YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

ok, i can't really make a good over-arching case that, well, it's not just interpretation, but that science is sequential. so let's just examine some of the details of your claim about "just interpretation" and perhaps you can justify how the area of science as a whole works without the "evolutionary" bits. so i'll start with one particular case that yec "interpretation" requires that we ignore outright: the law of superposition. this is a law, not a principle, and not an interpretation. the evidence of deformations and angular uncomformities requires that this law be true (i'll explain why, if you're fuzzy on the details).now, yec flood "theory" requires that the law of superposition is false, and all layers were laid down simultaneously. i would like you to describe to me exactly how day-to-day geology is done without this law, as this law is one of the axioms on which geology in general relies. i have some passing familiarity with geological science, but i know you won't believe me when i say that without this law, all modern geologic study breaks down. it is not just "interpretation" it is mountains of evidence that no longer sit properly with anything else -- and to my knowlegde, no creationist as ever explained the evidence that requires this law with a different "interpretation." believe me, i've asked. you're welcome to give it a shot.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

ok, that screws "flood geology" then. let's address the next point: what kind of timeframe do you see for the sequential layering of rock? how quickly was the entire geologic column laid down?

---

faith feels piled on here, and subbie seems to be doing a very good job of arguing the point. i suggest that other members lay off for a while, and let these two duke it out for a while. treat it kind of like an informal great debate, take a seat and grab the popcorn. or peanuts, as the case may be.

---

one on one is too few? but one to four is too many? what'll make you happy, faith? he just described the breakdown of nuclear physics, and mentioned that similar problems are present in all areas of science. that's an inductive argument, using and example of how science works. things are built one on top of the other, much like in math. if a lower level if removed, everything above it comes toppling down.you agreed, at the beginning of the tread, just how many different areas would be similarly affected by the requirement that science be made to fit yec assumptions. do you now disagree that it would have that many consequences?

---

i think we're running into a problem here. you seem to have a different definition of "evolution" than everybody else.for instance, the yec objection to evolution extended to all of fields in the op, but not basic "workaday" "micro" evolution. whereas the scientific definition is precisely what you are calling "micro" evolution -- science makes no distinction here.perhaps what you mean is theory of evolution as it relates to common ancestry, and the history of the tree of life? as well as, well, geoscience in general? perhaps it would suit the debate better if you gave your definition of evolution, and the scientists gave theirs. at least then we'd know how we're using the terms.

---

yes, i'm just trying to explain the source of the problem, and why the arguments are strawmen. we're dealing with different definitions -- so when you say "evolution" we should read it as "common ancestry" and "geologic time" as opposed to what you would term "micro" evolution (the variation of heritble features in a population from one generation to the next). i was making no attempt to argue that here, and i am aware of the yec standard. i think it's shortsighted, arbitrary, and full of holes. but that's not the topic. i'm just trying to make sure everyone else understands what you mean: common ancestry, geologic time, and maybe cosmology, and NOT the variation of heritble features in a population from one generation to the next.

---

i have a question about the yec view of fossils. as i think is obvious, yec'ism seems to be highly skeptical of paleontology in general, often claiming that reconstructions are made up wholesale, or from too little actual fossil. this sort of claim tends to circulate regarding creatures that are "transitional" between two forms -- pakicetus, tiktaalik, archaeopteryx, etc.so the question is, suppose we have two completely separate kinds, assumed by yecs to be unrelated by definition. suppose also that their parts are homologous (not a made up condition. for instance, our arms are homologous to whale flippers, and i think you agree that we're not whales). let's go beyond homology for a second, and say that many more obvious similarities can be drawn. would it be valid to use similar kind "a" to help reconstruct missing parts of kind "b" even if the two are unrelated?would studying the patterns of homology (a premise that, btw, would lead us to "macro" evolution, but let's ignore that for now) help us to determine what sort of missing parts an animal had, and about what shape and size they'd be? ie: if kind "a" looks like a compromise between kind "b" and kind "c", is it still valid to use information from kinds "b" and "c" to reconstruct the rest, in a half-way between manner, without the evolutionary aspect?in other words, is "looks like" evolution enough? or does every reconstruction ever done become suspect?Edited by arachnophilia, : typo, fins for flippers

