Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[katerinah1947]

Theories are made up from facts. Nevertheless, spectroscopy is basic physics. I used it in my work for some 30 years.

Hi,

I just dropped in for awhile to look around when I saw this here.

We used UV/VIS Spectrophotometers on materials. One of my bosses Ted Kamins invented the diode array that changed that from a fifteen minute process to a one second one.

I notice comfortably and wonderfully that you are using trade terms just like those terms are normally used.

You used the word theory here, precisely the way it is used by even Advanced Research Scientists.

Not only is that comforting it is nostalgic.

I am still glad you are here for everyone.

Bye4Now.

LOVE,

 

[davedajobauk]

This thread has nothing to do with anyone beliefs.

LOL ... Oh really

Here, is the first line of the OP

¬

This is something I've seen many creationist/Young Earth believer claim many times on this site:
"Scientists/Evolutionists are just misinterpreting the data."

Thus, what THEY BELIEVE matters a great-deal to this thread (?)

or, maybe people (including-me) will misconstrue the wording of similar OP's
on-account of how the OP's are written

Thank you for your amending of the meaning of the OP

Do you like convoluting theories ?

 

[davedajobauk]

Dave, this is a discussion/debate forum specific to science. Please elaborate on the links you post as to their content and the main points you wish to convey. Just posting links does not contribute to the discussion or debate.

You invite 'comment'
and then require those comments to establish 'testament and factual evidence'
(white papers / peer reviews)

Currently available 'Knowledge' (ON SUBJECT) of the OP's reference, is available in those links
If I can read your's then you can read mine

I am 'guessing' what you require is a synopsis of the content of those links
so, to save you bothering to scan them ~learning more in that process

I had to google the OP using it's content as keywords (in my search) to understand
what it is you were announcing

Others are entitled to believe whatever they wish

~you can take a horse to water, but if it doesn't want to drink
how useful were your efforts ????

 

[davedajobauk]

Ignored.

You can do this in SETTINGS ?

Announcing it in thread, in that manner, is................. a lie

You did not ignore it

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Except what I've said is entirely relevant to this topic. Imagine, for a rough example, that you encountered a species of animal that you determined upon years of investigation grew exactly an inch every year it has been alive since its birth, with no varying rate. Now imagine that you knew it's ancestor (you had encountered it with it's mother, for example) but knew nothing about the origins of this ancestor to extrapolate the life span or history of this creature before it had died. Being left with only the offspring, you measure it to be 300 inches in length. From this measurement, you infer that the creature must therefore be 300 years old. The problem with this reasoning is that you would have to assume the animal was less than or approximately an inch upon its birth. For all you would know when the animal was born it could have already been several feet long, so that your measurement is highly inaccurate based on this presupposition.

My point is, we have a considerable potentiality as inferred from the Scriptures that the universe was created a comparatively short time ago, with an explicit indication of its mature initial conditions as explained in the 6 consecutive day creation (which must be repeated in case you want to erroneously call this "lying" which requires that you not be provided the information explaining the appearance of age, which we would be by this simpler, more obvious interpretation). If this is the case, then even if the universe is young it will still appear old with the presupposition that extrapolates into the past the accumulation of all matter and energy into its finest potential point. It could more aptly (but still incorrectly) be called lying to say that God made the universe over a long progressive period then oddly described it as six consecutive days divided by evening and morning.

None of that reasoning HAS ANY CONNECTION TO THE OP!
I stated, in the OP, that this thread is supposed to be a discussion about what scientific evidence scientists worldwide are missing with regards to the age of the Earth.
Can you present any scientific evidence that proves that the Earth is 6000 years old that the world's scientists have misinterpreted to lead them to say it's 4.5 billion years old?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why can't you people stick to the actual OP?
For the sake of brevity, and sticking to my firm belief that people on the internet are not the idiots that is commonly stereotyped, I'll repeat the OP:

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 please, do remember that you are on the Physical & Life Sciences forum.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

None of that reasoning HAS ANY CONNECTION TO THE OP!
I stated, in the OP, that this thread is supposed to be a discussion about what scientific evidence scientists worldwide are missing with regards to the age of the Earth.
Can you present any scientific evidence that proves that the Earth is 6000 years old that the world's scientists have misinterpreted to lead them to say it's 4.5 billion years old?

This is especially hilarious after you just posted a complaint about idiocy, but allow me to get to the point, again.

My reasoning is comprehensively connected to the OP as I am directly answering the question unequivocally. OP asked this:

This is something I've seen many creationist/Young Earth believer claim many times on this site: "Scientists/Evolutionists are just misinterpreting the data."...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?

