"Creation Science": Same data - different interpretation

[SkyWriting]

Instead you listed numerous citations to creation science claims.

I did what?

Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, p. 155, 1988; Robert M. Garrels and Fred T. Mackenzie, Evolution of Sedimentary Rocks, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, p. 114, 1971; J. Gilluly Geologic Contrasts Between Continents and Ocean Basins, in A. Poldervaart, editor, Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America, Special Paper, 62:7–18, 1955.

D.E. Fatovsky, D. Badamgarav, H. Ishimoto, M. Watabe, D.B. Weishampel, The Paleoenvironments of TugrikinÂShireh (Gobi Desert, Mongolia) and Aspects of the Taphonomy and Paleoecology of Protoceratops (Dinosauria: Ornithischia),Palaios 12:59–70, 1977.

As quoted in M. Nash, When Life Exploded, Time 146(23):66–74, 1995.
S.A. Bowring, J.P. Groetzinger, C.E. Isachsen, A.H. Knoll, S.M. Pelechaty, P. Kolosov, Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution, Science 261: 1293–1298, 1993.

D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution 28:458–472, 1974.
Richard Benedict Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1940.

 

[SkyWriting]

Creation scientists claim they use the same data as mainstream science, they just have a different interpretation of the "same data".

Where did you read this? Aren't you asking for specifics or something?
I will counter your argument with facts.

I don't think so.

 

[RickG]

Oky dokey....lets start with your premise:

"One of the claims of "creation science" is that they uses the same data as mainstream science but come up with a different interpretation."

Please document your premise. We will work from there.

http://www.academiccoachingandwriting.org/academic-writing/resources/citations

"Interpretation of ice cores is another example where different assumptions, using the very same data, result in quite different conclusions." (Michael J. Oard: Wild ice-core interpretations by uniformitarian scientists, Creation.com)

(Bold underlined emphasis, mine)

http://creation.com/wild-ice-core-interpretations-by-uniformitarian-scientists

Now, do you understand I'm not making a baseless claim. Show me a creation science claim that uses the same data used by mainstream scientists. In fact, use the same article I just linked making the same data claim, if you wish.

 

[SkyWriting]

Now, do you understand I'm not making a baseless claim.

I agree with you it was unsupported until now, post #23.
Now will I wait 23 posts before I back my views?

 

[SkyWriting]

Show me a creation science claim that uses the same data used by mainstream scientists. In fact, use the same article I just linked making the same data claim, if you wish.

There is no "other" Greenland core data to use.
I'll be back in 24 posts to support my statement.

 

[RickG]

There is no "other" Greenland core data to use.

Oard didn't use any data. He made comments on a graph concerning periods of time.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

So you didn't try looking first? Odd style of research Rick.
Just a "challenge from a position of intentional ignorance"?

#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

This is a great example of a dishonest argument. I'm not saying that you're dishonest, but your source is clearly lying to you. Tell me, how exactly did you determine that the earth's magnetic field has been decaying?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

He did create it as an artist would. He molded the universe as one molds clay. Completed in verse one, since the verb usage is in the past tense denoting completeness. Destruction followed creation. If you want to accept fallen angels chained under dense darkness or others prefer comets or meteors, It's all pointing to the same thing. Destruction followed by the creation of all new forms of life. Not once - but on 6 separate occasions. Soon to be 7.

 

[RickG]

This is a great example of a dishonest argument. I'm not saying that you're dishonest, but your source is clearly lying to you. Tell me, how exactly did you determine that the earth's magnetic field has been decaying?

The earth's magnetic field is indeed decaying. In fact, we are way overdue for magnetic reversal, switching of poles. Magnetic reversals occur on average around 450,000 years, the last one being some 780,000 years ago.

However, with respect to the topic, you are correct, the source is not being truthful. Having said the though, I must remind everyone that the topic of this thread is about same evidence different interpretation, not whether creation science is right or wrong. What the author of the article (Andrew Snelling) cited is indeed a different conclusion of what causes magnetic reversals, but he does not use the same data. In fact, no data is presented at all, just unsupported claims.

