Why Creationists Believe in a Young Earth

[Davian]

because I take Genesis literally. There is no use arguing about the six days if the argument really lies in the first four words of the Bible....hence the sidetrack.

You can't tackle your question or any Creation vs Evolution or Young Earth vs Old Earth if we can't come to some sort of agreement on the Creator himself.

So why is this creator of yours is so elusive?

All of these type of threads always come back to God...which they should since that is where the Truth lies.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

Now, if we want to say, just for argument's sake that God does exist, we can move forward.

But only your god, right? And your interpretation of it?

If we say, God does not exist, then to me, this thread loses all credibility and is worthless.

Well, it was up to young Earth creationists, like yourself, to add value to it.

 

[Split Rock]

We know that Science is base on human observations and opinions. As such it is always open to criticism and challenge by noobs and more importantly, majority opinion. And of course we accept that the majority is correct, especially is it's the "Scientific" majority.

No, science is not open to "noobs," who don't understand it. You also have to convince the majority, if your theory is to be accepted by the majority. That takes evidence and predictions that are validated instead of falsified.

No. Some science is good. Some is incorrect. Some is just not science.
For example, anything that cannot be repeated with an experiment, is not science. History is not a repeatable experiment and is not science.

The past leaves it mark on the present; indeed, the present is build up from the past. Therefore, theories that concern the past can be tested, and your special pleading argument Fails.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, science is not open to "noobs," who don't understand it.

You too? Please show your sources.

Yes it is. I know for a FACT it is.
In FACT I was encouraged to seek employment, in R&D, by the senior researcher, specifically because I had no experiences in Laser light information transmission. He said we are looking for outsiders to apply their ideas from outside the field.

Shows what you know about Science.

I could go on about how R&D is populated with HS dropouts (and PHD's).

 

[CabVet]

You too? Please show your sources.

Yes it is.

No, it really is not, and there is no need to show sources. Qualification and training are necessary to do science. Claiming that anybody can perform scientific experiments and draw meaningful conclusions without training is the same as claiming that anyone can be a brain surgeon, or an architect, or a car mechanic, or a computer programmer, or design a space rocket, with no training.

 

[CabVet]

You too? Please show your sources.

Yes it is. I know for a FACT it is.
In FACT I was encouraged to seek employment, in R&D, by the senior researcher, specifically because I had no experiences in Laser light information transmission. He said we are looking for outsiders to apply their ideas from outside the field.

Shows what you know about Science.

I could go on about how R&D is populated with HS dropouts (and PHD's).

Oh, so they really weren't looking for a technician, right? They were looking for outsiders to apply their ideas from outside the field. Big difference. If they were looking for someone to actually build the laser I doubt they would hire somebody with no training in the field.

 

[AV1611VET]

Claiming that anybody can perform scientific experiments and draw meaningful conclusions without training is the same as claiming that anyone can be a brain surgeon, or an architect, or a car mechanic, or a computer programmer, or design a space rocket, with no training.

I beg to differ.

When I was a kid, I remember I had one of those Imajeanyiss science kits, and my first experiment ever -- turning red litmous paper green -- was a resounding success.

 

[CabVet]

I beg to differ.

When I was a kid, I remember I had one of those Imajeanyiss science kits, and my first experiment ever -- turning red litmous paper green -- was a resounding success.

Simple experiments? Sure, kids do that every day in science classrooms. Anybody can do "chemistry" too, just add salt to water. I can change spark plugs in my car, does that make me a qualified mechanic? I can put band-aids on my kid's scratches, can I perform surgery too? Or prescribe drugs?

Now, reinterpreting data from a 10 page long scientific paper to change it's conclusions and "disprove" evolution? For that you do need understanding and training in science.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

You too? Please show your sources.

Yes it is. I know for a FACT it is.
In FACT I was encouraged to seek employment, in R&D, by the senior researcher, specifically because I had no experiences in Laser light information transmission. He said we are looking for outsiders to apply their ideas from outside the field.

Shows what you know about Science.

I could go on about how R&D is populated with HS dropouts (and PHD's).