I'm not sure what part you're not understanding. You are either highly unperceptive or just plain oblivious. I am not arguing that the earth would be improperly measured at the inferred age that it is in the Big Bang model. I have repeatedly demonstrated, however, that if the earth was created with mature initial conditions, ignoring this information will inevitably result in the potential misinterpretation the OP was asking for, as the universe will appear older than it is with the presumption of the Big Bang model without factoring this information into the equation. You can say that's not science, but what you'd mean is that's not naturalist, or in other words that it isn't consistent with science that presumes the absence of God. So to ignore this wouldn't be an assent to science but to naturalist philosophy. Are you getting it yet or do I have to pretend my audience is a class of 4th graders?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not sure what part you're not understanding. You are either highly unperceptive or just plain oblivious. I am not arguing that the earth would be improperly measured at the inferred age that it is in the Big Bang model. I have repeatedly demonstrated, however, that if the earth was created with mature initial conditions, ignoring this information will inevitably result in the potential misinterpretation the OP was asking for, as the universe will appear older than it is with the presumption of the Big Bang model without factoring this information into the equation. You can say that's not science, but what you'd mean is that's not naturalist, or in other words that it isn't consistent with science that presumes the absence of God. So to ignore this wouldn't be an assent to science but to naturalist philosophy. Are you getting it yet or do I have to pretend my audience is a class of 4th graders?

What you're essentially saying is that God created the world 6,000 years ago but deceptively made it look 4.5 billion years old. And you're essentially calling God a liar.
But that's not what this thread is to discuss. This thread is to discuss the scientific evidence the supposed misrepresentation of a young Earth as an old Earth.
I'll repeat the key words again: scientific evidence.
One more time: scientific evidence.
If you cannot present any scientific evidence and only want to discuss theology, then this is the wrong thread,

 

[Heissonear]

Rick, I certainly hope you're being sincerely ignorant. Considering we are talking about the creation of the universe, which is the precursor to science seeing as you need something to exist to have a science of it. The only reason you would want to disregard what I've said is that your pursuit is not genuinely objective. It seems you simply want to presuppose the Big Bang model, but it is arguing in a circle if the universe was created with mature initial conditions which would naturally give it the mere appearance of age (without any misinformation on the part of God who spelled it out). If that is a fact, it is science. This entire discussion will be based on one presupposition or another, and both of the presuppositions (young and old earth) with produce the appearance of an old universe, so that science concerning the age of the universe is nothing more than entertaining speculation with no real impact on current or future scientific endeavors. What I mean by not having any meaningful impact is that, once again, you will have the exact same universe with either model being true and the universe will function identically from the onset of its creation regardless of which model is true.

Again, I'm not biased in this issue because I'm not attached to either idea, precisely for the reason listed above. On the one hand, the universe was created mature and so appears old only with the presumption of a model which extrapolates into the past, measuring the universe as if it were to start at its finest potential point; On the other the universe was in fact once at its finest potential point and so the universe is old and leads to the same point it has now with more time existing prior to this point in time.

So essentially what we'd have is this: (b=beginning of universe, c=current time)

b----------------------------------------c
-Or-
--------------------b--------------------c (all time prior to b here is for comparison; it would be non-existent here)

Same cause (God), same effect (it lead up to now), no difference in subject matter to scientifically observe (same universe).

The tenets of the thread think their foundation of faith, and knowledgebase built thereon, that such faith can be set aside to talk only science. You have pointed out this fallacy.

Earlier I reminded them that if they have interpreted age with the wrong foundation then what they present as geologic age can make them look ignorant, as foolish as some immature "the Flood did it" believers they disdain. They would be equal to them unknowingly.

Of course they sweep such aside as irrelevant.

 

[Heissonear]

This thread is to discuss the scientific evidence the supposed misrepresentation of a young Earth as an old Earth.
I'll repeat the key words again: scientific evidence.
One more time: scientific evidence.
If you cannot present any scientific evidence and only want to discuss theology, then this is the wrong thread,

You have yet to learn the faith you stand on, Sir.

It shows childish ignorance.

I was once like you and Rick, and scoffed at geologic interpretations that did not reflect the true absolute age of the Earth of 5.6 billion years and cosmos of 15.5 billion years.

But then I learned the faith it was built upon. I mention this to you several times in this thread. It is apparent you have not learned this youself, up to this point in time, unfortunately. You walk by faith. Some tooth and nails try to fight this reality, rather than learn and accept it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You have yet to learn the faith you stand on, Sir.

It shows childish ignorance.

I was once like you and Rick, and scoffed at geologic interpretations that did not reflect the true absolute age of the Earth of 5.6 billion years and cosmos of 15.5 billion years.

