Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions

[RickG]

One of the common claims by the "Creation Science" community is that they use the same evidence as "Mainstream Science", but come to different conclusions with that same evidence.

Now retired, I was a member of the mainstream scientific community for some 30 years, only becoming aware of the plethora of "creation science" literature with respect to the earth sciences about 10 years ago. To say the least, this drew my attention with incredible disbelief in what they were presenting. Not only did I have a problem with what they presented, but the way in which it was presented. Thus, the topic of this thread "Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions". In the open forums of the Physical and Life Sciences of the Christian Forums where atheists are also welcome to participate I had a similar thread. However here, where only Christians may participate, I hope this will present a different perspective from with sides.

What I am asking specifically to be discussed in this thread is for participants to present examples of "Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions" from the creation science literature. Also keep in mind that I would like to focus on examples related to the Earth Sciences, not the biological sciences. Thank you.

 

[RickG]

Well, 9 hours and 24 views after the initial post I see no examples of Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions" presented. Anyone?

 

[miamited]

Hi rick,

Well, the most glaring would be all the evidence provided through the earth sciences that would cause one to believe that the earth is old, i.e. several million or billion years vs. one who looks at that same evidence and believes that the earth is young, i.e. less than 10,000 years in existence.

Young earthers believe that the first statement of truth is what God has told us. Anything that scientists would introduce as evidence that contradicts the first truth is in error. Now, I can't honestly say 'why' it might be in error. I can't point to a decimal point and say, "Oh, see here, this decimal point is in the wrong place and that's why you're getting bad answers." For me, the answer lies in our ability to be able to truthfully prove anything about the distant past.

Let me expound. The proof that the scientific community that believes in an old earth use aren't really proofs in that they can be repeated and are testable on the matter involved. Let's deal with the matter of the speed of light. We can today test a light source and determine the speed at which new light from that source travels away from the source. We can, therefore, say that light today travels at such and such a speed. We can look at someone's similar measurement of the speed of light done 50 years ago and also conclude that light traveled at the same speed then. But we have no way of proving that light traveled at the same speed 200 years ago. The best we can do is to assume that the speed of light is a constant and therefore determine by the definition of something that is a constant, that light has always and forever traveled at the speed we measure today. But we can't prove that! We can only agree to believe it based on our now establishing the speed of light as a constant.

But, as is often the case, science then goes out and shoots itself in the foot. Now we seem to be finding a plethora of evidence that is going to pull the speed of light out of this group defined as 'constants'. We now have astronomers telling us that there are certain conditions under which the speed of light does vary. Uh-oh. Now what becomes of all those 'proofs' that we believe we have proved that were based on the speed of light being constant?

All measures, let me repeat with emphasis, ALL MEASURES that we make today to use to prove time in the past are based on these 'rules of constancy'.

Finally, science, by it's very nature will not allow any explanation for something to be..."It's a miracle!!!" How did the ground move in California that caused things to shake and fall? It's a miracle!!! No, science won't accept that. Science is based on the 'assumption' that everything has a natural cause.

There's a streetlight on my corner because some road department went out there an installed it. It didn't just appear! And for the things that man does, this is true. Man cannot perform miracles. But God can!!!!

So, God might well have created all the heavens and the earth just as He said He did and stretched all the light of all the stars to encompass the whole of the universe at the moment of its creation and from that instant on...light travels at the speed we measure it to travel. That would be a miracle, wouldn't it? I have full faith and confidence that in anything in which God has made a claim to have done something, where man says it just can't be done, I'm going with God. In every case where God has made a claim that He has done something, but man says, well it couldn't have been done in the time that God said. I'm going with God.

God has said that He created the heavens and the earth and all that is them in six days. God has said that on the sixth day of that period that He created man. God has said how old, in years, Adam was when he had his son Seth. Then continued a fairly concise genealogy through to Abraham. He then gave us some reasonably precise clues throughout the Scriptures that we can know how long it's been from Abraham until today. All of God's evidence, as I understand it, points to this created realm having only existed for about 6,000 years.

