YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

I DID NOT ANSWER YOU BECAUSE IT IS A COMPLETE TANGENT, WHICH I ALREADY EXPLAINED ONCE, and would get me off what I want to do on this thread. You are just wasting space on this thread with your questions, and so is Arach with his stupid remarks about creationist motivations.

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.

---

a 78 year old man renders the best evo@EvC has to offer silent? I've found it rather telling myself.

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depends on whether you consider this practice valid or not, even with the "macro" evolutionary context removed.if it's no longer valid, paleontology as a whole is screwed.

---

It seems that we also have several specific examples waiting for YECista explanations.In Message 66 we have the issue of the Andromeda Galaxy.There Faith did respond saying that Astronomy had to be specifically excluded. It alone refutes YECism.But there are other issues.In Message 108 we have the issues of the gentic clock and the required hyper-macroevolution required by YECism.No YECistas bothered to explain those.Then there was Angalards questions related to hydrolgical flow in aquifers which was never resolved.Then in Message 126 the example of the Oklo reactors came up. Again, not one YECista can offer any explanation.Is there a pattern showing up here?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

With all due respect to those who have tried to make it work, "the best evo@EvC has to offer" haven't been near the place, have been booted out by the inmates or have been drowned out by the flame wars between the inmates.And this is not this place to discuss it. Keep on "telling yourself". Edited by AdminJar, : off topic announcement

---

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

Does that mean you know when asserted Creation, the supposed Fall and the alleged flood happened and are just not going to tell us?Is that the reason you won't address the specific example that I and others have provided?Is that the reason that there really are NO creation scientists?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have no clue what you are asking in this paragraph. Lack of what? What practice? I don't know what you are saying. So maybe it's screwed. So what? I never said ALL of science was OK with YEC. Go read my Message 9 again. This is about the YEC claim that MOST WORKADAY SCIENCE is perfectly legitimate according to YEC. Good grief, I don't understand what you think you are doing here.I nevertheless added that maybe some of paleontology is not a problem too. Why not? Wherever it deals with the simple facts and disposition of fossils themselves there is no problem. BUT AGAIN, IF THERE IS,SO WHAT????Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OFF TOPIC!!!!

​

HOW ARE YOUR QUESTIONS AT ALL RELATED TO THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH SCIENCE AS PRESENTLY PRACTICED IS HUNKY-DORY WITH YEC?????

​

ALL THAT BELONGS ON ANOTHER THREAD!

​

OFF TOPIC!!!!
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

---

Look at that LONG list in message 1. ONLY astronomy and paleontology are the only whole sciences mostly at odds with YEC.And you are wrong. The two examples from biology so far are no problem whatever.I don't understand your 116 and it doesn't interest me. I believe it is any poster's prerogative to ignore any post for whatever reason. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Are you saying that what YEC basic premises are is unrelated to the difference between YECista stuff and Science?My questions are directly related because, as I showed, genetics, physics, astronomy would all be impossible under YECista assumptions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

---

Oh nonsense. Reconstructing them, studying their anatomy and physiology and figuring out how they would have lived are all perfectly legitimate and unobjectionable science. You don't need to assume they are millions of years old to do that.

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?

---