YEC Discussion with Sprittibee
I am having a discussion with Sprittibee, in this post of her blog. Sprittibee is a creationist who home schools her children. I found this via gnosos. I even stole the title from gnosos... I hope that's okay. She also replied to my post about Globular Clusters.
As I already noted, YECs are not always stupid. I do think that Sprittibee is able to understand, it is just that she has to learn a few things. In her comments, she asks a few very basic questions, all of which should be easily answered by a high school student. I say should, and if a high school student cannot answer these, something has gone terribly wrong with the education system. And anyone who thinks he can make an argument for YEC, has to be able to answer these questions, not to speak of someone who wants to home school her children. That does not mean she is stupid.
These are her question, repeated from her notes of Kent Hovind:
1. Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)? 2. How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus? 3. Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.? 4. How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? 5. When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? 6. When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? 7. When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? 8. Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? 9. Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?
Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information. Yeah, that would explain a lot. Most of these questions were answered in my text books, I am sure.
She then goes on with her own questions, after I explained to her that heavy elements are formed in supernovae:
1. How do we know what elements are in a super novae? 2. How were a sample of these elements obtained? 3. If we add new elements to the chart occassionally, how do we know we have discovered them all? 4. If there are undiscovered elements and we have never been to a super novae to collect samples, how do we then know that they do not use elements that are not yet discovered in their supposed evolution?. 5. If we are not using observable and testable factual real life evidence in our models and simulations, how then can we call them scientific? 6. If we start our research with a pre-disposed idea of the conclusion, is our data not then skewed to reflect that pre-disposed idea?
It is especially number 3 that shows complete lack of understanding. 4 follows from that. And I am not going to repeat basic high schoool physics and chemistry here.
I can answer 5. I think this comes from my post about GCs, where I talk about models for star formation, and how they beautifully fit the observations. Well, basically that's it: they do match the observations. It also isn't true that the input from the models does not come from the observations: the initial composition is observed by in interstellar gas clouds, the physics is observed and well understood, some data are from nuclear bomb tests. Maybe I didn't express it clearly: the age derived from the observation of GCs is not dependent on other observations that the universe is old, and that is why I considered it important.
I think number 6 deserves annother post. Just this much: there are no pre disposed ideas. Nobody came along and said 'I need a universe that is 15 billion years old, please assume this in your models'. It is the other way around: we observe those clusters and derive an an age of 15 Gyears.