Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC (let's try it again)

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm redoing this thread since I feel that this is an important topic that does need to be discussed regarding creation 'science' and mainstream science.
Now, this is something I've seen many creationist/Young Earth believer claim many times on this site: "Scientists/Evolutionists are just misinterpreting the data."
I've seen this said about biologists, I've seen it said about geologists, paleontologists and archaeologists. But I have never seen anyone actually give a proper answer from people who follow the view that all of science showing an old Earth is wrong.

So I have to ask: what are they getting wrong? What are men and women who have spent years studying their field, all across the globe, getting wrong?

And before we begin, I want to make a few things clear:

1. This thread is for the discussion of science and science only. In keeping with the statement of purpose of Physical & Life Sciences, using the Bible or religion as a point of discussion is banned. This is only for science only. This doesn't mean you can't be religious and partake of the discussion but keep to the subject matter.
2. The subject of discussion will be kept to the scientific disciplines listed, which are: biology, geology, paleontology and archaeology. When you post a claim, please explain how it pertains to the OP, don't just post one word answers and leave it there. Actually explain why.
3. Any attempts to derail the thread will be reported to a moderator. Only discuss the subject brought up in the OP.

 

[RickG]

What I have observed mostly is the creationist view of dating methods, which is mostly a misrepresentation as to how they actually work. One of my favorites is ice core chronology. In every case the thing they ignore most is why ice cores are taken and what information can be extracted from them through geochemical analysis. Some creationist views of ice core chronology as so absurd that they demonstrate a complete lack of the process. An excellent example is the use of a squadron of WWII planes that were force landed in Greenland and subsequently buried by the snow. Here a link to such a claim.

http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What I have observed mostly is the creationist view of dating methods, which is mostly a misrepresentation as to how they actually work. One of my favorites is ice core chronology. In every case the thing they ignore most is why ice cores are taken and what information can be extracted from them through geochemical analysis. Some creationist views of ice core chronology as so absurd that they demonstrate a complete lack of the process. An excellent example is the use of a squadron of WWII planes that were force landed in Greenland and subsequently buried by the snow. Here a link to such a claim.

http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

Yes, I remember that. Although I can't remember what it was that they got wrong. Something about confusing the build-up of annual deposits of snow and ice or something similar?

 

[RickG]

Yes, I remember that. Although I can't remember what it was that they got wrong. Something about confusing the build-up of annual deposits of snow and ice or something similar?

In the one I linked there's only a vague mention of a dating technique.

"In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years."
​

What the author of that article is alluding to is one method where the ratio of specific oxygen isotopes can be used in dating, specifically oxygen-18 and oxygen-16 (18O/16O). He doesn't even attempt to discuss the process, which when reading other claims he makes shows he is completely oblivious to any ice core dating technique.

Perhaps a creationist here would like to discuss their perceived problems with ice core dating?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Bumping this thread, just to see if anyone can answer the OP.

 

[RickG]

Bumping this thread, just to see if anyone can answer the OP.

Me thinks the nay-sayers will not participate being required to actually discuss science rather than apologetics.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Me thinks the nay-sayers will not participate being required to actually discuss science rather than apologetics.

You're very probably right.

 

[RickG]

You're very probably right.

I had a thread not long ago where I showed a statement by a creation science person where he declared that they use the same data that mainstream science uses but interpret it differently. I asked anyone to show me the same data with a different interpretation. None were shown. The closest thing was cherry picked data ignoring all the said same evidence that showed their claim(s) to be wrong.

With respect to your OP, there is almost no original research performed by the creation science community. The closest thing I have seen is sending samples to dating labs misrepresenting what they actually are. If their misrepresented samples are not misrepresented, then why will they not perform the same tests in conjunction with mainstream scientists? I think the answer is obvious.

 

[freezerman2000]

subscribing

 

[brocke]

I'm redoing this thread since I feel that this is an important topic that does need to be discussed regarding creation 'science' and mainstream science.
Now, this is something I've seen many creationist/Young Earth believer claim many times on this site: "Scientists/Evolutionists are just misinterpreting the data."
I've seen this said about biologists, I've seen it said about geologists, paleontologists and archaeologists. But I have never seen anyone actually give a proper answer from people who follow the view that all of science showing an old Earth is wrong.

So I have to ask: what are they getting wrong? What are men and women who have spent years studying their field, all across the globe, getting wrong?

And before we begin, I want to make a few things clear:

1. This thread is for the discussion of science and science only. In keeping with the statement of purpose of Physical & Life Sciences, using the Bible or religion as a point of discussion is banned. This is only for science only. This doesn't mean you can't be religious and partake of the discussion but keep to the subject matter.
2. The subject of discussion will be kept to the scientific disciplines listed, which are: biology, geology, paleontology and archaeology. When you post a claim, please explain how it pertains to the OP, don't just post one word answers and leave it there. Actually explain why.
3. Any attempts to derail the thread will be reported to a moderator. Only discuss the subject brought up in the OP.

I may be violating your first restriction on this thread. I apologize but I don't think there is a way to avoid it without answering your main question of what are they getting wrong.

As RickG pointed out there is no actual research preformed by the Creationist and Intelligent Design community. As was discovered and pointed out in the 2005 Kansas trials Creationism and Intelligent Design admittedly lack a scientific theory and experimental research.

