Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm sorry you don't recognize a right answer when you see one.

Your science gets in the way, doesn't it?

But you cannot show that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Scientists can show that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, meaning deep time is correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

You believe that Earth was created 6,000 years ago but has the appearance of 4.5 billion years go.

And why do I believe it "appears" 4.5 billion years old?

Because it is ... or because I think it's just an illusion?

That means you believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

No, I don't.

And I'll thank you to respect my beliefs.

But I'll also realize I can't get blood from a turnip.

 

[TheBear]

So, let me get this straight.

Science gets in the way of discussing science. But, non-scientific, faith-based beliefs, are the best way to discuss science.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you cannot show that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Gee ... I wonder why?

Mabye it's because I believe it is 4.57 billion years old, eh?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And why do I believe it "appears" 4.5 billion years old?

Because it is ... or because I think it's just an illusion?No, I don't.

You claim that God made the universe and the Earth 6,000 years ago, but gave it the appearance of being older. That's a belief that you have admitted that you hold, and that means that you believe that God created all of the evidence as an illusion.
And don't start with the whole "Oh, it's embedded history, not embedded age" nonsense. Age is history.

And I'll thank you to respect my beliefs.

But I'll also realize I can't get blood from a turnip.

Wow. You are the master of irony, aren't you?

 

[juvenissun]

But in the eyes of creationists, or the YEC mindset rather, what are the mainstream geologists getting wrong?
And no, I don't hate the interpretation of the creationists. I just see it as baseless and wrong.

You may think it is wrong. But you can not say it is baseless. Any conclusion is made based on something.

In this case, the mistake of mainstream geologist in the eyes of Creationists is that they miscounted the rate of deposition of the rocks layers. Mainstream geologists suggested that it take a whole lot more time to make those rocks.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Gee ... I wonder why?

Mabye it's because I believe it is 4.57 billion years old, eh?

No. You believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, but God put evidence on Earth to say it is 4.5 billion years old.
So you don't truly believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

And don't start with the whole "Oh, it's embedded history, not embedded age" nonsense. Age is history.

I beg your pardon?

For the 80th time here:

Embedded age = maturity without history.

Get it straight somehow ... will you, scientist?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You may think it is wrong. But you can not say it is baseless. Any conclusion is made based on something.

In this case, the mistake of mainstream geologist in the eyes of Creationists is that they miscounted the rate of deposition of the rocks layers. Mainstream geologists suggested that it take a whole lot more time to make those rocks.

But it is wrong. If they followed the actual lines of evidence, they would see that the rocks indicate an old Earth, not a young Earth. And there is no basis for that claim, therefore it is baseless.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I beg your pardon?

For the 80th time here:

Embedded age = maturity without history.

Get it straight somehow ... will you, scientist?

It's the same thing! Are you really that dense? History is age. Age is history. There are the same thing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, let me get this straight.

Science gets in the way of discussing science. But, non-scientific, faith-based beliefs, are the best way to discuss science.

Maddening, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's the same thing!

No, it isn't.

Embedded history is Last Thursayism.

Are you really that dense?

Wow ... keep posting, chief.

The more you post, the more you show you don't know a thing about what you're railing against.

History is age.

Is that so?

 

[AV1611VET]

Maddening, isn't it?

What's my magazine have to do with it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, it isn't.
Embedded history is Last Thursayism.

Maturity is history. Maturity is age. Age is history. You are directly saying that God has lied to us.

Wow ... keep posting, chief.
The more you post, the more you show you don't know a thing about what you're railing against.Is that so?

And the more you post, the more you show that you don't know anything about the real world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maturity is history.

Are you saying I should believe Adam had a childhood?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I want to have an actual, scientific discussion in the science sub-forum. Is that too much to ask?
This is an issue that I would like to see discussed, sticking to science, so can we please talk about the science?

 

[AV1611VET]

I want to have an actual, scientific discussion in the science sub-forum. Is that too much to ask?
This is an issue that I would like to see discussed, sticking to science, so can we please talk about the science?

Fair enough.

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?

Deep time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Deep time.

But you cannot show that deep time is wrong. I have stated this before.

 

[RickG]

I'm sorry you don't recognize a right answer when you see one.

Please review posts #37 & #43.

Your science gets in the way, doesn't it?

And I THANK GOD for that.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you cannot show that deep time is wrong. I have stated this before.

I can, but due to the myopic restrictions I'm willing to respect at your request, I'll have to remain silent.