Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 46 of 312 (325278)
06-23-2006 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
06-23-2006 2:57 AM


Re: suggestion
I'd like to see the scientists give their descriptions about how science would be affected by the YEC assumptions.
Here is an example.
The conservation of energy is a central principle of physics. It is used everyday by scientists, when doing basic scientific computations. It is involved in the operations of your air conditioner and your automobile.
The YEC scenario of rapid movement of continents after the flood, is incompatible with the principle of conservation of energy. For, if conservation held at that time, the amount of energy released by such rapid tectonic activity would have destroyed life on earth with no need for a flood. And Noah would not have been left around to report on it.

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 48 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 11:08 AM nwr has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 312 (325280)
06-23-2006 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by deerbreh
06-23-2006 10:33 AM


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.
If you're going to talk to me about radioactive decay you're going to have to explain what you're talking about. Just asserting that this would be the case means nothing to me. There isn't any "YEC time" that I know of. The idea is that there could have been conditions on Earth in the past that would change the currently assumed rate of decay, so that you can't assume a steady rate over thousands, let alone millions of years. That doesn't change the basic rate of decay under current conditions.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 10:33 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 11:53 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 48 of 312 (325288)
06-23-2006 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by nwr
06-23-2006 10:58 AM


Could we focus on WORKADAY science?
The YEC scenario of rapid movement of continents after the flood, is incompatible with the principle of conservation of energy.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was really hoping to get away from the usual speculative notions about what would supposedly have happened in the past. That's standard anti-creationist debate.
What I'd really like to know is how the YEC assumptions would affect DAILY SCIENTIFIC WORK, the stuff scientists go to the "office" to do every day, or the lab or the field or whatever.
================================
{Edit for more specificity:
The conservation of energy is a central principle of physics. It is used everyday by scientists, when doing basic scientific computations. It is involved in the operations of your air conditioner and your automobile.
YECs do not challenge any basic principles of science such as the conservation of energy.
The YEC scenario of rapid movement of continents after the flood, is incompatible with the principle of conservation of energy. For, if conservation held at that time, the amount of energy released by such rapid tectonic activity would have destroyed life on earth with no need for a flood. And Noah would not have been left around to report on it.
There is no way to know for sure what conditions prevailed at the time so all this is wild speculation. This is not the same thing as YECs supposedly challenging a fundamental law of science. This is your own speculations doing the challenging.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 06-23-2006 10:58 AM nwr has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 49 of 312 (325293)
06-23-2006 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by subbie
06-23-2006 2:10 AM


Re: "Workaday science"
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.
After a night's sleep I can follow this better than I did last night. As I just posted to somebody, I don't see why anything has to be tossed. All YEC says that I'm aware of is that you can't assume that conditions have always been the same on this planet so that the rate of decay has always been the same. It's a matter of considering the possibility of different conditions in the past, not altering fundamental knowledge about the atom.
Also, you are writing theoretically, not answering the request to describe how daily practical scientific work would change. Maybe that's not particularly relevant for this topic, I don't know, but my contention wasn't that science wouldn't be changed in various ways, but that the everyday work of science shouldn't change much, the idea being that everyday lab work or field work is not particularly dependent on the overarching theory of evolution -- or the related Old Earth theory.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by subbie, posted 06-23-2006 2:10 AM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2006 11:26 AM Faith has replied
 Message 57 by jar, posted 06-23-2006 12:00 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 06-23-2006 12:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 118 by Jazzns, posted 06-24-2006 1:08 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 50 of 312 (325294)
06-23-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
06-23-2006 11:21 AM


Re: "Workaday science"
quote:
All YEC says that I'm aware of is that you can't assume that conditions have always been the same on this planet so that the rate of decay has always been the same
As I posted earlier there are no plausible conditions which would allow that. The best that AiG could find only affects some decays and requires that the substance be converted to plasma.
So if that's what YEC says, then YEC is wrong. If the acceleration of radioactive decay hypothesised by YECs actually happened then our understanding of radioactive decay - which says that it can't happen - is badly wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 11:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 11:34 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 51 of 312 (325299)
06-23-2006 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Discreet Label
06-22-2006 8:40 PM


