Will Creation Science Ever Be Accepted By Mainstream Scientists?

[mindlight]

Not in quantities that can/would be deposited in various layers it doesn't. Furthermore these "non typical' ash layers correspond quite nicely to known large scale eruptions.

A catastrophic change of some sort wouldn't even necesarily produce "layers", let alone layers with materials that can be traced to known historical events.



Why not?
http://climatechange.umaine.edu/icecores/IceCore/Ice_Core_101.html



How so?



A perceived "lack of precision" would ultimately correlate to a few years at best, certainly not enough to get you from 800,000 years all the way down to 6,000 years.



The only way that daughter species would be present would be for God to go completely out of his way to make the Earth *appear* to be older than it is, simply to confuse us. Why would God even do such a thing?



Your 'method' isn't an actual scientific method, and therefore it's not going to be convincing to "scientists". If you're going to get "scientists" to take YEC seriously, you'll have to at least make an attempt to support a young Earth concept with actual evidence. Doubt of any other random theory isn't the same thing as supporting your own assertions. Science requires evidence and support for all assertions, not just 'doubt' about another idea.

Keep in mind that your argument is ultimately based upon the presumption that your personal "revelation' is somehow more "enlightened and true" compared to say the Pope, or any other "Christian" that just so happens to support the concept of an ancient Earth, which by the way happens to include the *majority* of all Christians. What makes your personal 'revelation' more accurate than any other Christian revelation? Catholics tend to embrace an ancient Earth, and YEC is a minority viewpoint even inside of Christian circles.

One of the biggest issues Young Earth Creationism runs up into is all scientific evidence points the the Earth (and the universe) at the very least being older than 4000/5000 years old (or whatever the number is that they are using). The only creationist hypothesis that doesn't "exactly" go against scientific evidence would be the Omphalos hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

This states that some thousand odd years ago, God created the universe in it's entirety, but created it with signs of great age. It's sorta like if you took a video and started watching it halfway through. Even though it "started" at he half way point, if you rewound, you'd go back past the "start".

So by this theory God, being all powerful of course, created the universe that at it's moment of creation was already 13 billion or so years old. If you "rewound" the universe, it would play out all 13 billion years of it's "false" history in reverse. By the Omphalos hypothesis, the universe created 4000/5000 years ago would still be 13 billion years old anyways.

Obviously, the vast majority of people wouldn't think this is likely the actual case.

I could state that the universe actually popped into existence the moment before I started typing out this post, it's just that is so happened to come into existence with all the signs of being here much longer, such as all human memory, all the light already moving from distant stars, all the history books, all the buildings and roads and trees, and so on and so on. There's no way to prove that the universe did indeed pop into existence like that, but there's also no way to disprove it.

And science can't 'work' with something that cannot be both proven or disproven. Science cannot confirm the existence or lack of a soul either, at this point we enter the realm of faith rather than science.

Science is grounded on what we can observe, what we can deduce, and what we can experiment with. If the universe was "created" 4000 years ago, but with all the signs of being 13 billion years old, then the universe is still 13 billion years old.

And no, I don't believe in the Omphalos hypothesis. I don't believe in YEC at all. I believe the universe is 13.82 billion years old (give or take a few), started at the Big Bang, and evolution is how we got to Homo sapiens sapiens.

Or Gods primary purpose of creating a universe in which daughter elements were already present in rock samples had nothing to do with satisfying the dating requirements of later scientists

 

[sfs]

Then you missed the point of my response. You do not tell a person who lives in the light to walk into a dark room just because you have spent decades sitting in it.

Got it. "A tad condescending" was a gross understatement on my part, it turns out.

 

[mindlight]

Do you live on the ice sheets in Greenland, or in Antarctica? If not, your claims fall pretty flat. What we find in the ice layers is both ash and strong chemical signals, such as a sharp rise in sulfuric acid. We find the known volcanic eruptions in the right layers.

The ice layers record the temperature and conditions under which they formed.

Any lack of precision would show up when we compare different ice records and then compare those ice records to independent records such as tree rings and lake varves. All of these methods are consistent with one another.

