Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 312 (325866)
06-24-2006 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by jar
06-24-2006 9:38 PM


Re: When did it happen.
You haven't shown anything. You're just blowing hot air. There is no problem with genetics. Just another case where evo assumptions are tacked on and assumed but have no practical bearing whatever on the work of genetics. I've already put astronomy in the Con list. Why don't you pay attention? And 98% of physics is perfectly fine.
The YEC "basics" as you call them, have no bearing on what I am discussing here. If you want to make a case for it go ahead, but I am going to continue to ignore your totally irrelevant interrogations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 06-24-2006 9:38 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 9:58 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 197 of 312 (325870)
06-24-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by arachnophilia
06-24-2006 9:45 PM


Re: YECistas explain their terms?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 9:45 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 10:01 PM Faith has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 198 of 312 (325872)
06-24-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
06-24-2006 9:48 PM


Re: When did it happen.
There is no problem with genetics.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 9:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 9:59 PM arachnophilia has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 199 of 312 (325875)
06-24-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by arachnophilia
06-24-2006 9:58 PM


Re: When did it happen.
The "evolutionary" tree has no bearing whatever on practical science. It's all theoretical navel gazing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 9:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 10:06 PM Faith has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 200 of 312 (325876)
06-24-2006 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
06-24-2006 9:57 PM


a straightforward answer
faith writes:
...Reconstructing them, studying their anatomy and physiology and figuring out how they would have lived are all perfectly legitimate and unobjectionable science...
arachnophilia writes:
...the question was, can you still do this without "macro" evolutionary relationships?
faith writes:
No.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 9:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 10:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 201 of 312 (325877)
06-24-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
06-24-2006 9:59 PM


Re: When did it happen.
The "evolutionary" tree has no bearing whatever on practical science. It's all theoretical navel gazing.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 9:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 10:43 PM arachnophilia has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 202 of 312 (325879)
06-24-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by arachnophilia
06-24-2006 9:45 PM


Re: YECistas explain their terms?
Actually, how do you get from the YEC position of all the critters in the world fitting on a football field, to the variety and number we see today in only 4000 years without Hyper-Macro-evolution?
It is pretty obvious that neither Faith or any other YECista is going to answer any of the questions raised in this thread. So for the benefit of the lurkers, perhaps it would be worthwhile to simply do it for them.
The YEC position, unless some YECista shows up to correct me, seems to be that there was some flood about 4000 years ago that wiped out all the critters on earth 'cept a few on the big boat. The size seems to be an area about like a football field. It may have multiple decks so they may have two, even three football fields worth of critters.
This presents two problems that I can see which will mean we need to throw out everything we know about genetics.
First, to get from that small population to what we see today, we would need hypermacorevolution at rates that are really inconceivable. We have at that momnet 4000 years ago only the critters that would fit on the few football fields. Second in many cases we have no more than two of a kind, and except in one instance, never more than seven of a kind.
The second thing that will falsify our current understanding of genetics is that a bottleneck should show up among ALL species at about 4000 years ago. This should leave a single common ancestor between all of the critters in the world about 4000 years ago. It should point us to the original Kind directly.
But we don't see either of those things, no hypermacroevolution and no band of common ancestors at 4000 years ago in all current critters.
That means that our current genetic model has been falsified, or that there was not such an event 4000 years ago. Only one of those two can be correct.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 9:45 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 10:21 PM jar has replied
 Message 207 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 10:26 PM jar has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 203 of 312 (325880)
06-24-2006 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by arachnophilia
06-24-2006 10:01 PM


Re: a straightforward answer
That's stupid. You can do all that
Reconstructing them, studying their anatomy and physiology and figuring out how they would have lived
without reference to anything macroevolutionary at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 10:01 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 10:12 PM Faith has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 204 of 312 (325881)
06-24-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
06-24-2006 7:02 PM


Re: assessment at this point
----delete-----
Edited by Coragyps, : duplicate post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 7:02 PM Faith has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 205 of 312 (325882)
06-24-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
06-24-2006 10:08 PM


