Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[pat34lee]

This is a bad argument overall. Are you familiar with David Hume and "Empiricism"? In the extreme the empiricist says that we can only determine cause and effect if we experience the event. So if I flip a switch in my home and the lights across the room go off you are only inferring that there is a connection between the two. Even if I do it a billion times and each time the light goes off or on, there is a possibility it could be pure random chance. Like flipping a billion heads on a coin in a row. Statisitcally unlikely but not perfectly impossible.

So when people say "Have you seen 4.5 billion years pass?" They are hoping to leverage this type of "empistemological doubt". It fails.

Now let us see how YOU likely abuse your own edict: do you believe that God created the earth 10000 years ago? WERE YOU THERE? Did you SEE GOD GUIDE THE HANDS OF THE WITNESSES WHO WERE THERE TO WRITE THE BOOK OF GENESIS? No? Well, then you are hoisted on your own petard. It is unfortunate, but indeed it cuts both ways.

In your first example, it is more like hitting a button once. Several things occur after,
but you have no idea which, if any were directly tied to hitting that button. Every time
afterward when you hit it, something different or nothing happens. Is it doing anything?

The same could be asked of any court witness. Their testimony stands on its own.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is not science. We have no idea what is in space between us and any
star we can see, so we don't know what is affecting the speed of light
between us and those stars.

Science is the direct measurement of the speed of light taken by many
scientists over the last 300-400 years, showing a sharp decline up until
about 1940.

It is perfectly sound science, and what is between us and the stars we see does not affect the Doppler shift we observe, the red shift we observe; we can see the distant galaxies perfectly clearly. Mere words saying "its not science" don't count for anything. Of course, there are times when there is matter between us and a particular distant galaxy, that can be detected by the absorption lines they add to the spectrum of the galaxy.

 

[pat34lee]

Speculation from a single source, and never mind that you totally ignored the fact that the speed of light has nothing to do with any of the archeological/geological dating methods. Keine, aucun, nessuan, ingen, NONE.

Must have been another post. 'c' or the speed of light is part of every
equation involving decay of radioactive material.

 

[pat34lee]

It is perfectly sound science, and what is between us and the stars we see does not affect the doppler shift we observe, the red shift we observe; we can see the distant galaxies perfectly clearly. Mere words saying "its not science" don't count for anything.

How do you know what is between us and a star?
How do you know the effect it has on light?
Can you test light halfway to the star? Retest it?

 

[pat34lee]

"Naturalism is false thus the earth has to be only 6000 years old." <- Doesn't follow. The earth could have been supernaturally created at a different date.

The Creator of the Universe didn't claim the earth was that age. A specific interpretation, rejected by the majority of Jews and Christians, of a book written by a human leads to that date.

Much more than that. God said that he told the end from the beginning.
The creation week is mirrored by the history since then.
Each day in Genesis 1 corresponds to a thousand years of history.
Pretty soon, we will enter the millennial Sabbath.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

How do you know what is between us first?
How do you know the effect it has on light?
Can you test light halfway to the star? Retest it?

You can tell the presence of intersteller gas between us and a galaxy by the absortion lines in the spectrum. That's also the effect it has on light. You can compare the view of galaxies with little or not such lines with galaxies that have more such lines. You can declare you don't believe any of it, but that's simply yet another case of denial of evidence.

In any case, we are not talking about something that could be altered by such a passage. We are talking about the length of time we see change in the light. Light waves, after all, have to vary with time, or they aren't a wave. If we can see the galaxy at all, we can see the frequency of the light coming from that galaxy. No matter what you shine a light through, it's going to either carry through the frequency or be blocked. And the light isn't blocked.

Positive evidence of galactic rotation at normal speeds is seen as far as we can see the galaxy shapes. This proves light has not slowed traveling from the galaxy to us on earth. You can't get around that. You may, however, fail to understand that. I can see that might be the case.

 

[createdtoworship]

This is something I've seen many creationist/Young Earth believer claim many times on this site: "Scientists/Evolutionists are just misinterpreting the data."
I've seen this said about biologists, I've seen it said about geologists, paleontologists and archaeologists. But I have never seen anyone actually give a proper answer from people who follow the view that all of science showing an old Earth is wrong.

So I have to ask: what are they getting wrong? What are men and women who have spent years studying their field, all across the globe, getting wrong?

begging the question is when you assume the conclusion and the supporting premises are basically similiar, and that there is no difference.

with no evidence, and all opinion you really have nothing to say here regarding YEC.

what I see happen with OEC, and TE and with evolutionists in general is that they support a failed premise.


namely that a bacteria can pick itself up by it's own bootstrap, put on shoes, and walk out of the sludge.

doesn't happen,

end of story.

hows the ball game?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here is an article by Harvard graduate Dr Wise suggesting that the Grand Canyon was created during Noah's flood. http://www.grisda.org/origins/58007.pdf

Snelling and Wise had admitted that even if they found out that all the evidence points to an old Earth creation, they'd still believe a young Earth creation.
Give me ACTUAL evidence, not creationist claptrap, that supports your claim.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Mammoths are in the thousands of years range, not hundreds of millions, as dinosaurs.

