|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What scientist do assume, is that the relation between conditions and evidence is about the same. For example, they assume that the ways we measure length today would have worked just as well in the past. If that assumption were wildly wrong, then life as we know it could not have existed - that's an implication of the fine tuning argument. Length never changes, but radioactive decay, so I've heard, occurs at different rates under different circumstances. You also have to know the original quantity of the substance that is decaying. I don't claim to understand much of this, but I have the impression there are many variables involved that don't fit with the uniformitarian assumption.
If you want to assume that radioactive decay occured much faster in the past, then it would have had to release far more energy. That's where the principle of conservation of energy is relevant. A faster radioactive decay would have resulted in higher radiation levels, probably high enough that life as we know it could not have existed. Again, this is all speculative about the distant past whose conditions we can only guess at, and who knows how many other variables should be taken into account that are being overlooked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I know you're busy but it would really help us understand the YEC position if we could get answers to the questions in Message 57.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You asked me some questions that relate to my beliefs based on teh Bible and I answered you, but I don't see how this is related to the topic of the thread.
My YEC assumptions can be taken as a given in this context. The question is then to what extent science would have to change to accommodate them. My claim is that getting rid of evolutionary theory and old earth theory would not change most of what is done in practical everyday science. Radioactive decay MAY be an exception, or astronomy, which I noted in my first answer to the OP, but I'm not even sure about that. So far my impression is confirmed that ordinary useful science really doesn't depend on evolutionary theory much at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I know you're busy but it would really help us understand the YEC position if we could get answers to the questions in Re: "Workaday science" (Message 57). I think what would really help you understand the YEC position is to take my answers seriously so far. I see no need to supply specific numbers that obviously only relate to the speculative stuff about the past that really has nothing to do with workaday science, which I understand to be the topic, since we YECs claim workaday science shouldn't be much affected by the elimination of evolutionary and old earth theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1313 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
But you are making claims.. without the requisite knowledge to make such claims, and, as per The Fall, without the requisite ability to gain the correct knowledge to make such claims. Yet you somehow feel confident to take those uninformed, unreliable claims above hundreds of years of earnest scientifc discussion and investigation.
I really find that fascinating
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Do you believe in a Young Earth? If so, what age?
Do you believe in a Fall and that at that moment basic things changed? If so, when did that happen? Faith, unless we have a clue exactly what it is you are saying, how can we answer the questions realated to what effect those things you espouse would have? Really, can you give us some indication of the time frames as outlined in Message 57. For example:
AbE: Once I looked through a telescope and saw the Andromeda Galaxy. I would like to know where it is in relation to the earth, how far away for example. From the information I can gather from astronomers it apears they believe that it is about 2 million light years away from us. Since I personally saw it, light from Andromeda is currently reaching us. Under the YEC perspective, how can we determine the distance of any distant object? Edited by jar, : add specific example Edited by jar, : fix dates Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2922 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Not even going to bother, Faith. If you can hand-wave away part a, there's no point in expending bandwidth on the other. Ask yourself this question, however: how do fossils relate to biogeography? Answer that, and you have the answer to your question. 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." "
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Thanks deerbreh. In this case it's less Gish Gallop than moving the goal posts. Ah, well. I'll come up with some kind of response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I specifically excluded astronomy from my considerations in my answer to the OP.
I don't know the exact numbers for those events. I'd have to spend time looking them up, and even then exactitude wouldn't be possible. Use whichever ones are familiar to you. Try a range of possibilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thanks deerbreh. In this case it's less Gish Gallop than moving the goal posts. Ah, well. I'll come up with some kind of response. Either acknowledge that nothing you said involves macroevolution or old earth theory or prove that it does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Patience, Faith. I'm trying to develop a response that doesn't require scanning and then posting the contents of several textbooks and literature references. I'm not sure a nice little two-three paragraph response is going to satisfy you, but that's likely all you'll get.
OTOH, in the meantime, it might be useful for you to express EXACTLY what you'd accept, since I've already covered both specific and general cases related to my field.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2922 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
I specifically excluded astronomy from my considerations in my answer to the OP. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I specifically excluded astronomy from my considerations in my answer to the OP. That's nice, but much of our current knowledge is based on measurements. The fact is we can see light from Andromeda. If the YEC position is true, how far away is Andromeda and how can we see the light from it?
I don't know the exact numbers for those events. I'd have to spend time looking them up, and even then exactitude wouldn't be possible. Use whichever ones are familiar to you. Try a range of possibilities. I did not ask for exact number in Message 57 but rather a number with bounds, ranges of confidence. YEC is your position, not mine and so I think it would be both unreasonable and unfair for ME to assign the definition of what YEC means. Here are the types of information needed: For example:
If you agree with those then simply say yes and we can then proceed. If you do not, then simply post what it is you think should be used. Afterall, YOU are trying to build a case for YEC. These dates are important and as we proceed I hope to be able to demonstrate why. You agree that after the fall things such as rates of radioactive decay and the speed of light are pretty much as we see them today. Is that correct? Edited by jar, : fix dates Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I understand that you may not have a clear idea of what I as a YEC regard as microevolution as opposed to evolution, but really, most of it. I think I can say that I've never read anything about actual studies of species and populations that requires macroevolutionary theory at any point in the understanding of them. I've said a lot about this on various threads but of course you may not have read them. But I am moving no goal posts. What I see being done by biologists does not require any notion of macroevolution or an old earth. It is the same with your examples.
You could show me wrong by finding an examples or that single paragraph that proves that these concepts are useful in any aspect that kind of work. I think you simply take the ToE for granted and assume all these ways of thinking about populations and species derive from it. Most people do. In fact I don't think they have any necessary connection with it at all. It's all a matter of habitual association, and not actuality. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Afterall, YOU are trying to build a case for YEC Not really. I'm trying to show that scientists don't depend on the ToE as much as they think they do, if at all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024