My Graduate Challenge

[PsychoSarah]

LOL

Right after you said this to me?How about you take your own advice too, chief?

Nice catch, I can never get myself to focus in on those text walls without spacing.

Hogshead, one may be more prettily worded, but those clearly contradict each other. You can't claim people delude themselves into understanding stuff, and then bash someone for doing the same.

 

[Butterfly99]

In your opinion, what are the chances of a YEC entering a secular college or university today and graduating as a YEC after getting a degree in life sciences?

Well hopefully 0%. Cause I mean if they still believe that by the time they're going off to college then chances are they didn't get the opportunity to learn real science yet. If they're going to a normal college then they'll get the opportunity to learn. After four yrs if they're still as ignorant as when they started well then they squandered a lot & that's a pity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice catch, I can never get myself to focus in on those text walls without spacing.

Hogshead, one may be more prettily worded, but those clearly contradict each other. You can't claim people delude themselves into understanding stuff, and then bash someone for doing the same.

What I've made a mental note to do, is I'm watching to see if Hoghead1 will take flack for saying Mr. Darwin was saved, like I took flack when I said basically the same thing years ago.

I suspect he won't, as I truly believe it's not what we [Christians] say there that matters.

It's what we are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well hopefully 0%. Cause I mean if they still believe that by the time they're going off to college then chances are they didn't get the opportunity to learn real science yet. If they're going to a normal college then they'll get the opportunity to learn. After four yrs if they're still as ignorant as when they started well then they squandered a lot & that's a pity.

Okay.

Thanks for an honest answer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What I've made a mental note to do, is I'm watching to see if Hoghead1 will take flack for saying Mr. Darwin was saved, like I took flack when I said basically the same thing years ago.

I suspect he won't, as I truly believe it's not what we [Christians] say there that matters.

It's what we are.

You are way easier to read than he is *aims appropriate amount of flack at Hogshead for historically unsound deathbed conversion support*

 

[HitchSlap]

What I've made a mental note to do, is I'm watching to see if Hoghead1 will take flack for saying Mr. Darwin was saved, like I took flack when I said basically the same thing years ago.

I suspect he won't, as I truly believe it's not what we [Christians] say there that matters.

It's what we are.

Saved from what? He died in 1882.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Saved from what? He died in 1882.

Converted on his deathbed.

 

[Zosimus]

So were you just being wordy while avoiding the entire point of the post???

No, your style of writing is so bad that exactly what your point is escapes me.

I assume anyone that attempts to avoid is lying as well and also deluding themselves, which is why they never actually get around to answering the point of the posts but just digress.

Here's a case in point. You start "I assume anyone..." but this is nebulous. Are you assuming anyone or are you assuming that anyone will do something? If this were the only defect in the sentence, we could probably read around it. However, later you say "deluding themselves" yet "anyone" is not a "themselves," something you accepted when you used the verb "attempts," which agrees in number with the subject "anyone." Then you use a ", which" modifier, which logically should attach to the word themselves. In short, your sentence seems to say "themselves is why they never..." This sentence makes no logical sense. Then you include the word "they" again, even though it has no logical antecedent.

So you expect me to worm my way through that thicket of bad speech and magically understand what you mean to say. Well, I'm not a mindreader. Maybe you should learn to express your thoughts clearly and succinctly.

If you don't ignore the observational evidence then you won't be part of "they" will you so should have nothing to worry about.

Meaning unclear.

Certainly not mutational.

Why not? Are you claiming that mutations never occur?

I'm pretty sure if you can't tell the difference just by looking then you would simply be deluding yourself - or refusing to see.

I don't know. Everyone calls my son "chino" because these people believe that his eyes look slanted. Yet his mother is 25 percent black and 75 percent hispanic whereas I'm of French and English descent. How does that make him Asian?

But then those blinded tests by volunteers are supposedly have already been done.

Unlikely and anyway, Wikipedia isn't a source. It's a compilation. Give me the link to the source.

Oh there is nothing nebulous about it - just people that choose to ignore the definitions as already provided.

You seem to enjoy links to Wikipedia. Try this one on for size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

As I said: "But maybe you can find wrong verb usages here too and also ignore the point of the entire post."

