Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[AV1611VET]

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?

My pastor is a YEC, and I like to defend YECs, even though I'm not fully aware of everything they believe.

Since I'm part YEC anyway, I like to hone my skills.

 

[malvina]

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.



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?

All i can say is 'The Bible is True' But we need God to discern some parts as it looks like it contradicts sometimes but it is because the scripture refers to another time normally
like as in Creation where God made an earlier Ancient world and was destroyed before ours was created
Some scripture in Genesis refers to the Ancient world so we need to pray for discernment over ALL the bible and not let zealots or denominations colour our understanding of it

 

[pat34lee]

'Soft' tissue in dinosaurs is easily explainable by the iron in the blood cells which, when the animal died, became free from the blood stream, forming itself, on a molecular level, in to knots creating a preservative similar to formaldehyde, preserving the dinosaur tissue. Easy to explain. Here's an article explaining it.
And DNA is preserved in fossils. It's not intact, but it's still there. They even explain it in the hit film Jurassic Park (although they go in to greater detail in the novel).

They never looked for soft tissue until one woman found it because
it is impossible for any living tissue to last that long without being
fossilized.

Under ideal conditions, which means never in nature, DNA could
last up to a million years. This by the rate at which it decays.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49366487/...w-long-can-dna-last-million-years-maybe-more/

More recent articles are not science. They got caught with their
pants down and had to make up some fairy story to make the
impossible seem possible.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

All i can say is 'The Bible is True' But we need God to discern some parts as it looks like it contradicts sometimes but it is because the scripture refers to another time normally
like as in Creation where God made an earlier Ancient world and was destroyed before ours was created
Some scripture in Genesis refers to the Ancient world so we need to pray for discernment over ALL the bible and not let zealots or denominations colour our understanding of it

You display excellent skills in preparing exotic explanations for apparantly contradictory narratives. Now you need to extend those skills to include not only the Bible but the findings of science, which also come from God's hand.

 

[pat34lee]

No dating method, radiometric or non-radiometric has anything to do with the speed of light.

'c', the speed of light, is in the numerator of every reduced radio decay rate equation.
http://www.setterfield.org/Radiometric_Dating.html

Source?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-speed-of-light-slowed-down/

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/58/

 

[lasthero]

They never looked for soft tissue until one woman found it because
it is impossible for any living tissue to last that long without being
fossilized.

Why don't creationists just start finding fossils and cracking them open to show all the tissue inside? It's not like a fossil is hard to find.

Also, source? How do you know it's impossible?

Under ideal conditions, which means never in nature, DNA could
last up to a million years. This by the rate at which it decays.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49366487/...w-long-can-dna-last-million-years-maybe-more/

But Schweitzer - the woman you're talking about above - didn't actually find any DNA. So how does that help your point?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-speed-of-light-slowed-down/

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/58/

Simple, direct astronomical observations establish that the speed of light has changed very little over millions and millions of years, going back as far as it is possible to observe the rotation of galaxies by looking at the alternate doppler shifting of advancing and receding sides.

Because if light slowed after leaving those distant galaxies, it would systematically make the rotations rates appear to be slower. They don't appear systematically slower, therefore light has been approximately the same speed all this time, more likely exactly the same speed.

 

[malvina]

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.



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?

I do not deny factual Science or Geology. My favourite hobby is studying Ancient Archaeology
which all lines up with the bible.

 

[Gene2memE]

My favourite hobby is studying Ancient Archaeology which all lines up with the bible.

Really? It all lines up? Tell me then , when was the Genesis flood?

