YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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 FloodThat 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).

The topic of the thread isn't whether the ToE is of use. (And by the way Population Genetics is a big part of the ToE, so if you really mean to discuss the value of the ToE you can't exclude it, as you attempted to do).From the OP Message 1
Before accusing others of going off-topic, you might at least look back to the OP to see what the topic is.

Yes, I'm so welcome to discuss it that you accuse me of adding nothing to the topic and of making an off-topic post.

More accurately some scientists do argue that there is a distinction between what THEY term macroevolution and microevolution. But their use of the term is not accepted by creationists who prefer to use one of their own sets of definitions - none of which is well enough defined to be of any use to scientists.