|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2914 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2914 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024