YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

I will give you one answer. I am darn glad the people who plan how to handle radioactive waste are following an old earth geological understanding of time rather than a YEC time frame. Because if they were to calibrate the radioactive decay clocks to YEC time, they would be off by many years on how long it is going to take for radioactive isotopes to decay to a stable (and safe) form.

6000 to 10,000 years for the age of the earth. No. The whole thing falls apart if we postulate radical changes in decay rates within the past 6 - 10,000 years.(which the YEC hypothesis does). That is not even a blink in geological time. It would mean the decay rate we measured last year is no longer accurate. So we really wouldn't have anything to go on. Besides, decay rates impact a lot more than just how long the waste has to be stored. It also tells under what kind of conditions we have to store the waste. Furthermore past conditions on Earth, however different, are not going to radically change radioactive decay rates, as decay rates are determined at the elemental isotope (atomic) level.

Congratulations on recognizing a well-used creationist debate tactic, what Talk Origins affectionately has dubbed the "Gish Gallop". Here is one description of it:"In his efforts to promote creation science, Gish has frequently debated prominent and well-known evolutionary scientists, with mixed results. Opponents object to the often unstructured nature of the debates, what they call a "shotgun" approach to presenting many arguments, each of which would require considerable time and information to refute, a technique which has been referred to as the "Gish gallop." "

But why did you exclude astronomy? Astronomy is certainly a science other than evolution so there seems no justification for excluding it based on the OP. It appears that you are trying to "cherry pick" the subjects more favorable to your premise that old earth scenarios are unnecessary to the daily practice of applied science.

I always thought of the Gish Gallop of being a form of goal post movement. The idea is to give what you termed a "wave" response to a well reasoned argument and then move on to the next topic. It works particularly well with a live audience because the audience soon tires with long detailed responses and is more entertained by snappy if vague retorts and assertions that the creationist debaters have perfected.

I was under the impression that the topic of the thread was:
"YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond EvolutionI think it is you who are off topic here, or at least trying to define the topic too narrowly.

Evolutionary biologists do not recognize a fundamental difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The distinction has mostly been promoted by YECs wanting to explain "within kind" evolution after the Flood and herbivore to carnivore evolution after the Fall. It is not a matter of evolutionists not being familiar with it. It is a matter of evolutionists rejecting the YEC concept of microevolution on the grounds of implausibility and inconsistency with available fossil and other evidence. So yes, until you can come up with some solid evidence, fossil or otherwise, that microevolution as defined by YECs can occur, it is going to be rejected here on scientific grounds. That is how science works. It does you no good to complain about it. Unscientific arguments are not going to pass unchallenged, if that is what you mean by "argued out every time." You say you hate science and scientists but you keep trying to make scientific arguments that are based on bad science. I suggest that if you really want to participate in these discussions that you get a basic geology text and a book on evolutionary biology and read them. Then at least you will know where we are coming from even though you will still probably disagree with us. After all, many of us here have read the Bible so I don't think it is too much to ask.

Amen Brother. You got it exactly right. And just ask the Russian farmers what happens when a flawed evolutionary model is used in plant breeding, such as Lysenko genetics.http://www.jimloy.com/biograph/lysenko.htm

I don't know about a lion but I have a cat that is a bitch. How is that for macroevolution?