Ahh, but I feel that I am making progress. Look at your sentence–before you likely would have said "Like I said..." but now you have learned that it's as. Deja que los perros ladren Sancho amigo, es señal que vamos pasando.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, your style of writing is so bad that exactly what your point is escapes me.

Good luck getting him to believe that. Tons of people seem to be having trouble understanding him, and he just gets frustrated and acts like we do it on purpose. I would be ok if he wasn't so accusatory towards our misunderstandings.

Here's a case in point. You start "I assume anyone..." but this is nebulous. Are you assuming anyone or are you assuming that anyone will do something? If this were the only defect in the sentence, we could probably read around it. However, later you say "deluding themselves" yet "anyone" is not a "themselves," something you accepted when you used the verb "attempts," which agrees in number with the subject "anyone." Then you use a ", which" modifier, which logically should attach to the word themselves. In short, your sentence seems to say "themselves is why they never..." This sentence makes no logical sense. Then you include the word "they" again, even though it has no logical antecedent.

Then again, I challenge someone to read this without internally hurting. So much just to say that when one breaks down the grammar of what he says, it ends up not making sense.
So you expect me to worm my way through that thicket of bad speech and magically understand what you mean to say. Well, I'm not a mindreader. Maybe you should learn to express your thoughts clearly and succinctly.[/QUOTE]
I would settle for him just not taking misunderstandings to heart.

Why not? Are you claiming that mutations never occur?

From conversations I have had thus far with him, that is the implication. That, or mutations are irrelevant.

 

[Hoghead1]

Why don't I apply the same logic to myself, AV? Simply because that while I'm humble enough to admit I don't know everything, I am also honest enough to admit it when I have solid expertise. Yes, I do think I know this material far better than others here. I have a solid education in science, earning me an M.S. in a major scientific field from a Big 10 school. After that, I earned a doctorate in theology from a conjoint program between a major university and a PCUSA seminary. Now, I realize you are extremely anti-intellectual and do not believe in higher education, but I and most truly educated people do. You are just sitting on the sidelines, taking pot shots. I am going on my experience from on the inside. So either you are so gifted that you are far, far smarter of all these scientists and other thinkers, or you simply don't know what you are talking about. I place my beets on the latter.
Do I think Darwin is saved? Well, since you ask, I say yes. In fact, I believe God saves everyone. You can't get saved unless your brother is saved, so either we are all saved or damned. I vote for saved because I believe God is loving and therefore does not work coercively, by threats of horrible punishments. Do I get flack for this? Yes, from certain right wingers in the church. But big deal, so what? That's their problem. Their flack actually means nothing to me, since it is simply a personal attack on me, which is not appropriate in a serious theological discussion and shows the attackers are intellectually weak, cannot come up with a viable rebuttal, and try to cheat and win by attacking my character or the character of anyone else who disagrees. Also, I have the support of many other Christian thinkers.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We aren't ignoring the observational evidence, because if we did, evolution as a theory wouldn't even exist. At best, we are both looking at the same evidence and interpreting it differently. At worst, both sides are being spoonfed completely. Reality is probably some middle ground between those, and it varies from person to person. However, we aren't ignoring it if we claim it's wrong, because we'd have to know what it is to do that.

That would be interesting, but here's the issue with saying that: if you don't factor in belief with creationism, that means all your arguments have to equally validate all ideas of creationism, including those that aren't based in Christianity. Obviously, you don't do that. For someone to agree with your position completely, they have to be in the same religion as you.

Large variations are often the product of smaller variations building up over time, or in some cases, mutations in significant genes. Yes, single gene changes can have a huge impact, they just don't account for most of the big changes we see.

