Well, of course, human originated science is naturally flawed, naturally likely to be at odds with the truth in some places, but most of it is not as fantastic as the ToE.
In the last generation YEC has eroded faster than a sand castle. No creationists in the 1980s spoke of 'speciation events' or conceded evolution of microorganisms and insects. They denied anyone could observe evolution in any form.
YEC has done some fast backpedaling in the years since.
You admit a good bit of evolution in your own scenarios. Sometimes you even require more of it to happen far faster than scientists have ever imagined--as when you need animals to hyperevolve into multiple forms after the Flood even as they lose their genetic potential to do so.
It's obvious the idea of evolution does not really strike you as 'fantastic' at all. You invoke it for your own purposes anytime you need it. You only say it is 'fantastic' because your religious teachers have taught you this theory represents some special kind of bugaboo you have a moral duty to oppose.
The ToE does contradict the written word of God
It does contradict a naive interpretation of it, yes.
and so do the time factors in the rest of what you list, but the practical sciences in general do not contradict it.
Much of the practice of medicine is based on evolution.
A Bible believing Christian has no problem with most of it. Astronomy is a problem
great ages are a problem
For YEC 'great ages' represent a far bigger problem than the theory of evolution. It is the evident age of the earth and the universe, not the theory of evolution, that keeps YEC believers busiest inventing far-fetched scenarios.
but all the practical sciences are not.
Medicine and the theory of evolution are intricately linked. Only ignorance allows so many YEC believers to cast evolutionary science as evil and take their prescribed antibiotics at the same time.
Archaeology is not a problem though we may dispute some of its dates.
Archaeology knows of entire civilizations that came and went before YEC admits a planet existed for them to live on.
If you can think this is 'not a problem' for YEC the difference can only be one of scale. YEC has big problems indeed.
Neurology is no problem
The primitive brain and fight-or-flight mechanism corresponds to the physiology of many creatures outside our species. It is studied that way.
germ theory is no problem
Contradicts the biblical teaching that disease is caused by demons. Effects cures by attacking germs while making no effort at all to deal with demons.
genetics is no problem
Genetics dispelled for good the creationist premise that species existed in unique genetic boxes that did not change or overlap. It showed how all organisms are related to each other, more closely or more distantly as predicted by the theory.
Nowhere is this more plain than in the relationship of humans to animals. YEC believers said humans were utterly distinct. The theory of evolution said that Homo sapiens was related to all organisms and most closely related to apes.
Which idea won the genetic sweepstakes?
Evolution. You are 96% chimpanzee.
and 99% of geology is not a problem
So where do YEC believers put Pangea, the Tethys Sea, and Gondwanaland on their personal maps?
and most of astronomy too. Only the time factor.
Aside from that one little problem, Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Some day we'll understand how to put it all together, but we don't yet.
Sometimes you even require more of it to happen far faster than scientists have ever imagined--as when you need animals to hyperevolve into multiple forms after the Flood even as they lose their genetic potential to do so.
I just want to explain this one thing. They had to have started with a LOT more genetic potential than we see in anything living today, whatever form that might have taken. Enough to produce all the amazing varieties in the fossil record before the Flood wiped them out.
It doesn't take much time to get dramatically new breeds of dogs and cats, very little, so evolutionists are just wrong that it takes a lot of time to evolve new variations. All it takes is isolation of portions of any population, geographic isolation through migration, selection-caused isolation, gene drift being one way that happens and so on. Isolation alone will bring about new phenotypes. Isolation causes a change in allele frequencies, and a change in allele frequencies brings about new phenotypes.
Diversity is built into the original genome, and gets played out when selecting processes divide the population, sometimes leaving alleles behind as others combine to bring about new traits.
I have yet to see any need for mutation in this entire process, let alone evidence that it in fact makes any contribution to it.
Yes, when these processes continue to act, dividing, selecting, isolating for many many generations, a particular breed may get to the point that it has so little diversity it cannot change any further and in fact is on the verge of distinction, but that takes a LOT of reduction in the service of producing a new breed or "species." What evos call speciation is simply this process taken to the point of inability to interbreed into the original population. To a creationist this is simply how a variety is made distinctive, unique. It is only threatened with extinction only because of the Fall, which brings in disease, genetic diseases, and death. Otherwise it is merely an expression of the great creative possibilities of the genetic system God designed into all creatures.
All that has happened with my use of a term like speciation is that it makes communication easier. It's been a terminological problem because of the way it is used by evolutionists, which creationists naturally try to avoid. But when it's understood that it's only describing what creationists observe happening all the time then it helps to use it for the sake of better communication. Nothing has changed in creationist thinking in reality.
OK, I JUST REALIZED THIS IS OFF TOPIC TOO. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE OP WAS LOOKING FOR.
Here is your opportunity to show us how your understanding of "real geology" is so superior to virtually everyone else's who have actually studied and/or worked in the field. Also, you can address the impracticalities of finding oil, water, and minerals using that evil science compared to the great successes in discovering and utilizing the Earth's resources involving your interpretation of the Bible.
The issue here is whether evolution is the same sort of thing as heliocentrism.
My own view is that evolution leads quite naturally to evolutionism and is devastating to religious belief.
I think what Tusko said was really interesting and very applicable:
Those who didn't want to admit that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe saw heliocentrism as a challenge to their notion of the Almighty. Now as our notion of God has adapted, heliocentrism is largely an irrelevance.
When an accepted idea conflicts with a religious idea, you'll naturally be led away from religion. As religious ideas adapt, the conflict disappears.
I do see this happening over time with evolution, for better or for worse. There will always be those who don't like the adaptation; they will die out. Their protege will be more and more a minority, and soon enough there will be no seam between the accepted idea and the religion.
Seems religious thought is no different than any other type of human thought--it changes and adapts over time. Not necessarily in an individual, but in our societies. I didn't really think about this until I read what Tusko write. So, thanks Tusko!