"Creation Science": Same data - different interpretation

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread had a small clean up. Please stay on topic and refrain from apologetics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

People only hear what they want to hear. Any data that goes against their pre-conceived beliefs is usually ignored or explained away with Fairie Dust.

 

[RickG]

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

It is not a term, rather a "description" I prefer to use in place of creationist or creationism, as it is specific to science and only science.

 

[RickG]

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:

Please understand that this thread is not intended to discuss whether creation science is correct or not. I started it solely for the purpose of discussing whether creation science uses the same data as mainstream science. It has been my experience with what I have read from the creation science literature it is not using the same data, rather no data at best a variation of the data rather than the "same data".

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Please understand that this thread is not intended to discuss whether creation science is correct or not. I started it solely for the purpose of discussing whether creation science uses the same data as mainstream science. It has been my experience with what I have read from the creation science literature it is not using the same data, rather no data at best a variation of the data rather than the "same data".

I take your point. My intent is merely to point out that creation science is clearly not using the same data - they are only picking and choosing the bits and pieces that they like. For example, creation science is clearly not taking into account huge geological formations that show rock bending or the numerous uplifted formations that show vertical dinosaur tracks. They are, instead, using a few pictures; some quote mines; and a dash of confirmation bias.

 

[SkyWriting]

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:

There are a variety of events that occur at different times in various time frames.
One event may occur within sight of a different from a different time frame.
"Squishing" of layers would the the result of uneven forces.
All forces deep underground may or may not have uneven pressures.
Slow forces would dissipate and even out differing forces no matter
if the layers were soft, medium, or hard. What is most interesting is that
all the layers seem to be of more or less equal properties, bending and folding
in very similar ways regardless of their depth or suggested age.

 

[SkyWriting]

I take your point. My intent is merely to point out that creation science is clearly not using the same data - they are only picking and choosing the bits and pieces that they like. For example, creation science is clearly not taking into account huge geological formations that show rock bending or the numerous uplifted formations that show vertical dinosaur tracks. They are, instead, using a few pictures; some quote mines; and a dash of confirmation bias.

Your complaints fit the original data as well.

"A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error.

In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%).

Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic.

The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975."

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Perhaps you came to that conclusion because I don't buy much of the science fiction
thrown at the wall to see what sticks. But I don't support the young earth conclusion.

 

[SkyWriting]

Please understand that this thread is not intended to discuss whether creation science is correct or not. I started it solely for the purpose of discussing whether creation science uses the same data as mainstream science. It has been my experience with what I have read from the creation science literature it is not using the same data, rather no data at best a variation of the data rather than the "same data".

But rick doesn't feel graphs are drawn from data, so he's a different kind of researcher.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Perhaps you came to that conclusion because I don't buy much of the science fiction
thrown at the wall to see what sticks. But I don't support the young earth conclusion.

The source you provided to show that you already knew that magnetic reversals occur explains how they invalidate your original claim.

You started out wanting to only look at a cherry picked slice of the data showing that earth'so magnetic field was weakening. When we look at all of the data we see that earths magnetic field had gone through periodic reversals for millions of years.

Your source was lying to you. Now you know.

 

[RickG]

But rick doesn't feel graphs are drawn from data, so he's a different kind of researcher.

I never said such a thing. I said the article presented no data. What is the source of data from which the graph was constructed? Well, Oard provides his reference (5), which is: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01174/full. Here's the first sentence of his description providing the reference to the graph:

"Figure 1. The oxygen isotope ratio down the GRIP ice core, central Greenland (from Wolff et al.).5"​

The Wolff et al paper he cited stating oxygen isotope ratio being the data type is erronous. The data used in the Wolff et al paper is from electrical conductivity (EMC) and Dielectric profile (DEP) which is based on acidity, not on oxygen isotopes. Additionally, Oards mention of a 110 kyr ice core record is a misdirection, especially in conjunction with his further mention of oxygen isotopes. Oxygen isotope chronology is only good up to generally 12 kyr with a maximum use up to 20 kyr. As a side note, Carl Wieland, in his article about the "Lost Squadron", also misrepresents the oxygen isotope chronology limits.

