Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions

[RickG]

Great comparison there...
(not)
Darwin's book doesn't even claim to be a historical narrative, and there are no eye witnesses to the actual origins of species either.

Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.

 

[RickG]

It doesn't matter if it is an historical narrative or not. It is still not, in itself, scientific evidence. And unsubstantiated claims like that about the nature of the narrative don't improve the situation.

Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.

 

[RickG]

Hello sfs.

Geological rock strata would be considered evidence by both creation science
and secular science.

So sfs, if I asked you how old a specific rock strata was, how would you determine
it's age?

Please address the topic of this thread -- SAME EVIDENCE - OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.

 

[RickG]

I'm not just making up the idea of same evidence opposite conclusions. From The Institute for Creation Research in an article titled, "Is There A Need For Creationist Research?", by John D. Morris, Ph.D..

"Both sides have exactly the same evidence to research in an attempt to reconstruct its history."
​

And here are some more from Answers in Genesis.

"What they really don’t understand, however, is that it’s not a matter of “their facts vs. ours.” All facts are actually interpreted, and all scientists actually have the same observations—the same data—available to them."

"Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians, all have the same facts."

"The evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time is all around us. As Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S., points out, it’s the same evidence that evolutionists have staring them in the face."
​

What I am asking for participants in this thread to provide is an example of the creation science people using the "same evidence" as that of mainstream science. I have yet to find this same evidence myself in a plethora of creation science literature I have read over many years. What evidence do they use?

 

[Speedwell]

You are missing the whole point, the answer is in your question. They see the same evidence but come to different conclusions, due to their beliefs. If you believe that God created the universe(Genesis 1:1/Acts 17:24), then you see something that was created within the last 10,000 years(I say within the last 8,000-based on writings from the Bible and other 1st century Christian writings). Evolutionist try to explain how we are here without God creating the universe see millions/billions of years through the process of evolution, they try to explain God out of the equation of how we are here. Have a blessed day, brother. You know I was trying to get a response from you, right?

You see the assumption you're making, I hope.

 

[Commander]

You see the assumption you're making, I hope.

No assumptions in the word of God(Bible). It has been proven historically correct, and through writings of other text outside of the Bible.

 

[Speedwell]

No assumptions in the word of God(Bible). It has been proven historically correct, and through writings of other text outside of the Bible.

That's the assumption I meant.

 

[Commander]

That's the assumption I meant.

And where does your belief lie?

 

[Speedwell]

And where does your belief lie?

In Christ.

 

[RickG]

You are missing the whole point, the answer is in your question. They see the same evidence but come to different conclusions, due to their beliefs.

You still seem to not understand. I am asking for someone to find a creation science paper where they show the same evidence as mainstream science. I even provided an example for you regarding that of how limestone forms. How can they use the chemistry and physical properties of limestone and show it being deposited by a flood?

 

[Commander]

You still seem to not understand. I am asking for someone to find a creation science paper where they show the same evidence as mainstream science. I even provided an example for you regarding that of how limestone forms. How can they use the chemistry and physical properties of limestone and show it being deposited by a flood?

And how does mainstream science know that it was not deposited by the Biblical flood? There will not be a creation science paper and a mainstream science paper that show the same conclusion to the evidence, they are polar opposites, that is what I am trying to get you to understand.

 

[Speedwell]

And how does mainstream science know that it was not deposited by the Biblical flood? There will not be a creation science paper and a mainstream science paper that show the same conclusion to the evidence, they are polar opposites, that is what I am trying to get you to understand.

Yet creationists (but evidently not you) do make the claim that they base their conclusions on the same evidence as conventional scientists. That's what RickG is getting at.

 

[Commander]

Yet creationists (but evidently not you) do make the claim that they base their conclusions on the same evidence as conventional scientists. That's what RickG is getting at.

They are polar opposites, they will not come to the same conclusion of any evidence. Yes, they may read and study the same evidence, but the creationist will come to one conclusion and the mainstream scientist will come to a different conclusion from the same evidence due to their belief system.

 

[Speedwell]

They are polar opposites, they will not come to the same conclusion of any evidence. Yes, they may read and study the same evidence, but the creationist will come to one conclusion and the mainstream scientist will come to a different conclusion from the same evidence due to their belief system.

Now, to finally answer Rick's question, can you cite an example from creationist literature?

 

[Commander]

Now, to finally answer Rick's question, can you cite an example from creationist literature?

See post #30, or any debating the age of the earth/universe.

 

[RickG]

And how does mainstream science know that it was not deposited by the Biblical flood?

Catastrophic floods leave well mixed debris of all kinds together, limestone is formed through the very long process of deposition of foraminifera.

There will not be a creation science paper and a mainstream science paper that show the same conclusion to the evidence, they are polar opposites, that is what I am trying to get you to understand.

Trying to get me to understand? That is what I stated in the OP and numerous time since then. You keep want to discuss who is right and who is wrong. This thread is not about that, it is about showing the same evidence. I have yet to see a creation science paper using the same evidence.

 

[klutedavid]

I am happy to answer all questions that involve the topic of this thread. As of yet no one has presented anything respecting the topic of the thread. This thread is not about who is right or wrong, it is about showing examples of in the creation science literature that utilize same evidence - opposite conclusions. In my last post I included some quotes and their source claiming to use the same evidence.

As an example, through the field of sedimentary petrology, the process(s) involved in the formation of limestone is well understood and described by mainstream science. Conversely creation science asserts that limestone is produced by floods. What information from mainstream science do they provide to come up with their conclusion?

Hello Rick.

The formation of limestone, at last some evidence that both CS and SS have observed and arrive
at different conclusions. Limestone forms by a process called diagenesis, the chemical and physical
change to sediment over time, to produce sedimentary rock.

How long does it take to form a typical limestone deposit?

 

[Hieronymus]

Apparently the idea of chronological columns is a 17th century assumption.

Apparently debunked in the 20th century...

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

The formation of limestone, at last some evidence that both CS and SS have observed and arrive
at different conclusions. Limestone forms by a process called diagenesis, the chemical and physical
change to sediment over time, to produce sedimentary rock.

How long does it take to form a typical limestone deposit?

Limestone is typically from marine sediments but some can form in fresh water as well. Since the majority is marine I'll give you the typical sedimentation rates for specific environments. Source: Oceanography, a view of the earth. M. Grant Gross, 1972.

Rate cm/1000 yr

Continental shelf 30
Continental slope 20
Fjord 400
Black Sea 30
Gulf of Calif. 100
Gulf of Mexico 10
Deep ocean sediments 0.1-3
​

What is your CS source estimate and what data do they base that on?

 

[RickG]

Apparently the idea of chronological columns is a 17th century assumption.

Apparently debunked in the 20th century...

Where's the same data?