Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

 

[RickG]

Creationists like to say they use the same data but have a different interpretation. I have yet to see any article written by a creation scientist that uses the same data that mainstream science uses. However, I have seen a lot of cherry picking of data and out right misrepresentation of how specific scientific methods actually work, such as dating methods and sedimentation processes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Creationists like to say they use the same data but have a different interpretation. I have yet to see any article written by a creation scientist that uses the same data that mainstream science uses. However, I have seen a lot of cherry picking of data and out right misrepresentation of how specific scientific methods actually work, such as dating methods and sedimentation processes.

As have I. So that begs the question: if they are so sure that their position is right, why lie?

 

[Michael]

As have I. So that begs the question: if they are so sure that their position is right, why lie?

Based upon my beef with currently popular theories related to astrophysics, I doubt that anyone believes themselves to actually be "lying". It's certainly possible to "interpret" some data set in multiple ways. For instance, photon redshift is "believed" by the mainstream to be caused by "space expansion", but astronomers cannot and never have demonstrated such a cause/effect relationship in controlled experimentation. They simply *assume* it's true, even though *many other* empirically viable options have been demonstrated in the lab. Data isn't as cut and dry as some folks imagine. They aren't "lying" about their beliefs, they simply "have faith" in a supernatural construct rather than to "have faith" in empirically demonstrated claims.

In the case of the age of the Earth however, rarely do you see YEC using the exact same data sets to make their point, whereas in astrophysics, you'll actually find the same sets of data being used by different individuals to support different ideas.

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271814500588

Whether Lerner is right, or the mainstream is right, neither side believes themselves to be "lying".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Based upon my beef with currently popular theories related to astrophysics, I doubt that anyone believes themselves to actually be "lying". It's certainly possible to "interpret" some data set in multiple ways. For instance, photon redshift is "believed" by the mainstream to be caused by "space expansion", but astronomers cannot and never have demonstrated such a cause/effect relationship in controlled experimentation. They simply *assume* it's true, even though *many other* empirically viable options have been demonstrated in the lab. Data isn't as cut and dry as some folks imagine. They aren't "lying" about their beliefs, they simply "have faith" in a supernatural construct rather than to "have faith" in empirically demonstrated claims.

In the case of the age of the Earth however, rarely do you see YEC using the exact same data sets to make their point, whereas in astrophysics, you'll actually find the same sets of data being used by different individuals to support different ideas.

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271814500588

Whether Lerner is right, or the mainstream is right, neither side believes themselves to be "lying".

I'm not going to talk about astrophysics for two reasons:

1. I'm not talking about ANYTHING to do with astrophysics. If you want to talk about it, go start your own thread about it. This thread is about the age of the Earth and the sciences related to it. That's it.
2. You talk about NOTHING but astrophysics and how you claim that your views are the be all and end all of astrophysics. So again: if you want to talk about astrophysics, go and start your own thread.

 

[RickG]

Based upon my beef with currently popular theories related to astrophysics, I doubt that anyone believes themselves to actually be "lying". It's certainly possible to "interpret" some data set in multiple ways. For instance, photon redshift is "believed" by the mainstream to be caused by "space expansion", but astronomers cannot and never have demonstrated such a cause/effect relationship in controlled experimentation. They simply *assume* it's true, even though *many other* empirically viable options have been demonstrated in the lab. Data isn't as cut and dry as some folks imagine. They aren't "lying" about their beliefs, they simply "have faith" in a supernatural construct rather than to "have faith" in empirically demonstrated claims.

However, there is quite a bit of difference with respect to dating methods and sedimentary petrology verses theoretical astrophysics.

 

[RickG]

Here's an example of creation science and the age of the earth. The author Don Batten, holds a PhD in Agriculture, thus the appeal to authority fallacy. He lists 101 (scientific ?) reasons for a young earth. It is categorized into two groups, biological and geological. Here's the link:

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

I'll bypass the biological and go directly to the geological. Unlike Batten, I like to stick to my field of expertise, which certainly is not biology or Batten's field Agriculture. The first example he gives under geology contradicts itself citing the Coconino sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon.

He states: "has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years".

The Coconino sandstone is an Eolian produced formation, i.e., terrestrial in origin. How do you have an eolian formation as a flood layer?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here's an example of creation science and the age of the earth. The author Don Batten, holds a PhD in Agriculture, thus the appeal to authority fallacy. He lists 101 (scientific ?) reasons for a young earth. It is categorized into two groups, biological and geological. Here's the link:

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

I'll bypass the biological and go directly to the geological. Unlike Batten, I like to stick to my field of expertise, which certainly is not biology or Batten's field Agriculture. The first example he gives under geology contradicts itself citing the Coconino sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon.

He states: "has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years".

The Coconino sandstone is an Eolian produced formation, i.e., terrestrial in origin. How do you have an eolian formation as a flood layer?

There's also the fact that formation has track-ways in it. If the layer was formed by a flood, then surely the prints would have been washed away.

 

[Michael]

However, there is quite a bit of difference with respect to dating methods and sedimentary petrology verses theoretical astrophysics.

Agreed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Agreed.

Then why bring it up?