Yep, and physicians routinely consult 5th graders

 

[SkyWriting]

Yep, and physicians routinely consult 5th graders

I did not know that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting
You too? Please show your sources. Yes it is. I know for a FACT it is. In FACT I was encouraged to seek employment, in R&D, by the senior researcher, specifically because I had no experiences in Laser light information transmission. He said we are looking for outsiders to apply their ideas from outside the field. Shows what you know about Science. I could go on about how R&D is populated with HS dropouts (and PHD's).

PHD's come in the smart kind, and the not so smart kind, by the way. The nutty professor is not a fictional construct. They are real.

Oh, so they really weren't looking for a technician, right? They were looking for outsiders to apply their ideas from outside the field. Big difference. If they were looking for someone to actually build the laser I doubt they would hire somebody with no training in the field.

Did you notice that you created a fact, then ridiculed the idea you invented? Well I noticed it anyway.

Fine. I'll add details. I was in Plastics R&D as a properties testing technician and our lab was developing new Nylon co-polymers as well as Polypropylene base resins. A position for a tech for the Laser lab was posted in another building on site and I interviewed for it.
The lead researcher had brain cancer and was interviewing for new staff. I was not interviewing for his position, but he wanted to get a new tech in to learn the lab and train for the work. The conversation was as stated. I asked him about "Basic Research" and he said "yes, that what we do." Then, as an aside he told me "There really is no such thing. They always expect results that make a return on their money."
The guy seemed pretty honest. He had no hair.

 

[SkyWriting]

Simple experiments? Sure, kids do that every day in science classrooms. Anybody can do "chemistry" too, just add salt to water. I can change spark plugs in my car, does that make me a qualified mechanic? I can put band-aids on my kid's scratches, can I perform surgery too? Or prescribe drugs?Now, reinterpreting data from a 10 page long scientific paper to change it's conclusions and "disprove" evolution? For that you do need understanding and training in science.

During my employment at Findley Adhesives the person running the properties testing lab was a HS Graduate. I hear he's still there. I think they are the third largest in the world now.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, it really is not, and there is no need to show sources. Qualification and training are necessary to do science. Claiming that anybody can perform scientific experiments and draw meaningful conclusions without training is the same as claiming that anyone can be a brain surgeon, or an architect, or a car mechanic, or a computer programmer, or design a space rocket, with no training.

Yes. You need to show sources when you say such things. We are not going to take your opinion without support.

I'm not sure what you mean by "no training". A friend of mine had a TRS-80 Radio shack computer when he was in high school. He was the definition of Nerdy. But when I was in Jr. College he was re-programming the schools computer system and was 18 at the time.
Watch this someday.
Catch Me If You Can (2002) - IMDb

 

[SkyWriting]

So why is this creator of yours is so elusive?

Science says that you can't create or destroy matter and energy.

Any ideas on how it came to be then?
Science says it can't come from nothing.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[CabVet]

Yes. You need to show sources when you say such things. We are not going to take your opinion without support.

Ok, so you want evidence that qualification is required for positions in science. Here we go:

http://evol.mcmaster.ca/~brian/evoldir/Jobs/UCalifornia_Riverside.PlantEvoDevo

Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography

Physics Today Jobs - Job Search

Want more? Off-topic much?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

During my employment at Findley Adhesives the person running the properties testing lab was a HS Graduate. I hear he's still there. I think they are the third largest in the world now.

I've been a technician in the past. In England, when I was doing it, you only used to need 4 O'levels, or GCSEs as they are now called, to be a technician. These are qualifications you get at the age of about 15. To give you an idea of how unqualified this makes you to do proper science, after GCSEs you go on to do 2 year A'level courses which determine whether you are clever enough to go to university and do a degree. Average degree is 3 years study. After getting a bachelors degree you need to do a masters degree in order to stand a good chance of being employed as a basic scientist.

This is why technicians do routine lab work such as running tests on samples, and they do this under supervision.

They are not scientists.

 

[Davian]

So why is this creator of yours is so elusive?
...

Science says that you can't create or destroy matter and energy.

