Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But you also mentioned:
Astrophysicists, just like those scientists you mentioned, also study the earth and agree it is old.

How convenient of you to leave them out.

If you read my OP, you will see that I did not mention astrophysicists since I was specifically referring to Earth sciences, aka the sciences that deal directly with the Earth.
How convenient of you to ignore that fact.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's it. I'm shutting down this thread. It is literally impossible to have an actual discussion about science here.

 

[Doveaman]

When I mean proper answer, I mean scientific evidence.

Who are you to decide that a scientific answer is the "proper answer?

I case you didn't know, not all the answers about the earth's origin and evolution can be obtained scientifically.

Scientists are not omniscient gods.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Who are you to decide that a scientific answer is the "proper answer?

I case you didn't know, not all the answers about the earth's origin and evolution can be obtained scientifically.

Scientists are not omniscient gods.

The OP of the thread was asking what scientific evidence the world's scientists have misinterpreted for them to say that the world as 4.5 billion years old when it should tell them it's only 6,000 years old.
It says it at the beginning: this thread is about SCIENCE. Not religion, not theology. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

 

[Doveaman]

If you read my OP, you will see that I did not mention astrophysicists since I was specifically referring to Earth sciences, aka the sciences that deal directly with the Earth.
How convenient of you to ignore that fact.

If scientists are wrong about the origin and evolution of the universe, they can also be wrong about the origin and evolution of the earth within that universe.

YECs don't need to show scientific evidence for a young earth, they just need to show that scientists cannot be trusted in their claims about an old earth, and it has been proven in astrophysics that they cannot be trusted.

 

[Doveaman]

The OP of the thread was asking what scientific evidence the world's scientists have misinterpreted for them to say that the world as 4.5 billion years old when it should tell them it's only 6,000 years old.

That question was directed toward YECs who are not restricted by scientific evidence like you are.

It says it at the beginning: this thread is about SCIENCE. Not religion, not theology. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Okay.

For a moment I thought the thread was about a "proper answer".

My mistake, sorry.

 

[createdtoworship]

So you have nothing scientific to add to his discussion, then?
If so, then please leave this thread. This thread was meant to be for the discussion of science.

sir science is based on obervation, asking a creationist to leave a thread, while you yourself the creator of the thread have no facts of evolution on a macro level that is based on observation, should also leave.

macro evolution, evolution between genra has never been observed.

a dog like creature to a whale transition, a ape like creature to a human transition etc.

none of the above have been observed, and therefore contain a fatal element to the scientific method....observation.

it's not science.

never was.

origin science is based not even on observation but on forensics, and other such data.

but this again is a softer type of science, it is not the cold hard science that you claim evolution has.

evolution is seen on micro levels only, between species, but not between larger groups of populations of animals and creatures.

if you can show transitions, and not just one.

but multiple millions, because that is what it would take for the fossil record even to softly support evolution, let alone in a hard science fashion.


so I guess if you are kicking people out for lack of science, then perhaps you should examine that your own view has none.

technically speaking.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON



Closed at OP request.


MOD HAT OFF