Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 11:06 PM
20 online now:
Meddle (1 member, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Implied by YEC? Most science is faulty?
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 36 (6243)
03-07-2002 12:30 PM


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
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 03-07-2002 12:59 PM Darwin Storm has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Punisher, posted 03-07-2002 2:59 PM Darwin Storm has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 36 (6244)
03-07-2002 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Darwin Storm
03-07-2002 12:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
Probes in space depend on astrophysics to predict their trajectory through space.

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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-07-2002 12:30 PM Darwin Storm has not yet responded

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 36 (6247)
03-07-2002 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Darwin Storm
03-07-2002 12:30 PM


quote:
since that discipline of science depends fundamentally on long periods of time to form much of the rock formations we see to day

Mt. St. Helens has debunked (sp?) this school of thought.

http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/wonders.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-07-2002 12:30 PM Darwin Storm has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 03-07-2002 3:04 PM Punisher has responded
 Message 7 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-07-2002 4:13 PM Punisher has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4472
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 4 of 36 (6248)
03-07-2002 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Punisher
03-07-2002 2:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
"...since that discipline of science depends fundamentally on long periods of time to form much of the rock formations we see to day."

Mt. St. Helens has debunked (sp?) this school of thought.

http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/wonders.htm


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Punisher, posted 03-07-2002 2:59 PM Punisher has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 03-07-2002 3:50 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Punisher, posted 03-07-2002 4:07 PM edge has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1904 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 36 (6249)
03-07-2002 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
03-07-2002 3:04 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 03-07-2002 3:04 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by LudvanB, posted 03-07-2002 6:35 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 36 (6250)
03-07-2002 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
03-07-2002 3:04 PM


quote:
Logical fallacy, punisher. Just because there are catstrophic occurrences does not mean that all phenomena are catastrophic.

exactly; and not all rock formations take millions of years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 03-07-2002 3:04 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by gene90, posted 03-07-2002 4:14 PM Punisher has not yet responded
 Message 9 by edge, posted 03-07-2002 4:31 PM Punisher has responded

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 36 (6251)
03-07-2002 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Punisher
03-07-2002 2:59 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Punisher, posted 03-07-2002 2:59 PM Punisher has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1904 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 8 of 36 (6252)
03-07-2002 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Punisher
03-07-2002 4:07 PM


(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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Punisher, posted 03-07-2002 4:07 PM Punisher has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4472
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 9 of 36 (6253)
03-07-2002 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Punisher
03-07-2002 4:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:

edge: Logical fallacy, punisher. Just because there are catstrophic occurrences does not mean that all phenomena are catastrophic.

P: exactly; and not all rock formations take millions of years.


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Punisher, posted 03-07-2002 4:07 PM Punisher has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Punisher, posted 03-07-2002 11:54 PM edge has responded

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 36 (6254)
03-07-2002 4:33 PM


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.
Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-07-2002 4:56 PM Darwin Storm has not yet responded

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 36 (6256)
03-07-2002 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Darwin Storm
03-07-2002 4:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
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.

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.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-07-2002 4:33 PM Darwin Storm has not yet responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 36 (6258)
03-07-2002 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by gene90
03-07-2002 3:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
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]


RONTLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!man are some people dumb...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 03-07-2002 3:50 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 36 (6272)
03-07-2002 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by edge
03-07-2002 4:31 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by edge, posted 03-07-2002 4:31 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by joz, posted 03-08-2002 12:17 AM Punisher has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 03-08-2002 12:26 AM Punisher has responded
 Message 17 by nator, posted 03-08-2002 7:35 AM Punisher has not yet responded
 Message 22 by edge, posted 03-08-2002 12:08 PM Punisher has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 36 (6273)
03-08-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Punisher
03-07-2002 11:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
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".

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"......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Punisher, posted 03-07-2002 11:54 PM Punisher has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3953 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 36 (6275)
03-08-2002 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Punisher
03-07-2002 11:54 PM


Punisher: Just curious. What long geological processes is Mount St. Helens supposed to have disproved?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Punisher, posted 03-07-2002 11:54 PM Punisher has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Punisher, posted 03-08-2002 7:18 AM Quetzal has responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019