Talk:Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism

What's this business of PJR's where he claims Information Theory prevents evolution from being possible? Does anyone know what the heck he's talking about? --Kels 20:35, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I think it is linked to this little masterpiece of an article. Apparently, there's a particular kind of Creationist Intelligent Design Information Theory which posits that information can only originate in an intelligence, which in turn means that all information in the universe can be traced back to one original intelligence. Or something. Plus some stuff about there being information in DNA. Peculiar to say the least. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 20:41, 15 December 2007 (EST)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html may be of some use --Shagie 20:42, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Also of interest are this and this. A big part of the information aspect comes from Richard Dawkins appearing "unable" to answer a question about information posed by creationists.--Bayes^update 19:08, 22 December 2007 (EST)

reasons

"(due to the decay rates of certain isotopes)"

Why bother with any, since then the article would be really long? It's all linked up anyway. Maybe we should "see also" that evidence for an old earth article? This one is almost a TOC for it... human 22:47, 16 December 2007 (EST)

What does "TOC" mean? --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 225 edits!} 05:37, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry, TOC = Table of Contents. human 18:48, 22 December 2007 (EST)

"Bibliology" is the study of books. The study of the Bible is "Biblical theology", like it or not. —AKjeldsen

Well, excuse me, Mr. Fruitcake. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 270 edits!} 18:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Beg pardon? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:07, 22 December 2007 (EST)

You heard me. I called you a fruitcake. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 270 edits!} 18:09, 22 December 2007 (EST)

So I gather. Could you elaborate: "Fruitcake" as in "crazy person" or as in "homosexual"? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:11, 22 December 2007 (EST)

"Fruitcake" as in a "horrible, dense pastry everyone despises". Which basically makes you a walking booby prize. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 270 edits!} 18:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Hey! I'm making fruitcakes this Christmas! Lurker 18:58, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Ok, I see. Well, personally, I'm a great fan of fruitcakes, Dresdner Stollen in particular, so the "everyone despises" might be a little hyperbolic.

Anyway, is there anything in particular that has occasioned this, I imagine, vitriolic comparison of me with a otherwise quite excellent type of pastry? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:29, 22 December 2007 (EST)

You bludgeoned me with your mind. Then you go and ruin a great "vitriolic comparison" with your joy of fruitcake! You're worse than fruitcake, you're Vegamite.

Ew. Well, I'm sorry I had to bring my awesum powerz of cognition to bear against you. I'll try to be more careful next time. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:55, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Play nice kids.-αmεσ (spy) 18:09, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Wouldn't "Secular Biblical study" be better than "theology"? human 19:14, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I suppose so. Or "Biblical criticism", maybe. Depends on which part one wants to emphasise. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:49, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Well, you're the expert, so I defer to you - pick what you think is best and change if necessary? Thanks, human 20:13, 22 December 2007 (EST)

The study of Animal Migration.

How did those Kangaroos get all the way over to Australia from the Ark? Daecon 00:47, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Obviously, Noah had a smaller motorboat stowed on the Ark, which he loaned to the kangaroos. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:33, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

THATS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS YOU BLASPHEMOUS NIT! I have never heard a stranger theory. Obviously god shot them with a giant rubber band from Mount Ararat to Australia. They didn't die in the landing because Australia was full of marshamallows. SO there. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 00:50, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

But where did the marshmallows come from and how did they get there? Also, wouldn't they be all soggy from the flood? Daecon 01:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Ummm....well you're a terrorist. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 01:43, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Obviously, God put the marshmallows there after the flood. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:47, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Goodness me, what bible are you reading? There's no mention of kangaroo's in the bible. They are an example of liberal deceit--Damo2353 02:53, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Just like heliocentrism and dinosaurs? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 03:00, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Kangaroos , wombats, echidnas and the rest were dropped off on the top of ayers rock as the ark went past. Since the continents were drifting really fast it wasnt a major problem. you musta slept in science class 67.72.98.57 13:09, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Snakes. Snakes? Snakes!

When did they lose the ability to talk and gain the ability to metabolise dust? Why did they then go on to lose that ability, too? Also, was the losing of their limbs due to Darwinian or Lamarckian evolutionary development, or neither? Daecon 03:16, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Goddidit --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 03:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Similar page for OEC's?

