"Creation Science": Same data - different interpretation

Though I can give examples from other areas of science I am an Old World Creationist and have no problem with the geological record (though I do have some issues with "interpretations" of data) or the record of great lengths of time. Not only the word "hayah" but even the word "yom" rendered "day" is used by the same author in the same book to mean a season, a lifetime, and epoch, even "forever"....

God certainly used "evolution" (change over time) via what we NOW CALL speciation to produce variety (it was a built in genetic propensity) but not to change one kind of creature into another entirely different kind of creature (cross genus or phyletic morphism)....

Geologically there are different numbers of layers around the world (about 75% of the surface areas being sedimentary of one kind or another)....and when we add in things like subduction, the allocthonous processes, plate shifts, earthquake and volcanic transformations and so on, I would say the historic approach of inferring backward in unobserved time renders all theories questionable.

Some layers in some parts of the world assumed to be 1,000s of years in formation in other places have the remains of fossilized fish (some in the midst of struggle) which we know only takes a few days to thoroughly rot. In varying viscosities of solidifying sediments heavier and more dense objects can sink further down this being trapped in layers they really did not belong in and then of course there are obvious drainage pits where species of creatures and fauna from diverse geo-physical regions are are piled into or found compressing one another...and on and on....

Just keep an open mind which ever extreme view any of you may hold....

RickG said:

So we are guessing that past ice ages occurred.
So we are guessing that plate tectonics is the mechanism of continental movement.
So we are guessing that there have been 5 major extinction events and 20 minor events.
So we are guessing how mountains are formed.
So we are guessing how sedimentary rocks are formed.
So we are guessing ........

Click to expand...

If you read much science fiction, some of it is very much based on openly
available knowledge, and some is not. But all of them are stories found in
the fiction section. This is where most science topics belong. Scientists
OPENLY ADMIT and claim it as a fundamental truth in science that they
will change their fictional stories anytime new information comes to the fore
and replaces what they thought they knew yesterday.

Yes, what you "know" today may be replaced tomorrow.
Do you need me to find peer reviewed sources to back that?

.

029b10 said:

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

Click to expand...

The ICR website is pretty much a Blog or a web based magazine.
You have to dig a little to find their research papers.
We don't expect a blog to publish academic tretis.

SkyWriting said:

If you read much science fiction, some of it is very much based on openly
available knowledge, and some is not. But all of them are stories found in
the fiction section. This is where most science topics belong. Scientists
OPENLY ADMIT and claim it as a fundamental truth in science that they
will change their fictional stories anytime new information comes to the fore
and replaces what they thought they knew yesterday.

Yes, what you "know" today may be replaced tomorrow.
Do you need me to find peer reviewed sources to back that?

Click to expand...

Creationists tell us that they interpret the evidence differently. Apparently not. All they do is insult the integrity of the entire scientific community hoping that it will make the evidence go away.

RickG said:

Science does correct itself. However, the accusation far exceed that. Also Sky, I'm still waiting for a same data different interpretation example.

Click to expand...

So the original declaration of fact was, indeed, a fictional account.
Wow, it was hard for you to get to that.

I'm sure you'd complain if they insisted on not using others data.

NOAA and NASA provided the basic meteorological and satellite data for the storms studied in this project and NCAR provided the WRF model used in the simulations. The output was displayed using Vis5d, an open-source display package made available online originally by the University of Wisconsin, Madison

Science is about going where the evidence takes us, not starting with an outcome and cherry picking information to provide a desired outcome.

You keep moving from the specific to the general. I believe a fair amount of certainty is true for most geologists and certainly most chemists and physicists, but the field that seems to be questioned here is always Evolutionary Biology and it is in this field you get the complaints of "scientists" who work from the preconceived conclusion forward and often later others make excuses for their deceptions (and sometimes it turns out to unfold some great discoveries).

We see this in Dubois Java man...there should be no need to reinvent the wheel but as I suspect many will now flock to his defense (after all it was other scientists who showed his shame to the world so they really shouldn't but it is what normally occurs in any discussion of his fraud) though he was no more dishonest in his approach than his well known mentor.

He is only one of the many (a long history in this area)...but as for geology I think it is pretty solid (no pun intended) but even here there are different possibilities to explain SOME of the evidence...

For example what I mentioned as drainage pits (areas found where creatures and fauna from various geo-physical locations are found all swept into one place some fossilized remains even crushed into or upon one another) Consider the La Brea tar pits...obviously formed by an allocthonous process...the standard explanation is "Over many centuries, the bones of animals that were trapped in the tar were preserved"...is that not what you were also taught?

Yet the truth is that at this site we found animal remains and plants from all over the continent and beyond (over 1000 varieties)...what carried them there....they obviously did not just wander in and get stuck. It is more likely they were swept there by lava flow or flooding or something but certainly not just wandering in and getting stuck (there is one in Geisthal, Germany, one in Diamondsville, Wyoming, and more). The same with the phenomena of fossilized sea formations and sea life found atop many of the worlds mountains (not all are old enough to have been laid down when these mountains rose out of the sea)...

