How do I ignore evidence? ( for YECs)

[Assyrian]

It is intresting to see how Creationists come over all postmodern when it comes to their scientific 'interpretations'.

I was just wondering about that...

 

[hithesh]

Even if they are ignoring evidence, it does you no good to come out and say "hey you ignorant fools! Look at me! I'm an evolutionist and you can't do anything about it!"

I see your point.

I tend to generalize when I shouldn't,
and I'll moderate my post better to not come off as "ignorant" myself.

I feel disturbed to hear you say that. If there was evidence that conclusively showed that the Resurrection did not happen, then I would stop being a Christian. The only point of being a Christian is because Christianity is true.

Well, perhaps I shouldn't have confused the two terms "evidence" and "probability".

You can't really disprove the resurrection, but the fact is that anything that is "supernatural" is an improbable event. The majority of the accounts today that are claimed to be "supernatural" have been fabrication? Does this make me question the resurrection? No. (I could say the quality of the accounts seem to suggest that it did occur.)

But regardless whether we are talking about walking on water, raising the dead, or even miracles today, they are all "improbable" events.

I had a friend who was cured of cancer; he prayed and God healed him. Science says that these things happen, they are natural occurrences, god did not intervene. I believe that God intervened, and I doubt any evidence could make me think otherwise.

Perhaps "ignore" is too strong of a word, but I am "indifferent" to evidence that shows that these thing are improbable.

 

[hithesh]

Ive never believed in a flat earth, and its silly to say the Bible suggests its flat.Ive never seen such a thing in scripture.

Well, I never believed in a 10,000 year old earth.

"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14)

Clay under a seal is not round it's flat.

"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)"

"The "whole" earth? No matter how tall the tree was, even if it was only a dream, it would not have been visible from the other side of the earth."

Revelations 7:1 states the Earth has four corners,

For those interested in literal interpretation, these few verse alone give you enough room to say the "earth" is flat, the only way around it, I see, is by assuming the verses are "allegorical" interpretations of the earth, but then we find our dilema now don't we?

If the bible was our evidence for all things, and we were isolated from any other sources of information, and if we wondered about the shape of the earth, we would assume it was flat.

You'll be scarce to find any evidence in the bible that the earth is round, but numerous verses indicate the authors thought the earth is flat.

It's only in the light of evidence where what once was seen as literal accounts of the earth, are seen as allegorical.

what evidence is there for a old evolutionary earth?

Well, the dating methods prove the earth is old, what evidence is there that the earth is round? Pictures?

As I've already mentioned before, for the earth to be 10,000 years old, the dating method has to be off by 99.9%, though the error rate is less than 1%.

What makes the evidence from the dating methods any more susceptible than man made pictures?

And, I don't think you answered my question: are flat-earthers ignoring evidence, or just interpreting the evidence differently?

Its obvious that the earth is intelligently designed right?

Of course it is. But I would think that there is something wrong with a God who made a 10,000 year old earth, and left us evidence that proves otherwise.

 

[gluadys]

Ive never believed in a flat earth, and its silly to say the Bible suggests its flat.Ive never seen such a thing in scripture.

You've never seen it because you take it for granted that the earth is not flat and you never looked for scriptural confirmation that it is flat. If you go to a site which promotes a flat earth, you will find lots of scriptural support for it.

The same with geocentrism. We are so convinced the earth goes around the sun to give us the seasons and also rotates on its axis to give us day and night, that when we come to a passage of scripture that speaks of the earth being fixed on foundations so that it does not move, we automatically and subconsciously treat it as only poetic. But to the biblical writers and almost all Christians until Copernicus, these were not merely poetic phrases. They were also genuine descriptions of the structure of the cosmos. They really did think the earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe and all the heavenly bodies went around the earth. And it was obvious to them that this is what scripture also said.

The only reason you don't see that when you read scripture is because you don't believe that is the way things are.

what evidence is there for a old evolutionary earth?

Well, evolution does not apply to the earth, but to the life forms on earth. The earth itself does not evolve. But there is plenty of evidence for an old earth and you can find most of it in a primer on geology.

You might start where geology itself started with stratigraphy. Does it make sense to you that new sediment is laid on top of older sediment, such that normally the lower down we find a stratum of sedimentary rock the older it is?

Its obvious that the earth is intelligently designed right?