 

[Michael]

I'm not going to talk about astrophysics for two reasons:

1. I'm not talking about ANYTHING to do with astrophysics. If you want to talk about it, go start your own thread about it. This thread is about the age of the Earth and the sciences related to it. That's it.
2. You talk about NOTHING but astrophysics and how you claim that your views are the be all and end all of astrophysics. So again: if you want to talk about astrophysics, go and start your own thread.

I was simply pointing out that it's entirely possible to "disagree" with another person's interpretation of "raw scientific data", without intentionally or willfully "lying" about it. I don't think it's helpful or necessarily accurate to "assume" that there's an actual intent at dishonesty.

 

[Michael]

Then why bring it up?

See the previous post. Your assertion about them willfully telling "lies" isn't necessarily helpful or accurate.

 

[RickG]

There's also the fact that formation has track-ways in it. If the layer was formed by a flood, then surely the prints would have been washed away.

And just an interesting observation which demonstrates his complete ignorance concerning geology. In #12, which I just mentioned above he uses the term "in situ". In #14 he uses the term "polystrate". Essentially they are the same, however, polystrate is not a geologic term, rather a term made up by creationists that describes the geologic term "in situ", which simply means in its original position. The point being, he has no idea that he used the correct term in #12.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was simply pointing out that it's entirely possible to "disagree" with another person's interpretation of "raw scientific data", without intentionally or willfully "lying" about it. I don't think it's helpful or necessarily accurate to "assume" that there's an actual intent at dishonesty.

But when a person takes a rock sample to a lab that they have been told will not be able to test for results past a certain point, but still going their anyway, is that not dishonest?
Is not taking the word of a professor of agriculture over a professor of geology, purely because the former accepts the same viewpoint as you (I'm using 'you' to refer to the YEC belief, I'm obviously not directing it at you), is that not dishonest?

 

[RickG]

See the previous post. Your assertion about them willfully telling "lies" isn't necessarily helpful or accurate.

Essentially Michael, what Warden-of-the-Storm is describing is what termed in the mainstream scientific community as "Intellectual Dishonesty". Intellectual dishonesty can be either deliberate or non-deliberate by way of ignorance of the subject.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And just an interesting observation which demonstrates his complete ignorance concerning geology. In #12, which I just mentioned above he uses the term "in situ". In #14 he uses the term "polystrate". Essentially they are the same, however, polystrate is not a geologic term, rather a term made up by creationists that describes the geologic term "in situ", which simply means in its original position. The point being, he has no idea that he used the correct term in #12.

Yes, I did see the post you made on that in another thread. What they get wrong (and please feel free to correct my terminology here), is that the layers shown are only layers that are layered down annually, not over thousands or millions of years as the YEC proponents claim.

 

[RickG]

Yes, I did see the post you made on that in another thread. What they get wrong (and please feel free to correct my terminology here), is that the layers shown are only layers that are layered down annually, not over thousands or millions of years as the YEC proponents claim.

That is correct, but in situ layers can be from a number of different sources such as volcanic ash, pyroclastic flow, annual laquestrine, loess, local flood, landslide, etc.

 

[Michael]

Essentially Michael, what Warden-of-the-Storm is describing is what termed in the mainstream scientific community as "Intellectual Dishonesty". Intellectual dishonesty can be either deliberate or non-deliberate by way of ignorance of the subject.

I hear you, but it's still not always as cut and dry as proponents typically imagine. Is it actually "intellectually dishonest" for instance for me as an individual to "hold doubt" that "space expansion" is an actual "cause" of photon redshift in absence of any laboratory confirmation of such a claim? Is it intellectually dishonest to hold doubt in various claims, particularly when they're built on a host of assumptions?

Various radiometric decay rates can and have been confirmed in the lab. On the other hand, there may in fact, (are in fact) things that might influence that decay rate over time. For instance, it's been shown relatively recently that radiometric decay rates can be influenced by solar storms. Admittedly the amount of influence is minuscule, but it's an example of something unexpected that might at least "influence" one's beliefs. I'll admit that in this case it's a bit far fetched to toss out the scientific baby with what amounts to some small amount of bathwater, but there is almost always several ways to "interpret" various sets of scientific data.

 

[juvenissun]

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?

If you can quote some data and the explanations, I will try to tell you what is wrong.
We should look at an example, instead of just talk in wind.

 

[Michael]

But when a person takes a rock sample to a lab that they have been told will not be able to test for results past a certain point, but still going their anyway, is that not dishonest?

Hmmm. I supposed it depends on the exact circumstances, and what the individual is doing with the information. I don't think it's necessarily "reasonable", but it's hard to know their actual mental state, and confirm that it's some form of 'dishonesty'.

Is not taking the word of a professor of agriculture over a professor of geology, purely because the former accepts the same viewpoint as you (I'm using 'you' to refer to the YEC belief, I'm obviously not directing it at you), is that not dishonest?

Maybe. Maybe not. Confirmation bias is prevalent throughout scientific circles, though I'm not sure I'd always assume it's "dishonest". For instance astronomers "assume" that SN1A supernova events all all the same, and that is what they *assumed* when proposing "dark energy", but it's since been shown that SN1A events are *not* all the same. Is it "dishonest" to continue to promote dark energy theory *after* the "assumption" it's based upon has been shown to be false?

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/dark-energy-and-dark-matter-may-not-exist-after-all