Same observations, different conclusions?

[JohnR7]

If you read through the geology threads for instance or if you should look at published YEC attempts to explain away the geological falsifications of YEC you will see that YEC really don't look at the same data. YEC are very careful to only "intrepret" small subsets of the data and ignore the vast masses of data that falsify their positions. Then they claim it is just a matter of "interpretation". I don't know if they do this deliberately all the time or just suffer severely from Morton's Demon

I think the difference is, like when I was driving down the expressway and I saw a layer of conglomerate sediment and I am wondering: What is this all about? Where did this come from? How did it get here?

YEC people tend to want to go out looking for evidence like they are on a scavanger hunt, to back up their theory. It is a totally different approach. For a Geologist his work is a labor of love.

Yet there is some valid YEC evidence out there. The Lost Squadron tends to back up the YEC position. But their objective was not to prove the YEC, the objective was to find the Lost Squadron.

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

I think the difference is, like when I was driving down the expressway and I saw a layer of conglomerate sediment and I am wondering: What is this all about? Where did this come from? How did it get here?

YEC people tend to want to go out looking for evidence like they are on a scavanger hunt, to back up their theory. It is a totally different approach. For a Geologist his work is a labor of love.

Yet there is some valid YEC evidence out there. The Lost Squadron tends to back up the YEC position. But their objective was not to prove the YEC, the objective was to find the Lost Squadron.

This is the link JOHN is refering to supporting YEC because the WW 2 airplanes were buried so deep in the ice...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/233.asp

 

[notto]

This is the link JOHN is refering to supporting YEC because the WW 2 airplanes were buried so deep in the ice...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/233.asp

The incorrect assumption made by YEC's using this argument is that core samples that are taken and measured to determine the age of ice are taken from the same or a similar area to where the planes were found. Samples that are used for study and dating are taken from areas that are stable and not flowing. The area where the planes were found are in an area that is not stable and is flowing. The planes were not covered with new ice, but "sunk" into an ice flow and were covered by flowing ice and were found in an area that is known to have temperature fluctuations that can cause ice to form thicker than areas where ice core sample are found. This argument also simplifies ice core sample study and tends to try to lead the reader to assume that the age of ice core samples is a simple measurement of their thickness (which is not the case).

This is a great example of YEC "research" using the old bait and switch method. Because the ice in the location of the planes could appear to form quickly (although this isn't the case), then ice everywhere does form quickly. They ignore the differences at the detail level between where the planes are found and where icecore samples are taken.

Whether this is do to a deliberate attempt to deceive their readers, lack of accurate research into ice flow phenomena, or simply lack of understanding of actual valid research in this area is up to the reader to decide.

As far as this related to the OP of this thread, this is a good example of how two different interpretations can be found when one side only looks at part of the evidence and does not look for evidence that falsifies their conclusions. This example is NOT analgous to where ice core samples are taken just like the often sited "Mount Saint Helens Canyon" is NOT analgous to the Grand Canyon in material, formation, and erosion patterns.