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

There seems to be something that is regularly overlooked in these conversations in determining the age of the universe. I do not affirm a stance one way or the other because I am uninterested in the mere fact of how old the universe is and more interested in what the universe was created for. That said, it is often stated that the universe has to be a certain age given the collection of factors that can be used to measure certain spans of time (such as expansion) culminating into a picture that portrays a very old universe. However, this would also be properly expected by any Christian who believes Genesis 1 to be saying that the universe was literally created in 6 days. It should be expected because it would be obvious from these Scriptures with that interpretation that the initial conditions of the universe were created mature. Adam, for example, would have appeared as a 25-35 year old man when he was literally seconds old, and the garden he resided in would have been a fully formed environment with full grown animals only a day old. So you have to presume the Big Bang event for its own sake, not based on the apparent age of the universe since an old universe would appear old as well as a relatively young universe in this context. You could say this is God lying, but that would be hilarious considering it would be more obvious that He meant to portray a universe created in maturity (which entails the appearance of age) from the relevant Scriptures than a progressive creationism. So the only person being deceived would be the ones not taking Him at His explicit word.

I would remind that this isn't an argument for young earth creation being necessarily the case (though I'm much more inclined to believe that, myself), but rather a demonstration that the universe would appear as old as it does now even if it was a relatively recent creation, and with no obscurity on the part of God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

So, are you saying that people "pick and choose" which explanations for natural phenomena they accept, based on "preference"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

False.

Instead, mainstream geologists concluded the rate of deposition based on actual observation and experimentation.

While creationists start with the answers (ie: their a priori faith based religious beliefs) and then force-match the evidence of reality into it. So they start with the time period they have available according to their beliefs and work backwards from there. Off course, WITHOUT testing their conclusions. WITHOUT conducting experiments to see if their conclusions actually match reality.

The first is engaged in an intellectually honest enterprise.
The latter is drowning in confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Armoured]

Creationists like to say they use the same data but have a different interpretation. 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.

The question I have asked, and have yet to have answered, is, "if a person who had no exposure to Christianity OR evolutionary theory, was trained in the scientific method, and given access to all available data, which theory would they come up with from first principles?"

 

[Armoured]

False.

Instead, mainstream geologists concluded the rate of deposition based on actual observation and experimentation.

While creationists start with the answers (ie: their a priori faith based religious beliefs) and then force-match the evidence of reality into it. So they start with the time period they have available according to their beliefs and work backwards from there. Off course, WITHOUT testing their conclusions. WITHOUT conducting experiments to see if their conclusions actually match reality.

The first is engaged in an intellectually honest enterprise.
The latter is drowning in confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty.

But Ken Ham proved you can fossilize a teddy bear in an hour and a half! [/snark]

 

[DogmaHunter]

However, their example(s) do not even come close to any of the natural processes. How do they get thousands of feet of limestone from a flood in less than a year?

Hey, it was a SUPERNATURAL flood.

If they have no problem on allowing for physically impossible floods to occur, I don't think they are going to be bothered all to much with a deposit rate that doesn't match reality either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First, eyewitness testimony from the creator.

Faith based and unverifiable claims.
Meaningless.

Second, the impossibility of naturalism to explain:
the beginning.
star formation.
planet formation.
moon, planets and even galaxies spinning the wrong direction.
origin of life.
origin of information.
origin of consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness.
language.
proof that ancient man, far from being ape-like, was
far more intelligent than people today.

Plenty of these actually ARE explained by science today.
But let's assume they aren't. Then this still amounts to nothing more then a gigantic argument from ignorance.

Dating methods. All depend on the speed of light as a constant
or they become unreliable.

That's just plain false.

Guess what? The speed of light can be changed, and has been slowing down since the beginning.

Citation?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Run, Forrest, run!

 

[juvenissun]

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.

It does not have to be one year. It could be ten years or hundred years.
And, the erosion on the sides AFTER the flood would rough it up to what it looks like today.

 

[juvenissun]

Run, Forrest, run!

You try to ask the same question, see how would I respond.

 

[malvina]

The Genesis flood was in the Ancient World. Noah's flood came later If you study Genesis it is clear the writer(s) are talking about the creation of 2 worlds The first was destroyed by The Fall of satan. The second was caused by the fall of man who became so corrupt (in ways similar to ours now) the Lord's only choice was to to wipe the slate clean and begin again by including Jesus who is able to cleanse man from his sins.