Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 76 of 312 (325374)
06-23-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
06-23-2006 1:58 PM


Re: Not really
i think we're running into a problem here. you seem to have a different definition of "evolution" than everybody else.
for instance, the yec objection to evolution extended to all of fields in the op, but not basic "workaday" "micro" evolution. whereas the scientific definition is precisely what you are calling "micro" evolution -- science makes no distinction here.
perhaps what you mean is theory of evolution as it relates to common ancestry, and the history of the tree of life? as well as, well, geoscience in general? perhaps it would suit the debate better if you gave your definition of evolution, and the scientists gave theirs. at least then we'd know how we're using the terms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 1:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 3:14 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 77 of 312 (325375)
06-23-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Quetzal
06-23-2006 1:38 PM


Re: Ecology and Evolution
Thanks deerbreh. In this case it's less Gish Gallop than moving the goal posts.
I always thought of the Gish Gallop of being a form of goal post movement. The idea is to give what you termed a "wave" response to a well reasoned argument and then move on to the next topic. It works particularly well with a live audience because the audience soon tires with long detailed responses and is more entertained by snappy if vague retorts and assertions that the creationist debaters have perfected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Quetzal, posted 06-23-2006 1:38 PM Quetzal has not replied

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


Message 78 of 312 (325376)
06-23-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
06-23-2006 1:58 PM


Re: Not really
Not really. I'm trying to show that scientists don't depend on the ToE as much as they think they do, if at all.
Right now we are discussing Young Earth. Does that mean you are willing to admit that the Earth is not young, but in fact very old?
If we are at the point where you have abandoned Young Earth, then we can move on. If you are not, then we need to understand just what YEC entails and so need an answer to the questions raised in Message 57.
  • creation 6000 years ago ± 100 years?
  • fall 5990 6010 years ago ± 1 year?
  • flood 4000 years ago ± 10 years?
Have you abandoned things like the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, or are those still positions you hold?
AbE: wanted to fix a really big error and apologize
Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 1:58 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 79 of 312 (325380)
06-23-2006 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
06-23-2006 1:58 PM


Re: Not really
I'm trying to show that scientists don't depend on the ToE as much as they think they do, if at all.
Biologists depend heavily on ToE. Geologists and anthropologists depend on it less, but they still depend on it.
For most other sciences, ToE is not important to their work.
However this entirely misses the point. If we completely abandon ToE, YEC assumptions are still wrong. The flood still did not happen. The earth is still far older than YECs assume. The Australian aborigines are still older than the purported time of Adam and Eve. Biologically modern humans were still around for far longer than YECs are willing to contemplate. These are all facts, and very stubborn facts at that. You cannot wave them away by dismissing ToE. You must also dismiss physics, geology, chemistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 1:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 2:36 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 80 of 312 (325383)
06-23-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
06-23-2006 1:06 PM


Re: "Workaday science"
Again, this is all speculative about the distant past whose conditions we can only guess at, and who knows how many other variables should be taken into account that are being overlooked.
Actually, it is the YEC position that is highly speculative about the past. Scientists are not guessing about the past, they are measuring it. And they are carefully cross-calibrating their measuring methods in multiple ways. Just about the only way that they could be grossly wrong, is if something like Last Thursdayism is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 1:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 2:42 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 81 of 312 (325385)
06-23-2006 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nwr
06-23-2006 2:18 PM


OK so my point has been proved
Biologists depend heavily on ToE.
This has absolutely not been shown and in fact I've shown that it is not true at all.
Geologists and anthropologists depend on it less, but they still depend on it.
You cannot just assert this. You have to prove it. The only case I know of in Geology is the search for oil. And even there the concepts from the ToE are not really essential but window-dressing since location is what matters.
Physical anthropology is based on it, yes. So is paleontology. But these are not useful or practical sciences, they are purely theoretical or speculative, and in my opinion plain false science.
For most other sciences, ToE is not important to their work.
Well talk about hand-waving away. {Actually you're verifying it I see} I'm trying to show this and everybody's denying it. Great. It has nothing to do with most science, just as I've claimed. Then the claim that getting rid of it would make this huge difference has been falsified and the YEC claim in the OP is verified.
However this entirely misses the point. If we completely abandon ToE, YEC assumptions are still wrong.
No that is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is that YECs claim that science would not be appreciably damaged by the loss of evolutionary theory and you pretty much just agreed that that is so.
The flood still did not happen. The earth is still far older than YECs assume. The Australian aborigines are still older than the purported time of Adam and Eve. Biologically modern humans were still around for far longer than YECs are willing to contemplate. These are all facts, and very stubborn facts at that. You cannot wave them away by dismissing ToE. You must also dismiss physics, geology, chemistry.
Oh well, nothing like just claiming as fact what is under question.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 06-23-2006 2:18 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nwr, posted 06-23-2006 3:05 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 82 of 312 (325388)
06-23-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by nwr
06-23-2006 2:23 PM


