show me 1 piece of scientific evidence for the YEC model

[ebia]

Okay, I will say again. The Scriptures are not subject to scientific verification.

You can say it as often as you like, that doesn't make it true.

The scriptures are historical fact!

Some bit. Other bits clearly aren't meant to be history at all. None of it is meant as historical in a modern sense, as that concept of history didn't exist.

 

[notto]

Both Gentry and Snelling, regardless of their differences of opinion on certain matters, are both correct in their conclusion regarding the Age of the Earth.

But who is right about the Halos?

Hypocritical put-downs such as these (As you all know Evolutionists have disagreements among themselves as well) does nothing to further your argument.

Still doesn't answer the question. Who was right as far as the Halos? You suggested that Gentry was but then you brought Snelling in to the mix. I'm just trying to determine who you think is the best authority from a creationist perspective about the orgin, mechanisms, and creation of the halos? Can't you simply answer?

I will state again, when will any of you refute the arguments on this thread, with your own words - in your own understanding? Please give your own understanding of why Polonium rings don't demonstrate a young earth.

Because in order for them to demonstrate a young earth, all other possible explanations of the halos and contamination are ignored or another unsupported (and highly implausible) mechanism of accelerated decay need to be employed. There are also several questions about the methodology and collection of samples that leaves a lot to be desired.

That is not science. Both Gentry and Snelling start with a conclusion about the halos (and quite conflicting ones) and cherrypick and shoehorn the evidence into it. Using this method of argument, the halos can be evidence of any age of the earth and certainly don't point exclusively to a young earth.

 

[Prophetable]

Scripture certainly assumes the earth is flat, and there were Christian teachers who objected to the church adopting the "pagan Greek" notion that it is a sphere. However that was a millennium before Galileo.

Galileo's run-in with the church was over whether or not the earth moves. Galileo said it did; the church said--on the basis of scripture--that it did not.

In both cases the plain reading of scripture--that the earth is flat and motionless--was shown scientifically to be incorrect.

Im not interested in vague, incorrect interpretation of scripture from the past.

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere does the scripture teach, assume, allude to, state, etc, etc that the earth is flat.

Unless you can show me where the Scripture does do this (which you can't) then stop spreading misinformation, lest you be found a liar before God.

 

[Prophetable]

You can say it as often as you like, that doesn't make it true.


Some bit. Other bits clearly aren't meant to be history at all. None of it is meant as historical in a modern sense, as that concept of history didn't exist.

Historical they are regardless of the false assertion of those who are either:

A) Ignorant because they don't want to know the truth.

B) Liars.

Either way, the source is Sin.

 

[notto]

Okay, I will say again. The Scriptures are not subject to scientific verification. The scriptures are historical fact!

Then creation science is not science at all. Thanks for admitting that. It seems to conflict with your earlier claim that creation scientists look objectively at all data. It would appear that they would reject any data outright if it conflicts with scripture or their interpretation of it. That at least is what ICR and AIG admit to.

 

[Prophetable]

But who is right about the Halos?

Still doesn't answer the question. Who was right as far as the Halos? You suggested that Gentry was but then you brought Snelling in to the mix. I'm just trying to determine who you think is the best authority from a creationist perspective about the orgin, mechanisms, and creation of the halos? Can't you simply answer?

While you persist to believe in Evolutionary Science, which is guilty of exactly the same (ie; Scientists arriving at the same conclusion with different interpretation of the evidence) there is no way, I repeat no way I intend answering your hypocritical question. Get it??

Because in order for them to demonstrate a young earth, all other possible explanations of the halos and contamination are ignored or another unsupported (and highly implausible) mechanism of accelerated decay need to be employed. There are also several questions about the methodology and collection of samples that leaves a lot to be desired.

That is not science. Both Gentry and Snelling start with a conclusion about the halos (and quite conflicting ones) and cherrypick and shoehorn the evidence into it. Using this method of argument, the halos can be evidence of any age of the earth and certainly don't point exclusively to a young earth.

Pure slander. Please can you provide your own list of data refuting my OP? If not, why not?

 

[Prophetable]

Then creation science is not science at all. Thanks for admitting that. It seems to conflict with your earlier claim that creation scientists look objectively at all data. It would appear that they would reject any data outright if it conflicts with scripture or their interpretation of it. That at least is what ICR and AIG admit to.

There is no scientific data, which when interpreted correctly, conflicts with scripture.

However, when interpreted correctly, it does conflict with Evolution.

Please stop making hypocritical arguments. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have looked at data with an OECism bias.