We have exactly that audit trail. When zircons form, the exclude Pb and include U. We can watch it happen in the lab. Also, the temperatures and pressures needed to change half lives are well in excess of those needed to destroy the rocks where these isotopes are found. Again, this is all shown in the lab. We also have astronomical observations which verify that the physical laws that govern radioactive decay have been the same for billions of years.

I am guessing that you believe that a supernatural deity produced life through a supernatural process, and you have no evidence for any of it happening nor do you expect to find any evidence of it.

How is that being an extreme skeptic?

I start with the Creator and you start with His creation is the basic difference. I am sceptical about all supernatural and natural claims that contradict what I know of Him and His basic reality and what He has said.

Ice compression at the kinds of thickness we are talking about at the lower levels means may of these layers are really thin. Dating layers by ash and chemical processes is not reliable due to variable results from different samples , local seasonal melting, compression, the discovery of world war 2 bombers at ice depths that would date them hundreds of years before the war....levels of yearly snow accumulation exceeding proposed yearly ice layer depth assumed by uniformitarian assumption etc etc.

http://www.icr.org/article/ice-cores-age-earth/

https://answersingenesis.org/enviro...nd-ice-cores-show-one-hundred-thousand-years/

 

[mindlight]

Got it. "A tad condescending" was a gross understatement on my part, it turns out.

Condescension is not the right word. I do not feel patronising and disdainfully superior to you. I believe you to be living in deep darkness and calling on credentials which bolster error rather than truth. I have a contempt for lies not those deceived by them. You are my equal relating to your origins as one made in Gods image, Christ sacrifice for our sins and potential future in Him.

 

[Loudmouth]

Or Gods primary purpose of creating a universe in which daughter elements were already present in rock samples had nothing to do with satisfying the dating requirements of later scientists

That is a pretty big coincidence given that God would have to carefully balance multiple isotopes so that at least 3 different independent radiometric dating methods would produce the same results. For example, here are nearly 200 measurements of rocks at the K/T boundary using multiple different types of rock and 3 independent isotope systems: K/Ar, Rb/Sr, and U/Pb. All of those different radiometric dating methods using different isotopes that decay through different mechanisms all produce the same date:

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

This isn't a case of just randomly throwing in some daughter element. In order to get these results, God would have to know that we would use radiometric dating and then specifically adjust those amounts to give a fake date across three isotope systems. What you are saying is that God purposefully faked data just to make the Earth look old.

 

[Loudmouth]

Condescension is not the right word. I do not feel patronising and disdainfully superior to you. I believe you to be living in deep darkness and calling on credentials which bolster error rather than truth. I have a contempt for lies not those deceived by them. You are my equal relating to your origins as one made in Gods image, Christ sacrifice for our sins and potential future in Him.

So says the person who has swallowed creation science whole.

 

[Loudmouth]

I start with the Creator and you start with His creation is the basic difference. I am sceptical about all supernatural and natural claims that contradict what I know of Him and His basic reality and what He has said.

Would God create fake evidence in the Creation just to fool us?

 

[sfs]

Condescension is not the right word. I do not feel patronising and disdainfully superior to you. I believe you to be living in deep darkness and calling on credentials which bolster error rather than truth. I have a contempt for lies not those deceived by them. You are my equal relating to your origins as one made in Gods image, Christ sacrifice for our sins and potential future in Him.

Right. And if I told you that you are my equal as God's creation and his child, but that everything you believe is a product of your deep ignorance, bad education and intellectual blindness, it wouldn't be condescending in the least. Uh huh.

Rather than simply asserting the superiority of your spiritual state, how about instead you address the point I raised before: why can't creationism tell me anything accurate about the physical world? That would seem to be a more profitable way to demonstrate the superiority of your point of view.

 

[mindlight]

Right. And if I told you that you are my equal as God's creation and his child, but that everything you believe is a product of your deep ignorance, bad education and intellectual blindness, it wouldn't be condescending in the least. Uh huh.

Rather than simply asserting the superiority of your spiritual state, how about instead you address the point I raised before: why can't creationism tell me anything accurate about the physical world? That would seem to be a more profitable way to demonstrate the superiority of your point of view.

