|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Implied by YEC? Most science is faulty? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Ok, I have been participating on this board for a week or two now, and have noticed something. Evolution is only the first and most obvious target of creationism's attacks. For creationism to even attempt to hold true, it must also confront geology, astrophysics, ect( there are many more, I just bring up these two as examples) . A creationism viewpoint would require all of modern geology to be wrong, since that discipline of science depends fundamentally on long periods of time to form much of the rock formations we see to day. Astrophysics has at its core an even longer time scale. For much of the light we see at night to travel and reach our planet would take millions to billions of years ( for the furthest objects we can see). Additionally, our solar system is made out of the left overs of a previous star. It requires the life ( and death) of large stars to form the heavier atoms we find in our planet. The big bang ( and a universe with an age of roughly 15 billion years) is another theory in astrophysics that conflicts with YEC.
Now, if YEC is correct, then obviously the vast majority of scientific theories are wrong. However, the same theories of science that support and old (only by our timescale) and naturally evolving universe also are used in developing much of our modern technology. Modern electronics would be impossible without quantum mechanics. Probes in space depend on astrophysics to predict their trajectory through space. Microbiology, and DNA, both used in modern medical research, are both fundamentally based on evolution. The quandry here is that for YECists to be right, they need to throw out the baby with the bath water. So much of science conflicts with a creationist model, that for creationists to be correct, the scientific method would have to be fundamentally flawed. However, science produces, on a regular basis, better and better ways of understanding and describing the universe around us. All of our modern technology is dependant on scientific theories , of which many conflict with YEC. So, YECists, which is it? Is science fundamentally flawed, or is YEC? Hmmmmmmmm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Ummm not quite all the probes we have launched and are still in comunication with are still within the solar system where (apart from the orbit of Mercury) Newtonian mechanics and Keplers laws of planetary motion are still valid and may be used to calculate trajectories.... Sure I know that these are part of Astrophysics but the bit they have to contend with is Hubble red shift etc.... [This message has been edited by joz, 03-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
quote: Mt. St. Helens has debunked (sp?) this school of thought.
http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/wonders.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Logical fallacy, punisher. Just because there are catstrophic occurrences does not mean that all phenomena are catastrophic. For instance, tell us what MSH has to do with continental shelf sedimentation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
When you start believing that all evidence contradictory to Biblical literalism and inaccuracy can be thrown out you start to refuse to accept all science, no matter how elementary. I seriously doubt any Creationists here are geocentrists, but I'll leave a URL to a site that pushes geocentrism. I've been watching it for a while and it occasionally changes. I have concluded that it is not a joke.
This shows what happens when you start with an unchallengeable assumption. Creationists here may argue that the Bible does not say that universe is geocentric, but that is beside the point. This shows how far people will go if they believe the Bible claims the universe is geocentric.
http://www.fixedearth.com/ [This message has been edited by gene90, 03-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
quote: exactly; and not all rock formations take millions of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
I never said that there aren't geologic events occuring, many of which continue to do so even as we speak. However, The layers of sediment, formations of other types of rocks, ect, do take large amounts of time. Some things like erosion take varying timeAs for volanic ash, what isn't removed by wind or water acts like cement, and creates a noticable layer of ash sediment. A million years from now, an observer looking through the strata would find evidence of a volcanic eruption. In fact, by examining the strata above it, and using other dating techniques, the observer should be able to date the approxomate time the event occured.
Take the Hawaiin islands for example. Currently the main island of Hawaii and the island of Kawaii are volanically active. The entire chain of islands were formed from the same geological hotspot underneath the techtonic plate as the plate continued to move. Over long periods of time, one forming island would move away from the hotspot and become inactive. Meanwhile the seabed underneath the hot spot would be active still, and would start forming another island. Midway island and other islands in the Emporer Island chain were formed the same way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
(1) Where on the link that you gave does it mention a "rock formation" that formed in under a million years? (2) How many rock formations do you know of that formed in under a million years without volcanism and impacts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I'm glad you agree that your reasoning was erroneous. Please point out where I said all rock formations take millions of years. Your statement was the slow geological processes have been debunked. Then you failed to support your statement. [This message has been edited by edge, 03-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Also, my questions still stands. Do YECist believe that the scientific method is faulty? How do you reconcile theories that conflict with a young earth , but obviously make predicitions that can be seen today, and/or are used in modern technology, thus supporting their validity?
Also, why do YEC's seem to focus on evolution as the competing theory? It seems that geology and physics (specifically astrophysics) seem to be more conflicting with an YEC viewpoint. Why aren't YECists protesting the teaching of geology and physics? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: YECists do not think the scientific model is faulty. They believe that the way we interpret data is often misguided. So, Creationists aren't protesting the teaching of geology and physics (most aren't even protesting the teaching of evolution). By the way, I am just telling you what YECist's viewpoints are. I am not in any way claiming that YEC is the superior model. (Personally, I think Creationism has a long way to go with geology.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: RONTLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!man are some people dumb...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
The point of the Mt. St. Helens reference was to show that geologic occurances once thought to take millions of years, in fact, do not need that much time with the right conditions. Petrification, river bed formations, multiple layers of fossil forest, etc. Let me try to simplfy it. You look at the Grand Canyon and say "little bit of water and a whole lot of time". I see the same canyon and say "a whole lot of water and a little bit of time". We don't throw out modern geology as implied in the original post; we merely make observations in the present to help us make 'guesses' about the past, as do evolutionists.
------------------The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face - Jack Handey
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: If it was a whole lot of water in a short time it wouldn`t have formed a canyon, the stream/river wouldd have burst its banks, unless of course there was an already extant canyon present, which would have been formed by a "little bit of water and a whole lot of time"......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Punisher: Just curious. What long geological processes is Mount St. Helens supposed to have disproved?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024