Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,298
6,470
29
Wales
✟350,949.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
So your saying that scientists ask Young earth creationists
how they should interpret the data from their research?

YEC's believe that the earth was created supernaturally.
So why would scientists consider the supernatural as
an observable force?

And if you're considering YEC ideas, then you're no longer
in the area of science, so you brought Creationist concepts
to the discussion with your thread title.

That's not what I'm asking.
I asked the question in the OP:
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?

This is not about religion. This is about science and the scientific evidence that YECs say that mainstream scientists keep getting wrong.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
You're discussing science in a 'Christian forum' - now why would you discuss it here if you didn't want a Christian to contribute? I think it's important to keep God and His son Jesus in the conversation for without Him you wouldn't even be here.

This is one of two science forums in which are for discussing science, not the bible. There are specific CF forums for bible discussion. I suggest reading the rules pertaining to the CF Physical & Life Sciences. Any science you wish to share pertaining to the topic of this thread will be appreciated. :)
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
So your saying that scientists ask Young earth creationists
how they should interpret the data from their research?

YEC's believe that the earth was created supernaturally.
So why would scientists consider the supernatural as
an observable force?

And if you're considering YEC ideas, then you're no longer
in the area of science, so you brought Creationist concepts
to the discussion with your thread title.

So no more whining about non-scientific concepts.

That is an incorrect analogy. The creation science addresses science and that is what the topic is addressing, not the supernatural.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I deleted this as I believe in an Ancient created earth AND a new Created World so I belong on both sides.

Neither your or anyone's beliefs are in question here. What is in question is the science presented by the "creation science" community in their science literature. Please try to understand that.
 
Upvote 0

fargonic

Newbie
Nov 15, 2014
1,227
775
55
✟14,445.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Let me give you a little piece of friendly advice.

Don't come here waiving a clipboard over our heads, or we'll be on you like dogs on a chew toy.

...and formulating counterpoints to science just as well as my dog does!

All joking aside, what do you have against clipboards? I've worked for about 30 years in the sciences and I don't think I can recall the last time I used a "clipboard". (We have lab benches nowadays).
 
Upvote 0

fargonic

Newbie
Nov 15, 2014
1,227
775
55
✟14,445.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But your claim is that God made the Earth 6000 years ago with 4.5 billion years worth of embedded history. That's not true history, that's fake history.
That is lying.

There's a special form of "logic" in AV's position. Hear me out: he says that ONLY GOD can embed age. Remember, God can do anything, so it is hypothetically possible for God to embed age in something. Making it a 4.5 billion years old in the wink of an eye.

The only problem is; at that point the earth is NOT 6000 years old, but literally 4.5 billion years old. It is a nice "wordgame" for true believers who want Literal Genesis AND for the science to match up.

Interestingly enough, in approaching the problem this way they effectively make literal Genesis false. Because if God is actually embedding age then indeed it BECOMES whatever God makes it to be.

If anything it makes the book of Genesis incorrect since the estimation of 6000 years is based on Ussher's counting the generations.

Either way, it makes YEC incorrect by definition.
 
Upvote 0

fargonic

Newbie
Nov 15, 2014
1,227
775
55
✟14,445.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
YEC's believe that the earth was created supernaturally.
So why would scientists consider the supernatural as
an observable force?

This is all well and good except that it renders YEC unusable for answering any meaningful questions. For instance in order for the explanation of the rocks to comport with YEC we have to abandon all we know about physics and chemistry. If we must then rely on "miracles" we are left with no real value to the understanding.

If I want to find oil in this "miracle" planet then I may as well look anywhere. It won't make any difference because science no longer has meaning. God could easily have created "miracle oil" in the middle of a place where oil shouldn't occur.

And if you're considering YEC ideas, then you're no longer
in the area of science,

Which is fine as far as it goes. But a YEC will tell me that what I see, as a geologist, when I look at a rock is wrong. They don't know how it got there except to say "God did it", but they know I'm wrong when I explain how geology works.

It would be fine if YECs didn't want anyone to actually listen to them speak about the earth, but the insist on destroying science so their beliefs can be taught to their children as an alternative to the science.
 
Upvote 0

malvina

Newbie
Aug 22, 2014
490
111
89
South Australia
✟8,706.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Genesis 1:2 KJV)

The Bible clearly says the Earth was already here before the work of the seven-days even begins.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,298
6,470
29
Wales
✟350,949.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Genesis 1:2 KJV)

The Bible clearly says the Earth was already here before the work of the seven-days even begins.

This not a discussion about the Bible. This is a discussion about science.
If you can't discuss the science, pleas leave.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Genesis 1:2 KJV)

The Bible clearly says the Earth was already here before the work of the seven-days even begins.

The topic of this thread has nothing to do with the bible, rather the misrepresentation of science with respect to the age of the earth. Do you have any science to present pertaining to the threads topic?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
So your saying that scientists ask Young earth creationists
how they should interpret the data from their research?

YEC's believe that the earth was created supernaturally.
So why would scientists consider the supernatural as
an observable force?

It is the YEC's who claim that a proper scientific interpretation of the evidence points to a young Earth and a recent global flood.

If that isn't the case, then you are admitting that the scientific evidence points to an old Earth, and that scientists are properly interpreting the evidence from a scientific point of view. Is that the case?
 
