Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions

[Hieronymus]

Where's the same data?

It's both about the same rock layers found on earth, amigo.

 

[RickG]

It's both about the same rock layers found on earth, amigo.

looking at the same rock layer on earth is not the same data. Data includes the type of strata, what it is, its chemical composition, particle size and variation and entrainment, flow direction, Froude Number, Reynolds Number, fossils contained within, tectonic features, geomorphology, type of rock (igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary), diagenesis, textures, depositional evnironment, lithostratigraphy, seismic stratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, chronostratigraphy, and many more I haven't mentioned and never mind that each of those are large categories which are broken down into much more intricate criteria.

That's the evidence mainstream science uses, the creation science uses very little if any of that information. Each of those features I mentioned are very unique and specific to their formation and the environment and timeline in which they were formed.

 

[Hieronymus]

looking at the same rock layer on earth is not the same data. Data includes the type of strata, what it is, its chemical composition, particle size and variation and entrainment, flow direction, Froude Number, Reynolds Number, fossils contained within, tectonic features, geomorphology, type of rock (igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary), diagenesis, textures, depositional evnironment, lithostratigraphy, seismic stratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, chronostratigraphy, and many more I haven't mentioned and never mind that each of those are large categories which are broken down into much more intricate criteria.

That's the evidence mainstream science uses, the creation science uses very little if any of that information. Each of those features I mentioned are very unique and specific to their formation and the environment and timeline in which they were formed.

The difference is that naturalists hold on to the refuted 17th century assumed principles of stratigraphy.
So you're actually right that naturalists don't use the data gathered in the 80s by means of laboratory experiments i.e. empirical evidence.

 

[RickG]

The difference is that naturalists hold on to the refuted 17th century assumed principles of stratigraphy.
So you're actually right that naturalists don't use the data gathered in the 80s by means of laboratory experiments i.e. empirical evidence.

No, modern science does not live in the past. Everything I listed was completely unknown in the 17th century. And you continue to ignore what is being asked in the OP.

 

[Hieronymus]

Do you think you might try participating in a discussion instead of making things up?

I'm not making anything up.

Hieronymus, I have a Masters degree in the very area you are trashing, and frankly I am not amused by your condescending ignorance of the science.

I'm not trying to amuse you.
The principle of stratigraphy is refuted by real science.
Yes, the conclusion is not the one you favour or with which you had to work for decades, but that's hardly my problem, is it?
The evidence is accessible to both sides, but they have different conclusions.

 

[Wings of Eagles]

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

Thanks Ted;
This is an excellent comment by you and hits upon the VERY pertinent point of the fundamental problem of why even many who "claim" to be Christians are compromising with the evolution philosophy. It stems from an inability to understand that the God of the Bible is completely supernatural and does CREATIVE things that are far beyond man's ability to reason....He is above man's reason....and above the laws of Physics and nature. He creates (as recorded in Genesis) from His SPOKEN Word. He spoke even the natural laws into existence...It is proof of his eternal power and Godhead....For example: And God SAID "Let there be light....and there was light".

Those who cannot comprehend this fact and scriptural teaching of God's omnipotence and authority or who refuse to acknowledge it are forced to rely upon their finite "logical reasoning" to "figure out" how it happened. My response to those theistic evolutionist "Christians" is:
What God are you believing in? If your god is not big enough to create things with his Word of authority, then he is NOT the God of the Bible ....maybe the evolution god of the atheists but definitely NOT the God of the Bible. LOL All Old Testament Prophets understood God had the power and authority to Create instantaneously and they knew that is exactly how it happened...
King David by inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote: " By the Word of the LORD were the heavens created , and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.....for He spoke and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast" (Psalm 33). Everyone in Jesus' day KNEW exactly that the Scriptures taught INSTANTANEOUS CREATION.
Jesus Himself confirm this special instantaneous act of creation in Genesis when he said: " from the BEGINNING of Creation, God made them male and female..." Hardly an evolutionary possibility.LOL

Jesus himself constantly did creative INSTANTANEOUS acts of creation as proof of his love and authenticity as God. He SPOKE to the storm, and SAID " Peace be still" and instantly it obeyed...(He didn't have to wait for the weatherman to show the latest 3 day computer model prediction) ... He spoke and created eyes in the sockets of blind men INSTANTANEOUSLY, (no surgery,transplant and 6 month recovery required) and as you mentioned, He turned water into wine INSTANTLY without having to wait months or years for fermentation. He did all these things to prove God's Creative
ability and authority which was far beyond human reasoning , and witness by thousands...

