Creation science claims to be a different interpretation of the same evidence that mainstream science uses. Is it? I say no, it is a deliberate dishonest misrepresentation of the same evidence.
In this thread I would like to see specific examples showing this. I'll begin.
From: http://creation.com/does-geologic-column-exist
The article is posted on the Creation Ministries International website, and is authored by John Woodmorappe. Here is a direct quote: "Recently however, there have been a number of recurrent claims that the geological column is more than a hypothetical concept and that it actually exists."
(Bold emphasis added)
To begin with the geologic column is misrepresented as to what it actually is. It is nothing more than a chronological representation geologic strata. Geology does not say that the same layers should be represented globally like an onion. It recognizes specific independent layers of relative age. These layers of the same relative age are not the same layers of the same formation globally, nor have they ever been asserted or assumed to be so.
It is also asserted in the article that it is not found complete anywhere on earth. Well, that is just false, it is known to be complete in 25 different locations globally. Understand that that does not mean that it is the same exact layers of strata like an onion. It is only a representation of a complete set of chronological layers of strata representing the sedimentary layers of the geologic column.
Now back to the thread topic. There is no doubt that the assertions made by Woodmorappe are absolute misrepresentations of what the Geologic Column actually is. Furthermore, his claim that it doesn't exist is completely false. The only true thing described by Woodmorappe is that the geologic column "as described by Woodmorappe" does not exist, because the geologic column described by Woodmorappe and that by Geology are not the same.
Now, understand that the argument here is not whether the geologic column exists or not. The argument is that it is deliberately misrepresented by Woodmorappe, with the intention of influencing the public that his false claims are true.
More examples anyone? Your choice of scientific fields.
Note to creation science proponents. This is not the thread to post false claims that have been made in the mainstream scientific literature. They are well known, routed out by mainstream science, and not tolerated by the scientific community in the least, which is the direct opposite of creation science which does not expose or discipline such actions.
In this thread I would like to see specific examples showing this. I'll begin.
From: http://creation.com/does-geologic-column-exist
The article is posted on the Creation Ministries International website, and is authored by John Woodmorappe. Here is a direct quote: "Recently however, there have been a number of recurrent claims that the geological column is more than a hypothetical concept and that it actually exists."
(Bold emphasis added)
To begin with the geologic column is misrepresented as to what it actually is. It is nothing more than a chronological representation geologic strata. Geology does not say that the same layers should be represented globally like an onion. It recognizes specific independent layers of relative age. These layers of the same relative age are not the same layers of the same formation globally, nor have they ever been asserted or assumed to be so.
It is also asserted in the article that it is not found complete anywhere on earth. Well, that is just false, it is known to be complete in 25 different locations globally. Understand that that does not mean that it is the same exact layers of strata like an onion. It is only a representation of a complete set of chronological layers of strata representing the sedimentary layers of the geologic column.
Now back to the thread topic. There is no doubt that the assertions made by Woodmorappe are absolute misrepresentations of what the Geologic Column actually is. Furthermore, his claim that it doesn't exist is completely false. The only true thing described by Woodmorappe is that the geologic column "as described by Woodmorappe" does not exist, because the geologic column described by Woodmorappe and that by Geology are not the same.
Now, understand that the argument here is not whether the geologic column exists or not. The argument is that it is deliberately misrepresented by Woodmorappe, with the intention of influencing the public that his false claims are true.
More examples anyone? Your choice of scientific fields.
Note to creation science proponents. This is not the thread to post false claims that have been made in the mainstream scientific literature. They are well known, routed out by mainstream science, and not tolerated by the scientific community in the least, which is the direct opposite of creation science which does not expose or discipline such actions.