You mean made without the use of natural processes? No, that is not obvious.

But, of course, the use of natural processes does not exclude an intelligent designer either.

 

[laptoppop]

You might start where geology itself started with stratigraphy. Does it make sense to you that new sediment is laid on top of older sediment, such that normally the lower down we find a stratum of sedimentary rock the older it is?

Actually, it makes "sense" and is generally accepted as the principle of superposition -- but it is not true, and modern geology is still catching up to the ramifications.

Guy Berthault has demonstrated that multiple layers can be laid down simultaneously, with the time span proceeding horizontally, not vertically. Yes, often the stratigraphic vertical sequences represent differences in time -- but not necessarily always.

Of course this ignores the various problems that one faces in "real world" strata, as opposed to textbook illustrations and assumptions.

To explain the various problems, geologists and paleontologists have developed an entire vocabulary to mask the extent of the problem that various strata pose for conventional interpretations:
Overthrusts - one layer moving over another (because the layers are out of order)
Underthrusts - one layer moving under another (again because the layers do not match the "expected" sequence)
Paraconformity - places where one, based on conventional geologic dating would expect an erosion layer -- but the deposition appears to have been constant, with no break. Rather than admit the problem, they just name it.
Polystratic fossils -- fossils which span multiple ages vertically, magically without rotting for millions of years while waiting for deposition.
Stratigraphic leaks -- fossils found too low ("early) in the strata (it can't possibly belong there, so let's ignore the data if it doesn't fit our model -- whether or not there are signs of the fossil intruding on earlier strata)
Re-worked specimens -- fossils found too high (again, classified this way whether or not there is evidence of movement)

The real world strata is MUCH "messier" than the textbooks imply.

Check out these links:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-how-fast.asp
and especially
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm

 

[gluadys]

Actually, it makes "sense" and is generally accepted as the principle of superposition -- but it is not true, and modern geology is still catching up to the ramifications.

Sure it's true.

Guy Berthault has demonstrated that multiple layers can be laid down simultaneously, with the time span proceeding horizontally, not vertically.

A special case occurring under certain circumstances, which geologists are well aware of. Just like those you named later.

Yes, often the stratigraphic vertical sequences represent differences in time -- but not necessarily always.

Never claimed it did.

The real world strata is MUCH "messier" than the textbooks imply.

Of course it is. But that doesn't make the basic principles wrong. Is Newton's First Law of Motion a well-covered up scientific lie just because in real life we never see things continually moving in a straight line?

No more is geology a conspiracy because we seldom see a pure example of superposition.

You YECs have done a lot of complaining about name-calling, and I am not suggesting it was not justified. But to say "geologists and paleontologists have developed an entire vocabulary to mask the extent of the problem that various strata pose for conventional interpretations" and
"Rather than admit the problem, they just name it." and
"so let's ignore the data if it doesn't fit our model" is just sophisticated name-calling too. You are basically accusing a whole profession of lying and subterfuge.

So if you want the fair and civil treatment you are entitled to, it behoves you to practice what you preach when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[laptoppop]

Interesting response given the title of the thread.

I'm not trying to call names -- but I do think there has been a consistent reclassification of data which did not fit preconceived notions and models. I don't think of it as lying -- because I think people honestly believe it, but I still think the data is being filtered by preconceptions. I don't think anyone is trying to deceive anyone -- just that they are looking at the data through the conventional interpretational model.

I've started another thread so as to not derail this one. I'd really like to discuss some of these issues.

Again, I apologize in the sense that I do not mean to imply dishonesty, intent to deceive, etc. I do think the data is being interpreted incorrectly.

 

[shernren]

It's not as if geologists plonk down a paraconformity every time they find something out of whack. They use, what do you call it again, evidence.

http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/53/2/533

Structures and textures which could be preserved in the rock record to indicate this paraconformity include: 1) stairstep erosional surfaces where weakly cemented older eolianite has been differentially eroded along bedding planes, 2) sand-filled polygonal cracks apparently formed by compaction, 3) local encrustation of the older eolianite's surface by algae and/or incipient calichification, 4) small solution pits, 5) wind-scour marks, and 6) a variety of pseudoburrow structures formed by vegetation, ants, and dissolution. Comparable paraconformities are probably common in the rock record but would be difficult to recognize because 1) rocks above and below are of similar composition, 2) large exposures are needed to recognize the diagnostic structure, 3) pseudoburrows may be abundant, and 4) distinctive diagenetic textures may be obscured by subsequent diagenesis.