Shall I go on to how he re-created fish BY THE THOUSANDS instantly (to feed the 5000 multitude)?...
[just like he did in the BEGINNING , when he said; " Let the waters bring forth abundantly.... and the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind...." (Gen. 1:20-21)]...
and these were DEAD fish already cooked ! ..and the thousands of loaves of bread he re-created were from wheat that was never even harvested or cooked in an oven !

Yes, Jesus Christ was the creator.....just like John 1 says. That is why he is called "The Word of God" .... He is the spoken Word of God...."LOGOS".
Yep; It is sad to see that the "Theistic evolutionists" have a different god than that which is described in the Bible....all because apparently they want to compromise with the philosophy of evolution...and limit themselves to the an inferior reliance upon "natural' fallen logic.
Keep posting the truth Ted...You definitely got it right.
Wings

 

[Hieronymus]

Everything you have stated about stratigraphy is made up, the is no science to support any of it.

Yeah, but you have to say that, don't you?

That's more than obvious, its your amusement.

I'm not amused, i'm frustrated.

Stratigraphy is not a principle, it is a scientific discipline involving numerous sub-disciplines.

The principle of stratigraphy was thought up by Nicholas Steno around 1670.

Are you belittliing and goading, or are you going to actually present scientific information to support your condescending remarks?

I posted an educational video on it, i would suggest you watch it.

But you have yet to show where the creation science uses that same evidence for their different conclusions. Where is it?

Everywhere. We're standing on it.

 

[sfs]

Thanks Ted;
This is an excellent comment by you and hits upon the VERY pertinent point of the fundamental problem of why even many who "claim" to be Christians are compromising with the evolution philosophy. It stems from an inability to understand that the God of the Bible is completely supernatural and does CREATIVE things that are far beyond man's ability to reason....He is above man's reason....and above the laws of Physics and nature. He creates (as recorded in Genesis) from His SPOKEN Word. He spoke even the natural laws into existence...It is proof of his eternal power and Godhead....For example: And God SAID "Let there be light....and there was light".

Those who cannot comprehend this fact and scriptural teaching of God's omnipotence and authority or who refuse to acknowledge it are forced to rely upon their finite "logical reasoning" to "figure out" how it happened. My response to those theistic evolutionist "Christians" is:
What God are you believing in? If your god is not big enough to create things with his Word of authority, then he is NOT the God of the Bible ....maybe the evolution god of the atheists but definitely NOT the God of the Bible. LOL All Old Testament Prophets understood God had the power and authority to Create instantaneously and they knew that is exactly how it happened...
King David by inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote: " By the Word of the LORD were the heavens created , and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.....for He spoke and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast" (Psalm 33). Everyone in Jesus' day KNEW exactly that the Scriptures taught INSTANTANEOUS CREATION.
Jesus Himself confirm this special instantaneous act of creation in Genesis when he said: " from the BEGINNING of Creation, God made them male and female..." Hardly an evolutionary possibility.LOL

Jesus himself constantly did creative INSTANTANEOUS acts of creation as proof of his love and authenticity as God. He SPOKE to the storm, and SAID " Peace be still" and instantly it obeyed...(He didn't have to wait for the weatherman to show the latest 3 day computer model prediction) ... He spoke and created eyes in the sockets of blind men INSTANTANEOUSLY, (no surgery,transplant and 6 month recovery required) and as you mentioned, He turned water into wine INSTANTLY without having to wait months or years for fermentation. He did all these things to prove God's Creative
ability and authority which was far beyond human reasoning , and witness by thousands...

Shall I go on to how he re-created fish BY THE THOUSANDS instantly (to feed the 5000 multitude)?...
[just like he did in the BEGINNING , when he said; " Let the waters bring forth abundantly.... and the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind...." (Gen. 1:20-21)]...
and these were DEAD fish already cooked ! ..and the thousands of loaves of bread he re-created were from wheat that was never even harvested or cooked in an oven !

