YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

If there are significant YEC scientists (doing science), could you name a few hundred of them in a dozen or so pertinent fields? That would go a long way toward showing that YECism and science are not mutually exclusive.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It would still help if you would answer the questions raised in Message 57 and at least six other places in this thread. In addition, the YEC position would mean that we have to toss out our current understanding of genetics and the understanding of microevolution as well as pointed out in Message 108.There is one other very important issue. If YECism is correct, then it is certainly possible to know what the conditions were before the alleged fall.You have claimed that the conditions changed at the fall. So if we use current conditions, for example rates of radioactive decay, and look at a site such as Oklo, it should be possible to determine what the pre-alleged fall conditions were.Oklo, as but one example, gives us a basis. Since the half-life of Uranium Isotopes is sufficiently long that today's conditions are virtually identical to what existed 5990 years ago, all of the radioactive decay must have happened in the ten years between the alleged creation and the alleged fall. All that is needed is for the YECism proponents to describe the physics that explains how all that took place in a period of ten years. It should be a piece of cake for the YECistas to create a physics that compresses 1,700,000,000 years of radioactive decay into 10 years.Once they have developed that physics, it then is possible to take their model and apply it to other situations, stars for example, and see if it works. If it is generally applicable, well then there might be some possibility that YECista Physics is posible.I'm sure everyone is waiting to see the YECistas produce such models.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If that's the best you can do, I guess we'll have to let the readers decide. After all, the entire theory - all the concepts - concerning the taxon cycle is predicated on both "macroevolution" and long time frames. The observations that have been conducted vary (depending on taxa and location), from the Late Pleistocene to the Late Cretacious. ALL of the concepts were developed from macroevolution. If you are incapable of reading simple English, I'm afraid there's not mucb more I can tell you.

---

"Cuisve hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare." Cicero

hermit crabs and king crabs are the same kind? again, strictly limiting evolution with an undefined term is quite intellectually lazy. if the limit is absolute, it can't have a fuzzy boundary. well, could you please answer my question in Message 116? i don't mean to harass you about it, but you say the yec position is obvious, and then yell at us for assuming the wrong thing. evidently, it's not as obvious as you think. i'd like to know how paleontology is a problem area, and in what degree. and the answer to that question would greatly help me -- otherwise, i'll make a point and get accused of a strawman. and i have a feeling that accusation will come not matter WHICH point i make, as the yec position shifts its goal posts and squirrels out of any refutation by changing the vagueries of its definitions.i don't think it's a lot to ask that the yec's explain their terms and objections in specifics. i realize that makes the position falsifiable, and thus can be proven wrong -- but welcome science. well, depending on your answer to the above, the daily science of paleontology may in fact be in serious jeopardy.

---

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.

so, you know what "macro" evolution is, better than a scientist who uses evolution in his daily work? and he's prejudiced for not following your argument regarding how you know more about his work than he does? this one time at my high school, we had a power outtage. they sent us all home. we came back the next day, and the power went out again. they had managed to repair the broken generator, without fixing the cause of the problem -- it was on fire.your analysis of his work is about like fixing the wires, without putting out the fire. it's a quick fix, without figuring out the underlying cause of the problem, or how to prevent it in the future. you neglect to acknowledge that it was the evultionary background of the king crab -- its hermit crab ancestry -- that led to solving the problem. evolution put forward a hypothesis, and the results proved it. i asked a question in Message 116. maybe you just haven't gotten to it. but it's a genuine question. above, you describe how actual relationship is unneccessary to determine similarity between hermit crabs and king crabs (nevermind that we know this because of evolution), and thus the similarity between needed diets. does it work for paleontology too? can we reconstruct partial skeletons based on "unrelated" but similar organizism (outside of a "kind" by definition)?

---

In a hydrogeology class back in 1983 we worked out how long it would take for rainfall in the Zuni Mountains (the souce of the water in the aquifer) to get to the San Juan River in Northwestern New Mexico through a confined aquifer. The answer was around 830,000 years, if my memory serves correct. The science behind the calculation is here:http://www.ncwater.org/...sistance/Ground_Water/HydrogeologyThe reason I bring this up is that hydrogeology does have practical consequences since in the Western US agriculture and indeed, much human life, is largely dependent on groundwater from confined aquifers. In order to determine how much water is available, or indeed how soon an aquifer is depleted, is based upon the theoretical concepts outlined in the attached website. These are practical real-life consequences to the exact same set of theories that show how old groundwater may be at any point in a confined aquifer.I guess if one were to demand all science be vetted by YEC mullahs, then such equations may be used to determine where science ends and Last Thursdayism takes over in each confined aquifer. However, this would not address groundwater management problems and solutions in the Western US as using the exact same equations that date groundwater also determine how fast it can be replinished.

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

*coughgreatfloodcough*

No, only so much water can be pushed through a given volume of a confined aquifer depending on its hydraulic conductivity. Amount of rainfall has nothing to do with how fast water can be absorbed by the ground in a given amount of time. In this case velocity is independent of amount.The only way the water could be there in many confined aquifers is that it was either absorbed through its recharge areas and is often even millions of years old or it was magically created with the appearance of age.The same equations that provide age determine how long recharge takes.Edited by anglagard, : took out potential misunderstanding

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.

If the great flood deposited all sedimentary rocks at once there would be one layer of one type of sedimentary rock.However your prediction as to a response is probably accurate.

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.

See post 132 for what I think you are trying to imply.ABE - nevermind simultaneous posts.However, continental aquifers contain fresh water, flood water is salt water (even if somewhat diluted).Edited by anglagard, : Trying to answerEdited by anglagard, : diluted salt water