Not this again; seriously, you can get people that look more "Asian" through a couple of purely African roots. It could even happen in a single generation by chance, depending on what group in Africa you look at.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/93/2b/42/932b4217efb175f183468a2ec618a2bc.jpg well, Chinooks and Mastiffs may not be directly related, but Labrador Retrievers did come from Tibetian Mastiffs. So this http://dgicdplf3pvka.cloudfront.net/images/dogbreeds/large/Labrador-Retriever.jpg has ancestors like this http://artakridaperkasa.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/4/0/40405817/8517026_orig.jpg .
Only if you look at one generation. Additionally, those offspring will have mutations that neither of their parents have, so yes, they are slightly different. I don't know the mutation rate for dolphins, but in humans, your children will have between 40-60 mutations that neither yourself nor your significant other have. Most of them will be on junk that does nothing, but sometimes they do impact genes. It can be negative, such as with cystic fibrosis. It can be positive, such as being less prone to heart disease. It can be functionally neutral, such as changing eye color. The fact of the matter is, mutation happens, and you can easily observe it.



Well sure, they would look very similar if you just look at their heads, and don't look at the rest of their bodies or account for the fact that most of those dinosaurs didn't live at the same time at all. Do you really think this dinosaur on that list https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ptoceratops_BW.jpg/220px-Leptoceratops_BW.jpg
is the same as this one https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Centrosaurus_BW.jpg when you can actually see their body proportions? http://img06.deviantart.net/9478/i/2011/338/b/9/styracosaurus_by_pheaston-d4i63ny.jpg and
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/files/2013/01/Montanoceratops-new.jpg lived five million years apart from each other, and the former was nearly twice the size of the latter.

If all those dinosaurs you listed are within different infraspecific taxa, then chimpanzees are just hairy humans, and chickens are T-rexes. The differences between them are not as minor as just seeing their heads would suggest. Practically all predatory birds would look the same if you drew them the same color, presented only their heads, and gave no mind to physical size comparisons. Except for owls, owls are pretty distinct.

That's just blatantly incorrect, as per bacteria experiments in lab.

Well, you manage to be wrong on all accounts here. Interesting thing about bacteria; they are such flexible organisms, that they can take surface proteins from dead bacteria that are highly different from themselves, and add them to their physiology. Hence why harmless bacteria can become infectious when they are in an environment containing dead infectious bacteria. So not only can bacteria change without mating outside of their taxa, they can do it with exposure to dead bacteria different from themselves.

Outside of that, nearly every bacterial evolution study shows bacteria derived from only one specific genetic line adapting and changing as a result of a different controlled environment. If what you said was actually true, then antibiotic resistance would not be an issue.

You don't think having legs where eyes should be is a significant change within one taxa? Because that is a thing that can happen. That, and every human mutation ever, given that Homo sapiens sapiens is not only the last remaining member of the genus Homo, but the only species and infraspecific taxa within it. There is a mutation that occurred within the past 100 years that makes the people lucky enough to have it have such dense bones as to never have them break unless intentionally done so. The mutation was found when someone noticed a small number of people, despite being in car accidents and other such situations, rarely had bone fractures and never had their bones fully broken. So they investigated and found the mutation. There is also a group in Italy practically incapable of having high cholesterol thanks to a mutation that puts the cells that dispose of the excess into overdrive.

It should never have existed in the first place. Let's all be honest with each other. It was those finches that led to acceptance of the theory - because they were labeled as separate species and so were the living evidence that evolution was true. The sad thing is that Darwin believed they were reproductively isolated and therefore separate species - when he simply had not stuck around long enough to do a proper scientific investigation. Now we know they are interbreeding right before our eyes and producing fertile offspring, yet they refuse to correct their mistakes, because this would take away the entire basis of the theory itself. The simple fact is it was founded on a mistake in classification - one which evolutionists still refuse to admit to, despite the definitions of their own science.

And for this reason they no longer have any standing, because if we cant trust them in such a little thing as correcting and admitting to a mistake in classification, they can not be trusted with greater truths.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, your style of writing is so bad that exactly what your point is escapes me.


Here's a case in point. You start "I assume anyone..." but this is nebulous. Are you assuming anyone or are you assuming that anyone will do something? If this were the only defect in the sentence, we could probably read around it. However, later you say "deluding themselves" yet "anyone" is not a "themselves," something you accepted when you used the verb "attempts," which agrees in number with the subject "anyone." Then you use a ", which" modifier, which logically should attach to the word themselves. In short, your sentence seems to say "themselves is why they never..." This sentence makes no logical sense. Then you include the word "they" again, even though it has no logical antecedent.