However, the deception regarding the age of this realm in which we live is strong. We do so want to believe what people who have given of so much of their time and energies and monies to learn and study the natural processes of the creation tell us is the truth! But God has been clear that His righteous ones will live by faith. Not by the proofs of men.

So, let's go over some of the scientific proofs of the things that God has said that He has done and what man's science has proven. What do we have on turning the shadow of the sun back the distance of 10 steps? Has science been able to prove or disprove that? What do we have on the sun shining brightly in Goshen, yet for three whole days it being so pitch black that one could hardly see their hand in front of their face? Has science been able to prove or disprove that? What do we have on a woman becoming pregnant without ever having sperm introduced into her egg? Has science been able to prove or disprove that? I'll start with those few. If you have answers for even them, then we'll move on with others.

Ok, you got a response. The balls in your court.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[RickG]

Hi rick,

Hello miamited, thank you for your reply. I do appreciate it but I ssee that we are in opposite corners. I will reply to your post but the first point I wish to make is that the ball is not in my court. I asked for examples from the creation science literature showing the same evidence used by mainstream science obtaining an opposite conclusion. I see opinions and even outright misrepresentations, but no evidence either from the mainstream science they say they are using or any of their own original data or research.

Well, the most glaring would be all the evidence provided through the earth sciences that would cause one to believe that the earth is old, i.e. several million or billion years vs. one who looks at that same evidence and believes that the earth is young, i.e. less than 10,000 years in existence.

I've sourced quite a bit of the creation science literature over the years and have yet find any of it using the same evidence as the mainstream scientific literature.

Young earthers believe that the first statement of truth is what God has told us. Anything that scientists would introduce as evidence that contradicts the first truth is in error. Now, I can't honestly say 'why' it might be in error. I can't point to a decimal point and say, "Oh, see here, this decimal point is in the wrong place and that's why you're getting bad answers." For me, the answer lies in our ability to be able to truthfully prove anything about the distant past.

I understand that, but again, that is not science, much less the same evidence.

Let me expound. The proof that the scientific community that believes in an old earth use aren't really proofs in that they can be repeated and are testable on the matter involved.

First, just an idiosyncrasy of mine. There are no proofs in science, proofs are unique to the field of mathematics. Science rather than saying we have proof, says the evidence shows this to be a fact. And contrary to what you mentioned about not being repeated, that is not true. Science works on the ability to produce repeatable results.

[quoe]Let's deal with the matter of the speed of light. We can today test a light source and determine the speed at which new light from that source travels away from the source. We can, therefore, say that light today travels at such and such a speed. We can look at someone's similar measurement of the speed of light done 50 years ago and also conclude that light traveled at the same speed then. But we have no way of proving that light traveled at the same speed 200 years ago. The best we can do is to assume that the speed of light is a constant and therefore determine by the definition of something that is a constant, that light has always and forever traveled at the speed we measure today. But we can't prove that! We can only agree to believe it based on our now establishing the speed of light as a constant.[/quote]
Well first I would like to point out something. You are presenting explanations in the same way that I said creation science does. That is, opinions and claims without a shred of evidence to back any of it up. The fact is, science can verify the speed of light. For the speed of light to have changed, the whole entire structure of physics would have to change. If it had changed we would see things from the past with different physical structures that we see today. The fact is, nothing observed or tested has ever shown anything different. The structures of rocks are made up exactly with the same chemistry and physical aspects no matter their age.

But, as is often the case, science then goes out and shoots itself in the foot. Now we seem to be finding a plethora of evidence that is going to pull the speed of light out of this group defined as 'constants'. We now have astronomers telling us that there are certain conditions under which the speed of light does vary. Uh-oh. Now what becomes of all those 'proofs' that we believe we have proved that were based on the speed of light being constant?

Again, claims without supporting evidence.

All measures, let me repeat with emphasis, ALL MEASURES that we make today to use to prove time in the past are based on these 'rules of constancy'.

