Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8945 total)
35 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,179 Year: 20,215/19,786 Month: 612/2,023 Week: 120/392 Day: 33/87 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 1 of 312 (317413)
06-03-2006 11:41 PM


It is not uncommon for someone with a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) belief system to state that they do not have a problem with science at large, just with evolution or more expansively, the parts that may disagree with a literal, and inerrant reading of the Bible.

I would like to use this post to determine what parts of science disagree with the YEC belief and therefore would be impacted under a YEC -only educational and research orientation. I would also like to know what would then be left of the sciences after going through the filter of YEC.

For purposes of discussion, I would like to define YEC as a belief that the Earth and cosmos are 6,000 years old, that a great flood covering the planet occured around 2300 BC, and that life did not evolve but rather was specially created within this time frame.

To get such a discussion started, I would like to point out which fields I know of off the top of my head would be impacted. This is by no means comprehensive, so please add what I have left out, as per the purpose of this proposal.

Because I have a little more familiarity with the geosciences than other fields, I will start there.

Geosciences:

Historical Geology - geologic eras and periods of Earth's history as commonly defined would require considerable contraction.

Sedimentary Geology - principles concerning sedimentary layering, deposition rates, uniformitarianism, and age of formations would all have to be revised.

Structural Geology - events concerning large scale deformation would have to be retimed and speeded up.

Paleontology - ages of fossils would require recalibration, current evolutionary relationships would be nonexistant.

Tectonics - would require continents to move at extraordinary speed, then slow to historically observed rates.

Volcanism - no volcanoes prior to 6000 yrs ago would indicate massive simultaneous eruptions.

Paleomagnetism - would require massive revision of observed change in polarity of Earth to fit 6,000 year timeline.

Dendritics - tree rings would have to be recounted and model of annual growth changed to fit in with young Earth, also applies to varves and ice cores.

Geochemistry - role of isotopes in geologic dating would require massive change in model.

Hydrology - ages of water in confined subsurface aquifers would require revision to fit 6K Earth. Models concerning hydraulic conductivity and recharge rates would require significant revision.

Geophysics - various models of formation and age of Earth would require massive revision. Even heat dispersion as outlined by Kelvin would need revision to fit YEC.

Minerology - only area of geology unaffected by YEC (so far as I know at moment)

Physics:

Nuclear - models of decay would require massive revision due to age of half-lives (see geochemistry).

Cosmology - entire universe would have to be contracted to 6,000 year radius to fit in with Genesis account of creation and observed speed of light. Hypothesis of stellar formation, distances, evolution, would be revised. Galaxies must all fit in with young age. Background radiation from singularity event would have to be reexplained.

Particle - Proton decay models out.

Atmospheric - climate models including ice core data would require revision.

Chemistry:

Isotope decay models would be massively revised. see geochemistry

Biosciences

Central model of evolution would have to be discarded. Results would be too many for me to list, will defer to experts.

{this is really outside of my area, please contribute as see fit}

Anthropology

Physical - since human evolution would be out, whole field gone.

Cultural - see linguistics.

Archeology - all models and interpretations concerning digs older than 6,000 years would require revision.

Linguistics

Models of language development, dispersal, and evolution would require revision to fit in with Tower of Babel.

Also history that goes too far back would require rewriting. Accounts of early history of Chinese, Indus Valley, Mesoamerica, Sumeria, Egypt, etc. would require rewriting. Oral history of Australian Aborigonies going back 40-50,000 years would have to be discarded.

I'm sure I left out a lot, so should this topic be promoted, would like to hear about other areas for purposes of learning. Also, I would like to hear from the YECs to explain how such an orientation would have little or no effect on these subjects.

Thank you. Hope the topic is not too broad.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by hitchy, posted 06-05-2006 11:20 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Jazzns, posted 06-06-2006 3:52 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 06-22-2006 2:57 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-22-2006 9:15 PM anglagard has responded
 Message 43 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-23-2006 5:25 AM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Quetzal, posted 06-23-2006 10:24 AM anglagard has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 27 of 312 (325042)
06-22-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Adminnemooseus
06-22-2006 9:15 PM


Re: Topic could've been titled "All non-biol. evolutionary processes" - Closing soon
Violation of Rules to post, sorry

Edited by anglagard, : Asking where

Edited by anglagard, : Emotion

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-22-2006 9:15 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 127 of 312 (325759)
06-24-2006 5:48 PM


Practical Hydrogeology
In a hydrogeology class back in 1983 we worked out how long it would take for rainfall in the Zuni Mountains (the souce of the water in the aquifer) to get to the San Juan River in Northwestern New Mexico through a confined aquifer. The answer was around 830,000 years, if my memory serves correct. The science behind the calculation is here:

http://www.ncwater.org/Education_and_Technical_Assistance/Ground_Water/Hydrogeology/

The reason I bring this up is that hydrogeology does have practical consequences since in the Western US agriculture and indeed, much human life, is largely dependent on groundwater from confined aquifers. In order to determine how much water is available, or indeed how soon an aquifer is depleted, is based upon the theoretical concepts outlined in the attached website. These are practical real-life consequences to the exact same set of theories that show how old groundwater may be at any point in a confined aquifer.