So you expect me to worm my way through that thicket of bad speech and magically understand what you mean to say. Well, I'm not a mindreader. Maybe you should learn to express your thoughts clearly and succinctly.


Meaning unclear.


Why not? Are you claiming that mutations never occur?



I don't know. Everyone calls my son "chino" because these people believe that his eyes look slanted. Yet his mother is 25 percent black and 75 percent hispanic whereas I'm of French and English descent. How does that make him Asian?


Unlikely and anyway, Wikipedia isn't a source. It's a compilation. Give me the link to the source.


You seem to enjoy links to Wikipedia. Try this one on for size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem


Ahh, but I feel that I am making progress. Look at your sentence–before you likely would have said "Like I said..." but now you have learned that it's as. Deja que los perros ladren Sancho amigo, es señal que vamos pasando.

What part of ignoring the observational evidence don't you understand? What part of incorrectly classifying 90% of the fossil record as separate species instead of infraspecific taxa within the species do you fail to understand?

What part of Asian does not evolve into an Afro-Asian but remains Asian do you fail to understand?

What part of never once have you observed variation in the species except when two infraspecific taxa mate do you fail to understand?

Is it really you fail to understand? Or is it you just do not want to understand?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It should never have existed in the first place. Let's all be honest with each other. It was those finches that led to acceptance of the theory - because they were labeled as separate species and so were the living evidence that evolution was true. The sad thing is that Darwin believed they were reproductively isolated and therefore separate species - when he simply had not stuck around long enough to do a proper scientific investigation. Now we know they are interbreeding right before our eyes and producing fertile offspring, yet they refuse to correct their mistakes, because this would take away the entire basis of the theory itself. The simple fact is it was founded on a mistake in classification - one which evolutionists still refuse to admit to, despite the definitions of their own science.

And for this reason they no longer have any standing, because if we cant trust them in such a little thing as correcting and admitting to a mistake in classification, they can not be trusted with greater truths.

The finches were just one example. Why they have so much fame, I will never understand. Also, they were isolated on islands, birds can fly, but only so far.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What part of ignoring the observational evidence don't you understand? What part of incorrectly classifying 90% of the fossil record as separate species instead of infraspecific taxa within the species do you fail to understand?

What part of Asian does not evolve into an Afro-Asian but remains Asian do you fail to understand?

What part of never once have you observed variation in the species except when two infraspecific taxa mate do you fail to understand?

Is it really you fail to understand? Or is it you just do not want to understand?

The funny part about your issue with him, is that he doesn't support evolution any more than you do.

But again, he said why he doesn't get you: your wording is strange.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Look, Jusatruthseeker, you can fire all sorts of salvos of inflammatory rhetoric and character attracts at me all day long. These men absolutely nothing in a serious theological discussion. If they do mean anything , it is simply that the attacker does not have the intellectual capabilities of offering a suitable rebuttal to the opponent, and then cheats, trying to win by dumping on the opponent's character. So, if you want to make an impression on me, have me take you seriously, you need to cease and desist all hate mail. Stick to the subject. Now, having read what you said above, I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. It has no apparent logic to it. Now, maybe I missed something. So let me ask you some questions. Exactly what does your account of the Chinook, Husky, and Mastiff have to do with evolution and evolutionists blowing it? Are you trying to argue evolutionists are unaware of the order in which these breeds came to be? If so, that is most unlikely. If they occurred in a certain temporal order, then that is the way the evolutionists would find them in the layering, if there was any involved. There is no problem here.
If evolutionists never saw a dog and knew nothing about them? What kind of argument is that? It makes no sense, as I don't know of any evolutionists who have never seen a dog. Furthermore, given the conditions you spell out for the history of the Chinook, I can't see how any evolutionists would say it existed before the 1900's. You argument makes absolutely no sense here. So, give the inflammatory rhetoric a rest and take the time to more clearly spelling out your arguments.

Stop making claims that are not true and you won't have to worry about it, now will you?

