"Creation Science": Same data - different interpretation

[RickG]

One of the claims of "creation science" is that they uses the same data as mainstream science but come up with a different interpretation.

With respect to "young earth" claims, I would like to see examples where the same data obtained by mainstream geology can be used to interpret things such as a young earth, global flood, or an ice age after said global flood.

Science: Question everything.

 

[crjmurray]

Boop

 

[RickG]

Well so far, 23 views and one Boop. I really would like to see an example of same data different interpretation.

 

[Goonie]

To get it going here's a link to the institute of creation research talking about carbon dating of fossils
http://www.icr.org/article/117/270/

 

[crjmurray]

Oh that's hilarious.

 

[RickG]

View attachment 164251
To get it going here's a link to the institute of creation research talking about carbon dating of fossils
http://www.icr.org/article/117/270/

Interesting. They do throw out some technical aspects, but all I see is a misrepresentation of the process, especially with the AMS method. They also misrepresent "insitu 14C" in Eocene, Cretaceous Periods, etc., erroneously passing it off as cosomegenic 14C. And what has helium got to do with radiocarbon dating.

 

[SkyWriting]

One of the claims of "creation science" is that they uses the same data as mainstream science but come up with a different interpretation.With respect to "young earth" claims,

I would like to see examples where the same data obtained by mainstream geology can be used to interpret things such as a young earth, global flood, or an ice age after said global flood.

So you didn't try looking first? Odd style of research Rick.
Just a "challenge from a position of intentional ignorance"?

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

• The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation
• The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation (pdf)
• “Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past1 (pdf)

#2 Bent Rock Layers

• Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
• “Soft-Sediment Deformation Features” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past2 (pdf)
• “Megasequences of North America” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past3 (pdf)

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

• Two: Those Not-So-Dry Bones
• More Soft Tissue in “Old” Fossils

#4 Faint Sun Paradox

• The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System

#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

• The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young
• The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth
• “The Earth’s Magnetic Field” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past4 (pdf)

#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

• Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay
• Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
• The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium Content
• “Helium in Rocks and in the Atmosphere” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past5 (pdf)

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

• Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
• Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
• Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model
• “The Pitfalls in the Radioactive Dating Methods—The Radiocarbon Dating Method” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past6 (pdf)
• “Carbon-14 Dating” from Thousands . . . not Billions7 (pdf)

#8 Short-Lived Comets

• Comets and the Age of the Solar System
• Kuiper Belt Objects: Solution to Short-Period Comets?
• More Problems for the ‘Oort Comet Cloud’

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

• The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists
  “Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past8 (pdf)

#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

• Bacterial Life in Ancient Salt

 

[SkyWriting]

I would like to see examples

where the same data obtained by mainstream geology can be used to interpret things such as a young earth....

Just look for them:

1. Geological evidence for a young age of the earth
   Photo by Don Batten
   
   
   Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide and is consistent with a young age of the earth.
2. Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buriedin situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
3. Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. See Warped earth (written by a geophysicist).
4. Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Araucaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
5. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
6. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
7. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
8. Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.
9. Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.
10. Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when they formed. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata. See, Walker, T.,Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe, Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):8–9, 2000.
11. The case of the ‘missing’ geologic time, Creation 14(3):31–35, 1992.
12. The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer has been deposited immediately after the lower one, eliminating many millions of years of ‘gap’ time. See references in Para(pseudo)conformities.
13. Inter-tonguing of adjacent strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years also eliminates many millions of years of supposed geologic time. The case of the ‘missing’ geologic time; Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200 million years hiatus in question, CRSQ 23(4):160–167.
14. The lack of bioturbation (worm holes, root growth) at paraconformities (flat gaps) reinforces the lack of time involved where evolutionary geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the ‘given’ timescale of billions of years.
15. The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Geologists do claim to have found lots of ‘fossil’ soils (paleosols), but these are quite different to soils today, lacking the features that characterize soil horizons; features that are used in classifying different soils. Every one that has been investigated thoroughly proves to lack the characteristics of proper soil. If ‘deep time’ were correct, with hundreds of millions of years of abundant life on the earth, there should have been ample opportunities many times over for soil formation. See Klevberg, P. and Bandy, R., CRSQ 39:252–68; CRSQ 40:99–116, 2003; Walker, T., Paleosols: digging deeper buries ‘challenge’ to Flood geology, Journal of Creation 17(3):28–34, 2003.
16. Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the ‘great unconformity’ at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata. See Para(pseudo)conformities.
17. The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth.
18. The discovery that underwater landslides (‘turbidity currents’) travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., Earth, 4th ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly. See for example, A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow (Technical).
19. Flume tank research with sediment of different particle sizes show that layered rock strata that were thought to have formed over huge periods of time in lake beds actually formed very quickly. Even the precise layer thicknesses of rocks were duplicated after they were ground into their sedimentary particles and run through the flume. See Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! and Sandy Stripes Do many layers mean many years?
20. Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form.