Note that at the end of the article note that Snellings credentials are mentioned, PhD in Geology. Why would I agree that he is not being truthful? Snelling has a problem. He is a young earth advocate. Knowing that, why has he had peer review articles published in the mainstream scientific literature describing an earth millions of years old after publishing young earth claims in the creation science literature.

Thus, "Will the real Andrew Snelling please stand up"?
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

 

[SkyWriting]

This is a great example of a dishonest argument. I'm not saying that you're dishonest, but your source is clearly lying to you. Tell me, how exactly did you determine that the earth's magnetic field has been decaying?

Actually that was me citing YE creationist information. I was just supporting the idea that they use
other peoples data. WHile they do create some of their own, they generally use others research results.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oard didn't use any data. He made comments on a graph concerning periods of time.

When I draw a graph, it's not unusual for me to sprinkle some data
over it before I publish it. Don't others do that too? Or is that just me.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Actually that was me citing YE creationist information. I was just supporting the idea that they use
other peoples data. WHile they do create some of their own, they generally use others research results.

Well, they are clearly cherry picking their "research results". This isn't "same data-different interpretation"; it's "cherry pick the data that supports our interpretation". Just to clarify - those two things are not synonymous.

 

[Haasrecht]

Is 'creation science' an actual term now? How did I miss that one?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

#2 Bent Rock Layers

So. . .you think that bent and uplifted rock layers were laid down and bent while they were soft mud? Hmmm. . .how exactly do you explain desert sandstone sandwiched between marine layers. Or how about these guys? Are you under the impression that dinosaurs walked vertically up these cliffs?

(source)

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, they are clearly cherry picking their "research results". This isn't "same data-different interpretation"; it's "cherry pick the data that supports our interpretation". Just to clarify - those two things are not synonymous.

So you have evidence that the data has not been already pickled?

Former Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser fabricated and falsified data and made false statements about experimental methods in six federally funded studies, according to a report released yesterday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

 

[SkyWriting]

So. . .you think that bent and uplifted rock layers were laid down and bent while they were soft mud? Hmmm. . .how exactly do you explain desert sandstone sandwiched between marine layers. Or how about these guys? Are you under the impression that dinosaurs walked vertically up these cliffs?

(source)

Neither of those interesting examples are related to folded rock.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

So you have evidence that the data has not been already pickled?

Former Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser fabricated and falsified data and made false statements about experimental methods in six federally funded studies, according to a report released yesterday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

Why are you giving me a link about a psychologist? Are you under the impression that you can use an example of a psychologist fabricating data to make all the evidence for magnetic field reversals magically disappear?

 

[SkyWriting]

Why are you giving me a link about a psychologist? Are you under the impression that you can use an example of a psychologist fabricating data to make all the evidence for magnetic field reversals magically disappear?

Are there other interpretations for the evidence?

For the record, we know that Earth’s magnetic field has changed its polarity more than once in its lifetime.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Neither of those interesting examples are related to folded rock.

Except that, of course, they are. You are alleging that the sedimentary rock layers we observe were laid down near simultaneously. I am pointing out that it is an odd thing for deserts and oceans to exist at the same time - much like gravity-defying dinosaurs.

How much rock is above the picture in question? Why is that important? Well, a weird property of mud is that it gets squished when weight is applied. If you are honestly saying that bent rock layers were not solid when they were bent then could you please explain why the bottom layers of formations like this even exist given the massive weight of the layers above them? Do the lower layers of these formations show signs of being squished? If so, where?

Also, you may have notice that these rocks have been uplifted to the point of some of the layers being vertical, just like the strata those dinosaur tracks I showed you earlier were in.

Finally, I'm really curious as to how your whole "layers were laid down as soft mud" model accounts for angular unconformities like this:

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Are there other interpretations for the evidence?

For the record, we know that Earth’s magnetic field has changed its polarity more than once in its lifetime.

From your source:

"During about the last 20 million years of our formation, Earth has settled into a pattern of switching magnetic poles about every 200,000 to 300,000 years…"
​

Thank you for conceding the point that what we know about the Earth's magnetic field does not support a young earth as your initial post implied.