Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[Michael]

Well, that's the rub here. In regards to geology there are a lot of regular non-strange methods to explain geologic features. The only thing that is required is time. And that is the primary reason that YEC must create incredibly strange and unheard of mechanisms to achieve the same effects without time.

Likewise photon redshift can be explained with ordinary inelastic scattering and time/distance. Lambda-CDM proponents must create four different incredibly strange and unheard of mechanisms to achieve the same effects without scattering. I don't really see much difference frankly. I personally tend to prefer the "simple" explanation which is why I have no interest in YEC or Lambda-CDM.

YEC have essentially made delta t = 0 so they have to make up such extreme examples that it would mean that literally everything we know about anything is out the window.

From my perspective, "big bangers" do exactly the same thing. I still wouldn't assume them to be "dishonest". I'm sure they "honestly" believe in space expansion, inflation, dark energy, yada, yada, yada. I don't.

I don't think it's "dishonest" per se, I think it is wishful thinking on their part. And it is made easier since they don't have to care about science in total.

I agree that I really don't think they're being dishonest, so much as engaging themselves in 'wishful thinking', and they're probably guilty of a great deal of confirmation bias.

 

[Michael]

Off topic.

It's not off topic in the sense that an example of "confirmation bias" isn't necessarily an example of willful dishonesty.

 

[freezerman2000]

Thank you. Although I will apologise to Michael if my request came across as something more rude.

You are welcome!
Just tryin' to keep it on track..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not off topic in the sense that an example of "confirmation bias" isn't necessarily an example of willful dishonesty.

The topic is about Earth sciences. Earth sciences only.

 

[Michael]

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

Fine. If it bothers you so much, I'll simply bow out of the thread.

 

[RickG]

It's not off topic in the sense that an example of "confirmation bias" isn't necessarily an example of willful dishonesty.

I doesn't reference the age of the earth.

 

[Michael]

I doesn't reference the age of the earth.

For the record, I wasn't ever debating the age of the Earth, I simply took exception to Wots *assumption* that dishonesty is the root of the problem. I'm sure YEC "believe" what they claim, even if I don't believe them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fine. If it bothers you so much, I'll simply bow out of the thread.

Thank you. Again, sorry if my requests for you to not talk about astrophysics came across as rude.

 

[Michael]

Thank you. Again, sorry if my requests for you to not talk about astrophysics came across as rude.

It's totally fine. It's your thread and I wasn't trying to hijack it. I simply took exception to your assumption that YEC necessarily engage themselves in intentionally dishonest behavior. I think it's more complicated. I'm sure that they *believe* what they say even if I do not.

 

[RickG]

Here's another example from the article I linked earlier.

Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
​

The rebuttle of course is yes, we can synthesize many things in the lab. And note the designation brown and black coal. I guess the author never heard of lignite, bituminous, or anthracite. And the last sentence is a huge facepalm. Mineralization of wood (fossilization) and coalification are two completely different processes under completely different environments.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[juvenissun]

Let's take the oldest page in the book: The Grand Canyon. Young Earth Creationists claim that the Grand Canyon was formed during the Noahic Flood and that it is evidence of a young Earth.
Geologists that have studied the Grand Canyon and the rock formations that are in the canyon and through testing the radiometric decay rates, and through that work, they can say that the Grand Canyon is over 6 million years old.
What have the geologists done wrong to say that the Grand Canyon is 6 million years old when it should be 4000 years old?

Good.

Nothing is wrong with geologists. They have their reasons to do the interpretation.
YECs ALSO make their interpretation based on a different set of reasons.
In this case, both sides could accuse the other side "misinterpreted" the data.

For people not in the field of study, they have no base to lean toward one side or the other. You do not like the interpretation of the creationists. That is based on your preference, not based on your understanding.

Of course you can go further into the details. I would be interesting to see what would you say.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Deep time.

But here's the thing: you have to show that deep time is wrong and that the Earth really is only 6000 years old.
And remember that the Bible is the claim not evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

So, in essence, you're saying:

"I have yet to see any article written by a creation scientist that uses the same data that mainstream science uses. However, when I do, it consists of cherry picking of data and out right [sic] misrepresentation of how specific scientific methods actually work ..."?

I can't tell by your post if you have or haven't.

 

[AV1611VET]

But here's the thing: you have to show ...

Um ... no I don't.

I'm not a man of science like most here are.

My beliefs are faith-based.

... that deep time is wrong and that the Earth really is only 6000 years old.

Now why would I do that, when I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old?

 

[RickG]

And another one I'll comment on because I also

Nothing is wrong with geologists. They have their reasons to do the interpretation.

YECs ALSO make their interpretation based on a different set of reasons.
In this case, both sides could accuse the other side "misinterpreted" the data.

I disagree, YECs do not use the same data.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Good.

Nothing is wrong with geologists. They have their reasons to do the interpretation.
YECs ALSO make their interpretation based on a different set of reasons.
In this case, both sides could accuse the other side "misinterpreted" the data.

For people not in the field of study, they have no base to lean toward one side or the other. You do not like the interpretation of the creationists. That is based on your preference, not based on your understanding.

Of course you can go further into the details. I would be interesting to see what would you say.

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.

 

[RickG]

Um ... no I don't.

I'm not a man of science like most here are.

My beliefs are faith-based.Now why would I do that, when I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old?

AV, this thread requires a discussion about scientific data with respect to the age of the earth. Do you have any science to present?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Um ... no I don't.

I'm not a man of science like most here are.

My beliefs are faith-based.

Now why would I do that, when I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old?

You believe that Earth was created 6,000 years ago but has the appearance of 4.5 billion years go. That means you believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
And as RickG said, this thread is for the discussion on the subject of the supposed misrepresentation of mainstream science that YEC's claim happens. If you can't discuss science, please just bow out.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, this thread requires a discussion about scientific data with respect to the age of the earth. Do you have any science to present?

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

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