Summations Only

As I followed your thread on Geology I found nothing to object to as a YEC until very late in the thread. Fact.

Did you not read it, or just not understand it?

Read it, understood it, appreciated it.

Fields of science do not just discard evidence and theories because of some old tribal myths that may be disproved by them.And further, science is an interwoven whole--you can't just take certain sections and discard them without affecting other sections.For example, if you claim that radiometric dating is inaccurate, you must explain why, and your explanation must also fit with other data and theory. No young earther has yet been able to do this. Even the RATE boys, after spending over a million dollars in creationist money had to give up and resort to belief--the evidence they themselves generated agreed with science and refuted the young earth position!In other words, you are just rejecting some fields of science because they don't fit with your favorite old tribal myths, not because there is any real scientific evidence against those fields.And you try to make up quite clever rationalizations to justify your chosen beliefs, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.Sorry, but I find that contrary to everything that it means to be a rational human being.

Fact remains: 90% or more of the actual work done in the sciences is perfectly acceptable to a YEC.

Clearly not.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Fact remains, I've seen YECs in the pursuit of YECism be wrong about geology, paleontology, genetics, thermodynamics, angular momentum, astronomy, anatomy, animal behavior, the speed of light, nuclear physics, gravity, meteorology, Newtonian physics, the theory of relativity, the history of science, the scientific method ... basically, it would be possible to get a good well-rounded scientific education just by studying why creationists are wrong.

Anybody's being wrong about anything doesn't change the fact that 90% of all the scientific work done is quite acceptable to YECs.

You mean 100%. You accept what scientific knowledge brings you, you simply say that it's wrong. Weird stuff denial.

No I meant 90%, a guess at how much of the science is uncontaminated with Old Earth / evolutionist assumptions. About that much of Dr. A's Geology Course was good stuff from a YEC point of view so I figure roughly the same for the other sciences. Of course in practice, especially in popular accounts in the biological sciences, you can hardly find a simple factual statement, it's all distorted by fantastic age assumptions among other things. But you can ferret out the uncontaminated facts if you work at it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is similar to how I learned. I tried to argue YEC and met with arguments from every field of science. It exposed me to a lot as I investigated each argument.

But the science books and the scientists say they do need the Old Earth concept. Effectively, you are throwing out the science books and the scientists with the bathwater.

But I didn't just say they were wrong, I said they were wrong in pursuit of YECism. And pointing out the facts that contradict their fictions is not "quite acceptable" to them.

You keep saying that. Very well, here's the textbook. Please nominate 90% of the articles in it as consisting of stuff that, from here on out, you will never argue with again.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Too much to ask. My general statement is good enough. Wherever facts are presented without the usual ridiculous ancient age suppositions attached to them, a YEC has no problem with them.Rest deleted.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.