Re: "Workaday science"
Again, this is all speculative about the distant past whose conditions we can only guess at, and who knows how many other variables should be taken into account that are being overlooked.
Actually, it is the YEC position that is highly speculative about the past.
Yes, it is highly speculative. Which is why all these calculations about how this or that couldn't have happened during the Flood or the Fall, that are offered in rebuttal to YEC speculations, are meaningless. Many many unknown variables involved.
Scientists are not guessing about the past, they are measuring it.
You can't measure something that is unknown. They are measuring their own uniformitarian assumptions about the past, not the past itself.
And they are carefully cross-calibrating their measuring methods in multiple ways. Just about the only way that they could be grossly wrong, is if something like Last Thursdayism is true.
I have no clue what Last Thursdayism is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nwr, posted 06-23-2006 2:23 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 06-23-2006 2:51 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 90 by nwr, posted 06-23-2006 3:11 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 83 of 312 (325389)
06-23-2006 2:43 PM


Where does the Censorship End ?
To keep YEC accepted all the fields producing evidence against YEC have to be shut down or controlled.
Here's some examples off the top of my head:
Most geology (all except classification of rocks and measurements of physical properties)
Cosmology
Phyologeny
Taxonomy
Many genetic studies
Most Astronomy
All Archaeology dealing with dates YECs place before the Flood
Any Archaeology that is likely to conflict with Biblical Accounts (which is a risk all archaeology overapaping with the Bible period takes to some extent)
All studies of dating methods that can go back before the period where YECs put the Flood
That would affect quite a lot of working scientists and we haven't even got into the fields that might have to be censored because they undermine YEC arguments (for instance if YECs want to keep the "mmon dust" argument they have to censor almost all the studies relevant to that - except the old inaccuarte one that gave the results YECs like).

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 2:48 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 84 of 312 (325391)
06-23-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
06-23-2006 1:58 PM


An analogy
I cannot improve upon Quetzal's post describing in detail how and why abandoning the ToE would destroy the work that he does on a daily basis. Moreover, I am quite confident that a similar description could be written for 1,000s, 10,000s, of subspecialities in every field mentioned in the OP.
Your dismissal of the point Quetzal made shows you still do not appreciate the importance of Message 32, despite having a night to sleep on it. So let me try to give you an analogy.
About 15 years ago, I worked next to a site where they were building a modern, multi-story office building, maybe 15, 20 stories. The foundation and structure of the building were composed of rebar and poured concrete. It was fascinating to watch them pump tens of thousands of gallons of concrete, and if my boss had known how much time I spent watching that process, I probably wouldn't have finished my full term in that position.
No part of the structure of the building was made of plywood. In fact, I don't think there was a single piece of any kind of wood anywhere in the building, until the time came to finish the interior. However, it would have been impossible to build that building without plywood. The carpenters on site spent hours and hours building forms into which the concrete was pumped. The plywood held the concrete in place until the concrete hardened, then it was removed.
So, even though there was no wood in the supporting structure of the building, wood was a necessary component to the construction of the building.
Accepting YEC would require discarding so much underlying science that it would be impossible to construct anything. In much the same way that the plywood gave form to the concrete, the basics of physics, geology, anthropology, geosciences, biosciences and chemistry give form and provide the foundation for everything that every scientist does in those fields.
The problem that you seem to refuse to accept is that adopting YEC would require much more than simply tossing out the ToE. I understand that you think all evolutionists are a bunch of mind-numbed robots simply following the company line. But you must admit that those who do science on a regular basis know quite a bit more about it than you do. So, if you refuse to accept what they are saying about the incredible impact that YEC would have to every field of scientific inquiry, I'm afraid that I don't see much point in continuing the discussion with you.
Let me make one suggestion. Instead of reading what is written solely with an eye to trying to fit it into your world-view, try thinking seriously about it and see if you can't understand the points we are making. I know it's entertaining to try to best the other person in a debate, and find a way around the points he is making. But at the same time, it's also entertaining, at least it is for me, to think about what they are saying to see if I can learn something in the process.