But then I learned the faith it was built upon. I mention this to you several times in this thread. It is apparent you have not learned this youself, up to this point in time, unfortunately. You walk by faith. Some tooth and nails try to fight this reality, rather than learn and accept it.

I think it shows childish ignorance on your part that you, a person who claims to be a geologist or whatever degree you claim to hold, can not do something as read a sentence:
This thread is for the evidence that scientists are supposed to misinterpreting when they say that the world is 4.5 billion years old when it should tell them it's 6000 years old.
It has nothing to do with faith. I am simply asking for people who claim that the Earth is really 6,000 years old to show how, using the same evidence that all of the world's scientists have, to show that the world's scientists aren't interpreting the evidence correctly.
Can you do that?

 

[Heissonear]

I think it shows childish ignorance on your part that you, a person who claims to be a geologist or whatever degree you claim to hold, can not do something as read a sentence:
This thread is for the evidence that scientists are supposed to misinterpreting when they say that the world is 4.5 billion years old when it should tell them it's 6000 years old.
It has nothing to do with faith. I am simply asking for people who claim that the Earth is really 6,000 years old to show how, using the same evidence that all of the world's scientists have, to show that the world's scientists aren't interpreting the evidence correctly.
Can you do that?

Incorrect . This Earth is not 4.5 billion years old. You do not express the faith you have to make this claim.

Again, while a Naturalist, I woke up to this fact. I did not believe in the Bible at that time.

Sir, you have failed to understand the faith you walk by. And you pushed such aside as if it is not true and means nothing, including towards the thread topic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Incorrect . This Earth is not 4.5 billion years old. You do not express the faith you have to make this claim.

Again, while a Naturalist, I woke up to this fact. I did not believe in the Bible at that time.

Sir, you have failed to understand the faith you walk by. And you pushed such aside as if it is not true and means nothing, including towards the thread topic.

But you have not shown that the world isn't 4.5 billion years old. You have not proven that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[Heissonear]

But you have not shown that the world isn't 4.5 billion years old. You have not proven that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

And you have shown your faith too. Remember, I was a Naturalist, and never a reader of the Bible and never accepted Christian beliefs when I learned how what I learned in natural science was faith based, that I walked by faith if there was a Creator and the world is a Creation.

This has been beyond you up to this point in time, apparently.

It is a reality you cannot set aside, Sir.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And you have shown your faith too. Remember, I was a Naturalist, and never a reader of the Bible and never accepted Christian beliefs when I learned how what I learned in natural science was faith based, that I walked by faith if there was a Creator and the world is a Creation.

This has been beyond you up to this point in time, apparently.

It is a reality you cannot set aside, Sir.

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.

 

[Doveaman]

Yet astronomers "cherry pick" all the time. The number of failed attempts to find "dark matter" has never influenced their "absolute faith" in exotic forms of matter. Ditto for finds of additional forms of ordinary matter. It never changes the "dogma". I'm still not sure I'd characterize that as them being "dishonest", as much as simply being a victim of confirmation bias.

I said: NO ASTROPHYSICS. If you can't stick to that simple request, don't post in this thread.

I don't get it.

Your OP is about YECs accusing scientists of misinterpreting the data, but then when you are given information of scientists misinterpreting data you want to shut it down.

What's up with that, a double standard?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't get it.

Your OP is about YECs accusing scientists of misinterpreting the data, but then when you are given information of scientists misinterpreting data you want to shut it down.

What's up with that, a double standard?

Because, and I will state this again, he was talking about astrophysics when I specifically asked about the Earth.
Look at the difference in words:
Astrophysics.
Earth.
Two completely different words with two completely different connotations and meanings.

It was not a double standard when he posted something that was off-topic with the OP.

 

[Doveaman]

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.

It all depends on what you mean by "proper answer".

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?

The Bible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It all depends on what you mean by "proper answer".
The Bible.

When I mean proper answer, I mean scientific evidence.
And, since so many of you cannot read, this sub-forum is called Physical & Life Sciences and it's statement of purpose says:

The Physical & Life Sciences forum is a discussion and debate area on physics, biology, chemistry and other physical sciences.

And that same statement of purpose also says this:

General Apologetics: This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers. Non-Christian members who would like to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, should start a thread in the Christian Apologetics forum.

This thread is to discuss science and science ONLY.

 

[Doveaman]

Because, and I will state this again, he was talking about astrophysics when I specifically asked about the Earth.
Look at the difference in words:
Astrophysics.
Earth.
Two completely different words with two completely different connotations and meanings.

It was not a double standard when he posted something that was off-topic with the OP.

But you also mentioned:

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.

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

How convenient of you to leave them out.