Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[Hoghead1]

But, Fargonic, how can this make Genesis literally true when genesis gives two highly contradictory accounts of creation, two contradictory chronologies written by different authors in very different periods?

 

[juvenissun]

Exactly. If the Grand Canyon had been formed quickly, and violently if the account of Noah's Flood is true, then we would see distortion that would have resulted from a violent and quick removal of sediment and rock. But we don't see that.
What we do see is the slow process of downhill erosion by flowing water over millions of years.

I said, creationists found an example of quick (and violent) deposition without distortion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I said, creationists found an example of quick (and violent) deposition without distortion.

But here's the nub: quick and violent deposition ALWAYS leaves distortion. No ifs or buts about it.

 

[juvenissun]

But, Fargonic, how can this make Genesis literally true when genesis gives two highly contradictory accounts of creation, two contradictory chronologies written by different authors in very different periods?

No contradiction. If you like, we can examine them in detail. You name contradictions and I would try to straighten them out.

 

[juvenissun]

But here's the nub: quick and violent deposition ALWAYS leaves distortion. No ifs or buts about it.

No. You should examine the example given by creationists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No contradiction. If you like, we can examine them in detail. You name contradictions and I would try to straighten them out.

No, can we not that here please. I want to keep this a scientific thread, so can we please stick to the OP?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No. You should examine the example given by creationists.

I have examined the example given by creationists. It in no way supports their claim.

 

[juvenissun]

Name a limestone formation and show us how it formed in less than 1 year.

I can predict your response if we got into details. I don't like it. So I pass this one.

 

[juvenissun]

I have examined the example given by creationists. It in no way supports their claim.

What is their example?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is their example?

I may have gotten you confused with another poster who posted a link to a creationist explanation for the Grand Canyon.
But I have looked at the main examples that creationists claim that supports the Grand Canyon being formed in a year, and none of it holds up. If the canyon had been formed in a year, taking in to account the speed and force that would have been active, the sides of the canyon wouldn't just be steep, they'd be like mirrored glass.

 

[Loudmouth]

I beg your pardon?

For the 80th time here:

Embedded age = maturity without history.

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

Your embedded age claims require God to create the Earth with fossils already in the ground. How is that not a history?

 

[Loudmouth]

I may have gotten you confused with another poster who posted a link to a creationist explanation for the Grand Canyon.
But I have looked at the main examples that creationists claim that supports the Grand Canyon being formed in a year, and none of it holds up. If the canyon had been formed in a year, taking in to account the speed and force that would have been active, the sides of the canyon wouldn't just be steep, they'd be like mirrored glass.

We also wouldn't see gooseneck meanders like these:

 

[RickG]

But here's the nub: quick and violent deposition ALWAYS leaves distortion. No ifs or buts about it.

It would also be also comingled debris of all kinds, which we do not see.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Because of the history of radioactive decay in rocks.

 

[RickG]

I can predict your response if we got into details. I don't like it. So I pass this one.

That's quite alright because I knew none existed. Accumulation rates for limestones are on the order of centimeters per thousand years.

 

[malvina]

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?

It's their BOOKS that are wrong! - they are not kept up to date. We are getting new discoveries regularly that discount their teachings but the experts do not alter their books to suit so we have a lot of historians, scientists and geologists living in the past.
Part of their trouble is PRIDE because to admit their books are wrong means that the qualifications from their study don't really count now! To keep their qualifications they should go back to college regularly and alter their knowledge to suit - just like hairdressers etc have to do. But to keep their pride (man's greatest sin from which every other one is formed) they might decide to be atheists etc and discount God altogether as more and more evidence of Bible Truth is unearthed

 

[malvina]

It's their books that are wrong - they are not kept up to date. We are getting new discoveries regularly that discount their teachings but the experts do not alter their books to suit so we have a lot of historians, scientists and geologists living in the past.
Part of their trouble is pride because to admit their books are wrong means that the qualifications from their study don't really count now! To keep their qualifications they should go back to college regularly and alter their knowledge to suit - just like hairdressers etc have to do. But to keep their pride (man's greatest sin from which ever other one is formed) they decide to be atheists etc and discount God altogether as more and more evidence of bible Truth is unearthed

Further to this post I would just like to add that Christians need to go back to the drawing board regularly too... and I am not just talking about reading our bibles.
I have been a committed Christian for 50 years plus and been to many churches. I listened to preachers from different denominations and was frequently inspired by them.
It came to me one day how each persons' message was coloured - either by their childhood teachings, their church's teachings - or a group they had previously been in involved with.
I took this to the Lord and decided from that time - to listen to the preachers, be inspired by them - but when I got home I mentally gave ALL THEIR WORDS BACK TO HIM saying like, 'This was good Lord - now I hand it back to you.... what do YOU think?
Later it would come back to me the same, similar or slightly different and I would thank Him for that!
All Christians are indoctrinated one way or the other some much more than others depending on their Christian upbringing.
So I say - that Christians also should regularly go back to the drawing board with their study and see what GOD thinks... making sure it is not returned by someone who is out to destroy the Christian faith and there are many
Now that I remember - it was a PREACHER that informed us to do this. 'Never take a preachers' words as gospel, listen them be inspired by them, then give them all back to the Lord asking what He thinks about them. He will give them back refined and to His liking'

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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'.



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

Isn't it premature to say it has been "shown" to be false, when the article you post say the assertion has not yet been widely accepted?

 

[Gene2memE]

It's their BOOKS that are wrong! - they are not kept up to date. We are getting new discoveries regularly that discount their teachings but the experts do not alter their books to suit so we have a lot of historians, scientists and geologists living in the past.

Couple of points:

Books, particularly books explaining the natural sciences, are updated to reflect new information. This occurs for all categories of publishing, from popular science books, to school/university textbooks and specialist publications dealing with particular branches of science. There's a reason why my anthropology textbook is on its 16th edition in six years and my principles of geology text is on its 26th edition in 40 years.

Books are not the best receptacles for up to date scholarship in science. That's the role of professional journals. There is always a lag between the discovery and dissemination of new information, the publication of such information in a professional journal, the response and expansion on the topic and then the publication of any book on the subject.

Part of their trouble is PRIDE because to admit their books are wrong means that the qualifications from their study don't really count now! To keep their qualifications they should go back to college regularly and alter their knowledge to suit - just like hairdressers etc have to do. But to keep their pride (man's greatest sin from which every other one is formed) they might decide to be atheists etc and discount God altogether as more and more evidence of Bible Truth is unearthed

Science starts from the position that you need to be able to support your position with evidence, otherwise its not valid. Science also works, to an extent, on breaking the work of others and disproving previous work based on new information. All scientific positions are b

The assumption in science is not that you're right, but that you need to prove you're not wrong. When I started my dissertation, my adviser told me to work under the assumption that everything I wrote was wrong and that he, and the other reviewers, would work to disprove everything.

Biblical literalists, on the other hand, start with the assumption that everything in the Bible is true (or, the assumption that it is perfect). Any evidence that does not fit this assumption is either ignored or dismissed as irrelevant to whatever flavour of literalism the particular literalist holds to.

Tell me, which position do you think is more prideful?

 

[TheBear]

Maybe then he will learn not to start threads that invite YECs to respond with science.

But, that wouldn't apply to you, would it? Or, have you gotten so confused about your own "embedded age/actual history" conundrum, that half the time you consider yourself a YEC and the other half you don't, and maybe with good compartmentalization skills, both at the same time?