Do we have people having enough expertise for a page for Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in Old Earth Creationism? Thieh 01:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there really is a topic there. OECs pretty much just think that God did the big bang, don't they? ħuman 02:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OEC is pretty much a cafeteria. Attempts to delineate it would be hard to do without overtly straw manning. Neveruse513 03:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some OEC's are just Big Bang, but others have a wide variety of views ranging from shoe-horning a few billion years into the first two verses of Genesis to something almost identical to a scientific viewpoint.--Bob^{bing up} 06:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ASoK

We say: ...... A Storehouse of Knowledge - which similarly keeps science out of his project. I don't follow it much - could someone say exactly how he keeps science out? --Bob^{bing up} 14:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually question whether aSoK is even significant enough to include in the article at all. --Kels 14:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bad enough mentioning CP. ħuman 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem sort of article

The issue of list articles was discussed at Saloon bar recently. This seems a particularly bad example - the article title is unbearably clumsy, & it's just a list of basically every branch of science, without explanation of why specifically each of them conflicts with YEC. Plus it's a smug straw man - YECists don't ignore these sciences: they present fallacious interpretations of them which fit around their world-view. It's much more useful to analyse & refute what exactly is wrong with these arguments, as many of our other articles do very well, rather than making sweeping statements that YEC ignores the sciences, which is outright false. I suggest either a major rewrite & retitling, or move it on to fun/essay space. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose ideally every branch listed here would link to an article explaining why (not necessarily purpose-built, we probably already have quite a few). What think ye? ħuman 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that stoat, ferret thing that it is a strawman, YECers don't ignore these bracnhes, they just have a different worldview about them. Creationists don't ignore science, they invented it. Besides which, science is just elephant hurling. Ace^{Liquid Room} 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I think we can probably mill over this one for a day or so and get it up to scratch. Obviously it started as a bit of a joke article, but I think the site is sufficiently mature to explain itself now. ^{d hominem} 01:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't deny the correct word, in the sense of denialism? (Or, more strictly "deny the evidence and conclusions of"?) Sterile nude photograph 16:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

History

You don't actually need to identify kings older than that. 6000 ago means 4000 B.C.E. So, if we assume and demonstrate the existence of complex societies some centuries later (Egypt, Mesopotamy, Mohenjo-Daro) we must conclude that they didn't appear out of the blue. I think this observation is worth mentioning in the article.

Archaeology

Humanities more than science? I know when it comes to history there's a bit of an overlap, but I'm pretty sure this conflicts in a very specific scientific way and is quite a principle notion of why, even if it isn't billions of years old, it's definitely isn't 6000 years old. ^narchist 13:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathematics

The YEC claims are without a doubt utter nonsense from a scientific perspective, but mathematics really has nothing to say about the matter—mathematics does not even claim to represent reality. Claiming otherwise is just as much claptrap as the YEC loons' "evidence". Yes, someone should counter any mathematical claims YECs may make, but not by making other false claims. —dfeuer (a student of mathematics)

Note also that mathematics is not a branch of science at all; it does not demand evidence based on either observation or experiment. —dfeuer

Wot? Mathematics itself perhaps doesn't attempt to represent reality, but it's an essential tool in every scientific field, which certainly do attempt to describe reality. Why? Because math, used right, has immense predictive power about the world. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 14:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but dfeuer is right. Maths (with or without the final 's') is a tool, not a description, and definitely not a science. It's a tool used by science but, in itself, says nothing about what is or isn't.

In the only example given under Maths - "Trig disproves c-decay" - it's not the trig that disproves it. It's the measurements which are analysed using trig which disprove it. This is an important difference.

And then placing Computer Science under Maths is just bizarre. The whole section is plain wrong. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've often thought of computer "science" as applied logic, with a component of logistics or operations research thrown in for the interesting bits. The logistics comes into play when there are large data structures to be massaged. I'm thinking of image processing and signal analysis/processing, but I imagine today's searching and data-mining techniques make those look like something a toddler could do in a sandbox. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The placement of computer science under math isn't really so bizarre. Quite a few universities with dedicated faculties for math do place computer science under that faculty as opposed to science. I've found that theoretical computer science has more in common with pure mathematics than it does with most of the sciences. - Grant (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Pi

Approximating pi as 3 is not so egregious, when the idea is to convey a general impression of size. Fifteen feet across, forty-five feet around, is close enough for that literary purpose. I find this particular bit of nit-picking embarrassing. Show me a reason not to delete it, and I won't. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Reversing the polarity - 'Branches of science not inherently incompatible starting from a YEC-position.' (Do cooking, and weapons-manufacturing fall in this category?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)