wagsbags said:
Are there any other YECs? Or was dad seriously the only one?
Greetings, wagsbags,
From your post count, I think you can probably answer that question better than I about CF, though I've spent time on boards with a much higher proportion of YECers.
What you'll find, and it's been documented, is that as one learns more science, one is far less likely to hold fast to the YEC viewpoint. Those more knowledgeable about the YEC position are generally self-taught from sources such as AIG, AnswersInGenesis.com for those who may not be familiar with the acronym. At the very top are those rather unusual scientists, considered a very small fringe group, who contribute to sources like AIG.
It's sometimes possible to lure them into a discussion, but I'm afraid you'll find they're not merely uninformed, like dad, but deliberately dishonest. The papers I've reviewed, for the benefit and at the request of some high school YECers on another board, were filled with methodologies such as actually throwing away the majority of the data, while keeping the extremes which supported their theses.
The experiments generally suffer from too few data points initially as well, though that may be deliberate fraud -- leaving contradictory data entirely unreported. One paper based its entire conclusion on two data points from an experiment which collected only five, and was not repeated!
Though I appreciate your intent, and have duplicated it myself, I believe you'd do just as well, if not better, by going directly to AIG and studying their materials yourself. Or, instead, studying the debunking of their materials at talkorigins.org ... as I'm sure you've already done to some extent.
The very best you'll get from a YEC poster will be a careful reiteration of these results. Some posters are quite good at this, having studied their materials diligently. The predominance of what you'll find are posters who hold their beliefs based on metaphysical grounds, which erode rather rapidly as they are exposed to to the scientific method of experiment, careful observation and conclusion.
If you wish to share opinions with such, you must adjust to a different, and non-standard, conflated definition of evolution which includes all science which serves to repudiate a literal interpretation of the bible. Interchanges with them can be profitable if you're interested in the spiritual principles that guide their beliefs. But you will find yourself frustrated until you learn to speak with them about evolution as they define the term.
Teaching them your definition is a requirement if you wish to proceed with a discussion of the scientific basis of their beliefs.
dad wasn't being dishonest. And from the way he passed over others' expressions of frustration, I don't believe he was anything but goodhearted as well. As he defines the terms, a young earth is equivalent to a rejection of "evolution" -- science which denies the literal accuracy of the bible.
While I suffer from prolixity, I can recognize when a forum posting has reached its top length of readability and so will stop now. To continue a discussion with dad, it might be appropriate to begin another thread asking YECers what evolution means to them. If you can remember to ask and listen without contributing otherwise, I believe you'll find the effort rewarding. But leave your definition of science behind. Let them express theirs instead.
Specialists believe they own their words, but they don't, they just use them more effectively.
In peace.
