Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions

[Hieronymus]

Are you aware that
science has proven that the universe is older than 13 billion years.

No they haven't.
They have evidence for it though.

 

[Hieronymus]

I am not asking for anyone to show something right or wrong. I am asking for anyone to provide an example where the creation science literature shows that they use the same evidence as mainstreams science but come to a different conclusion with that same data.

O, but why does it have to be "the same evidence as mainstream science"?
Maybe the main streamers only pick what they can use for their case, and leave the rest unattended.
For example, the dating methods as presented by the mainstream seem to be beyond doubt, whereas the other side will use ignored evidence to prove the opposite.

 

[Speedwell]

Either God did it or He didn't.
"Regular science" says He didn't...

Despite your continuing attempts to misrepresent the situation, science says no such thing--it is silent on the issue.

In any case, the issue here is not whether "God did it" or not, but whether it was done in the particular way that creation "science" claims, and whether or not they base their conclusions on the same evidence that conventional science uses to make a different claim.

 

[RickG]

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.I find both sides have an axe to grind and make mistakes.

All I am asking for is an example where the same evidence is used but conclusions with that same evidence are opposing. Do you have an example?

 

[Kenny'sID]

First, just an idiosyncrasy of mine. There are no proofs in science, proofs are unique to the field of mathematics. Science rather than saying we have proof, says the evidence shows this to be a fact.

If it hasn't already been mentioned, you may want to look to our legal system...it would certainly prove your idiosyncrasy wrong.

See, they require proofs, in order for something to become fact, and your way of thinking appears more a convenience than anything else.

 

[RickG]

O, but why does it have to be "the same evidence as mainstream science"?

Because the creation science community claims that they use the same evidence.

Maybe the main streamers only pick what they can use for their case, and leave the rest unattended.
For example, the dating methods as presented by the mainstream seem to be beyond doubt, whereas the other side will use ignored evidence to prove the opposite.

Then provide an example, same evidence different opinion.

 

[RickG]

No they haven't.
They have evidence for it though.

Correct. Science does not deal with proofs. Proofs are exclusive to mathematics.

 

[Commander]

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

If God created the universe(one spoken sentence-let there be light), then God and through His word tells us how old it is. Here is a hint, it's not billions of years old.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

Hello sfs.

If the fundamental laws of physics can break down at some point in time, then these
fundamental laws of physics cannot ever be regarded as constants. Science assumes
that all fundamental forces are constant through time.

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.

To propose the idea of a Big Bang, one needs to conform to the ideology of empiricism.
One cannot claim a non empirical origin of the universe, the Big Bang ideology must be
rejected as non scientific.

Science is empiricism, any scientific idea is rigidly bound to the empirical framework.

 

[Hieronymus]

All I am asking for is an example where the same evidence is used but conclusions with that same evidence are opposing. Do you have an example?

The Flood.
However, you limited the evidence that may be used to the evidence the mainstream uses.
But there's more to the Flood story than only that.
The Flood is backed by written history (conveniently dismissed as legend or myth) and accounts for the apparent bottleneck the gene pool had to go through.

But you've heard my view on this many times before, i think i'll leave the discussion this time.

 

[Hieronymus]

Correct. Science does not deal with proofs. Proofs are exclusive to mathematics.

You forget something: Observance
Science doesn't go without observations.
So how about things in the past then, that are not repeatable "in the lab"?
This is of course different form studying gravity.

 

[klutedavid]

No they haven't.
They have evidence for it though.

Hello Hieronymus.

Evidence is open to interpretation.

 

[klutedavid]

If God created the universe(one spoken sentence-let there be light), then God and through His word tells us how old it is. Here is a hint, it's not billions of years old.

Hello Commander.

The universe existed before God said, let there be light.

Genesis 1
2 The earth was formless and void and darkness was over the surface of the deep.

 

[Commander]

RickG-do you know how words in the English language are formed? Polystrate Fossils: Poly-one from the Greek πολύς meaning "many" or "much"; strate-of several parallel layers of material arranged one on top of another (such as a layer of tissue or cells in an organism or a layer of sedimentary rock), Fossils-the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock. Most of the time, they are a combination from several different words, and many of these words are from other/older languages-as in Polystrate Fossils. Whomever came up with the word polystrate fossils did so by combining several different words, we see this quite often. Now, the polystrate fossil in Post #30, how old does science say they are, since I am a creationist I would say they are less than 10,000 years old. That is what the OP addresses, the difference between science and creation, and I have given you evidence by the picture. Have a blessed day.

 

[Commander]

Hello Commander.

The universe existed before God said, let there be light.

Genesis 1
2 The earth was formless and void and darkness was over the surface of the deep.

Universe-one spoken sentence. So, He spoke it into existence. I just added "let there be light"

 

[Commander]

RickG, sorry I scared you away(again) with such a difficult question.

 

[Speedwell]

The Flood is backed by written history...

Written history is not, cannot be considered as scientific evidence. It may describe scientific evidence, tell us where to look for scientific evidence, but it is not in itself evidence. The Bible is no more evidence of the Flood than Darwin's Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

RickG-do you know how words in English language are formed? Polystrate Fossils: Poly-one from the Greek πολύς meaning "many" or "much"; strate-of several parallel layers of material arranged one on top of another (such as a layer of tissue or cells in an organism or a layer of sedimentary rock), Fossils-the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock. Most of the time, they are a combination from several different words, and many of these words are from other/older languages-as in Polystrate Fossils. Whomever came up with the word polystrate fossils did so by combining several different words, we see this quite often. Now, the polystrate fossil in Post #30, how old does science say they are, since I am a creationist I would say they are less than 10,000 years old. That is what the OP addresses, the difference between science and creation, and I have given you evidence by the picture. Have a blessed day.

You are aware, I trust, that the more reputable sort of creation scientists have abandoned polystrate fossils. their formation is too well understood by conventional geologists.

 

[Commander]

You are aware, I trust, that the more reputable sort of creation scientists have abandoned polystrate fossils. their formation is too well understood by conventional geologists.

They assume that they are all right side up, but this is not always the case, see the picture in post #30 for an example.

 

[Speedwell]

Written history is not, cannot be considered as scientific evidence. It may describe scientific evidence, tell us where to look for scientific evidence, but it is not in itself evidence. The Bible is no more evidence of the Flood than Darwin's Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.