 

[Blue Wren]

Were you taught creation science, in school? You claim you have 112 years, lol. So, you would have been in school, a century ago.

 

[RickG]

Just look for them:

1. Geological evidence for a young age of the earth
   Photo by Don Batten
   
   
   Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide and is consistent with a young age of the earth.
2. Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buriedin situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
3. Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. See Warped earth (written by a geophysicist).
4. Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Araucaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
5. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
6. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
7. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
8. Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.
9. Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.
10. Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when they formed. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata. See, Walker, T.,Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe, Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):8–9, 2000.
11. The case of the ‘missing’ geologic time, Creation 14(3):31–35, 1992.
12. The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer has been deposited immediately after the lower one, eliminating many millions of years of ‘gap’ time. See references in Para(pseudo)conformities.
13. Inter-tonguing of adjacent strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years also eliminates many millions of years of supposed geologic time. The case of the ‘missing’ geologic time; Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200 million years hiatus in question, CRSQ 23(4):160–167.
14. The lack of bioturbation (worm holes, root growth) at paraconformities (flat gaps) reinforces the lack of time involved where evolutionary geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the ‘given’ timescale of billions of years.
15. The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Geologists do claim to have found lots of ‘fossil’ soils (paleosols), but these are quite different to soils today, lacking the features that characterize soil horizons; features that are used in classifying different soils. Every one that has been investigated thoroughly proves to lack the characteristics of proper soil. If ‘deep time’ were correct, with hundreds of millions of years of abundant life on the earth, there should have been ample opportunities many times over for soil formation. See Klevberg, P. and Bandy, R., CRSQ 39:252–68; CRSQ 40:99–116, 2003; Walker, T., Paleosols: digging deeper buries ‘challenge’ to Flood geology, Journal of Creation 17(3):28–34, 2003.
16. Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the ‘great unconformity’ at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata. See Para(pseudo)conformities.
17. The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth.
18. The discovery that underwater landslides (‘turbidity currents’) travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., Earth, 4th ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly. See for example, A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow (Technical).
19. Flume tank research with sediment of different particle sizes show that layered rock strata that were thought to have formed over huge periods of time in lake beds actually formed very quickly. Even the precise layer thicknesses of rocks were duplicated after they were ground into their sedimentary particles and run through the flume. See Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! and Sandy Stripes Do many layers mean many years?
20. Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form.

Lots of accusations, but no evidence at all, much less same evidence.

 

[RickG]

So you didn't try looking first? Odd style of research Rick.
Just a "challenge from a position of intentional ignorance"?

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

• The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation
• The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation (pdf)
• “Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past1 (pdf)

#2 Bent Rock Layers

• Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
• “Soft-Sediment Deformation Features” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past2 (pdf)
• “Megasequences of North America” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past3 (pdf)

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

• Two: Those Not-So-Dry Bones
• More Soft Tissue in “Old” Fossils

#4 Faint Sun Paradox

• The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System

#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

• The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young
• The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth
• “The Earth’s Magnetic Field” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past4 (pdf)

#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

• Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay
• Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
• The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium Content
• “Helium in Rocks and in the Atmosphere” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past5 (pdf)