The problem I think is the believe in the Innerrancy of the Bible - the belief that scripture cannot be in error. For those who believe God dictated scripture or inspired it to be written word for word as it is it cannot contain errors. So to them it is self-evident that the Genesis account is correct, and anything that says otherwise is false. Therefore they conclude that scientists who contradict their stance are wrong.

It really is that simple. I personally hold that scripture is inspired by God and as Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:16-17 that, "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." But I do not see anywhere in scripture the claim that texts written by humans that were inspired to do so made some perfect document that is without error. I admittedly hold a very progressive/liberal view about the inspiration of scripture that does not see Genesis as some literal account of how God created things. I am a mechanical engineer and amateur astronomer with a Physics background. I accept evolutionary theory and I accept at the same time it is the mechanism that God used to create life on Earth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I may be violating your first restriction on this thread. I apologize but I don't think there is a way to avoid it without answering your main question of what are they getting wrong.

As RickG pointed out there is no actual research preformed by the Creationist and Intelligent Design community. As was discovered and pointed out in the 2005 Kansas trials Creationism and Intelligent Design admittedly lack a scientific theory and experimental research.

The problem I think is the believe in the Innerrancy of the Bible - the belief that scripture cannot be in error. For those who believe God dictated scripture or inspired it to be written word for word as it is it cannot contain errors. So to them it is self-evident that the Genesis account is correct, and anything that says otherwise is false. Therefore they conclude that scientists who contradict their stance are wrong.

It really is that simple. I personally hold that scripture is inspired by God and as Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:16-17 that, "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." But I do not see anywhere in scripture the claim that texts written by humans that were inspired to do so made some perfect document that is without error. I admittedly hold a very progressive/liberal view about the inspiration of scripture that does not see Genesis as some literal account of how God created things. I am a mechanical engineer and amateur astronomer with a Physics background. I accept evolutionary theory and I accept at the same time it is the mechanism that God used to create life on Earth.

It is off-topic, but I'll let it slide since it does really hit the nail on the head for why creationists do what they do.

 

[RickG]

I may be violating your first restriction on this thread. I apologize but I don't think there is a way to avoid it without answering your main question of what are they getting wrong.

As RickG pointed out there is no actual research preformed by the Creationist and Intelligent Design community. As was discovered and pointed out in the 2005 Kansas trials Creationism and Intelligent Design admittedly lack a scientific theory and experimental research.

The problem I think is the believe in the Innerrancy of the Bible - the belief that scripture cannot be in error. For those who believe God dictated scripture or inspired it to be written word for word as it is it cannot contain errors. So to them it is self-evident that the Genesis account is correct, and anything that says otherwise is false. Therefore they conclude that scientists who contradict their stance are wrong.

It really is that simple. I personally hold that scripture is inspired by God and as Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:16-17 that, "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." But I do not see anywhere in scripture the claim that texts written by humans that were inspired to do so made some perfect document that is without error. I admittedly hold a very progressive/liberal view about the inspiration of scripture that does not see Genesis as some literal account of how God created things. I am a mechanical engineer and amateur astronomer with a Physics background. I accept evolutionary theory and I accept at the same time it is the mechanism that God used to create life on Earth.

I'm not suggesting that scripture is in error, but what I would have to ask is why do they feel it is necessary to deliberately misrepresent science to support those beliefs. I think the simple solution is to understand we cannot apply modern context to context a few thousand years ago, especially through translations, and never mind that there is no indication as to what is literal and what may be allegory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Aren't you guys done bad-mouthing YECs yet?

After all, isn't this the real reason this thread was started?

For pity sakes guys, get it off your chest and move on already!

(And if you guys keep liking each other's posts, you're going to end up with more likes than I! )

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Aren't you guys done bad-mouthing YECs yet?

After all, isn't this the real reason this thread was started?

For pity sakes guys, get it off your chest and move on already!

(And if you guys keep liking each other's posts, you're going to end up with more likes than I! )

Do you have any scientific evidence that the mainstream scientists have misinterpreted to lead them to say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old when they should find it's only 6,000 years old to present?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have any scientific evidence that the mainstream scientists have misinterpreted to lead them to say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old when they should find it's only 6,000 years old to present?

I'm not a YEC, chief.

And I'm in a thread where the OP is ranting about "science and science only."

Yes so far, all I've seen are two people (one the OP) doing nothing but bad-mouthing YECs, while patting each other on the back.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not a YEC, chief.

And I'm in a thread where the OP is ranting about "science and science only."

Yes so far, all I've seen are two people (one the OP) doing nothing but bad-mouthing YECs, while patting each other on the back.

I'm not going to go in to this again since you have shown, many times before, that you do believe in a YEC.
But if you can't present anything scientific, as requested in the OP, then please leave.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not going to go in to this again since you have shown, many times before, that you do believe in a YEC.
But if you can't present anything scientific, as requested in the OP, then please leave.

And what have you two presented?

Theoretically, this thread should lie dormant until a YEC posts in it.

But so far, it's been nothing but bait & flame.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But so far, it's been nothing but bait & flame.

If you think it's baiting and flaming, you have two options:

1. Report it and see what the moderators think or
2. Just ignore it and move on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Report it and see what the moderators think

Done.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[RickG]

Aren't you guys done bad-mouthing YECs yet?

After all, isn't this the real reason this thread was started?

For pity sakes guys, get it off your chest and move on already!

(And if you guys keep liking each other's posts, you're going to end up with more likes than I! )

No, the real reason is to discuss science and only science. Do you have have any science to contribute?