It ain't just evolutionists

[Vance]

I find it odd that the YEC's tend to call all scientists who are not YEC's themselves "evolutionists". First of all, there are no "evolutionists" in science, although there are evolutionary biologists, which is fairly close.

The point is that the evidence for an old earth and universe comes from a wide variety of disciplines that have nothing whatsover to do with evolutionary biology. Just to name a few:

Geology
Astronomy
Archealogy
Astro-physics

Can someone provide a more complete list of those sciences which provide support for an old earth which are not related to evolutionary theory?

 

[Siliconaut]

Paleontology
Genetics (although that depends on how you define "related)
Immunology (see above)
Scient... no, strike that! Behave!
Please continue.

 

[JohnR7]

The point is that the evidence for an old earth and universe comes from a wide variety of disciplines that have nothing whatsover to do with evolutionary biology.

That is exactly it, evolution at it's core, mostly has to do with biology. Yet biology is totally at the mercy of other branches of science to tell them the age of the earth. They should be able to arrive at those conclusions independently if there was any substance at all to evolution.

 

[Happy Wonderer]

That is exactly it, evolution at it's core, mostly has to do with biology. Yet biology is totally at the mercy of other branches of science to tell them the age of the earth. They should be able to arrive at those conclusions independently if there was any substance at all to evolution.

Why? Does biology assume that life started the instant the earth was formed out of the interstellar dust? If not, then how would studying biology tell you the age of the Earth?

hw

 

[Vance]

John, what are you talking about, I really am not getting what you are saying.

Evolutionary biologists have their theory of how diversity is created. It is based on genetics, chemistry, etc. As a theory, it *requires* a great deal of time, but that is not a problem since the scientists in other fields having NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory independently establish that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The belief in an old earth predates evolution as a theory, so we are not talking about an old earth as a means of providing a proper window for evolution to take place.

Are you saying that evolution was arrived at as a means of explaining what the earth was doing all these billions of years?

 

[Saint Philip]

First of all, there are no "evolutionists" in science

I agree completely. But, there are a lot of Evolutionists who insist they are in science.

 

[Arikay]

SP: Can you back that claim up, or will it remain unsubstantiated?

 

[Vance]

Well, I am not sure what you mean by "Evolutionist" in your post, but if it means those who believe that the theory of evolution is a generally correct explanation of diversity of life on our planet, then yes, there are many, many "Evolutionists" who are in scientific fields. Just like there are many Gravitists (those who believe that the theory of gravity is the best explanation for why things fall toward the Earth)

[etc, etc, with other theories widely accepted]

edit: I should add for those who are sarcastically challenged that I made "Gravitists" up.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

To work in modern times evolution only needs Biology and it's associated fields. We know we can mutate creatures thru selective mating, been there and done that.

To work in the OEC models that's when the other fields of science come in. Beautiful thing is that the different fields which have nothing to do with each other all come together to make one point in evolution.

 

[Mainframes]

That is exactly it, evolution at it's core, mostly has to do with biology. Yet biology is totally at the mercy of other branches of science to tell them the age of the earth. They should be able to arrive at those conclusions independently if there was any substance at all to evolution.

The scientific community isn't geared towards making sure that evolution works. It just so happens that discoveries in other fields can be used to show that evolution is possible, like a large jigsaw puzzle.

Geology, and others, state that the earth 4.5 billion years old. Evolution requires vast spans of time to work. The two results mesh together and therefore evolution can work. Just like the motions of mercury were explained when relativity emerged, two seperate branches of science that could fit together to reinforce the validity of each other.

From personal experince I can use fluid dynamics to explain the electrochemical behaviour of ion species reacting at an electrode

 

[Jet Black]

I find it odd that the YEC's tend to call all scientists who are not YEC's themselves "evolutionists". First of all, there are no "evolutionists" in science, although there are evolutionary biologists, which is fairly close.

It is the creationists' attempt to turn evolution into a religion.... a case of trying to drag science onto their own turf (see quote in my sig about idiots) This is why when one looks at Hovind's recent debates, he has the line "Time is the Evolutionists God" in the title.

 

[JohnR7]

John, what are you talking about, I really am not getting what you are saying.

For science to use a rat in research, all they need to know is that rats and humans are very much alike. They both are made up of similar cells, they have similar organs.

When they start to say rats and humans are very much alike because humans evolved from rats, then that is nonsense.

 

[Jet Black]

When they start to say rats and humans are very much alike because humans evolved from rats, then that is nonsense.

absolutely correct. anyone who says that humans evolved from rats should be locked away... on the proviso that anyone who says that people say that humans evolved from rats should suffer the same punishment, largely because both groups have made the same fundamental error in completely misunderstanding evolution.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

For science to use a rat in research, all they need to know is that rats and humans are very much alike. They both are made up of similar cells, they have similar organs.

When they start to say rats and humans are very much alike because humans evolved from rats, then that is nonsense.

It would be, wouldn't it? Can you find a single paper which proposes that humans evolved from rats?

Time for another bonfire. Plenty of strawmen - they should burn well.