YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

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.

It is clear that Faith simply is unable to defend or support any assertion she makes.She cannot tell anyone what the YEC position is and then whines that we fail to consider the YEC position.She asks for practical examples and then when they are given she falls back on answers like She questions our integrity yet she has failed to tell anyone what those YEC views are.When you bring up a specific example, filling an aquifer, her response is: as though that had anything to do with what you were talking about.Person after person has given her specific examples and her only response has been to whine that they are not examples, or to totally ignore them as she does with many specific examples.Like the example I provided earlier, your example is a perfect place where the YECista Scientists could test their assumption.We have a set of known conditions today. Under YECista assumptions they move water through the aquifer for 5990 years. All the YECista Scientists need to do is provide the model that compresses 829,990 additional years worth of fluid motion through the aquifer in 10 years.Once they have the model, it can be tested against the Mississippian Aquifer and in the Everglades for falidity.These are practical examples of the effort needed if the YECistas wish to be considered scientists.So here are several specific models needed from YECistas.How is 829,990 years of percolation compressed into 10 years?How is 1.7 Billion years of radioactive decay compressed into 10 Years.Why is there no uniform genetic bottleneck seen in all species 4000 years ago?Why do we not see the macro evolution required if all the worlds population of critters was reduced to only what would fit on a football field just 4000 years ago.The problem is that Young Earth simply is refuted by fact after fact after fact; refuted in discipline after discipline after discipline.Young Earth simply cannot be supported except by an act of wilfull ignorance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Though the people that find the gas and oil that heat and cool your house, provide electricity for your computer, and fuel your car might disagree with you. They don't go looking for the Bolivina mexicana zone of the South Louisiana Miocene just because it sounds neat.

How can you say that right after I showed you that YEC is a big problem for Hydrogeology, which has an immediate ramification in practical science. The same equations used to date water in confined aquifers (which in many cases show dates up to millions of years) are used to determine how long it will take for the aquifer to be recharged. This is vitally important for water management, which farmers use to grow our food in the Western US among other things.Additionally, this is fresh water, not salty Great Flood water we are discussing here.Edited by anglagard, : sp.

They use old earth calculations in their work, it is true, but these calculations are very small part of how they go about their work, and therefore don't mess it up too much. Mostly what is of importance is simply the underground configurations, the contents of the rocks, and the ancient age terminology is mostly windowdressing.

Those equations are based on assuming that the water in the aquifers has always been maintained by the same processes, no? The age of the aquifer water is assumed and unimportant is how I read this. You are talking about replenishing an existing system, the age of which you really do not know. The calculations no doubt are fine for predictions since they are about how long it takes to resaturate the existing system given the current conditions that feed the aquifers, and the old earth assumption is irrelevant. That is, it's going to take the same amount of time to resaturate it depending on rainfall and saturation rates, whether it actually took that amount of time in the first place or was already saturated 4500 years ago.Look, I'm sure I have various factors out of whack in my thinking about these things. Precision ought not to be the point though. I'm trying to deal with the overall picture that's being presented with general concepts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The same equations clearly show that there is but one choice, the existing model or Last Thursdayism.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Bullcrap. The whole science of which rocks are probable source rocks for hydrocarbons is based on their thermal maturity - how many millions of years they've spent a what temperature. Chevron-Phillips and Exxon-Mobil may not know who they own this week, but they know real well that oil ain't from the Floode.

Again, there is no reason whatever to think the original ocean was salty.

They don't *know* what temperatures were in the past except by evo theory and their formulas are based on that. If pressures were greater in a big catastrophe, perhaps the adjustments would not matter a whole lot as far as outcomes go.

Doing Science relative to aspects of science debated here is not done extensively by Creos as a profession. Who would hire them? The field is essentially closed to all applicants who don't ascribe to the secularistic interpretation of things observed.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Truly astonishing. How many epicycles does one need to create to abandon the Ptolomaic concept of the universe?Obviously if the oceans were all fresh water, there would be virtually no table salt.

I don't argue from the idea of appearance of age. When it comes to anything on planet earth I don't see any appearance of great age at all -- it all appears to be about 6000 years old. Great age is nothing but a mental construct, all just based on the evo fantasy. I certainly see an appearance of great age in the stars, but that's why I leave astronomy out of this discussion.