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

• Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
• Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
• Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model
• “The Pitfalls in the Radioactive Dating Methods—The Radiocarbon Dating Method” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past6 (pdf)
• “Carbon-14 Dating” from Thousands . . . not Billions7 (pdf)

#8 Short-Lived Comets

• Comets and the Age of the Solar System
• Kuiper Belt Objects: Solution to Short-Period Comets?
• More Problems for the ‘Oort Comet Cloud’

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

• The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists
  “Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past8 (pdf)

#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

• Bacterial Life in Ancient Salt

Again, nothing but accusations. Remember, they are supposed to show the same evidence with a different interpretation. The different interpretation is there, but without any evidence, much less same evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

Again, nothing but accusations. Remember, they are supposed to show the same evidence with a different interpretation. The different interpretation is there, but without any evidence, much less same evidence.

So what sources do you imagine they are interpreting?

I'll just click on #2....cause you so lazy to not even click



Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, p. 155, 1988; Robert M. Garrels and Fred T. Mackenzie, Evolution of Sedimentary Rocks, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, p. 114, 1971; J. Gilluly Geologic Contrasts Between Continents and Ocean Basins, in A. Poldervaart, editor, Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America, Special Paper, 62:7–18, 1955.

D.E. Fatovsky, D. Badamgarav, H. Ishimoto, M. Watabe, D.B. Weishampel, The Paleoenvironments of TugrikinÂShireh (Gobi Desert, Mongolia) and Aspects of the Taphonomy and Paleoecology of Protoceratops (Dinosauria: Ornithischia), Palaios 12:59–70, 1977.

As quoted in M. Nash, When Life Exploded, Time 146(23):66–74, 1995.
S.A. Bowring, J.P. Groetzinger, C.E. Isachsen, A.H. Knoll, S.M. Pelechaty, P. Kolosov, Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution, Science 261: 1293–1298, 1993.

D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution 28:458–472, 1974.
Richard Benedict Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1940.

 

[SkyWriting]

Were you taught creation science, in school? You claim you have 112 years, lol. So, you would have been in school, a century ago.

I rejected the theory of common origins in school because I read a lot
of science fiction in those days. I recognised the same patterns used
for creating great science fiction were used by men of science to concoct
believable stories about past events that I could not replicate in REAL
science class...where I was sitting and being taught to test everything
and not just swallow.

 

[RickG]

So what sources do you imagine they are interpreting?

I'll just click on #2....cause you so lazy to not even click



Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, p. 155, 1988; Robert M. Garrels and Fred T. Mackenzie, Evolution of Sedimentary Rocks, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, p. 114, 1971; J. Gilluly Geologic Contrasts Between Continents and Ocean Basins, in A. Poldervaart, editor, Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America, Special Paper, 62:7–18, 1955.

D.E. Fatovsky, D. Badamgarav, H. Ishimoto, M. Watabe, D.B. Weishampel, The Paleoenvironments of TugrikinÂShireh (Gobi Desert, Mongolia) and Aspects of the Taphonomy and Paleoecology of Protoceratops (Dinosauria: Ornithischia), Palaios 12:59–70, 1977.

As quoted in M. Nash, When Life Exploded, Time 146(23):66–74, 1995.
S.A. Bowring, J.P. Groetzinger, C.E. Isachsen, A.H. Knoll, S.M. Pelechaty, P. Kolosov, Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution, Science 261: 1293–1298, 1993.

D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution 28:458–472, 1974.
Richard Benedict Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1940.

Look Sky, you have yet to show any data comparison whatsoever. Instead you listed numerous citations to creation science claims. How about picking one, as I have requested in the OP from the field of geology, and lets look at it and see if we see if they are interpreting the same data differently. This is not a thread to prove or disprove creation science. It is a thread to see if creation science does indeed use the same data obtained by mainstream science but comes to different conclusions with that same data.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

One of the claims of "creation science" is that they uses the same data as mainstream science but come up with a different interpretation.

With respect to "young earth" claims, I would like to see examples where the same data obtained by mainstream geology can be used to interpret things such as a young earth, global flood, or an ice age after said global flood.

Science: Question everything.

Who says the Bible teaches a young earth? Those that will not accept the Hebrew meaning of "hayah" that they themselves say it means?