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 75 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 1:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 3:03 PM subbie has replied

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


Message 85 of 312 (325392)
06-23-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
06-23-2006 2:43 PM


Re: Where does the Censorship End ?
Do you have anything to contribute to the topic of thread, about how the ToE is not actually of any use in the useful sciences?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2006 2:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 2:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2006 3:13 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 86 of 312 (325393)
06-23-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
06-23-2006 2:42 PM


Still looking for basic information
I see that you have moved on but I still would like to get an answer to the questions raised in Message 57 and many times since, most recently in Message 78.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 2:42 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 87 of 312 (325395)
06-23-2006 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
06-23-2006 2:48 PM


Re: Where does the Censorship End ?
Do you have anything to contribute to the topic of thread, about how the ToE is not actually of any use in the useful sciences?
I was under the impression that the topic of the thread was:
"YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution
I think it is you who are off topic here, or at least trying to define the topic too narrowly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 2:48 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 88 of 312 (325397)
06-23-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by subbie
06-23-2006 2:46 PM


Re: An analogy
What I said in answer to Quetzal was that nothing he mentioned involved anything having to do with the ToE. You are merely asserting that it does, laid the groundwork etc., without proving it. However, I'm happy to concede that much of modern science was done UNDER the rubric of the ToE, inspired by it, but I think that was mostly accidental. Nothing essential depended on it. And you have shown nothing to prove me wrong.
The problem that you seem to refuse to accept is that adopting YEC would require much more than simply tossing out the ToE.
One thing at a time please. It's a big deal to get across to anyone that science really is not dependent on the ToE as you all think. It can only confuse matters to get all caught up in the whole other frame of reference of YEC.
I think I've proved that Quetzal's work has nothing to do with the ToE -- except for that bit about the fossils which he has declined to explain so I don't know how to answer it. But my proving that has yet to be recognized by anyone here and in fact is still being disputed I assume, as Quetzal said he was looking for more quotes.
But let's not go on to what YEC would substitute for all of it. WAY too premature for that in this thread.
I understand that you think all evolutionists are a bunch of mind-numbed robots simply following the company line. But you must admit that those who do science on a regular basis know quite a bit more about it than you do. So, if you refuse to accept what they are saying about the incredible impact that YEC would have to every field of scientific inquiry, I'm afraid that I don't see much point in continuing the discussion with you.
Of course not. That's where this always goes. You won't consider that what I've already said could be true, that at least what Quetzal's science does is not dependent on the ToE as he thinks. I'm saying that the knowledge he works with, that he calls evolutionary theory, simply isn't evolutionary theory. This isn't doubting his expertise in working with it, it's a matter of unconscious assumptions and habitual labels.
Let me make one suggestion. Instead of reading what is written solely with an eye to trying to fit it into your world-view, try thinking seriously about it and see if you can't understand the points we are making.
I would suggest instead that you try to understand what I am saying.
I know it's entertaining to try to best the other person in a debate, and find a way around the points he is making. But at the same time, it's also entertaining, at least it is for me, to think about what they are saying to see if I can learn something in the process.
Yes, please apply yourself to that. I am not addressing the scientific particulars except as they impinge on this overarching notion about the ToE and I believe it is quite clear that they have nothing to do with the ToE on this practical level, and I think YOU should think about THAT.
NOBODY has as yet proved to me that the ToE is REALLY of use in practical science. It's merely assumed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by subbie, posted 06-23-2006 2:46 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by subbie, posted 06-23-2006 3:26 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 89 of 312 (325400)
06-23-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
06-23-2006 2:36 PM


Re: OK so my point has been proved
For most other sciences, ToE is not important to their work.
Well talk about hand-waving away. {Actually you're verifying it I see} I'm trying to show this and everybody's denying it.
I can't say that I have seen anybody denying this. There is doubtless some miscommunication. Most of the posts in this thread have been dealing with YEC assumptions, which go far, far beyond denial of ToE.
However this entirely misses the point. If we completely abandon ToE, YEC assumptions are still wrong.
No that is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is that YECs claim that science would not be appreciably damaged by the loss of evolutionary theory and you pretty much just agreed that that is so.
The title of the thread has to do with the YEC problem with science. It is not restricted to the YEC problem with ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 2:36 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 90 of 312 (325405)
06-23-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
06-23-2006 2:42 PM


Re: "Workaday science"
And they are carefully cross-calibrating their measuring methods in multiple ways. Just about the only way that they could be grossly wrong, is if something like Last Thursdayism is true.
I have no clue what Last Thursdayism is.
I did include a link. Just click on "Last Thursdayism", either in this sentence or in my earlier post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 06-23-2006 2:42 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024