Re: a specific example
Actually and I am particulary curious what you consider workaday science. I feel that your statement of collecting, observing and testing data does not adequately address science.
It is a question to the scientists. You are to describe how workaday science would be affected by the loss of evolution and old earth theory. I have not claimed any knowledge or experience, just an impression that facts and data, the stuff of daily work, shouldn't depend on this theory. That's ALL that's under discussion. Practical science has never been a problem for YECs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Discreet Label, posted 06-22-2006 8:40 PM Discreet Label has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 52 of 312 (325300)
06-23-2006 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
06-23-2006 11:26 AM


Re: "Workaday science"
I'm not interested in your theories, I'm interested in practical daily science as scientists engage in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2006 11:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2006 11:47 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 110 by nator, posted 06-23-2006 7:17 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 53 of 312 (325305)
06-23-2006 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
06-23-2006 11:34 AM


Re: "Workaday science"
It's interesting how you suddenly declare that you aren't interested in talking about points that you brought up as soon as the problems are pointed out.
But are you seriously saying that having to rewrite our whole understanding of the fundamental physics behind radioactive decay wouldn't have a serious impact on those scientists working in that field ? Indeed if your proposal were correct don't you think that the nuclear industry - and workers in every field working with radioactive substances - ought to be very concerned about it ?
And why aren't you answering Quetzal's long post Message 44 on how evolution helps his work ? Isn't that exactly the sort of thing you are asking for ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 11:34 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 54 of 312 (325306)
06-23-2006 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Quetzal
06-23-2006 10:24 AM


Re: Ecology and Evolution
Thank you for that very long detailed description of your work. Very interesting.
Just as I suspected there is absolutely nothing in it dependent upon evolutionary theory. At least a. and c. concern normal genetics or population genetics, which are associated in people's minds with evolution but without justification. There is nothing more here than the usual "micro" evolution that YECs have no problem with. We are well aware that there is enormous variability possible within species.
I don't really follow the use of fossils that you describe in b., however, and wonder if you could explain that better so that I can see what if anything it has to do with evolution. Thanks.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Quetzal, posted 06-23-2006 10:24 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Quetzal, posted 06-23-2006 12:22 PM Faith has replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 55 of 312 (325312)
06-23-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
06-22-2006 7:19 PM


Re: Some YEC answers off the top of my head
I'm concious of this not becomeing a pile-on.. but just wanted to respond.
faith writes:
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
with all due respect, I think this point is being diproved as people post more.. for example Subbies post on radioactive dating.
faith writes:
There are no definitive tests or verifications possible, it's mostly speculation,
Yet every new find seems to back up the theory. How can this be?
faith writes:
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
You trust in the collected fallen wisdom of HUMANS... fallible humans. who are subject to the inability to think straight that the fall brought about. I see no reason why you should trust in these ancient people over and above Scientists who work hard to investigate, challenge, debunk, and verify their own and each other theories.
faith writes:
It's not that theoretically I couldn't be misreading it somehow
I glad you accept this as apossibility at least.
faith writes:
it's that I have considered and reconsidered it and I do not see that I am misreading it
yet you seem to believe that the scientific community are either too stupid or to 'arrogant' to do the same. The entire scientific community meaning all particle physicists, all geologists, all paleantologists. etc. I see no justification for this
faith writes:
It reads quite straightforwardly it seems to me.
as do most books I'm sure. But not all books are history or fact. Why is it you consider the bible to be fact? why is it you consider it to be the word of God above all others?
faith writes:
Those who inject billions of years into it seem to me to be forcing it to fit their own preconceptions.
The opposite is true... rather than someone deciding the world is billions of years old and making things fit... they observed the evidence all around them, and concluded that the world was old. since then, all new evidence found, all things learned concurr.
faith writes:
Those who turn it into a parable have not a shred of justification that I can see.
Where is the justification to suggest it is anything more than a parable? why is it any more 'true' than the latest airport novel? or any other ancient text?
faith writes:
I believe what I believe because I'm convinced it's true and based on good reason too.
I would love to know this reason. I have not yet come across 'good' reason to suggest the bible is complete truth and historical fact.
faith writes:
Not according to the Bible.
is that your good reason? the bible is true because the bible says so? It amazes me that you cannot see the flaw here..
You are a fallen human, yet YOU judge that what was written by other FALLEN HUMANS, (who are by your own definition of fallen, untrustworthy and misguided), thousands of years ago, to be the absolute truth. It seems to me that if genesis is to be believed, no uman could ever trust their own judgement. Even if God speaks to you.. how do you know it is God? you are fallen, your judgement is flawed, it might very well be the devil fooling you.
I'm aware that this discussion is fruitless, but I find it facinating to try to see where YECers are coming from, how they can possibly be comfortable with what they believe when 'creation' screams and old earth scenario. And the biblical definition of the fall requires that humans do not even try to discern what is going on cos we will never understand.(that is inclusive of understanding the bible in my view)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 7:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 1:14 PM Heathen has replied