---

hermit crabs and king crabs are the same kind? again, strictly limiting evolution with an undefined term is quite intellectually lazy. if the limit is absolute, it can't have a fuzzy boundary. well, could you please answer my question in Message 116? i don't mean to harass you about it, but you say the yec position is obvious, and then yell at us for assuming the wrong thing. evidently, it's not as obvious as you think. i'd like to know how paleontology is a problem area, and in what degree. and the answer to that question would greatly help me -- otherwise, i'll make a point and get accused of a strawman. and i have a feeling that accusation will come not matter WHICH point i make, as the yec position shifts its goal posts and squirrels out of any refutation by changing the vagueries of its definitions.i don't think it's a lot to ask that the yec's explain their terms and objections in specifics. i realize that makes the position falsifiable, and thus can be proven wrong -- but welcome science. well, depending on your answer to the above, the daily science of paleontology may in fact be in serious jeopardy.

---

so, you know what "macro" evolution is, better than a scientist who uses evolution in his daily work? and he's prejudiced for not following your argument regarding how you know more about his work than he does? this one time at my high school, we had a power outtage. they sent us all home. we came back the next day, and the power went out again. they had managed to repair the broken generator, without fixing the cause of the problem -- it was on fire.your analysis of his work is about like fixing the wires, without putting out the fire. it's a quick fix, without figuring out the underlying cause of the problem, or how to prevent it in the future. you neglect to acknowledge that it was the evultionary background of the king crab -- its hermit crab ancestry -- that led to solving the problem. evolution put forward a hypothesis, and the results proved it. i asked a question in Message 116. maybe you just haven't gotten to it. but it's a genuine question. above, you describe how actual relationship is unneccessary to determine similarity between hermit crabs and king crabs (nevermind that we know this because of evolution), and thus the similarity between needed diets. does it work for paleontology too? can we reconstruct partial skeletons based on "unrelated" but similar organizism (outside of a "kind" by definition)?

---

*coughgreatfloodcough*

funny, your registration date indicates that you've been here longer than me. and i clearly recall several yec making such claims here.for instance, here's henry morris:

quote:

---

Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a time when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."

​

The Institute for Creation Research

---

he argues elsewhere for "sequential" deposition, admittedly. but sequential -- within a period of 150 days, and all deposited by the great flood.so yes, virginia, there is a yec that says such a thing.

---

so, if it's across "kinds," it's ok because there's no "macro" evolution. but if it's within kinds, it's ok because it's not "macro" evolution. you don't want to get into specifics, because it's easier to defend vague ideas -- because it's easier to move goalposts and cry "strawman!"you also are ignoring my question, and my question purposefully lacks specifics. you seem to be unwilling to define precisely what the yec objection is, and how it relates to what practices we term as "evolutionary" are acceptable. at this point, i can only assume that you have no interest in debating in good faith. then feel free to actually answer my question in the same regard: it doesn't matter if things are actually related, as long as they share similarities. is that true for paleontology, too? can we filling missing pieces using our knowledge of shares similarities, or even "compromise" similarities? yes, as i attempted to explain to you and everyone else here before, when a yec says "evolution" he or she does not mean the same thing as when a biologist says "evolution." to a biologist, population genetics is the definition of evolution. the problem is that yec's often fail to realize that population genetics doesn't abruptly stop at a certain point. the question i asked had nothing to do with geologic time. i specifically worded it so it did not. two out of three of my example kinds "a" "b" and "c" could, in fact, be living today. the third only needs be extinct before being discovered by science. it could have died out yesterday for all i care -- can we still reconstruct the missing pieces based on its similarities to two living kinds? you've made your point. it's now being argued. apparently, the practical scientists here think it's wrong. great. answer my question about what is and what is not acceptable to the yec-mindset, and we'll go from there. because, well, if we can't use "macro" evolutionary relationships to help tell us about extinct animals, it pretty well borks a very, very large section of paleontology.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

it's the cure-all solution. when in doubt, blame it on the flood.

---

yes. he's talking about the entire geologic column being laid down within a period of 150 days. sequential, yes, but i wouldn't hesitate that to call it "all at once."

---

...all of paleontology?

---