Upvote 0

SepiaAndDust

There's a FISH in the percolator
May 6, 2012
4,380
1,325
57
Mid-America
✟26,546.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
To the OP, I don't think there is anything. In my experience, the best science YECs have come up with to back their religious belief involve flood layers, polonium halos, and Behe's irreducible complexity. In all of those cases, science explains what we're actually seeing better than the YEC alternatives.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
Their are 6 million years worth of layers only the Canyon itself was carved out in the last 12,000 years. So God did not expose 6 million years of natural history until recently at the end of the last glacier era when all the ice melted.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is the YEC's who claim that a proper scientific interpretation of the evidence points to a young Earth and a recent global flood.

If that isn't the case, then you are admitting that the scientific evidence points to an old Earth, and that scientists are properly interpreting the evidence from a scientific point of view. Is that the case?
Flooding is not the issue here. The modern world as we know it began around 12 thousand years ago when there was massive flooding and a massive extinction event, the sixth extinction. As always God repopulates the earth with a small remnant of what was here in the last age or era. The problem is to get the dates to line up. For example:

• During the Ice Age, Ryan and Pitman argue, the Black Sea was an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland.

• About 12,000 years ago, toward the end of the Ice Age, Earth began growing warmer. Vast sheets of ice that sprawled over the Northern Hemisphere began to melt. Oceans and seas grew deeper as a result.

• About 7,000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled. Seawater pushed northward, slicing through what is now Turkey.

• Funneled through the narrow Bosporus, the water hit the Black Sea with 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. Each day the Black Sea rose about six inches (15 centimeters), and coastal farms were flooded.

Noah lived about 4300 years ago in Ancient Mesopotamia. If you go to the Ancient City of Ur you will find a flood layer that is a lot closer to Noah's flood. Different areas seem to have flooded at different times as the glaciers melted.
 
Upvote 0

Thir7ySev3n

Psalm 139
Sep 13, 2009
672
417
32
✟58,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But here's the thing: if God created the universe 6000 years ago, but made it so it appeared to be billions of years older, then that would be lying. Plain and simple.

This statement is very inept. You don't have to be very intelligent to understand how this would not be lying when it would be announced by God Himself that the universe was created to appear mature (fully grown Adam, animals, flora, etc.). The only person being deceived would be the one who doesn't take Him at His word. I am astonished you don't understand this, why do I even have to explain it to you? The absurdity of some defenses make me think some people are simply disingenuous about their position. I can only shake my head at this.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,298
6,470
29
Wales
✟350,949.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
This statement is very inept. You don't have to be very intelligent to understand how this would not be lying when it would be announced by God Himself that the universe was created to appear mature (fully grown Adam, animals, flora, etc.). The only person being deceived would be the one who doesn't take Him at His word. I am astonished you don't understand this, why do I even have to explain it to you? The absurdity of some defenses make me think some people are simply disingenuous about their position. I can only shake my head at this.

To be honest, I don't really care about this because that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about supposed misinterpretations of scientific evidence by mainstream scientists, when their evidence should point to a 6,000 year old Earth.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,298
6,470
29
Wales
✟350,949.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Their are 6 million years worth of layers only the Canyon itself was carved out in the last 12,000 years. So God did not expose 6 million years of natural history until recently at the end of the last glacier era when all the ice melted.

Do you have evidence for this claim?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

davedajobauk

dum spiro spero
Site Supporter
Dec 26, 2006
55,186
28,520
76
Salford, Greater Manchester. UK
✟300,707.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
LOL


evidence ??? re: the age of the earth ????


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjU37a989TJAhWJtBoKHbsDBpkQFggnMAE&url=http://www.livescience.com/43584-earth-oldest-rock-jack-hills-zircon.html&usg=AFQjCNHq6GZGRPeY471HIV36SZ28FUcLaA


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjU37a989TJAhWJtBoKHbsDBpkQFggsMAI&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks&usg=AFQjCNH1_4ou7JWf8QkLqOBIFOY1yckelQ



https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjU37a989TJAhWJtBoKHbsDBpkQFgg_MAQ&url=http://www.livescience.com/43584-earth-oldest-rock-jack-hills-zircon.html&usg=AFQjCNHq6GZGRPeY471HIV36SZ28FUcLaA



https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjU37a989TJAhWJtBoKHbsDBpkQFghNMAY&url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140224-oldest-crust-australia-zircon-science&usg=AFQjCNHmiYx2sK3VML2lEAKkOjRJQI_wBA



https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjU37a989TJAhWJtBoKHbsDBpkQFghaMAg&url=http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/rose-center-for-earth-and-space/david-s.-and-ruth-l.-gottesman-hall-of-planet-earth/how-has-the-earth-evolved/the-earth-s-crust/the-oldest-rocks-and-minerals-on-earth/the-oldest-known-rock&usg=AFQjCNHYXgcjmY7UvrWXYfPtB5iZIXXkUQ



https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjHrZPE9NTJAhUHSRoKHcHpBBEQFghVMAs&url=http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/rose-center-for-earth-and-space/david-s.-and-ruth-l.-gottesman-hall-of-planet-earth/how-has-the-earth-evolved/the-earth-s-crust/the-oldest-rocks-and-minerals-on-earth&usg=AFQjCNEO0yHuL40xp7QkjP5bTD-WtIb9Ng&bvm=bv.109910813,d.d2s




Even accounting for the odd days in-between 'creation and the day of analysis'
Earth is much older than 2,000 - 3,000 years

In other words, from the day of creation, until it was cool-enough for other processes to develop
could be some mighty long-lasting days
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.