Then you can show the imperial evidence where the basic laws of physics and chemistry have changed? Fact is, there is zero evidence to support such a claim.

Finally, science, by it's very nature will not allow any explanation for something to be..."It's a miracle!!!" How did the ground move in California that caused things to shake and fall? It's a miracle!!! No, science won't accept that. Science is based on the 'assumption' that everything has a natural cause.

Science only explores what it can physically see and test, which is what the discipline is based on.

Ok, you got a response. The balls in your court.

Again, with respect to OP the ball is still in your court. Remember same evidence - opposite conclusion. Where is the same evidence?

God Bless.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello RickG.

Science claims the universe is over 13 billion years old. Do you agree with
this claim Rick?

 

[RickG]

Hello RickG.

Science claims the universe is over 13 billion years old. Do you agree with
this claim Rick?

I believe the current consensus on the age of the universe is 13.7 Ga (billion years). Yes, I agree with that figure which is not a claim, but through observation and measurement methods.

 

[klutedavid]

I believe the current consensus on the age of the universe is 13.7 Ga (billion years). Yes, I agree with that figure which is not a claim, but through observation and measurement methods.

Hello Rick.

Thanks for the reply Rick.

If the estimate for the age of the universe is not a claim. Do you then regard
this estimate as a scientific fact?

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Thanks for the reply Rick.

If the estimate for the age of the universe is not a claim. Do you then regard
this estimate as a scientific fact?

Yes, it is based on empirical data. Why?

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Rick.

A fact is something that is known or proved to be true. Are you aware that
science has proven that the universe is older than 13 billion years.

This creates a paradox given your earlier statement.

There are no proofs in science, proofs are unique to the field of mathematics.

There exists no proofs in science, there are proofs in science, a paradox.

 

[Speedwell]

Hello Rick.

A fact is something that is known or proved to be true. Are you aware that
science has proven that the universe is older than 13 billion years.

This creates a paradox given your earlier statement.

There exists no proofs in science, there are proofs in science, a paradox.

Ah, but "proofs" in science are only as good as the data. If more data comes along, the "proof" may be overturned, as all scientists understand.

 

[klutedavid]

Ah, but "proofs" in science are only as good as the data. If more data comes along, the "proof" may be overturned, as all scientists understand.

Hello Speedwell.

That is impossible, a fact is always a fact, if something is proven to be true, then
that proposition has been accepted as true. If something is proven true at some
point, then is proven false at some other point. Then we have simply discovered
that a paradox exists.

If a paradox is true, then it holds that our understanding of reality is ultimately
also a paradox. In other words, what is true is also false, so ends mankind's quest
for knowledge.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

A fact is something that is known or proved to be true. Are you aware that
science has proven that the universe is older than 13 billion years.

This creates a paradox given your earlier statement.

There exists no proofs in science, there are proofs in science, a paradox.

Proofs are unique to mathematics. Science doesn't deal with proofs.

 

[RickG]

There exists no proofs in science, there are proofs in science, a paradox.

Most of my profession career was in science (chemistry), I know what I'm talking about.

"MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.

CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them."
​

Source: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

 

[sfs]

Hello Speedwell.

That is impossible, a fact is always a fact, if something is proven to be true, then
that proposition has been accepted as true. If something is proven true at some
point, then is proven false at some other point. Then we have simply discovered
that a paradox exists.

If a paradox is true, then it holds that our understanding of reality is ultimately
also a paradox. In other words, what is true is also false, so ends mankind's quest
for knowledge.

A better discussion of the issue, from Stephen Jay Gould:
'Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.'

 

[klutedavid]

A better discussion of the issue, from Stephen Jay Gould:
'Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.'

Hello Sfs.

I would not agree with S.J Gould, the term 'empirical world' implies also an
empirical universe. The concept of reality being empirical is a belief system.
This premise is accepted before one can believe in the scientific methodology.

May I ask sfs, whether you are a believer in empiricism?

Are you a believer brother?