My point still stands. If you want perfect DNA, the dead animal has to be perfectly persevered.
Since dinosaurs are fossilized, the DNA is only partial, but it's still there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm going to be putting in a request for a thread clean-up since this thread has become arguments on religion, when I wanted it to be a discussion about science as per the OP!
I requested several times that we stick to the OP topic, but for some of you, it just seems to be too hard.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

begging the question is when you assume the conclusion and the supporting premises are basically similiar, and that there is no difference.

with no evidence, and all opinion you really have nothing to say here regarding YEC.

what I see happen with OEC, and TE and with evolutionists in general is that they support a failed premise.


namely that a bacteria can pick itself up by it's own bootstrap, put on shoes, and walk out of the sludge.

doesn't happen,

end of story.

hows the ball game?

Here's an idea, and it's quite a novel one: instead of just SAYING that evolution and Old Earth Creationism is wrong, why not actually showing, using actual science, that all of the world's scientists are wrong, using science.
Like I asked for in the thread OP.

 

[Heissonear]

That is correct, but in situ layers can be from a number of different sources such as volcanic ash, pyroclastic flow, annual laquestrine, loess, local flood, landslide, etc.

Rick, God had all of these natural processes that create depositional environments and depositional layers in Mind before Speaking representation of billions of years of natural geologic history into existence. Yes, bringing forth grandscale existence of a natural world with foreknown representation of billions of years of "natural history" as He brought each part into existence. The Maker of One Intelligent Creation.

The ones stating "the Flood did it" have their premise, as Michael has thoughtfully presented. Include for many "the Flood did it" that their spiritual eyes were open by the Holy Spirit to many verses and things in the Bible, and now Bible believers foundationally they exhibit their strict adherence to "Biblical interpretations", even interpretation of natural science artifacts, which has produce obvious ignorance in many occasions.

If they knew what you knew they would go back to God and ask "what be it" in their own individual manor.

I have fundamentally known what you know before I became a "YEC" labeled person, as the meaning of YEC is applied in your current knowledge base. Even though I understand crossbedded eolian deposits that are now beautifully outcropped, like the Navajo FM and Glen Canyon Group in general in the Zion Ntl Park region.

God is awesome in understanding and ability. It is displayed in the natural world once more reality of its Creation is disclosed by Him. Note that in Hebrews 6:3 not even the fundamentals can be obtained unless He permits. We are that dependant when learning His Creation. Lessons to be learned, firsthand. That is why I say "smart men" are not the source but can be only the smaller part, with Nature and God's Holy Spirit being the essential and primary parts. Without them one can look as foolish as "the Flood did it", no joke.

 

[RickG]

Their are 6 million years worth of layers only the Canyon itself was carved out in the last 12,000 years. So God did not expose 6 million years of natural history until recently at the end of the last glacier era when all the ice melted.

Source please.

 

[RickG]

Rick, God had all of these natural processes that create depositional environments and depositional layers in Mind before Speaking representation of billions of years of natural geologic history into existence. Yes, bringing forth grandscale existence of a natural world with foreknown representation of billions of years of "natural history" as He brought each part into existence. The Maker of One Intelligent Creation.

The ones stating "the Flood did it" have their premise, as Michael has thoughtfully presented. Include for many "the Flood did it" that their spiritual eyes were open by the Holy Spirit to many verses and things in the Bible, and now Bible believers foundationally they exhibit their strict adherence to "Biblical interpretations", even interpretation of natural science artifacts, which has produce obvious ignorance in many occasions.

If they knew what you knew they would go back to God and ask "what be it" in their own individual manor.

I have fundamentally known what you know before I became a "YEC" labeled person, as the meaning of YEC is applied in your current knowledge base. Even though I understand crossbedded eolian deposits that are now beautifully outcropped, like the Navajo FM and Glen Canyon Group in general in the Zion Ntl Park region.

God is awesome in understanding and ability. It is displayed in the natural world once more reality of its Creation is disclosed by Him. Note that in Hebrews 6:3 not even the fundamentals can be obtained unless He permits. We are that dependant when learning His Creation. Lessons to be learned, firsthand. That is why I say "smart men" are not the source but can be only the smaller part, with Nature and God's Holy Spirit being the essential and primary parts. Without them one can look as foolish as "the Flood did it", no joke.

Do you have any science to present? This thread is not about the bible.

 

[RickG]

Begin your learning here ¬


http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/per...hall-of-planet-earth/how-do-we-read-the-rocks

Dave, this is a discussion/debate forum specific to science. Please elaborate on the links you post as to their content and the main points you wish to convey. Just posting links does not contribute to the discussion or debate.

 

[Heissonear]

Read my post above to Rick.

 

[RickG]

Warden Of The Storm¬

Quite why people argue, over the SAME FACTS is of itself, debateable


It follows, that YEC deny that the evidence provided (in fantastic amounts)
by "mainstream scientists" is derived, using testable-means of investigation in laboratories

Why is it important, for some to feel 'the need' to contest another's beliefs
as-opposed to leading them to discover for-themselves, just how-wrong, they indeed are

This thread has nothing to do with anyone beliefs.

 

[Heissonear]

Here's an idea, and it's quite a novel one: instead of just SAYING that evolution and Old Earth Creationism is wrong, why not actually showing, using actual science, that all of the world's scientists are wrong, using science.
Like I asked for in the thread OP.

Read my post above to Rick.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Read my post above to Rick.

You're still talking about religion. I stated in the OP that this thread was to discuss science, and science only, not religion!

 

[Heissonear]

This thread has nothing to do with anyone beliefs.

Yes it does. Beliefs is the very base you have placed your natural knowledge upon.

Take a careful look.