Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions

[Stillicidia]

Smart, non biased people, know evolution is folly.

 

[Speedwell]

Smart, non biased people, know evolution is folly.

Whatever. Right now we're talking about the origin of the universe.

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[Speedwell]

Origin of the universe, god spoke it into existence. He spoke, and the word created it.
Both he and the word were able to create.
Eternity came from him.
There is no such thing as dark 'matter' it is simply nothing at all.
Cosmos are named so, as great creations.
Then there are many universes.
The word took on flesh, and became Jesus.

That's your petty, whatever. right now we're talking about the origin of the universe.

I still don't see what your point is. Everybody here believes that God created the universe.

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you think I speak of bob?

Bob who?

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[sfs]

Bob the builder.

Huh?

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[sfs]

A few comments.
1) Mainstream science does not assume or assert there was a singularity at the origin of our universe. If you naively extrapolate the expansion of the universe and the known laws of physics back in time, you will indeed reach a singularity, but physicists have every reason to think that the known laws of physics break down before you reach that point.
3) There's very little in the way of scientific conclusions about the actual origin of the universe. There are some interesting speculations but they're no more than that. As I said, we don't even know what the relevant laws are. This is therefore not a case of same evidence, different conclusions.
2(*)) Cosmologists have drawn conclusions about the very early universe: it was very hot and very dense and expanded rapidly -- i.e. the Big Bang. These conclusions are based on a range of evidence, including cosmological red shifts, element abundances and isotropy. As far as I know, creationists do not use these data to draw any conclusions. If they do, that would be a good example of the phenomenon we're looking for.

(*) Who says points have to be in order?

 

[RickG]

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

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

Perhaps you have no understanding of what they are describing. There is nothing wrong with the part you quoted. In fact it is quite specific in describing what you need to understand. First you need to understand that this is the latest "annual" update of information. They are comparing the new data with existing data, such as: "Figs. 1 and 3 are more precise (and accurate) than those from any previous CMB experiment, and "Yet we find no signs for any significant deviation from the base ΛCDM cosmology." In other words it affirms previous knowledge and notes that the new data makes it even more precise.

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

Why would a published peer review paper describing the expansion of the universe from its earliest known beginning have to include a definition of a singularity to an audience of astrophysicists? And again, you are straying from the topic of the thread, "same evidence different conclusion". Are there any creation science papers that include that much data and go into that much detail, of course not.

The term 'dark energy' is another undefined term.

Again, the paper is not intended for people who have no background in astrophysics. It is for those who work and do research in the area. Do you have to provide definitions of basic terminology in your area of work to co-workers who have the same information you have?

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Such a difficult topic.

Then lets get back to what is asked in the OP. The specific area of discussion is to be in the area of "EARTH SCIENCE".

And what is asked in the OP is to show creation science using the same data as mainstream science obtaining an opposite conclusion.

 

[RickG]

Smart, non biased people, know evolution is folly.

This thread is not about evolution. Please review the OP.

 

[RickG]

Whatever. Right now we're talking about the origin of the universe.

Yes, an off topic distraction presented by klutedavid, which is my fault for letting it go that far. We really need to address what is ask of everyone in the OP; same evidence - opposite conclusion, and in the area of Earth Science, not cosmology or biology.

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[RickG]

Scientists trying to discover how the creation of the universe happened is interesting when they come to the conclusion that there had to be a god, saying the laws of physics were not there yet, and that it had to have come from one place.
God doing it though, all the cosmos and systems were made in relative standstill peace, and throughout the universe, rather than all the bodies of masses being pushed outward from an original location.

Would you mind addressing the topic of this thread and as in the OP via the Earth Science, not biological or cosmic. Thank you.

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[RickG]

Hard for me to understand the op

Then ask a question about it.

 

[Hieronymus]

One of the common claims by the "Creation Science" community is that they use the same evidence as "Mainstream Science", but come to different conclusions with that same evidence.

Indeed.
It is a matter of how one looks at things.
Assuming there's a body of gathered sound evidence, it's what both sides base their opinions / views / conclusions on.

Now retired, I was a member of the mainstream scientific community for some 30 years, only becoming aware of the plethora of "creation science" literature with respect to the earth sciences about 10 years ago. To say the least, this drew my attention with incredible disbelief in what they were presenting. Not only did I have a problem with what they presented, but the way in which it was presented.

I find both sides have an axe to grind and make mistakes.
Only in the creationist camp it's not about money as much as it is in the naturalist camp.

Thus, the topic of this thread "Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions". In the open forums of the Physical and Life Sciences of the Christian Forums where atheists are also welcome to participate I had a similar thread. However here, where only Christians may participate, I hope this will present a different perspective from with sides.

Probably not, since a staggering amount of Christians seem to feel obliged to subscribe to naturalistic ideas, and they use the same strawmen atheists use.

What I am asking specifically to be discussed in this thread is for participants to present examples of "Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions" from the creation science literature. Also keep in mind that I would like to focus on examples related to the Earth Sciences, not the biological sciences. Thank you.

But it's a package deal.
Either God did it or He didn't.
"Regular science" says He didn't, and they have been at constructing models that have to be consistent with eachother for quite a while (and with quite a budget).
They start with a pointless point in nothingness, that somehow exploded into what we see today,
while creationists have God as the Beginning of our reality and the Creator of everything in it, because it is his Will, and his Will be done.
And for millennia Genesis has been the general idea of our origins.
But God has been declared dead by the elite since half way 19th century.