 

[sfs]

I would not agree with S.J Gould, the term 'empirical world' implies also an
empirical universe. The concept of reality being empirical is a belief system.
This premise is accepted before one can believe in the scientific methodology.

Sure -- the idea that there is an external world and that we can know something about it through our senses is a belief. It happens to be one shared by just about all scientists and, well, humans, but it's still a belief.

May I ask sfs, whether you are a believer in empiricism?

Depends on what you mean by empiricism. I believe that we can learn about the world through our senses, and that that's the best way to learn about it. (More precisely, I think my experiences are indistinguishable from those of an empirical world. Other explanations could possibly be true, but if I can't distinguish them from the existence of the empirical world, I'm not going to worry about them.) I'm skeptical that all knowledge is based on sense information, though.

Are you a believer brother?

I believe in lots of things.

 

[RickG]

The concept of reality being empirical is a belief system.

There are many terms when used in context with scientific investigation that have a completely different meaning and context of that of the general layman's perspective. A lay understanding of the term belief would be base mostly, if not completely, on faith. Conversely, when a scientists utilizes the term belief it is based on empirical evidence and experience. That is things that are physically testable and shown to produce repeatable results. For example: "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow", or "when I drop the ball I believe it will fall to the ground", or "when I add a 98% solution of H2SO4 to a beaker of water I believe it will produce a rapid reaction producing much heat".

 

[klutedavid]

Sure -- the idea that there is an external world and that we can know something about it through our senses is a belief. It happens to be one shared by just about all scientists and, well, humans, but it's still a belief.
Depends on what you mean by empiricism. I believe that we can learn about the world through our senses, and that that's the best way to learn about it. (More precisely, I think my experiences are indistinguishable from those of an empirical world. Other explanations could possibly be true, but if I can't distinguish them from the existence of the empirical world, I'm not going to worry about them.) I'm skeptical that all knowledge is based on sense information, though.
I believe in lots of things.

Hello sfs.

Appreciate your thoughts on this subject sfs, though your reply was difficult
to understand.

I'm skeptical that all knowledge is based on sense information

Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from
sensory experience (observational). If you do not believe in the theory of empiricism,
then you are not an empiricist. Science is empirical from start to finish.

You said that you are skeptical. A skeptic is one who doubts, questions, or even
disagrees with theories, assertions, and laws.

If you could clarify your position sfs, I would appreciate that.

 

[sfs]

Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from
sensory experience (observational).

Empiricism covers a wide range of specific beliefs. That's why I was explicit about what I believed. If you didn't understand something I said, please be specific about what it was.

If you do not believe in the theory of empiricism,
then you are not an empiricist. Science is empirical from start to finish.

Science is definitely empirical. Whether that makes scientists believers in empiricism depends on what one means by "empiricism". Perhaps you should stop worrying about which label to apply to people?

You said that you are skeptical. A skeptic is one who doubts, questions, or even
disagrees with theories, assertions, and laws.

I said I was skeptical about something specific. I didn't say I was a skeptic.

If you could clarify your position sfs, I would appreciate that.

If you could clarify your question, I might be able to answer it.

 

[klutedavid]

Empiricism covers a wide range of specific beliefs. That's why I was explicit about what I believed. If you didn't understand something I said, please be specific about what it was.
Science is definitely empirical. Whether that makes scientists believers in empiricism depends on what one means by "empiricism". Perhaps you should stop worrying about which label to apply to people?
I said I was skeptical about something specific. I didn't say I was a skeptic.
If you could clarify your question, I might be able to answer it.

Hello sfs.

Thanks for the response, you said.

Empiricism covers a wide range of specific beliefs

That is not correct, empiricism has a specific definition, empiricism is a belief
system.

I am being very specific sfs, in regards to the accepted, dictionary definition of
empiricism.

I am not labeling people sfs, if you believe in science then you are an empiricist.
There is no question about this sfs. The ideology of science is based on empiricism.

Your reply contained a paradox.

Science is definitely empirical. Whether that makes scientists believers in
empiricism depends on what one means by "empiricism"