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1961

And the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste, and darkness "became - hayah" upon... You say a comet or meteor - fine, I have no problem with the data. I have no problems with the sudden appearance of all new forms of life after every destruction.

What with 5 global extinction events and 6 beginnings of all new life (man being part of the sixth after that 5th destruction) - one would think people would at least interpret the Word correctly since the same Author penned them both.

No, the Bible teaches it is from "ancient" times - not a mere 6,000 years ago. It has undergone creation 6 times and destruction 5 times. Soon to undergo a 6th destruction and 7th and final creation.

EDIT:

And is why bones of man or even monkeys are not found with the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs died out in that event which caused it to be desolate and waste when darkness encircled it. And after light began penetrating the clouds causing evaporation - dry land appeared. Man was created after this event.

The flood is not seen - because the same animals that existed before it - were brought through it - no new life needed to be created. No new forms suddenly arose.

 

[RickG]

Who says the Bible teaches a young earth? Those that will not accept the Hebrew meaning of "hayah" that they themselves say it means?

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1961

And the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste, and darkness "became - hayah" upon... You say a comet or meteor - fine, I have no problem with the data. I have no problems with the sudden appearance of all new forms of life after every destruction.

What with 5 global extinction events and 6 beginnings of all new life (man being part of the sixth after that 5th destruction) - one would think people would at least interpret the Word correctly since the same Author penned them both.

No, the Bible teaches it is from "ancient" times - not a mere 6,000 years ago. It has undergone creation 6 times and destruction 5 times. Soon to undergo a 6th destruction and 7th and final creation.

EDIT:

And is why bones of man or even monkeys are not found with the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs died out in that event which caused it to be desolate and waste when darkness encircled it. And after light began penetrating the clouds causing evaporation - dry land appeared. Man was created after this event.

The flood is not seen - because the same animals that existed before it - were brought through it - no new life needed to be created. No new forms suddenly arose.

That is an interesting post, however, it is way off topic.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is an interesting post, however, it is way off topic.

It's quite on topic. The topic is

"Creation Science": Same data - different interpretation

No one is disputing the data is interpreted differently - not even by those (such as the OP) that only want to argue the Bible "ONLY" supports a young earth so they can then prove it wrong from the study of the Works. But if one interprets the Word and the Works correctly - they agree in perfect harmony - and all claims suddenly fall away.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do not misunderstand. Mankind was created in 6 days "after" an unknown period of time had passed in a desolated condition. But the calculation of 6,000 does not take into account the unknown time spent in the garden - in which all the animal pairs that existed were brought before Adam to be named. This did not occur overnight. Nor does it take into account the time for animals to reproduce - death to occur - so that Adam could understand what death was - the punishment for any future sin.

As the OP states:

Science: Question everything.

So I am questioning his interpretation of the Bible that the Bible talks about a young earth to begin with. And wonder why he finds it necessary to only question a version not in line with the original Hebrew while discounting what the original Hebrew actually says, by interpreting it the same way those he claims are wrong do? And he did so without once bothering to look up the meanings for himself of those words.

It isn't the Bible that disagrees with the data - just peoples interpretation of the original Hebrew into other languages - fueled by their pre-conceived beliefs.

 

[RickG]

It's quite on topic. The topic is

"Creation Science": Same data - different interpretation

No one is disputing the data is interpreted differently - not even by those (such as the OP) that only want to argue the Bible "ONLY" supports a young earth so they can then prove it wrong from the study of the Works. But if one interprets the Word and the Works correctly - they agree in perfect harmony - and all claims suddenly fall away.

You still don't get it. Creation scientists claim they use the same data as mainstream science, they just have a different interpretation of the "same data". I am asking for an example of the same scientific data with different interpretations, concerning geology.

 

[SkyWriting]

Look Sky, you have yet to show any data comparison whatsoever.

Oky dokey....lets start with your premise:

"One of the claims of "creation science" is that they uses the same data as mainstream science but come up with a different interpretation."

Please document your premise. We will work from there.

http://www.academiccoachingandwriting.org/academic-writing/resources/citations