I provided data on how geologists recognize reworked specimens. I'm providing data on how geologists recognize paraconformities. But I've never seen a coherent creationist explanation of how to test that a particular stratum was not formed during a global Flood. Geologists know when their theories need extension to accommodate new data. But do you?

 

[laptoppop]

But what about paraconformities without any erosion plane?

 

[hithesh]

Interesting response given the title of the thread.

Hey! Give credit, where credit is due.

I named the title, so throw stones at me!

 

[shernren]

But what about paraconformities without any erosion plane?

Such as?

 

[juvenissun]

My question is for YECs, if it was not for the Genesis account of creation,
and if you were presented just the evidence at hand, would you still assume the earth was just 10,000 years old?

I don't think so.

However, that does not mean there would be no doubt on the OE theory. There are indeed many many features that could not be explained by OE/evolution theory. If there were no Genesis message, I bet someone would figure out some other theory to cast doubts on OE.

The problem with YE people is that they see the answer first and try to figure out how could the answer make sense before they understand the question. Of course there are stretching in the process of struggling. But, eventually, I "believe" the YE evidence will become more and stronger.

 

[Dannager]

I don't think so.

However, that does not mean there would be no doubt on the OE theory. There are indeed many many features that could not be explained by OE/evolution theory. If there were no Genesis message, I bet someone would figure out some other theory to cast doubts on OE.

The problem with YE people is that they see the answer first and try to figure out how could the answer make sense before they understand the question. Of course there are stretching in the process of struggling. But, eventually, I "believe" the YE evidence will become more and stronger.

We've been studying the topic for hundreds of years now, and that's only gotten less true. It might be time to jump off that sinking ship and ask yourself if a different worldview might be appropriate.

 

[hithesh]

The problem with YE people is that they see the answer first and try to figure out how could the answer make sense before they understand the question. Of course there are stretching in the process of struggling. But, eventually, I "believe" the YE evidence will become more and stronger.

If only this was true my friend.

I have no problem accepting the YE argument if it had an ounce of truth in it,
but it seems as if if the majority of YE community runs with the first bogus claim spoken by Dr. Dino,
or the guy who said he found Noah's Ark. I picked up a creationist magazine one day and there was
a picture of a tomb on the cover of some Saint, with an engraving that they assume is of a dinosaur,
as if this was a sacred finding, that finally provides the proof that dinosaurs and man walked together.

To say that the evidence has gotten stronger, is delusion.

And I would find it funny, but being a believer I find it plain sad, that they could use this "junk",
to warp the minds of little children, and the gullible, until at some point they figure out that they are being misled.

I have these unfortunate people come up to me all the time, suffering bouts of doubt, that they are afraid to bring to their
teachers and leaders. Yes, it is not long before people realize they are being misled.

People sometimes wonder why I seem so hard on the YE community here, because it is time they wake
up to the damage they do to their faith, perhaps not for themselves but for the least, even if it is a rude wake up call.

 

[juvenissun]

We've been studying the topic for hundreds of years now, and that's only gotten less true. It might be time to jump off that sinking ship and ask yourself if a different worldview might be appropriate.

I don't agree it is getting less true. I think it is just on the opposite. The advance of science provides more support to the Genesis description.

Have you heard that a recent study (peer reviewed article) which suggests that there could be 5 oceans' water store in the mantle of the earth? Up till now, we didn't think it is possible.

 

[Dannager]

I don't agree it is getting less true. I think it is just on the opposite. The advance of science provides more support to the Genesis description.

No, it doesn't. If you feel it does, please start a thread on a specific example of this so that we can show you how it does not.

Have you heard that a recent study (peer reviewed article) which suggests that there could be 5 oceans' water store in the mantle of the earth? Up till now, we didn't think it is possible.

No, I haven't heard of it. Could you provide a link to the study?

 

[gluadys]

Have you heard that a recent study (peer reviewed article) which suggests that there could be 5 oceans' water store in the mantle of the earth? Up till now, we didn't think it is possible.

Are you referring to the Beijing anomaly? We have had a discussion of that, and it does not help the YE case at all since the water molecules are not in liquid form, but part of the rock.