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


Message 56 of 312 (325314)
06-23-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
06-23-2006 11:03 AM


There isn't any "YEC time" that I know of.
6000 to 10,000 years for the age of the earth.
The idea is that there could have been conditions on Earth in the past that would change the currently assumed rate of decay, so that you can't assume a steady rate over thousands, let alone millions of years.
No. The whole thing falls apart if we postulate radical changes in decay rates within the past 6 - 10,000 years.(which the YEC hypothesis does). That is not even a blink in geological time. It would mean the decay rate we measured last year is no longer accurate. So we really wouldn't have anything to go on. Besides, decay rates impact a lot more than just how long the waste has to be stored. It also tells under what kind of conditions we have to store the waste. Furthermore past conditions on Earth, however different, are not going to radically change radioactive decay rates, as decay rates are determined at the elemental isotope (atomic) level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 11:03 AM Faith has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 57 of 312 (325317)
06-23-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
06-23-2006 11:21 AM


Re: "Workaday science"
All YEC says that I'm aware of is that you can't assume that conditions have always been the same on this planet so that the rate of decay has always been the same. It's a matter of considering the possibility of different conditions in the past, not altering fundamental knowledge about the atom.
Okay, to answer some of the questions we do need some information from you, can you tell us (within some reasonable bounds) when creation happened, when the alleged Fall happened, when the supposed Flood happened.
For example:
  • creation 6000 years ago ± 100 years?
  • fall 5990 6010 years ago ± 1 year?
  • flood 4000 years ago ± 10 years?
Edited by jar, : fix error in dates

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 11:21 AM Faith has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 58 of 312 (325323)
06-23-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
06-23-2006 11:21 AM


Re: "Workaday science"
All YEC says that I'm aware of is that you can't assume that conditions have always been the same on this planet so that the rate of decay has always been the same.
Scientists do not assume that conditions have always been the same on this planet. In fact they report conditions that were quite different in the past.
What scientist do assume, is that the relation between conditions and evidence is about the same. For example, they assume that the ways we measure length today would have worked just as well in the past. If that assumption were wildly wrong, then life as we know it could not have existed - that's an implication of the fine tuning argument.
If you want to assume that radioactive decay occured much faster in the past, then it would have had to release far more energy. That's where the principle of conservation of energy is relevant. A faster radioactive decay would have resulted in higher radiation levels, probably high enough that life as we know it could not have existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 11:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 1:06 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 59 of 312 (325330)
06-23-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Faith
06-23-2006 11:47 AM


