Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions

[klutedavid]

That is exactly what I am saying. Where is the same evidence? Source a claim about the age of the universe by creation science and show me where they use the same evidence as mainstream science to arrive at a different conclusion. All I ever see is opinions and unsupported claims with no evidence, much less the same evidence that mainstream science uses.

Hello Rick.

Why would an empiricist attempt to navigate an ocean that is in the first
instance is utterly undefined?

If the expansion or inflation of the singularity registers in the faint radiation
background of the universe. Why is this assumed to result from an undefined
entity (the singularity), that is not a scientific explanation at all.

All I ever see is opinions and unsupported claims

Likewise on this side of the fence.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

When I examine secular science and the origin of the universe, I witness
chaos and confusion. No evidence for even the existence of a singularity. No
explanation as to how the singularity even formed in the first instance. All
undefined, no evidence, mysticism in the extreme.

They will state that at the moment of the singularity existence, physical
forces did not exist. Hence no evidence whatsoever?

Astrophysics is not my area of scientific expertise, thus I will provide a simplified version and then some links to mainstream science papers providing the mathematical evidence.

Simply put observe the known universe and note its direction of expansion. Now, run that expansion in reverse, it comes back to a single point, a singularity. Now for the meat and potatoes.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01589v3.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01589v3.pdf
Now klutedavid, show me where creation science uses the same data and comes up with an age for the universe of 6,000 years.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Why would an empiricist attempt to navigate an ocean that is in the first
instance is utterly undefined?

If the expansion or inflation of the singularity registers in the faint radiation
background of the universe. Why is this assumed to result from an undefined
entity (the singularity), that is not a scientific explanation at all.

Likewise on this side of the fence.

See link on post #42

 

[Commander]

Not just science, rather Physical Earth Science; therefore, Geology, Oceanography, and Climatology.


As a matter of fact, I was in the field a few weeks ago taking pictures of the very process occurring as it happens. BTW, the type of fossil you are describing is "In Situ". Polystrate is not a geologic term, rather a term coined by the creation science community.

However, I believe you misunderstand the topic and mode of discussion for this thread. It is not to show a geologic process right or wrong. It is about the creation science community claiming to use the same evidence as mainstream science but coming to a different conclusion. What you need to show is a creation science article that uses the same information, data, and research that mainstream science used and come to a different conclusion with that "same evidence". Now, do you understand what I am asking for in this thread?

Yeah, your diverting. How long according to geologist does it take for rock to form? Have a blessed day.

 

[RickG]

Yeah, your diverting. How long according to geologist does it take for rock to form? Have a blessed day.

No one is diverting but you. Please provide what is asked in the OP.

 

[Commander]

No one is diverting but you. Please provide what is asked in the OP.

Scientist see millions of years, Creationist see a short period of time. That is what was asked in the OP. Now, how long does it take for rocks to form?

 

[Speedwell]

Scientist see millions of years, Creationist see a short period of time. That is what was asked in the OP. Now, how long does it take for rocks to form?

What kind of rocks?

 

[klutedavid]

Astrophysics is not my area of scientific expertise, thus I will provide a simplified version and then some links to mainstream science papers providing the mathematical evidence.

Simply put observe the known universe and note its direction of expansion. Now, run that expansion in reverse, it comes back to a single point, a singularity. Now for the meat and potatoes.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01589v3.pdf
Now klutedavid, show me where creation science uses the same data and comes up with an age for the universe of 6,000 years.

Hello Rick.

Thanks for your reply.

Astrophysics is not my area of scientific expertise

Also not mine.

Had a brief look at the site you mentioned and found this extract.

In summary, the Planck temperature and polarization spectra presented in
Figs. 1 and 3 are more precise (and accurate) than those from any previous CMB experiment,
and improve on the 2013 spectra presented in PCP13. Yet we find no signs for any significant
deviation from the base ΛCDM cosmology. Similarly, the analysis of 2015 Planck data reported
in Planck Collaboration XVII (2016) sets unprecedentedly tight limits on primordial non-Gaussianity.
The Planck results offer powerful evidence in favour of simple inflationary models, which provide an
attractive mechanism for generating the slightly tilted spectrum of (nearly) Gaussian adiabatic
perturbations that match our data to such high precision. In addition, the Planck data show that
the neutrino sector of the theory is consistent with the assumptions of the base ΛCDM model and
that the dark energy is compatible with a cosmological constant. If there is new physics beyond base
ΛCDM, then the corresponding observational signatures in the CMB are weak and difficult to detect.
This is the legacy of the Planck mission for cosmology.

There are a number of problems that this pdf presents to any casual reader.

powerful evidence in favour of simple inflationary models

One needs to first define the singularity before one can offer an inflationary
model as an explanation for the expansion of space time.

and that the dark energy is compatible with a cosmological constant

The term 'dark energy' is another undefined term.

The cosmological constant is also another poorly defined term, is it a positive
constant, zero, or even a negative constant? How would we ever know whether
this mathematical fudge factor is actually a constant.

