|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Didn't you see my original comment on this? How did it get lost so soon? It's not that far back. The salt is leached from the continents. The salt water bodies on land are created by the same means, salt from the ground.
Oh, it was Message 138 Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Doing Science relative to aspects of science debated here is not done extensively by Creos as a profession. Who would hire them? If they could produce results, they would have no problem getting hired. Why is there no YEC-Oil corporation exploring for petroleum using a YEC paradigm? Why is there no Pharma-YEC corporation producing new drugs using a YEC paradigm? Why is there no YEC Shipbuilding corporation building wooden ships that are "far more stable" than anything built from a non-YEC paradigm? There are many areas where YEC "science" could be proving itself, but isn't. Show us the results and YECism will be taken seriously. (You have my personal guarantee. ) Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
If the great flood deposited all sedimentary rocks at once there would be one layer of one type of sedimentary rock. Which is why no YEC has ever said such a thing. funny, your registration date indicates that you've been here longer than me. and i clearly recall several yec making such claims here. for instance, here's henry morris:
quote: he argues elsewhere for "sequential" deposition, admittedly. but sequential -- within a period of 150 days, and all deposited by the great flood. so yes, virginia, there is a yec that says such a thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Didn't you see my original comment on this? How did it get lost so soon? It's not that far back. The salt is leached from the continents. The salt water bodies on land are created by the same means, salt from the ground. Which is primarily from ancient shallow oceans. Also not all salt in the oceans is due to runoff, some is leached from oceanic rock and chemically produced from volcanic vents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6381 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Great age is nothing but a mental construct, all just based on the evo fantasy. I think you've got this wrong. The idea of the world being created 6000 years old and Noah's Flood happening 4000 years ago (or whatever the numbers are) was demolished in the early days of the science that became geology. It was the founders of geology who first realised the Earth had to be much much older than the 6000 years required by the Biblical literalism fantasy - and this happened the best part of a century before Origin Of Species was published. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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. so, if it's across "kinds," it's ok because there's no "macro" evolution. but if it's within kinds, it's ok because it's not "macro" evolution.
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. you don't want to get into specifics, because it's easier to defend vague ideas -- because it's easier to move goalposts and cry "strawman!" you also are ignoring my question, and my question purposefully lacks specifics. you seem to be unwilling to define precisely what the yec objection is, and how it relates to what practices we term as "evolutionary" are acceptable. at this point, i can only assume that you have no interest in debating in good faith.
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. then feel free to actually answer my question in the same regard: it doesn't matter if things are actually related, as long as they share similarities. is that true for paleontology, too? can we filling missing pieces using our knowledge of shares similarities, or even "compromise" similarities?
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. yes, as i attempted to explain to you and everyone else here before, when a yec says "evolution" he or she does not mean the same thing as when a biologist says "evolution." to a biologist, population genetics is the definition of evolution. the problem is that yec's often fail to realize that population genetics doesn't abruptly stop at a certain point.
Paleontology is obviously a problem for YECs just because it assumes the Geologic Timetable, the question i asked had nothing to do with geologic time. i specifically worded it so it did not. two out of three of my example kinds "a" "b" and "c" could, in fact, be living today. the third only needs be extinct before being discovered by science. it could have died out yesterday for all i care -- can we still reconstruct the missing pieces based on its similarities to two living kinds?
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. you've made your point. it's now being argued. apparently, the practical scientists here think it's wrong.
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. great. answer my question about what is and what is not acceptable to the yec-mindset, and we'll go from there. because, well, if we can't use "macro" evolutionary relationships to help tell us about extinct animals, it pretty well borks a very, very large section of paleontology. Edited by arachnophilia, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
anglagard writes: If the great flood deposited all sedimentary rocks at once there would be one layer of one type of sedimentary rock.
Faith writes: Which is why no YEC has ever said such a thing. Arachnid writes: funny, your registration date indicates that you've been here longer than me. and i clearly recall several yec making such claims here. MY ADDED BOLDING. 1) I registered a long time ago and then did not return for a number of years. I've only been posting regularly since the Spring of 2005. 2) I don't read a lot of the creationist threads here because they have too much specific science as well as some oddball things I can't follow. 3) I did read creationist books, such as those by Henry Morris however, so I will comment on that as follows:
Arachnid writes: for instance, here's henry morris:
quote: There is nothing in this quote to imply one type of sedimentary rock, but he's obviously talking about the EXISTING GEOLOGICAL COLUMN THAT WE ALL KNOW AND LOVE, that is, the "global continuity of sedimentary formations" -- and he next emphasizes its worldwide continuity -- and says it appears to have been formed by the "continuous rapid deposition of SEDIMENTS -- SEDIMENTS PLURAL. "Continuous rapid deposition" does NOT mean "simultaneous" as you put it somewhere yesterday. It means RELATIVELY RAPID considering how much sheer volume of stuff is involved.
he argues elsewhere for "sequential" deposition, admittedly. but sequential -- within a period of 150 days, and all deposited by the great flood. Of course. And there was no need for arguing that "elsewhere," Arach, it's OBVIOUS he was talking about sequential deposition in the first quote. How on earth could he have been talking about anything else? He's talking about the EXISTING OBSERVABLE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN. Good grief.
so yes, virginia, there is a yec that says such a thing. Absolutely not. He neither said AT ONCE, nor ONE LAYER. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
However your prediction as to a response is probably accurate. it's the cure-all solution. when in doubt, blame it on the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's fine. I already said paleontology has to go in my first message on this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
However your prediction as to a response is probably accurate.
it's the cure-all solution. when in doubt, blame it on the flood. That's a smarmy lie. The Flood is the well considered explanation for a great deal of phenomena. It isn't just thrown in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
Faith, perhaps you'd like to give a mathematical/engineering model for a boat that could hold that many stuff, healthy and kicking, for that many days in this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's been answered a million times over and it's off topic on this thread. And that thread is just a lot of stupid jokes.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Of course. And there was no need for arguing that "elsewhere," Arach, it's OBVIOUS he was talking about sequential deposition in the first quote. How on earth could he have been talking about anything else? He's talking about the EXISTING OBSERVABLE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN. Good grief. yes. he's talking about the entire geologic column being laid down within a period of 150 days. sequential, yes, but i wouldn't hesitate that to call it "all at once."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
That's fine. I already said paleontology has to go in my first message on this thread. ...all of paleontology?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
That's a smarmy lie. The Flood is the well considered explanation for a great deal of phenomena. It isn't just thrown in. i can't tell which one of us is joking anymore. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024