Any ideas on how it came to be then?
Science says it can't come from nothing.

On what do you base this assertion?

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube



Lawrence Krauss - A Universe from Nothing
February 6, 2012
Host: Chris Mooney

"We had Lawrence Krauss on Point of Inquiry less than a year ago, to discuss his recent book on the scientific works of Richard Feynman.

But in order to keep up with him, we had to have him on again. Already.

You see, Krauss has a new book out that's causing quite a stir right now—A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing.

Here's a hint as to why: Krauss's answer to this age-old question isn't God. In fact, as discussed on the program, Krauss has arguably written the book that "kicks God out of physics."

And along the way, he also manages to explain a heck of a lot of science.

Lawrence Krauss is an the internationally known theoretical physicist and popular author. He has published hundreds of scientific papers, as well as acclaimed books like the bestselling The Physics of Star Trek and Fear of Physics. He's director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University."

Lawrence Krauss - A Universe from Nothing | Point of Inquiry




"With his characteristic wry humor and wonderfully clear explanations, Krauss takes us back to the beginning of the beginning, presenting the most recent evidence for how our universe evolved—and the implications for how it’s going to end. It will provoke, challenge, and delight readers as it looks at the most basic underpinnings of existence in a whole new way. And this knowledge that our universe will be quite different in the future from today has profound implications and directly affects how we live in the present. As Richard Dawkins has described it: This could potentially be the most important scientific book with implications for supernaturalism since Darwin.

A fascinating antidote to outmoded philosophical and religious thinking, A Universe from Nothing is a provocative, game-changing entry into the debate about the existence of God and everything that exists. “Forget Jesus,” Krauss has argued, “the stars died so you could be born.”"

BARNES & NOBLE | A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss, Free Press | NOOK Book (eBook), Hardcover, Audiobook

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

<staff edit>

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

During my employment at Findley Adhesives the person running the properties testing lab was a HS Graduate. I hear he's still there. I think they are the third largest in the world now.

That's not scientist work, that's technician work. There's a big difference. To be a technician you sometimes don't need a college degree (higher-level technician jobs often do though).

To do independent academic research, you need advanced training. You'd be hard-pressed to find a principal investigator at a university without a doctoral-level degree (like a PhD, an MD, etc). The PI is the head of the lab, makes the decisions, and is over post-docs (just got PhD), students (working on PhD), and assistants (typically have a bachelors or masters). There is a hierarchy in academic science. Grad students get their PhDs and become post-docs, then work their way up to a junior professorship then get on the tenure track for a permanent spot. Assistants don't climb that ladder and typically the ceiling for them is becoming a lab manager under a PI. Sometimes assistants use their experience in the lab as a jumping point to apply to graduate school or professional school.

Science in industry can be different, because usually people get jobs in labs with a bachelors or masters and work their way up into directorship or management (often with an MBA). It is not unusual for directors of labs in industry to only have a bachelors (especially at smaller companies), but they also have decades of experience at the company and are experts at what the company does. PhDs often work in industry too, and take high-level jobs and have far less of a ladder to climb than bachelors-only people. At large companies, PhDs are requirements for certain levels of work and no one without one is going to fill that job.

So in summary, science is always hierarchical and your experience and education are intimately entwined. No one without experience and education is going to make a contribution to science that is worth anything.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's not scientist work, that's technician work. There's a big difference.... <snip>

The baloney just gets thicker from here. I've been where the rubber meets the road. Your are discussing the people riding in school buses.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

The baloney just gets thicker from here. I've been where the rubber meets the road. Your are discussing the people riding in school buses.

I worked at a mid-sized biotech company for a few years before entering academia, so I know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I worked at a mid-sized biotech company for a few years before entering academia, so I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Lion Hearted Man just wrote down the truth. It's kind of strange that someone who was a technician, like Skywriting, would be so removed from the proper scientists in the building to be unaware of how the hierarchy worked and the qualifications necessary, and where his/her own involvement fitted in.

Just for clarification, technician in a science lab is a glorified name for assistant. Lab assistant. Get the picture?