The Husky mating with the Chinook is he ONLY time you have EVER observed variation occur in the species. But if you quit ignoring the observational evidence of how life propagates and variation is observed to ocurr in the species - we wouldn't have this proble,

I'll say it again The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook - and neither does the Mastiff. The Husky remains a Husky and the Mastiff remains a Mastiff - yet variation has just occured in the species. Yet this variation is completely ignore as having any consequence in evolution - even if they have observed nothing else.

Apparently they are unaware - since you were just claiming not a few posts ago that such order did not exist. Or shall I go quote your direct words? Let me do so anyways to prevent further avoidance.

"So if dogs were found in that order in the layering, the assumption of the evolutionists would be correct. However, since that isn't the way dogs developed, there won't be any layering like you describe, to start with. So your argument is totally bogus."

And the assumptions of evolutionists are not correct - since the Chinook does indeed appear in the record after the others. And we also understand from direct observational evidence that neither the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook - so being found later in the layer is no proof of all of evolution. The Husky remained a Husky and the mastiff remained a Mastiff and yet the Chinook is indeed found later in the record. No evolution took place at all.

It is quite relevant: If evolutionists had never seen a dog in real life - just as they have never seen any of the dinosaurs in the fossil record in real life (living and breeding) they would incorrectly assume that the Chinook appearing later in the record means that it evolved from an earlier one, just as you do with dinosaurs. Just as you first tried to portray would mean evolution was correct - but then tried to claim that is not what was observed.

Stop ignoring the observational evidence and making false claims and you won't have to worry about me calling you out on them and pointing out your errors or your deliberate fabrication of the data. Not sure which since you still seem to be insisting you made no mistake despite the obvious nature of your mistake. So you are leaving me with no choice but to lean towards deliberate and intentional fabrication of the data.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The finches were just one example. Why they have so much fame, I will never understand. Also, they were isolated on islands, birds can fly, but only so far.

And yet the DNA data revealed they were not isolated - but have been interbreeding from the start. Darwin just did a poor job at research and jumped to conclusions before he had all the data.

It's a big deal because it is an error they refuse to admit to, even if they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of their very eyes. So if they refuse to admit to and correct this mistake - how many others are there that they also refuse to admit to and correct? If one can not be trusted in the little things - one certainly can not be trusted with the larger things.

The reason they refuse to admit to this mistake is as Weiner claims "that in light of the Grants' studies, the Galápagos finches now constitute the Number One example of evolution in action. "

"The Grants' team, focusing primarily on finches of the genus Geospiza on the island of Daphne Major, discovered that various "species" not only interbreed but do so highly successfully. For example, a male G. scandens crossed with a female G. fortis, producing four children, 46 grandchildren, and "a lot of great-grandchildren""

"These finches are clearly not showing themselves to be different species: "Life would be so much simpler if lines of animals would only keep to themselves, [evolutionist Jeremy] Searle writes, only half-jokingly. That should not be too much to ask: it is the zoologist's standard working criterion of a good species . . . . 'It is disappointing that even Darwin's finches do not seem to quite fit the bill.' " (Weiner, p. 201)."

The Grants themselves have stated:

"The discovery of superior hybrid fitness over several years suggests that the three study populations of Darwin's finches are fusing into a single panmictic population, and calls into question their designation as species." (Grant and Grant, 1992, p. 196)"

""The end point of speciation is the complete absence of gene exchange. Many, if not all, coexisting populations of Darwin's finches have not quite reached that point, although they function as species by remaining distinct even in the face of occasional gene exchange." (Grant and Grant, 2003, p. 970)"

Occasional? It's happening so often they now appear to be fusing into one species - but since they are already interbreeding they were never separate species to begin with. What they are now terming as speciation in reverse to avoid the fact that they simply made a mistake.

https://answersingenesis.org/natura...olution-causes-darwins-finches-to-go-missing/

""We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the [adaptive] radiation [of Darwin's finches]. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry. . . . We find widespread evidence of interspecific gene flow that may have enhanced evolutionary diversification throughout phylogeny. . . . Extensive sharing of genetic variation among populations was evident, particularly among ground and tree finches, with almost no fixed differences between species in each group. . . . Evidence of introgressive hybridization, which has been documented as a contemporary process, is found throughout the [adaptive] radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry, in the past (this study) and the present. . . . The degree of continuity between historical and contemporary evolution is unexpected because introgressive hybridization plays no part in traditional accounts of adaptive radiations of animals." (pp. 371, 374)"

Even the DNA results call their labeling them as separate species highly suspect.