...or not
That's stupid. You can do all that
Reconstructing them, studying their anatomy and physiology and figuring out how they would have lived
without reference to anything macroevolutionary at all.
ok, lets talk specifics, then, shall we?
suppose we have a group of animals that is extinct. all of their immediate relatives anywhere near what a creationist would call a "kind" are dead. every last one of them. say, for instance, the dinosaurs. now, you might call "tyrannosaurs" a kind. you might call "theropods" a kind. you might even call all "dinosauria" a kind. but i hesitate to think that you would call all archosaurs a kind.
unless you've grouped crocodiles and birds together in one kind, which i would find incredibly hard to believe. if you have done so, i apologize -- but i also fail to see the difference between this and the theory of evolution.
do you agree that birds and crocodiles are separate kinds?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 10:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 10:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 206 of 312 (325886)
06-24-2006 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by jar
06-24-2006 10:06 PM


OFF TOPIC TO THE MAX
*******OFF TOPIC TO THE MAX*******
This is way off topic jar. This belongs on a thread about the ark. It does not belong here.
*******OFF TOPIC TO THE MAX*******
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by jar, posted 06-24-2006 10:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 06-24-2006 10:28 PM Faith has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 207 of 312 (325887)
06-24-2006 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by jar
06-24-2006 10:06 PM


Re: YECistas explain their terms?
we would need hypermacorevolution at rates that are really inconceivable.
sounds like an argument from incredulity if i ever heard one! lol.
(see the other thread)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by jar, posted 06-24-2006 10:06 PM jar has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 208 of 312 (325889)
06-24-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
06-24-2006 10:21 PM


Bullshit TO THE MAX
Bull shit Faith.
Or are you saying that the alleged Flood is not part of the YEC position, even though YOU have used it numerous times in this very thread?
Let's go back to Message 57.
Is some creation event part of the YEC position or not? If so, when did it happen?
Is the so called Fall part of the YEC position? If so when did it happen.
Is the Flood part of the YEC position? If so when did it happen?
This is getting just TOO funny. So the Flood is OT Faith? Then how come you said
Faith writes:
Which to a YEC means nothing other than that birds were not hanging about with the dinosaurs at the time of the Flood and got caught in a different wave.
in Message 209?
Edited by jar, : add a quote from DerFaith

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 10:21 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 209 of 312 (325890)
06-24-2006 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by arachnophilia
06-24-2006 10:12 PM


Re: ...or not
ok, lets talk specifics, then, shall we?
suppose we have a group of animals that is extinct. all of their immediate relatives anywhere near what a creationist would call a "kind" are dead. every last one of them. say, for instance, the dinosaurs. now, you might call "tyrannosaurs" a kind. you might call "theropods" a kind. you might even call all "dinosauria" a kind. but i hesitate to think that you would call all archosaurs a kind.
unless you've grouped crocodiles and birds together in one kind, which i would find incredibly hard to believe. if you have done so, i apologize -- but i also fail to see the difference between this and the theory of evolution.
do you agree that birds and crocodiles are separate kinds?
I have a LOT of trouble following you Arach. What is your point?
It is POSSIBLE ALL REPTILES are a Kind. Or it is POSSIBLE there are a number of reptile Kinds. It is CERTAIN that crocodiles descended from either the one reptile kind or one of the reptile kinds.
Birds have nothing to do with reptiles. That's an artificial notion based on nothing but one reptilian feathered fossil and the fact that there are no birds in the layer inhabited by the big reptiles. Which to a YEC means nothing other than that birds were not hanging about with the dinosaurs at the time of the Flood and got caught in a different wave. But I do believe that it is possible that a reptile Kind contained the genetic potential of wings and flight. It may not really be possible, I don't know, but that's how rich I think the original genetic potential of each Kind was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 10:12 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 10:40 PM Faith has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 210 of 312 (325891)
06-24-2006 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
06-24-2006 7:22 PM


Re: assessment at this point
They don't *know* what temperatures were in the past except by evo theory and their formulas are based on that.
Ah, but they do know the temperatures through vitrinite reflectance and through the phases that are present in fluid inclusions in crystals in the rocks. Those are methods based on experiment. Sorry 'bout that, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 7:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 10:32 PM Coragyps has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024