 

[SkyWriting]

You started out wanting to only look at a cherry picked slice of the data showing that earth'so magnetic field was weakening.

I did not support that position. The source did.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

I did not support that position. The source did.

Precisely, and we were discussing how creation science does not actually use the same data - they cherry pick. They lied to you. As we keep going you will probably start noticing that this will be a common theme.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

There are a variety of events that occur at different times in various time frames.
One event may occur within sight of a different from a different time frame.
"Squishing" of layers would the the result of uneven forces.

Sigh. . .let's go through this scenario again. You are claiming that bent sedimentary layers were laid down quickly and were bent while still soft. You may not realize that this is what your source is claiming. . .but if you read it it's right there:

"The same principle applies to sedimentary rock layers. They can be bent and folded soon after the sediment is deposited, before the natural cements have a chance to bind the particles together into hard, brittle rocks. . .most of the earth’s fossil-bearing layers were laid down quickly and many were folded while still wet." (source)
​

However, this clearly can't be the case with the vertical dinosaur tracks I showed you. Why? Because soft, wet mud does not preserve footprints when lifted vertically. In fact, soft, wet mud does not stay in layers at all when lifted vertically. They also don't mention that sedimentary rocks are not the only rock layers we find bending in:

​

Here again we see that the rock layers are bent, but this could not possibly have been because they were laid down as wet mud because this is a piece of granite.​

Why did your source not tell you about this? Because they do not want you to see all the data - they are cherry picking again in order to lie to you.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sigh. . .let's go through this scenario again. You are claiming that bent sedimentary layers were laid down quickly and were bent while still soft.

That's one explanation. All past events are guesswork.
It doesn't matter the source. Thanks for your concern
that I believe you. You have no bias.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

That's one explanation. All past events are guesswork.
It doesn't matter the source.

I mean. . .okay. . .but you do realize that the sources you now say "don't matter" are the sources that you provided right?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I had missed this thread!

I am giving a lecture tomorrow at Cal State University, Fullerton on "Geological Features of Great Age, and the Frauds of Young Earth Creationism."

I could have cited so many of the web links given by the local YEC "SkyWriting."

Oh well.... next time.

 

[SkyWriting]

I mean. . .okay. . .but you do realize that the sources you now say "don't matter" are the sources that you provided right?

Everyone thinks they are Sherlock Holmes and believes they can accurately see into the
past and recreate any event that has transpired based on what evidence they choose to
find. Creation Scientists have been bamboozled into believing they have these magical
powers too except they are guided by God's word, so they are "really" correct.

Too some extent they are correct, but not to the extent they think.

 

[SkyWriting]

I had missed this thread! I am giving a lecture tomorrow at Cal State University, Fullerton on "Geological Features of Great Age, and the Frauds of Young Earth Creationism."
I could have cited so many of the web links given by the local YEC "SkyWriting."

Oh well.... next time.

I'm giving a lecture right now on "People who speak without checking the facts."
Those are links to sources. You should examine the background information on which you lecture.
I wonder how you did prepare?
And I'm not a YEC. Again, I wonder about your research methods.


Search on "Young Earth evidences", the "Institute for Creation Science" or similar searches.

 

[029b10]

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

I recall when scientist at CERN first announced that a neutrino had exceeded the speed of light thereby reproving the principle that only light (matter without mass) can travel in excess of 186,000 mps, the ICR published an article on their website regarding the findings shortly after the initial findings were reported:

The famous formula E=mc2 has stood firm for over 100 years and has been incorporated into much
of our understanding of space and time. Would such a finding impact recent creationist research?
​

As Thomas Paine is quoted as saying, " Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them." Thus it is written in Matthew 13:13-14, " Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." And example of which is John 11:9-10, "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him."

It was claimed in the article - "if the speed of light is found to be changeable under various conditions, this lends credence to the (young-earth) creationist view that basic physical constants are changeable."

The article concluded "Of course, Christians who accept the Bible as the Word of God can take His omnipotent word by faith when He said He created the world in six days, without having to fully understand how it was accomplished. However, as new knowledge is discovered, fuller understanding of how He may have done it is possible. What a blessing for a believing scientist!"


In the Walker it is held that the less a particle moves, the greater it's density