YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

Which is why I made a point of identifying it as MICRO, so that it could be clearly recognized that YEC's have no problem with it. I would think that this much of YEC thinking would by now be familiar at EvC but it seems to need to be argued out every time. It has been argued out over and over and over here, so why isn't it at least anticipated that according to YECs, what is called evolution, meaning macroevolution, just plain isn't? I know there is a definitional problem here somewhere but none of the above solves it for me. By now it seems to me it ought to be somewhat known what YECs believe, and I have no idea how to approach the semantic problem. It surprises me that it continues to exist after all the discussion. It's of a piece with the fact that most of the anti-YEC thinking is straw man arguments though.There may also be a problem stemming from other threads supposedly arguing with YECs who aren't following this line I'm following.

You can take up any part of the OP you like. But I'm trying to focus on this part, which is certainly very relevant to the OP, as it focuses on the YEC claim that science would not be much affected by switching to the YEC view. Showing that the ToE really has very little to do, if anything, with most practical science, is certainly very relevant to this claim.I really don't want to discuss other aspects of the problem, but of course you may raise them with whomever you like.

Sorry if I was out of line. I'm trying hard to keep my own focus and don't want anything to knock me off it. I just want to keep on this tack right now and don't want to talk about YEC.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, then, am I right or wrong that most practical science doesn't really make use of the ToE? I tried to show what I mean in relation to Quetzal's post. It may be a definitional matter in the end. But if YEC's have no problem with what is done in daily science, which is the case except for a few areas like paleontology and anthropology, isn't that corroboration of the claim in the OP that science wouldn't really be greatly affected by YEC? Just business as usual it seems to me. No need to bring up origins, ancient earth, or anything in particular about the past at all, since scientific work such as Quetzal's is focused on present problems and uses concepts and methods that have nothing to do with the theories of the distant past.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What is it I'm supposed to be considering, that science IS dependent on the ToE, that you can't work with YEC, what?

I'm going to stay away from this thread now because it's become counterproductive for me, but I wanted at least to answer your post since you went to some trouble. Nevertheless you will call this "hand-waving away" (which I take as YOUR hand-waving away), although there is no point in elaborating that I can see, but there is nothing in your post that a YEC would object to. None of it would be eliminated by a YEC frame of reference.I probably still don't really get the relevance of the fossils though, and YECs certainly don't view fossils as millions of years old, but if varieties of flora or fauna are represented there that give suggestions for current conditions I suppose that's useful.This may all be a semantic problem along lines that Arach is trying to get it defined, which I continue to think odd considering how many times the same thing has come up here, but that becomes academic anyway if the main point is conveyed: that there is nothing in what you are describing that would be eliminated by a YEC frame of reference. Nothing. In other words I believe your description of your work is very much exactly the workaday science YECs say is true science that has nothing to do with the ToE to which we object, and the idea that it is in any way dependent on the overall theory of evolution, as background or anything else, is just a semantic or definitional problem from a YEC point of view. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you for getting what I'm after and giving a good example of workaday science in action. Yes, just the sort of thing I was looking for.I see no macroevolution in your story at all.Why do you assume what a YEC would say a Kind is? Haven't we repeatedly said there is no way yet to know for sure what the original Kinds were? We aren't idiots. If there are significant differences YEC scientists are intelligent enough to take them into account. {Edit: It is also likely from a creationist point of view that there was a lot more built-in genetic diversity in the original Kinds to make possible all kinds of variations one might be tempted down the road to identify as a different Kind although it is just a variation on the original. {Edit 2: I'd also point out that there is no need -- or way -- to know the ancestry of the Alaskan king crab. Its ancestry has zip to do with the practical task of taking care of its pecular problems of survival in captivity that I can see -- you simply have to accommodate to what you know to be its nutritional needs and its ancestry is purely academic. If its similarities to the hermit crab give a clue to its nutritional needs, that's practical science right there, and there's no need to hypothesize about convergent evolution in its past.}Thank you very much for your post.And to cavediver: Thanks for yours also, and I already listed astronomy as one of the areas of science YECs have a problem with -- but astronomy is taught by creationists -- I guess I'll have to find out how it's taught. Physical anthropology and paleontology are also problem areas -- obvious in this case.But I believe so far my claim that daily science is no problem for YECs is holding up just fine. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is a massive delusion that anything you described actually pertaining to your work has anything whatever to do with macroevolution and if you can't follow my argument that's your prejudice blinding you to it. You have NOT proved it. You have merely asserted it, but your actual facts do NOT bear it out.I can read your mere assertions just fine. You want me to see something in them that is not there. Only you with your science bias can "see" them -- that is, imagine them. Evolution is nothing but one big fantasy that you all treat as if it were real, but all you are doing is reading-in bits of the fantasy to your work.Same as Lithodid-man's example, the supposed derivation from evolution is all imaginary, all imposed on the facts. The supposed ancestry of the crab has nothing whatever to do with the knowledge needed to take care of the thing, it's all this academic tacked-on irrelevancy.Same with your stuff. But it is hopeless to talk to you guys. You have no genuine integrity when it comes to thinking about YEC views.

