Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[Heissonear]

You're still talking about religion. I stated in the OP that this thread was to discuss science, and science only, not religion!

You cannot separate the Creator from His Creation and say lets isolate natural geology and artifacts.

But you have tried.

 

[RickG]

Yes it does. Beliefs is the very base you have placed your natural knowledge upon.

Take a careful look.

No Heiss, this thread is specific to the science presented in the creation science literature and only the science. References to the bible or any religion are off topic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You cannot separate the Creator from His Creation and say lets isolate natural geology and artifacts.

But you have tried.

The OP of this thread was to talk about what supposed evidence mainstream scientists have missed that leads them to misinterpret the science, leading them to say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, when it should say it is 6,000 years old.
This is about scientific evidence. Not religion. Scientific evidence.

 

[RickG]

You cannot separate the Creator from His Creation and say lets isolate natural geology and artifacts.

But you have tried.

No Heiss, the OP is wanting to discuss the SCIENCE presented in the creation science literature. This is not about the bible.

 

[RickG]

Rick, God had all of these natural processes that create depositional environments and depositional layers in Mind before Speaking representation of billions of years of natural geologic history into existence. Yes, bringing forth grandscale existence of a natural world with foreknown representation of billions of years of "natural history" as He brought each part into existence. The Maker of One Intelligent Creation.

The ones stating "the Flood did it" have their premise, as Michael has thoughtfully presented. Include for many "the Flood did it" that their spiritual eyes were open by the Holy Spirit to many verses and things in the Bible, and now Bible believers foundationally they exhibit their strict adherence to "Biblical interpretations", even interpretation of natural science artifacts, which has produce obvious ignorance in many occasions.

Are you familiar with sedimentation rates in the ocean and the constituents pertaining to those sediments? If so, how can this be done in only 6,000 years?

 

[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?

For one, they miscalculated the depth of the moondust.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For one, they miscalculated the depth of the moondust.

You keep saying this, and you keep being told it's wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep saying this, and you keep being told it's wrong.

Scientists didn't miscalculate the depth of the moondust?

 

[RickG]

Scientists didn't miscalculate the depth of the moondust?

Perhaps you might provide a citation for a pre-landing moon dust depth. Do you really think we would have sent people to the moon if they really believed it was really deep. Again, what/who is your source and how deep?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Scientists didn't miscalculate the depth of the moondust?

As RickG said, if the scientists at NASA had calculated that the layer of moondust was deep, would they have sent the astronauts to the moon?

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you might provide a citation for a pre-landing moon dust depth.

I assume the formula for calculating the depth of the moondust is:

Depth = Rate x Time

Calculating the RATE (whatever it was) times TIME, would yield a deep floor.

Yet, as I understand it, satellites surprised scientists back in 1965 by returning a shallow floor.

So scientists recalculated the depth by changing the RATE, not the TIME.

 

[AV1611VET]

As RickG said, if the scientists at NASA had calculated that the layer of moondust was deep, would they have sent the astronauts to the moon?

I doubt it.

What's that have to do with anything?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I doubt it.

What's that have to do with anything?

Why did you bring it up in the first place?

 

[RickG]

I assume the formula for calculating the depth of the moondust is:

Depth = Rate x Time

Calculating the RATE (whatever it was) times TIME, would yield a deep floor.

Yet, as I understand it, satellites surprised scientists back in 1965 by returning a shallow floor.

So scientists recalculated the depth by changing the RATE, not the TIME.

I want to know what "scientists" did such a calculation?

Edit: Never mind. I just looked it up. It's a fabricated story.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

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.

Except what I've said is entirely relevant to this topic. Imagine, for a rough example, that you encountered a species of animal that you determined upon years of investigation grew exactly an inch every year it has been alive since its birth, with no varying rate. Now imagine that you knew it's ancestor (you had encountered it with it's mother, for example) but knew nothing about the origins of this ancestor to extrapolate the life span or history of this creature before it had died. Being left with only the offspring, you measure it to be 300 inches in length. From this measurement, you infer that the creature must therefore be 300 years old. The problem with this reasoning is that you would have to assume the animal was less than or approximately an inch upon its birth. For all you would know when the animal was born it could have already been several feet long, so that your measurement is highly inaccurate based on this presupposition.