Both Creation Science and Evolutionary Science ARE SCIENCE. However, the science of the Creationist is the best science providing us with accurate dating of the earth.

 

[notto]

While you persist to believe in Evolutionary Science, which is guilty of exactly the same (ie; Scientists arriving at the same conclusion with different interpretation of the evidence) there is no way, I repeat no way I intend answering your hypocritical question. Get it??

Then why did you bring Snelling into it if you didn't want to discuss his work with the halos? Your avoidance is noted.

Pure slander. Please can you provide your own list of data refuting my OP? If not, why not?

The objections of Gentrys methodology and data are noted quite well in both mainstream and other creationists sources. Those have been provided here and show that Gentry's research is lacking. Not sure what you are looking for or what OP you are talking about. I have in my own words summarized the objections from both creationists and mainstream science related to Gentry's halo work. His work is anything but defining with regard to it. After all, you are the one who brought up Snelling who's own conclusions directly conflict with Gentry's.

If anyone is guilty of slander, wouldn't it be Snelling? You should email him.

 

[notto]

There is no scientific data, which when interpreted correctly, conflicts with scripture.

This is an unscientific position.

However, when interpreted correctly, it does conflict with Evolution.

Considering that Evolution remains unfalsified and virtually all scientists in the field disagree with you, I think we will leave it up to the scientists.

Please stop making hypocritical arguments. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have looked at data with an OECism bias.

But that conclusion was arivved to objectively through several independent lines of evidence years before evolution was even on the scene. It was Christian geologists that first found the evidence that falsifies a young earth. They were not looking at the data with an OEC bias and hadn't even considered evolution yet they came to the same conclusion. Why is that?

Both Creation Science and Evolutionary Science ARE SCIENCE. However, the science of the Creationist is the best science providing us with accurate dating of the earth.

It is not scientific to claim a religious book as fact and claim that by definition any data that conflicts with it as wrong. It is clear that creationists do not look at data objectively and they openly admit that. They admit that they are not scientific. There is no getting around this.

 

[gluadys]

Im not interested in vague, incorrect interpretation of scripture from the past.

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere does the scripture teach, assume, allude to, state, etc, etc that the earth is flat.

Unless you can show me where the Scripture does do this (which you can't) then stop spreading misinformation, lest you be found a liar before God.

The only reason scripture does not teach or state the earth is flat is that all the biblical writers assumed it was flat and did not think such an obvious "fact" needed to be taught. Every reference to the physical heaven and earth in scripture assumes a flat earth.

There is not a single reference (even poetic) to sphericity or axial rotation. There are numerous references to the "vault of heaven" and the "foundations of the earth".

 

[Prophetable]

This is an unscientific position.

Considering that Evolution remains unfalsified and virtually all scientists in the field disagree with you, I think we will leave it up to the scientists.

Yes, in the eyes of an unbelieving world Evolution remains unfalsified. So lets leave it upto the scientists that believe in YECism.

But that conclusion was arivved to objectively through several independent lines of evidence years before evolution was even on the scene. It was Christian geologists that first found the evidence that falsifies a young earth. They were not looking at the data with an OEC bias and hadn't even considered evolution yet they came to the same conclusion. Why is that?

independant lines of evidence... what was the spiritual source of that evidence I wonder???

The fact is, there was no evidence, just imaginary ideas attempting to link man up to the animal Kingdom. Demonic in source, by the way.

Christian Geologists have never found evidence that falsifies YECism. Infact no scientists have.

Are you trying to tell me Darwin and protege's never looked at the data with an OEC bias???? They certainly did!!! Please no more misinformation.

It is not scientific to claim a religious book as fact and claim that by definition any data that conflicts with it as wrong. It is clear that creationists do not look at data objectively and they openly admit that. They admit that they are not scientific. There is no getting around this.

THE Religious book is fact. It has prooven itself to be so again and again(except to those hardened by sin), far more than any Evolutionary Textbook.

It's easy to claim who's objective and who isn't.
Where are your arguments against my initial posting please? Arguments that refute it point by point please.

 

[notto]

The fact is, there was no evidence, just imaginary ideas attempting to link man up to the animal Kingdom.

The Christian geologists who first falsified a young earth had no intent of linking man up to the animal Kingdom. You might want to brush up on your history a bit. It was geologists who first falsified a young earth. They did it convincingly and with much work. That you ignore this and simply make false claims against them is telling.

You are not interested in honestly discussing either the history or nature of science. You resort to unfounded accusations against the men who did this work. Why don't you deal with the data they collected?

Why does Snelling not accept Gentry's work? Who is right?

