YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

i can't tell which one of us is joking anymore.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

read some yec documents on the web. i think you'll find it mostly exists to just to counter evolution. it doesn't do anything on its own, just pokes holes in science. it's not a science, because it doesn't predict, and it's not testable or falsifiable. all it tries to do is offer an alternative explanation.

---

no no, of course not. i'm just bored of subtlety. there was a story recently about a group that seeks to get science and religion to play like nice little children hosting a conference on id. they generated so much interest, and had such interesting lectures that they offered grants for actual scientific research in the area.no one even applied.not one.Edited by arachnophilia, : evil evil tags

---

ever tried getting a yec to explain their terms and use specifics? ever tried getting 3-card monte hucksters to play with their cards facing up?

---

yes, so you say. however, you have been unwilling (or unable) to define what is even objectionable to yec's. nor have you provided an answer to my question in Message 116depending on your answer regarding what exactly is out, with regards to "macro" evolutionary relationships, we can then begin to determine just how much "everday science" done by paleontologists is a complete loss.but until you define your terms, you are just speculating into a field that you admittedly know nothing about, in vague terms, and claiming "it will all work out." that's not debate, or discussion -- that's patronizing and arrogant.

---

that's not science. that's explaining away, and as evidenced here, hand-waving. well, yeah, if you guys get around to formulating a testable hypothesis. but we can't even get you to define your terms. i think that speaks quite effectively as to creationist motivations, as does the gish gallop being done here...

---

hmm, yes, that DOES sound familiar.my Message 116 still stands unanswered -- i can't even get a yec to explain exactly how deep the objections go. you don't have to tell me that!

---

a simple "yes" or "no" would be just fine. it's not an issue of specifics -- it's an issue of picking a claim and sticking to it. and there's a lot of hand-waving being done by you. you may notice that my question was specifically framed in "macro" evolutionary terms. i'm asking the question so that when i provide an argument, you don't wave your hand again and say "that's microevolution, we have no problem with that!"but i think your refusal to answer is enough of an argument for now. you are unwilling to even provide a simple answer regarding how deeply your objection goes. you don't care to describe your position. why debate with someone who purposefully keeps their position shrouded in mystery, so they can scream "strawman!" at any point they wish? the first part of the claim we made was that many yec contend that the flood accounts for (nearly) the entire geologic column. it's not my fault that morris's CONCLUSIONS do not match our conclusions, but the fact is established that many consider the flood to account for the geologic record.OUR argument is that HIS argument is false, because the column does not look like a cross section of a flood plain, ie: it's not all one strata.

---

my question is not about minutiae of scientific questions. it's about what yec's consider valid. you say you assume that a lack of "macro" evolutionary relationships would not impact day-to-day science -- and that depends on whether you consider this practice valid or not, even with the "macro" evolutionary context removed.if it's no longer valid, paleontology as a whole is screwed.

---

lack of "macro" evolutionary relationships. and for a description of the practice (in question form) please see Message 116. while i am getting bored of repeating myself, it's much easier to type that short little message link than to repeatedly spell out my question because you didn't feel like answering it the first 10 times. establishing that one whole field of study is gone.so far, biology is mostly gone, paleontology almost all gone, and astronomy emasculated. because there's a difference between a paleontologist and a ditch-digger. ("4 years of school!") the problem is that paleontology is not just digging stuff up, putting it your pockets, and going home to forget about it. it's the study of those fossils, too. it involves reconstructing them, and studying their anatomy, physiology, and what we can gather about how they would have lived. you have a grossly simplified view of this, apparently, and neglect to realize exactly how dependent on "macro" evolution paleontology is.take away the evolutionary relationships, and that's ALL paleontology would study: deposition of fossils.

---

actually, as i recall, you affirmed the vast majority of that list. oh, gee, i'm sorry. i don't deal in specifics. you'll have to accept my general and vague assurance that when you deprive biology of its basic theoretical framework, it ceases to stand up. alright, then i will assume in the abscence of any argument to the contrary that all paleontology (short of ditch-digging) is disqualified by default, and that i need make no further argument to demonstrate this.

---

that wasn't the question. my question has absolutely nothing to do with timeframe.the question was, can you still do this without "macro" evolutionary relationships?

---

nevermind that the percentage of dna shared directly correlates to placement on the "macro" evolutionary tree. in other words, if we didn't have the t-o-e, but had genetics, we would have quickly come up with the t-o-e independently of darwin.so if there's no problem with genetics, then there's a problem with yec.

---

thank for the straighforward answer. we can check the vast majority of paleontology off the list now, as a science that daily depends on the theory of evolution. i'll stop bothering you now.Edited by arachnophilia, : quote-box formatting, for clarity of who said what.

---

no no, you misunderstand. take away the evolutionary tree, and draw one based on genetics alone, and the percentages of shared dna. guess what you get?"macro" revolutionary relationships, and the evolutionary tree of life.further, it should be obvious that there's something of an associative property here. if one species is related to another species by a certain percentage, and related to a third by less, and the third is related to the second strongly, but less to the first, you've just linked the first and third through the second.

---