Re: Ecology and Evolution
Nice hand wave. You're kidding, right? Did you in fact read the post? Here, try again:
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.
In other words, without evolution, we're stuck with dealing with invasives in isolation, on a case by case basis, with absolutely no framework to understand the potential threats. Without the theoretical underpinnings provided by, say, Whittaker's seminal Island Biogeography (because even though I'm dealing with a 1200 ha terrestrial forest, it IS fragmented - exactly like an island), a book based completely on evolutionary theory, I can't even formulate the questions, let alone figure out the answers.
Here's an example: Is it safe to ignore that patch of Agave americana and focus on a larger population of something else? Or does the Agave present the greater long-term threat? Only by looking at the evolutionary history of the plant in its native habitat - how it adapts, how it propagates, how frequently it has been invasive in other similar areas, how broad a home range does it have, how has it expanded or contracted in the past, etc, can I even begin to answer the question. I don't "use" evolution on a daily basis. Rather, the work I do rests 100% on a foundation built by other scientists over time that does depend on evolution. It isn't just so-called microevolution or population genetics. Biogeography - a key element in fragmented landscape ecology - wouldn't even exist without the long-term framework of "macroevolution". Without biogeography, I have nothing to work off of.
I don't really follow the use of fossils that you describe in b., however, and wonder if you could explain that better so that I can see what if anything it has to do with evolution. Thanks.
Not even going to bother, Faith. If you can hand-wave away part a, there's no point in expending bandwidth on the other. Ask yourself this question, however: how do fossils relate to biogeography? Answer that, and you have the answer to your question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 11:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 12:42 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 67 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 1:28 PM Quetzal has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 60 of 312 (325338)
06-23-2006 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Quetzal
06-23-2006 12:22 PM


Re: Ecology and Evolution
Nice hand wave. You're kidding, right? Did you in fact read the post?
I did read it. I copied it out to read it.
Here, try again:
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.
In other words, without evolution, we're stuck with dealing with invasives in isolation, on a case by case basis, with absolutely no framework to understand the potential threats.
What is in your quote is just microevolution as far as I can see. Nobody's asking you to give that up.
Without the theoretical underpinnings provided by, say, Whittaker's seminal Island Biogeography (because even though I'm dealing with a 1200 ha terrestrial forest, it IS fragmented - exactly like an island), a book based completely on evolutionary theory, I can't even formulate the questions, let alone figure out the answers.
A lot of facts that YECs have absolutely no problem with are subsumed under evolution with no justification. One reads up on population genetics,say, and all the terminology of evolution is there, but there is nothing in the actual facts that implies evolution beyond microevolution. You are calling this Whittaker work evolutionary theory, but so far I have not seen that anything you actually have to deal with calls on anything but observable population genetics which YECs have no problem with.
Here's an example: Is it safe to ignore that patch of Agave americana and focus on a larger population of something else? Or does the Agave present the greater long-term threat? Only by looking at the evolutionary history of the plant in its native habitat - how it adapts, how it propagates, how frequently it has been invasive in other similar areas, how broad a home range does it have, how has it expanded or contracted in the past, etc, can I even begin to answer the question.
All those considerations are not evolutionary theory. Microevolution is involved, population genetics etc etc. Nothing to do with macroevolution that I can see. {Edit: Again, many things are CALLED evolutionary theory that aren't, many facts subsumed under that label that have nothing to do with it. The actual work of science does not depend on evolutionary theory.}
I don't "use" evolution on a daily basis. Rather, the work I do rests 100% on a foundation built by other scientists over time that does depend on evolution. It isn't just so-called microevolution or population genetics. Biogeography - a key element in fragmented landscape ecology - wouldn't even exist without the long-term framework of "macroevolution". Without biogeography, I have nothing to work off of.
All you are doing is asserting that. So far you have not shown me that there is anything about "biogeography" that a YEC would not accept as microevolution or other things not even related to evolution at all.
I don't really follow the use of fossils that you describe in b., however, and wonder if you could explain that better so that I can see what if anything it has to do with evolution. Thanks.
Not even going to bother, Faith. If you can hand-wave away part a, there's no point in expending bandwidth on the other. Ask yourself this question, however: how do fossils relate to biogeography? Answer that, and you have the answer to your question.
I have no idea how fossils relate to biogeography, but I haven't seen anything about biogeography from what you've said to lead me to see any necessary connection with macroevolution or old earth theory.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Quetzal, posted 06-23-2006 12:22 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Quetzal, posted 06-23-2006 4:18 PM Faith 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