My point is, we have a considerable potentiality as inferred from the Scriptures that the universe was created a comparatively short time ago, with an explicit indication of its mature initial conditions as explained in the 6 consecutive day creation (which must be repeated in case you want to erroneously call this "lying" which requires that you not be provided the information explaining the appearance of age, which we would be by this simpler, more obvious interpretation). If this is the case, then even if the universe is young it will still appear old with the presupposition that extrapolates into the past the accumulation of all matter and energy into its finest potential point. It could more aptly (but still incorrectly) be called lying to say that God made the universe over a long progressive period then oddly described it as six consecutive days divided by evening and morning.

 

[pat34lee]

You can tell the presence of intersteller gas between us and a galaxy by the absortion lines in the spectrum. That's also the effect it has on light. You can compare the view of galaxies with little or not such lines with galaxies that have more such lines.

Nice theory stated as fact, but how do you prove it?

 

[RickG]

Except what I've said is entirely relevant to this topic. Imagine, for a rough example, that you encountered a species of animal that you determined upon years of investigation grew exactly an inch every year it has been alive since its birth, with no varying rate. Now imagine that you knew it's ancestor (you had encountered it with it's mother, for example) but knew nothing about the origins of this ancestor to extrapolate the life span or history of this creature before it had died. Being left with only the offspring, you measure it to be 300 inches in length. From this measurement, you infer that the creature must therefore be 300 years old. The problem with this reasoning is that you would have to assume the animal was less than or approximately an inch upon its birth. For all you would know when the animal was born it could have already been several feet long, so that your measurement is highly inaccurate based on this presupposition.

My point is, we have a considerable potentiality as inferred from the Scriptures that the universe was created a comparatively short time ago, with an explicit indication of its mature initial conditions as explained in the 6 consecutive day creation (which must be repeated in case you want to erroneously call this "lying" which requires that you not be provided the information explaining the appearance of age, which we would be by this simpler, more obvious interpretation). If this is the case, then even if the universe is young it will still appear old with the presupposition that extrapolates into the past the accumulation of all matter and energy into its finest potential point. It could more aptly (but still incorrectly) be called lying to say that God made the universe over a long progressive period then oddly described it as six consecutive days divided by evening and morning.

None if that is relevant to the topic. The topic is about SCIENCE, not the bible. Do you have any science to contribute?

 

[RickG]

Nice theory stated as fact, but how do you prove it?

Theories are made up from facts. Nevertheless, spectroscopy is basic physics. I used it in my work for some 30 years.

 

[pat34lee]

Theories are made up from facts. Nevertheless, spectroscopy is basic physics. I used it in my work for some 30 years.

In a lab or in space?

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

None if that is relevant to the topic. The topic is about SCIENCE, not the bible. Do you have any science to contribute?

Rick, I certainly hope you're being sincerely ignorant. Considering we are talking about the creation of the universe, which is the precursor to science seeing as you need something to exist to have a science of it. The only reason you would want to disregard what I've said is that your pursuit is not genuinely objective. It seems you simply want to presuppose the Big Bang model, but it is arguing in a circle if the universe was created with mature initial conditions which would naturally give it the mere appearance of age (without any misinformation on the part of God who spelled it out). If that is a fact, it is science. This entire discussion will be based on one presupposition or another, and both of the presuppositions (young and old earth) with produce the appearance of an old universe, so that science concerning the age of the universe is nothing more than entertaining speculation with no real impact on current or future scientific endeavors. What I mean by not having any meaningful impact is that, once again, you will have the exact same universe with either model being true and the universe will function identically from the onset of its creation regardless of which model is true.

Again, I'm not biased in this issue because I'm not attached to either idea, precisely for the reason listed above. On the one hand, the universe was created mature and so appears old only with the presumption of a model which extrapolates into the past, measuring the universe as if it were to start at its finest potential point; On the other the universe was in fact once at its finest potential point and so the universe is old and leads to the same point it has now with more time existing prior to this point in time.

So essentially what we'd have is this: (b=beginning of universe, c=current time)

b----------------------------------------c
-Or-
--------------------b--------------------c (all time prior to b here is for comparison; it would be non-existent here)

Same cause (God), same effect (it lead up to now), no difference in subject matter to scientifically observe (same universe).