|
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 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
This thread is not for getting specific. 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.
I consider it a LOT to have been accomplished on this thread to get two scientific descriptions of everyday scientific work on the table where it is clear that one is fine with YEC and the other probably completely fine with YEC. 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?
Your mangling of what Henry Morris said doesn't bode well for your ability to understand a definition even if I provided one. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
With all due respect to those who have tried to make it work, the Cesspool Showcase is a complete and utter waste of time. a 78 year old man renders the best evo@EvC has to offer silent? I've found it rather telling myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
OFF TOPIC!!! You and jar are doing exactly what Moose said would happen to this thread, taking it into minutiae of scientific questions, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes: a 78 year old man renders the best evo@EvC has to offer silent? 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.
I've found it rather telling myself. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. I have no clue what you are asking in this paragraph. Lack of what? What practice? I don't know what you are saying.
if it's no longer valid, paleontology as a whole is screwed. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I have no clue what you are asking in this paragraph. Lack of what? What practice? I don't know what you are saying. 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.
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 how I think that MOST WORKADAY SCIENCE is OK with YEC. Good grief, I don't understand what you think you are doing here. establishing that one whole field of study is gone. so far, biology is mostly gone, paleontology almost all gone, and astronomy emasculated.
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???? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: HOW ARE YOUR QUESTIONS AT ALL RELATED TO THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH SCIENCE AS PRESENTLY PRACTICED IS HUNKY-DORY WITH YEC????? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Look at that LONG list in message 1. ONLY astronomy and paleontology are the only whole sciences mostly at odds with YEC. actually, as i recall, you affirmed the vast majority of that list.
And you are wrong. The two examples from biology so far are no problem whatever. 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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024