requires reliance on historical (evolutionary) and macroecological concepts. One of the aspects of one of my current projects is remediation and re-introduction of species into a habitat where they have been eliminated (by anthropogenic effects, not bioinvasion). Before even contemplating such a project, it is necessary to understand the evolution of populations, community relationships, and the ecosystem as a whole. Evolutionary theory provides the needed framework for undertaking such remediation. Without it, I would be operating blind: unable to tell except by trial and error the secondary and tertiary effects of a reintroduction. I wouldn’t even be able to determine which species to introduce in what order.
In short, this one single aspect of my work would be impossible without the framework provided by evolutionary theory. A similar case could be made for many other aspects of what I do on a daily basis. I have realtime problems that need to be addressed. Without evolution, I couldn’t even rationally formulate the questions.
If anyone would like specific examples of bioinvasion and its effects on human agriculture, epizootic disease effects on human health, or other aspects of this issue, let me know. For others interested in a non-technical discussion of bioinvasion, I can’t recommend more highly Chris Bright’s popsci book, Life Out of Bounds: Bioinvasion in a Borderless World. It is highly readable, and accessible to complete laymen.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 11:47 AM Quetzal has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 45 of 312 (325259)
06-23-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
06-23-2006 3:55 AM


I would like to hear how the shortened time frame to 6000 years would affect the everyday work of the earth scientists, the geologists, the biologists. Exactly what would have to change in the work they actually do every day.
I will give you one answer. I am darn glad the people who plan how to handle radioactive waste are following an old earth geological understanding of time rather than a YEC time frame. Because if they were to calibrate the radioactive decay clocks to YEC time, they would be off by many years on how long it is going to take for radioactive isotopes to decay to a stable (and safe) form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 3:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 11:03 AM deerbreh has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024