YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

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.Oh, it was Message 138Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If they could produce results, they would have no problem getting hired.Why is there no YEC-Oil corporation exploring for petroleum using a YEC paradigm? Why is there no Pharma-YEC corporation producing new drugs using a YEC paradigm? Why is there no YEC Shipbuilding corporation building wooden ships that are "far more stable" than anything built from a non-YEC paradigm?There are many areas where YEC "science" could be proving itself, but isn't.Show us the results and YECism will be taken seriously. (You have my personal guarantee. )

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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.

---

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.

I think you've got this wrong.The idea of the world being created 6000 years old and Noah's Flood happening 4000 years ago (or whatever the numbers are) was demolished in the early days of the science that became geology.It was the founders of geology who first realised the Earth had to be much much older than the 6000 years required by the Biblical literalism fantasy - and this happened the best part of a century before Origin Of Species was published.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

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

---

MY ADDED BOLDING.1) I registered a long time ago and then did not return for a number of years. I've only been posting regularly since the Spring of 2005.2) I don't read a lot of the creationist threads here because they have too much specific science as well as some oddball things I can't follow.3) I did read creationist books, such as those by Henry Morris however, so I will comment on that as follows: There is nothing in this quote to imply one type of sedimentary rock, but he's obviously talking about the EXISTING GEOLOGICAL COLUMN THAT WE ALL KNOW AND LOVE, that is, the "global continuity of sedimentary formations" -- and he next emphasizes its worldwide continuity -- and says it appears to have been formed by the "continuous rapid deposition of SEDIMENTS -- SEDIMENTS PLURAL."Continuous rapid deposition" does NOT mean "simultaneous" as you put it somewhere yesterday. It means RELATIVELY RAPID considering how much sheer volume of stuff is involved. Of course. And there was no need for arguing that "elsewhere," Arach, it's OBVIOUS he was talking about sequential deposition in the first quote. How on earth could he have been talking about anything else? He's talking about the EXISTING OBSERVABLE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN. Good grief. Absolutely not. He neither said AT ONCE, nor ONE LAYER. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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

---

That's fine. I already said paleontology has to go in my first message on this thread.

That's a smarmy lie. The Flood is the well considered explanation for a great deal of phenomena. It isn't just thrown in.

Faith, perhaps you'd like to give a mathematical/engineering model for a boat that could hold that many stuff, healthy and kicking, for that many days in this thread?

That's been answered a million times over and it's off topic on this thread. And that thread is just a lot of stupid jokes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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?

---

i can't tell which one of us is joking anymore.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---