"As well, it has been demonstrated that even at the molecular level, the various "species" of Geospiza are indistinguishable. Studies involving both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA were unable to separate finches of this "genus" into their six "species." This result is "uncharacteristic of nearly all other avian species and genera. . . . there is little evidence for clear species limits within Geospiza . . . irrespective of whether one uses biological, phylogenetic, genealogical, or evolutionary species concepts. . . . [It might be that] each genus is [just] a polymorphic species" (Zink, pp. 867-868)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)

How is it not important when they are claimed to: "constitute the Number One example of evolution in action." ?????

 

[Butterfly99]

Okay.

Thanks for an honest answer.

You're welcome!

 

[Hoghead1]

The question ahs been raised here as to what chance someone really into creation science and YEC would have of earning an advanced degree in the life sciences. I'd say pretty darn good, especially in the social sciences. I have had recent correspondence with a professor of sociology who has a nice, big fat, cushy grant to do nothing more than sit and the computer and study online creation-science apologetic sites. Who uses them? What do people gain from them , etc.? The field of psychology has often been faulted for being atheistic and antireligious. Not so. Contemporary psychology is very interested in everything from NDE's to how faith affects healing to how prayer affects the brain, you name it. Provided you could frame you interest and commitment to creation science as some kind of original research for a dissertation, someone into creation science would find themselves right in their element here and taken seriously in what they have to say. Many universities have departments of religion. And I guarantee you they might be very interested I n hiring someone into creation science. Right now, several are online looking for professors with expertise in contemporary American religions and that certainly means creation science. Only problem in getting hired is that it is a tight academic job market with up to 500 applicants for a single position. Of course, that is not in science, but it does show people into creation science are welcome in universities. Back to "hard science." You can get away with just about anything you want with your dissertations commits, provided (and this is important) you are big enough to pull it off, can make a solid case for it. The problem one might have with creation science is coming up with some sort of creation-science hypothesis that could be scientifically tested and verified. That might be difficult, as much creation science does not stand on a solid scientific footing, to begin with. And if you did come up with a solid hypothesis, you better get significant results or else. So it would be a matter of a candidate strong enough to come up with an original proposal or hypothesis that he or she is sure they can scientifically verify. OK, what if some student believes in creation science, though not doing research into it. No problem. More than one major science entertained beliefs totally askance from his scientific work. It is a cliché that Einstein was a pioneer investigator into the reality of time. What many people are unaware of is that he did not believe in time at all. He though it was all a big illusion. He was qu9ite outspoken here and his views can easily be found online. Other contemporary scientists have been very open about the fact that are more or less idealists, that is, do not at all believe in the reality of an external physical world, hold the world is nothing more than a collection of ideas residing no place but in our minds. So, as long as it doesn't mess up your on=the-job work in science, it really matters little what your actual beliefs are. The only schools I know of that make a big issue about belief in evolution are some Christian colleges, such as Capital University, who make it plain on the application that they will not hire anyone who believe s in evolution. At the local U here, there is a professor of chemistry who is into creation science and does give lectures over in the science building. I know, I have attended. Hence, the local U has no policy of sacking science professors because they believe in creation science. I don't know where some people here got that idea. I don't know of any professors in other fields who got sacked because of their views on evolution, one way or the other. In fact, over at the student union, there has been a creation-science booth handing out literature and holding meetings in a room at the union since way back when.

 

[Hoghead1]

The example you give with the finches, Justatruthseeker, needs some qualifiers you omitted. As Darwin himself pointed out, there can be real problems defining just was a species is. This is also a problem recognized today. Hence, the fact one challenges another's definition of a species in no way invalidates evolution. it simply points to difficulties that are occupational hazards here. For example, astronomy has had trouble in defining just ws is a planet.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In your opinion, what are the chances of a YEC entering a secular college or university today and graduating as a YEC after getting a degree in life sciences?

About the same as a flat-earther doing so after a degree in astrophysics.