Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Hammster]

Question: It's clear that the Yellowstone Hot Spot took a very long time (17 million years) to burn it's way from the Oregon/Nevada border to it's present location. The various eruption areas have been studied and documented. And that path is clearly seen on our maps. How is any of that misreading the data?

Since the earth is only approximately 6000 years old, I think the answer is obvious.

 

[Hammster]

Well...when it comes to the Creation story, scripture does not line up with what the Earth is actually showing us.

It does, actually. It just doesn’t line up with your presupposition.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Man says / Bible says

This will rock many but the Bible is as much "man says' as "God says".

Blessed poetry and prose.

 

[Hammster]

This will rock many but the Bible is as much "man says' as "God says".

Blessed poetry and prose.

It is God-breathed, though. 2 Timothy 3:16

 

[AV1611VET]

Scriptures can't be wrong?

Depends on who the authors are.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a truth that God's own Creation is telling us.

"God's own creation" told us that Pluto was our 9th planet; that Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug; and the Titanic was unsinkable, didn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well...when it comes to the Creation story, scripture does not line up with what the Earth is actually showing us.

Then get back to the drawing board and fix it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you believe that science gives an accurate age of the earth, even though science involves observation?

I believe nothing. Rather, I accept that science yields the most probable age for the Earth and that it does so accurately and with a remarkable precision. This is possible exactly because science involves observation. Not one observation by one method, but a multiplicity of observations, by multiple methods.

 

[dlamberth]

Then get back to the drawing board and fix it.

What the Earth is telling us about it's self is the true story of Creation.

 

[dlamberth]

"God's own creation" told us that Pluto was our 9th planet; that Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug; and the Titanic was unsinkable, didn't it?

What does any of that have to do with the geology of the Earth?

 

[dlamberth]

It does, actually. It just doesn’t line up with your presupposition.

"Presupposition"? How is it that the geology of the Earth is a presupposition? It is what it is.

 

[Hammster]

I believe nothing. Rather, I accept that science yields the most probable age for the Earth and that it does so accurately and with a remarkable precision. This is possible exactly because science involves observation. Not one observation by one method, but a multiplicity of observations, by multiple methods.

But it can’t observe the beginning, correct? It has to rely on presuppositions, which could be wrong.

 

[Hammster]

"Presupposition"? How is it that the geology of the Earth is a presupposition? It is what it is.

No, it presupposes, for one, that the way things are now are the same as things were then. It presupposes that radiometric dating is accurate, even though it’s been shown to not be as accurate as scientists want you to believe.

 

[dlamberth]

Since the earth is only approximately 6000 years old, I think the answer is obvious.

That's not an answer. It's clearly not obvious. The Yellowstone hot spot burned it's way to it's present location with clearly marked and studied eruption locations that just do not fit into a 6000 year span.

It's the same with the over 100 layer Columbia River Basalt Group. It takes time for lava to cool. And with over 100 different layers, that takes a LOT of time to build up. So much time that in some places tree growth took hold (seen in the Tree castings) before another layer of basalt came along and buried it all.

 

[Ophiolite]

But it can’t observe the beginning, correct? It has to rely on presuppositions, which could be wrong.

We can, and do, observe the effects of the beginning - and we observe those, as noted before, in a variety of ways. Any presuppositions arise because observations suggest such suppositions are plausible. That plausibility is then rigorously tested and rejected, or amended as required.

Might the current, provisional conclusions be wrong? Of course they could.! That's central to the modus operandi of science, but because of the rigour of the investigations, the cross checking, the aggressive questioning of any conclusions, the end result represents the best current explanation for a given phenomenon that is consistent with the evidence. i.e there isn't a better current explanation.

I need to answer your second question a second time. because you seem to missing something. The heart of science is to say "hold on, are we sure? Is this the best explanation?" and then to go out and try to answer that question. So, when you say "But it can’t observe the beginning, correct? It has to rely on presuppositions, which could be wrong." you appear to think you have identified a weakness. You haven't. You have identified a strength - one of the tools of science: always doubt, always question, always test.

 

[Frank Robert]

Since the earth is only approximately 6000 years old, I think the answer is obvious.

There is a consillience of scientific evidence that's saids otherwise See: How Old is Earth, and How Do We Know?

Science you have consistently disregarded scientific evidence I expect you will do so now.

 

[Hammster]

That's not an answer. It's clearly not obvious. The Yellowstone hot spot burned it's way to it's present location with clearly marked and studied eruption locations that just do not fit into a 6000 year span.

It's the same with the over 100 layer Columbia River Basalt Group. It takes time for lava to cool. And with over 100 different layers, that takes a LOT of time to build up. So much time that in some places tree growth took hold (seen in the Tree castings) before another layer of basalt came along and buried it all.

Obviously you are looking at the data incorrectly.

 

[Hammster]

We can, and do, observe the effects of the beginning - and we observe those, as noted before, in a variety of ways. Any presuppositions arise because observations suggest such suppositions are plausible. That plausibility is then rigorously tested and rejected, or amended as required.

Might the current, provisional conclusions be wrong? Of course they could.! That's central to the modus operandi of science, but because of the rigour of the investigations, the cross checking, the aggressive questioning of any conclusions, the end result represents the best current explanation for a given phenomenon that is consistent with the evidence. i.e there isn't a better current explanation.

I need to answer your second question a second time. because you seem to missing something. The heart of science is to say "hold on, are we sure? Is this the best explanation?" and then to go out and try to answer that question. So, when you say "But it can’t observe the beginning, correct? It has to rely on presuppositions, which could be wrong." you appear to think you have identified a weakness. You haven't. You have identified a strength - one of the tools of science: always doubt, always question, always test.

Thanks. This means that billions of years could be wrong, and you are trusting something that could later be proven incorrect.

 

[Hammster]

There is an overwhelming consillience of scientific evidence that's saids otherwise.

I have an overwhelming Bible that says otherwise.

 

[Frank Robert]

I have an overwhelming Bible that says otherwise.

Thanks for demonstrating confusing scientific evidence with belief in bible stories.