Take the Messel Pit in Germany for one example...yes we know the geology of the site but in this one place we found any number of primate fossils, over 10,000 varieties of fish (many not indigenous to the area), even turtles (fossilized while mating), and crocs only found much farther south, and much much more...

How did they all end up here in this one place? All collected and fossilized in this low ground area?

A. Woodhead (Geology, Vol. 1, edited by James, Salem Press, 1999, p. 259) has this to say…"The biases inherent in the fossil record stem from the fact that fossilization of organic material is the exception, not the rule, and very specific and relatively rare conditions must be met for an organism to become fossilized. Fossilization favors organisms with hard parts, for example, an exterior shell (exoskeleton) or internal skeleton (endoskeleton). Fossilization also favors organisms living in certain environments. Two particular environmental conditions favor fossilization: rapid burial (usually by flood or magma) and anoxia (lack of oxygen). Rapid burial protects organic remains from predators or scavengers and physical reworking by tides and waves. Oxygen supports bacteria and decomposition of organic material. Burial in an oxygen-free (reducing) environment insulates organic material from decay and thus favors fossilization."

Now without coming right out and saying it, Woodhead is telling us that (and I say even in the world’s highest mountains) this type of fossilization can happen rather quickly, and in my opinion, in the case of Mountain sea fossils this gives legitimate cause for us to question the idea that these all were formed over the millions of years it allegedly took for these mountains to rise.

Such slow rising (though I accept this is true for the formation of most mountains) cannot explain the formation of many of these fossils layers. For example, it was determined that the Burgess Shale site the dominant fossils found are arthopods. Other fossils found include worms, crinoids, sea cucumbers, chordates, and other organisms with no mineralized shell. The Burgess site has an abundance of fossils of soft bodied animals as well as those with harder parts which more easily lend themselves to fossilization over longer periods.

In the New York Times article, “WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA” science reporter Malcolm W. Browne (March 12, 1987) regarding fossil finds atop the Andes Mountains shares that, “Scientists have found fossils of whales and other marine animals in mountain sediments in the Andes, indicating that the South American mountain chain rose very rapidly from the sea. The rare assemblage of fossils, recovered on an expedition by the American Museum of Natural History to a remote plateau in southern Chile, is expected not only to illuminate an obscure epoch of animal evolution but also to document the rise of the Andes Mountains in the past 15 million years. Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief.”

Again we find yet another example where the “millions of years taken to form” theory for these fossils is not supported by the evidence. Even if it were true these uprisings occurred as early as 15 million years ago these softer bodied creatures had to have begun fossilization rather quickly.

The same thing is true and was discovered by the Everest Research Team (Montana University, in 2012).

They found hundreds of fossils of marine life encased in the sedimentary rock and limestone at the very peak, and no one thinks Everest rose out of the sea in recent times!?! The problem here was that Everest is dated to be well over 65,000,000 years old and yet most of the creatures found there do not even appear in the geo column elsewhere until after 50,000,000 years ago (some from even more recent times). Yet it is still explained as having happened when Everest rose. Why?

In the case of the Andes, again these mountains are older than many of the fossils found...how do we explain this? Well that's the clincher...there is more then one possible explanation...we really do not know FOR SURE...

So when one offers a different perspective on the evidence one cannot really stand on the mantra of consensus (argumentum ad populum)...and say "This is what the evidence proves" or "We stand only on the evidence" when the basis of the claim is not being honest with the actual evidence (just like Dubious Java man)...but rests squarely on a preconceived notion going in (the same error occurs in the theistic evolution and Creationist camps)

RickG said:

"pshun", I appreciate your participation in this thread, but please, let's stick to what I requested in the OP.

"With respect to "young earth" claims, I would like to see examples where the same data obtained by mainstream geology can be used to interpret things such as a young earth, global flood, or an ice age after said global flood."
​

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Seashells on mountaintops.

RickG said:

Seashells on mountaintops alone is not data.

Click to expand...

I was wondering what your angle was.

Carry on.

Maybe someone might even understand what it is you want.

RickG said:

Quite the contrary, they should use the same data. They don't because it will not provide their desired outcome. Science is about going where the evidence takes us, not starting with an outcome and cherry picking information to provide a desired outcome.

Again, can you point out in the example I provided by Michael Oard where he uses the same data as mainstream science? Oard makes the statement that he does in that very paper. All I have seen is misrepresentations.

Click to expand...

Instead I provided an example from the ICR website.

NOAA and NASA provided the basic meteorological and satellite data

SkyWriting said:

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?

Click to expand...

I was referring to your earlier comment.

RickG said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well done!