This article was rich in undefined terminology of course. What would you expect
when an observational methodology is attempting to observe that which can never
be observed.

 

[Speedwell]

This article was rich in undefined terminology of course.

No, the author was merely assuming a basic familiarity with the terms commonly used in his field.

 

[klutedavid]

Astrophysics is not my area of scientific expertise, thus I will provide a simplified version and then some links to mainstream science papers providing the mathematical evidence.

Simply put observe the known universe and note its direction of expansion. Now, run that expansion in reverse, it comes back to a single point, a singularity. Now for the meat and potatoes.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01589v3.pdf
Now klutedavid, show me where creation science uses the same data and comes up with an age for the universe of 6,000 years.

Hello Rick.

Such a difficult topic.

Simply put observe the known universe and note its direction of expansion.

You stated 'the known universe', the universe is unknown according to science.
Science presently claims that 90% of the universe is invisible and unknown.

How can I make an observation of an undefined and invisible universe?

Your empirical observations of this undefined universe may be using just one
reference point. May I suggest extra reference points from different points in the
universe.

Is the universe expanding and is this expansion accelerating?

Please read the following article Rick.

No Expanding Universe? The Problem Of Galactic Surface Brightness
by Michael Suede • May 28, 2014

A new study has been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D that calls the notion of expanding space and the Big Bang into question. The study was conducted by Eric Lerner over at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP). This study is the second such study published by Lerner that calls the current Big Bang model into question. The previous study was pushed in the Astrophysical Journal back in 2007.

Both studies address a problem with the surface brightness (apparent luminosity divided by apparent surface area) of observable galaxies. If the universe is actually expanding, current dark matter models predict that the surface brightness of distant galaxies will be much less than that of nearby galaxies. If it is not expanding, then the surface brightness of distant and nearby galaxies should be the same.

Both studies found that the surface brightness is, in fact, the same.

 

[klutedavid]

No, the author was merely assuming a basic familiarity with the terms commonly used in his field.

Hello Speedwell.

Can you define 'dark energy'?

 

[Speedwell]

Hello Speedwell.

Can you define 'dark energy'?

"Dark energy" is a theoretical repulsive force that counteracts gravity and causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate

 

[klutedavid]

"Dark energy" is a theoretical repulsive force that counteracts gravity and causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate

Is this then defined as the fifth or even the sixth fundamental force of 'nature'?

As far as I am aware this 'force' as you call it is not defined in science.
We have not yet been able to understand what generates the force of gravity.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves and dive into writing fictional narratives
of the origin of the universe.

 

[Speedwell]

Is this then defined as the fifth or even the sixth fundamental force of 'nature'?

As far as I am aware this 'force' as you call it is not defined in science.
We have not yet been able to understand what generates the force of gravity.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves and dive into writing fictional narratives
of the origin of the universe.

Why not? The authors of Genesis did.

 

[klutedavid]

Why not? The authors of Genesis did.

Hello Speedwell.

Science is clearly involved in exceeding it's empirical methodology.

The book of Genesis is a work of revelation, not a scientific explanation
of the origin of the universe. The book of Genesis is explaining what
went wrong with humanity, in a very simple narrative. One that can
be read by everyone regardless of the era they live in.

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry, I couldn't resist a straight line like that.

But the thing about science is, that when a theory is overturned, it stays overturned, even if there is no credible or complete theory to replace it. The theory of a young universe has been overturned centuries since. Pointing out weaknesses in the present theory will not revive it.

 

[klutedavid]

Sorry, I couldn't resist a straight line like that.

But the thing about science is, that when a theory is overturned, it stays overturned, even if there is no credible or complete theory to replace it. The theory of a young universe has been overturned centuries since. Pointing out weaknesses in the present theory will not revive it.

Hello Speedwell.

I am not an advocate of a young universe.

 

[Speedwell]

Hello Speedwell.

I am not an advocate of a young universe.

So what dog do you have in this fight? Sounds like you're some kind or other of theistic evolutionist like the rest of us non-YEC Christians.

 

[klutedavid]

So what dog do you have in this fight? Sounds like you're some kind or other of theistic evolutionist like the rest of us non-YEC Christians.

Hello Speedwell.

I don't have a dog in this fight.

The Genesis text does not specify any initial date for the start of
the universe. Please note that I used the word 'universe', this word
has not been adequately defined.

Science makes claims and it is these claims that I have an interest in.

Genesis is revelation, and the revelation is not a claim.

 

[Speedwell]

Hello Speedwell.

I don't have a dog in this fight.

The Genesis text does not specify any initial date for the start of
the universe. Please note that I used the word 'universe', this word
has not been adequately defined.

Science makes claims and it is these claims that I have an interest in.

Genesis is revelation, and the revelation is not a claim.

I think "claims" is much too lofty a term for what science has to say about the earliest stages of the development of our universe. A bunch of competing hypotheses is more like it. WAGs, if you like.