 

[notto]

Where are your arguments against my initial posting please? Arguments that refute it point by point please.

Radon migration pretty much demolishes the whole thing. Not to mention that the entire argument is based on the unsupported and unrealistic idea of accelerated radio active decay which usually is based on a circular argument to cram the data into a young earth.

How do we know that accellerated decay happened? The Halos!
How de we explain the halos? Accellerated decay!

The introduction of accellerated decay only exists to shoehorn the dates. A model that does not use accellerated decay explains the halos just fine but not in the timeframe Snelling would like so he has to introduce this assertion to meet his conclusions. Of course this again shows that the methodology of creationists is not scientific.

 

[chaoschristian]

Okay, I will say again. The Scriptures are not subject to scientific verification. The scriptures are historical fact!

If you assert that 'scriptures are not subject to scientific verification' then you have to provide evidence within a reasoned framework to support your claim.

Oh, and you are not allowed to cite scripture to help you out, so no 2 Timothies 3:16-ing us, got it.

And if scriptures are historical fact as you claim (and I am allowing myself the assumption that you are referring to the entrety of scripture, and not just bits) then how do you support that claim if scripture are also not subject to scientific verification?

Are you assuming that since you can make the assertion that anyone who reads it must accept it?

 

[chaoschristian]

Once again, show me one scripture that shows the earth is flat. Those accusing Galileo made vague assertions from scripture, when scripture nowhere teaches this, much like evolutionists make vague assertions, wrongly interpreting data.
The scripture is emperical evidence.

Show us scripture that proves that the sky is blue. If you cannot provide it, then are we to assume that the sky was not blue when scripture was written?

 

[chaoschristian]

Im not interested in vague, incorrect interpretation of scripture from the past.

So, even though scripture has been interpreted and understood in a certain way for centuries, unless it jives with your post-modern, post-Enlightenment neo-creationist pov its irrelevant to the discussio?

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere does the scripture teach, assume, allude to, state, etc, etc that the earth is flat

.

Gluadys has shown you the pieces of the puzzle. That you refuse to see the connections is your own failing.

Unless you can show me where the Scripture does do this (which you can't) then stop spreading misinformation, lest you be found a liar before God.

Cool your rockets, hoss.

 

[chaoschristian]

Historical they are regardless of the false assertion of those who are either:

A) Ignorant because they don't want to know the truth.

B) Liars.

Either way, the source is Sin.

If one does not accept your assertions regarding scripture carte blanche at face value without questions asked thank you very much, either one is a deceived willfully ignorant fool, or one a deceived deceiving liar?

 

[Prophetable]

Show us scripture that proves that the sky is blue. If you cannot provide it, then are we to assume that the sky was not blue when scripture was written?

I never asserted that the scriptures taught the Earth was flat. You guys did. Please be honest and retract this argument unless you can give a scripture reference proving it. That is the point!

 

[Prophetable]

So, even though scripture has been interpreted and understood in a certain way for centuries, unless it jives with your post-modern, post-Enlightenment neo-creationist pov its irrelevant to the discussio?



Gluadys has shown you the pieces of the puzzle. That you refuse to see the connections is your own failing.



Cool your rockets, hoss.

No way, they're just starting to heat up.

Pieces of the puzzle - apt description, as a puzzle is all you guys have got. You're not interested in truth. You're only interested in following the evolutionary herd.

 

[chaoschristian]

I never asserted that the scriptures taught the Earth was flat. You guys did. Please be honest and retract this argument unless you can give a scripture reference proving it. That is the point!

No, the point is to demonstrate to you that there is much knowledge beyond your own stubborn and horse-blinded perspective on scriptural interpretation that could genuinely inform the discussion if you didn't dismiss it with handwavium everytime it was presented to you.

The culture in which scripture was written, preserved, taught, and experienced held onto the fundemental assumption that the earth was flat. So fundemental, as gluadys pointed out, that it wasn't thought necessary to even talk about it, much like the sky being blue or Moses being an upright bi-ped with bilateral symmetry. There are, however, clues in scripture that link back to this base assumption (of the earth being flat) and Gluadys provided that too.

However, this seems to all bounce of you magic shield of impenetrability.

What you want it something alongs the lines of Genesis 99:99-100, "And God did sayeth unto the people, "The world is flat you hosers." And the reason you want this is because it helps to defend against one your preconceptions of scripture from being threatened - namely that scripture was created in a vacuum devoid of influence from 'mere' human culture and society.

Really, it all just adds up to show you don't really want to engage in a real conversation about any of this, but just to stand atop Mt. Assertion and sound off with the Horn of Tautology.