Yes, Jesus Christ was the creator.....just like John 1 says. That is why he is called "The Word of God" .... He is the spoken Word of God...."LOGOS".
Yep; It is sad to see that the "Theistic evolutionists" have a different god than that which is described in the Bible....all because apparently they want to compromise with the philosophy of evolution...and limit themselves to the an inferior reliance upon "natural' fallen logic.
Keep posting the truth Ted...You definitely got it right.
Wings

If you want to have a go at theistic evolutionists, I suggest you start your own thread, where we can respond without being off-topic.

 

[RickG]

Thanks Ted;
This is an excellent comment by you and hits upon the VERY pertinent point of the fundamental problem of why even many who "claim" to be Christians are compromising with the evolution philosophy.

Since the post you quoted was addressed to me, I will respond to you post.

(1) Questioning ones Christianity is against the Christian Forums rules.
(2) There are mainstream Christian denominations that do not reject evolution and have presented public statements stating so.
(3) My denomination is one such denomination.

"An overture from Cascades Presbytery (item 14-02) calling for the PC(USA) to endorse the Clergy Letter Project, a statement by upwards of 14,000 religious leaders, including 13,000 Christian clergy, that affirms the teaching of evolution, insisting that “religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth” and that “as a scientific theory [evolution] does not contradict the existence of God, but can be seen as a natural, creative process in God’s creation.”

Source: https://www.pcusa.org/news/2016/5/11/pcusa-general-assembly-committee-14-preview/
​

 

[RickG]

Yeah, but you have to say that, don't you?

I favor truth over willful ignorance.

The principle of stratigraphy was thought up by Nicholas Steno around 1670.

I hope you are not painting Steno as an atheist. Note the Christian Cross he is holding on his chest in the picture below.

I posted an educational video on it, i would suggest you watch it.

I did, and all I saw was the what we in the sciences refer to as "Intellectual Dishonesty". When are you going to present what is asked for in the OP, same evidence opposite conclusions? The video's opposite conclusions do not provide the same evidence. In fact, they don't present any evidence at all.

 

[Hieronymus]

I favor truth over willful ignorance.

You're funny.

I hope you are not painting Steno as an atheist. Note the Christian Cross he is holding on his chest in the picture below.

Irrelevant.

I did, and all I saw was the what we in the sciences refer to as "Intellectual Dishonesty".

Hahaha, right...
You have a nice day now.

 

[Hieronymus]

Steno

I'm sorry i'm a bit of a jerk sometimes though...

 

[RickG]

You're funny.Irrelevant.Hahaha, right...
You have a nice day now.

Not funny, HONEST.

 

[Commander]

I'm sorry i'm a bit of a jerk sometimes though...

Just to let you know, when he cannot answer the question, he reports you. Here is more information to use: 49 open questions in geoscience: http://mappingignorance.org/2014/01/17/open-questions-in-geoscience/ Have a blessed day brother, keep up the good fight.

 

[RickG]

Just to let you know, when he cannot answer the question, he reports you. Here is more information to use: 49 open questions in geoscience: http://mappingignorance.org/2014/01/17/open-questions-in-geoscience/ Have a blessed day brother, keep up the good fight.

You are the one answering questions. The thread topic asks for same evidence opposite conclusions between mainstreams science and creation science. Your link does not provide what the OP asks for.

 

[pat34lee]

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

If the world were created by God for man, then why would
man be absent for 99.9999999% or more of history, with
civilizations showing up only in the last 6-12 thousand years?

 

[pat34lee]

If man began as primitive and became civilized, then how did
we begin with high civilization and why are our earlier languages
more complex, and they all degrade, not evolve over time?

 

[BukiRob]

Hello RickG.

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

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, “What is your estimate of the age of the universe?” Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology – the deep physics of understanding the universe – was just developing. Several years ago, the response to that survey was republished in Scientific American – the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds – an overwhelming majority – of the scientists gave was, in essence, “Age?” There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal.” [a]

We all know that in 1965 echo's of the big bang were discovered and today there is almost exclusive agreement that the Universe had a beginning.

So we have an apparent conflict in that the universe from our point of observation is ~14 billion years old while the genealogy of the bible makes it clear that creation is something less than 6,000 years old.