You are assuming, per uniformitarian assumptions, that rainfall in the Zuni Mountains has always been the source of water in the aquifers.

I've discussed this stuff many times before and if there is a problem with the definitions it would be good to have it cleared up, if possible, but I'm just working from what I know. There is no macroevolution whether they are the same Kind, in which case they are then simply variations from the original genetic possibilities built into the Kind, or not the same Kind.I don't want to get too deep into the specifics of any particular science on this thread as it is supposed to be dealing with generalizations about scientific work.The descriptions that are given of the daily work so far show that there is nothing in it that truly depends on macroevolution. There's a lot of obeisance given to macroevolution, and many of its concepts are referred to, and taken for granted, certainly, but that's not the same thing as their actually being functionally useful in the work.I really don't know to what extent the assumption of great ages, and the assumption of the replacement of one age with another millions of years later, and the assumption of evolution over that time period of the selected creature for study, actually affects the work. I think it's mostly window-dressing and fluff, because what's important in the actual work is the physical facts themselves, not the theories about how they got there except in the most mechanical sense.But if they truly are depending on those theories, it must distort the facts needed for the work to some extent. The king crab-hermit crab example does not depend at ALL on anything macroevolutional. The assumption about convergent evolution is just an academic side point.I don't think the taxon example Quetzal gave does either. He's just asserting that the paleontological background work has made an important contribution to his work, he hasn't shown how. {Edit: Perhaps I don't fully follow what he is saying about this. Certainly everything he says about population genetics is NO problem at all within YEC assumptions, although clearly evos tend to assume it must be, which is surprising since it's been answered umpteen jillion times by now. But anyway, when it comes to the paleontological information he claims is important, if it isn't just windowdressing as the hermit crab example is, but is actually functionally used, I have to believe it skews the work to some extent, and this would be obscured by the fact that it is only a small contributor to the overall conceptualizations used in the work.}Paleontology is obviously a problem for YECs just because it assumes the Geologic Timetable, which is why I put it in the Con list on this topic and am focusing on collecting examples on the Pro side for the claim that daily science is not dependent on macroevolution. I don't see any reason to discuss the obvious problem areas until my point is made about how YEC thinking has no problem whatever with the majority of practical science. However, I suspect that in paleontology too, in the particulars of the daily work, the study of the fossils and so on, it's mostly science as usual too, posing no real problem for YECs. In fact the more I think about it, the more this is likely the case.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The basic or original configuration of aquifers couldn't possibly be what was left over after the receding of a worldwide flood then?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which is why no YEC has ever said such a thing.

It was post 132 I was answering. If you have something specific you want me to address, please spell it out.

Some whole sciences are a problem for YECs but not very many really, and even there I think a great deal of the daily work is no problem whatever. Astronomy, paleontology are two that come to mind. No need to be exact at this point in this limping discussion.Some factors in certain sciences are a problem, like radiometric dating. But here too I don't see this affecting the daily work much except where dating IS the work. This would need some sorting out. Mostly dating does nothing but produce information for feeding the ToE which is just this big useless fantasy about the past, of little to no usefulness in practical science. How such dating methods function in astronomy I don't know but I'm not tackling astronomy here and leaving it in the Con list for now.

Nobody knows how much salt was in the original seas. Salt leaches from the continents into the oceans and at quite a prodigious rate I understand, and the exposed surfaces that are being leached from are prodigiously large now too, which they weren't when all were one big land mass -- before the Flood. Not to mention that there wasn't as much runoff from the one continent before the Flood as it didn't rain, it only misted, and there were no high mountains.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.