I guess if one were to demand all science be vetted by YEC mullahs, then such equations may be used to determine where science ends and Last Thursdayism takes over in each confined aquifer. However, this would not address groundwater management problems and solutions in the Western US as using the exact same equations that date groundwater also determine how fast it can be replinished.


Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 6:12 PM anglagard has responded
 Message 129 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 6:25 PM anglagard has responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 130 of 312 (325770)
06-24-2006 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
06-24-2006 6:12 PM


Re: Practical Hydrogeology
You are assuming, per uniformitarian assumptions, that rainfall in the Zuni Mountains has always been the source of water in the aquifers.

No, only so much water can be pushed through a given volume of a confined aquifer depending on its hydraulic conductivity. Amount of rainfall has nothing to do with how fast water can be absorbed by the ground in a given amount of time. In this case velocity is independent of amount.

The only way the water could be there in many confined aquifers is that it was either absorbed through its recharge areas and is often even millions of years old or it was magically created with the appearance of age.

The same equations that provide age determine how long recharge takes.

Edited by anglagard, : took out potential misunderstanding


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 6:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 6:39 PM anglagard has responded
 Message 139 by jar, posted 06-24-2006 6:58 PM anglagard has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 132 of 312 (325773)
06-24-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by arachnophilia
06-24-2006 6:25 PM


Re: Practical Hydrogeology
If the great flood deposited all sedimentary rocks at once there would be one layer of one type of sedimentary rock.

However your prediction as to a response is probably accurate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 6:25 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 6:41 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 158 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 7:57 PM anglagard has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 135 of 312 (325777)
06-24-2006 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
06-24-2006 6:39 PM


Re: Practical Hydrogeology
The basic or original configuration of aquifers couldn't possibly be what was left over after the receding of a worldwide flood then?

See post 132 for what I think you are trying to imply.

ABE - nevermind simultaneous posts.

However, continental aquifers contain fresh water, flood water is salt water (even if somewhat diluted).

Edited by anglagard, : Trying to answer

Edited by anglagard, : diluted salt water


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 6:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 6:48 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 6:57 PM anglagard has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 141 of 312 (325789)
06-24-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
06-24-2006 6:54 PM


Re: assessment at this point
Some whole sciences are a problem for YECs but not very many really, and even there I think a great deal of the daily work is no problem whatever. Astronomy, paleontology are two that come to mind. No need to be exact at this point in this limping discussion.

How can you say that right after I showed you that YEC is a big problem for Hydrogeology, which has an immediate ramification in practical science. The same equations used to date water in confined aquifers (which in many cases show dates up to millions of years) are used to determine how long it will take for the aquifer to be recharged. This is vitally important for water management, which farmers use to grow our food in the Western US among other things.

Additionally, this is fresh water, not salty Great Flood water we are discussing here.

Edited by anglagard, : sp.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 6:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 7:12 PM anglagard has responded
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 7:18 PM anglagard has responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 144 of 312 (325793)
06-24-2006 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
06-24-2006 7:12 PM


Re: assessment at this point
The same equations clearly show that there is but one choice, the existing model or Last Thursdayism.

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 7:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 7:32 PM anglagard has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 149 of 312 (325799)
06-24-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
06-24-2006 7:18 PM


Re: assessment at this point
Again, there is no reason whatever to think the original ocean was salty.

Truly astonishing. How many epicycles does one need to create to abandon the Ptolomaic concept of the universe?

Obviously if the oceans were all fresh water, there would be virtually no table salt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 7:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 7:34 PM anglagard has responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 154 of 312 (325804)
06-24-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
06-24-2006 7:34 PM


Re: assessment at this point

Didn't you see my original comment on this? How did it get lost so soon? It's not that far back. The salt is leached from the continents. The salt water bodies on land are created by the same means, salt from the ground.

Which is primarily from ancient shallow oceans.

Also not all salt in the oceans is due to runoff, some is leached from oceanic rock and chemically produced from volcanic vents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 7:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019