Schroeder expressly deals with this apparent conflict. He sources his arguments by citing the commentaries of the rabbinical sages. These were men who lived between 700-1000+ years ago and as such, are not influenced by today's modern understanding of the physical universe in which we live.

As Schroeder points out, there are 2 separate things occurring here. There is the Calendar which STARTS with Adam. The 6 day creation is separate from this and this is NOT a modern rationalization as this is the view found in the Talmud from 1600 years ago.

To borrow from Schroeder: There the passage of each day is described as “There was evening and morning” with no relationship to human time. Once we come to the progeny of Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having Seth. Seth lives 105 years before having Enosh, etc. (Genesis chapter 5). From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human-based, earth -based. But prior to that time, it’s an abstract concept: “Evening and morning.” It’s as if the Bible is looking at those events of Genesis One from a viewpoint other than the earth, a cosmic view of time. What might be the Biblical perception of the timing of those events prior to Adam relative to our earth-based measurements? [a]


I think he does a very good job explaining this and one of his big pet peves is that the main problem with this debate is that the vast majority of people engaged in this debate can be generally found in 4 groups. 1) Scientists SOME of whom understand the science but have NO understanding of scripture and in particular HEBREW. 2) Creationists who have a great understanding of scripture and some with great grasp on HEBREW but do not understand the science. 3) A LARGE group that understand neither 4) a Small group that understand both.

I believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to really discuss this unless you have at least a good grasp on the science AND scripture which would include at a minimum an excellent Hebrew lexicon.

[a] http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53

 

[klutedavid]

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, “What is your estimate of the age of the universe?” Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology – the deep physics of understanding the universe – was just developing. Several years ago, the response to that survey was republished in Scientific American – the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds – an overwhelming majority – of the scientists gave was, in essence, “Age?” There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal.” [a]

We all know that in 1965 echo's of the big bang were discovered and today there is almost exclusive agreement that the Universe had a beginning.

So we have an apparent conflict in that the universe from our point of observation is ~14 billion years old while the genealogy of the bible makes it clear that creation is something less than 6,000 years old.

Schroeder expressly deals with this apparent conflict. He sources his arguments by citing the commentaries of the rabbinical sages. These were men who lived between 700-1000+ years ago and as such, are not influenced by today's modern understanding of the physical universe in which we live.

As Schroeder points out, there are 2 separate things occurring here. There is the Calendar which STARTS with Adam. The 6 day creation is separate from this and this is NOT a modern rationalization as this is the view found in the Talmud from 1600 years ago.

To borrow from Schroeder: There the passage of each day is described as “There was evening and morning” with no relationship to human time. Once we come to the progeny of Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having Seth. Seth lives 105 years before having Enosh, etc. (Genesis chapter 5). From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human-based, earth -based. But prior to that time, it’s an abstract concept: “Evening and morning.” It’s as if the Bible is looking at those events of Genesis One from a viewpoint other than the earth, a cosmic view of time. What might be the Biblical perception of the timing of those events prior to Adam relative to our earth-based measurements? [a]


I think he does a very good job explaining this and one of his big pet peves is that the main problem with this debate is that the vast majority of people engaged in this debate can be generally found in 4 groups. 1) Scientists SOME of whom understand the science but have NO understanding of scripture and in particular HEBREW. 2) Creationists who have a great understanding of scripture and some with great grasp on HEBREW but do not understand the science. 3) A LARGE group that understand neither 4) a Small group that understand both.

I believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to really discuss this unless you have at least a good grasp on the science AND scripture which would include at a minimum an excellent Hebrew lexicon.

[a] http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53

Hello Bukirob.

I have a reasonable understanding of the scientific perspective.
Familiar with the Genesis text. Though I have a very relaxed view
of the ancient texts, therefore, I have no doctrinal position regarding
the text of Genesis.

Feel free to offer your understanding of the Genesis text. I doubt
that I will struggle with your viewpoint, Bukirob.

 

[BukiRob]

Hello Bukirob.

I have a reasonable understanding of the scientific perspective.
Familiar with the Genesis text. Though I have a very relaxed view
of the ancient texts, therefore, I have no doctrinal position regarding
the text of Genesis.

Feel free to offer your understanding of the Genesis text. I doubt
that I will struggle with your viewpoint, Bukirob.

Well, you apparently struggle with reading comprehension as I said, that Schroeder's argument....