Creationism tells you that their is a Creator that has designed the universe we inhabit and who sustains it. Creationism therefore provides a foundation that explains the seen and unseen causes of our existence. Thus it both encourages science as a legitimate and reasonable exploration of Gods creation and sets limits to what science can find out. On 90% of what scientists do creationists should differ very little to an honest scientific approach. In speculative areas such as origins and human nature the antagonism should be absolute. So Creationists will either agree with you completely or disagree with you completely. If you are looking for something different you will not find it.

 

[mindlight]

Would God create fake evidence in the Creation just to fool us?

No but he might create a universe decorated with rock combinations that defy your dating assumptions for reasons of 10 dimensional aesthetics

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationism tells you that their is a Creator that has designed the universe we inhabit and who sustains it. Creationism therefore provides a foundation that explains the seen and unseen causes of our existence. Thus it both encourages science as a legitimate and reasonable exploration of Gods creation and sets limits to what science can find out. On 90% of what scientists do creationists should differ very little to an honest scientific approach. In speculative areas such as origins and human nature the antagonism should be absolute. So Creationists will either agree with you completely or disagree with you completely. If you are looking for something different you will not find it.

Nothing you said describes things we actually observe in reality. I don't see one prediction of what we should see. For example, can creationism predict genetic distances between species. If human cytochrome c is X% different than chicken cytochrome C at the DNA level, what should the distance between mouse and chicken cytochrome C be, and why? Evolution can make this prediction. Can creationism?

 

[Loudmouth]

No but he might create a universe decorated with rock combinations that defy your dating assumptions for reasons of 10 dimensional aesthetics

That doesn't make any sense. Why would "10 dimensional aesthetics" require isotope combinations that produce the same dates across 3 different isotopes systems?

It seems that you are just making this stuff up. Am I wrong?

 

[mindlight]

So says the person who has swallowed creation science whole.

No I have swallowed the bible whole. I use creation science as a source of questions which most mainstream scientists are either too blind or cowardly to ask. But my purpose is only to establish legitimate grounds for doubt rather than to affirm the attempt to argue on grounds of nature what has been established on the grounds of the Divine. Mainly science and scientists probably have a better grasp on facts and have tested their theories better and more consistently. It is only when they start talking about origins, human nature or remote cosmology that they go all wild eyed and frothy at the mouth.

 

[mindlight]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would "10 dimensional aesthetics" require isotope combinations that produce the same dates across 3 different isotopes systems?

It seems that you are just making this stuff up. Am I wrong?

Or neither of us really understand Gods methodology. Just cause their are consistencies in dates determined by the decay rates of different isotopes does not mean that we have to assume 100% parent isotope in an original sample. If it is not 100% we do not know how old the original rock was.

 

[Chicken Little]

I call them primates, just as humans are still primates. I try not to use paraphyletic terms such as monkey.

I see that you won't look at the evidence. Kind of predictable at this point.

all lies , your religion , the priests of your religion doesn't know how anything alive even works.... they should stick with dead ,cold and hard.. ... the religion that pawns itself off as naturalists , what a joke ! it and it's minions are just the biggest bully on the block today anyway. nothing new.. but that shall end.

 

[mindlight]

Nothing you said describes things we actually observe in reality. I don't see one prediction of what we should see. For example, can creationism predict genetic distances between species. If human cytochrome c is X% different than chicken cytochrome C at the DNA level, what should the distance between mouse and chicken cytochrome C be, and why? Evolution can make this prediction. Can creationism?

I predict that men will remain men and chickens will remain chickens. That speciation in the broadest sense will never occur.

 

[Michael]

Or Gods primary purpose of creating a universe in which daughter elements were already present in rock samples had nothing to do with satisfying the dating requirements of later scientists

If their presense had nothing to do with satisfying later dating requirements, then why would so many various samples, and different daughter elements all come up with a similar figure? The only way that could or would ever happen is A) the Earth is in fact ancient as the evidence suggests, or B) God deliberately intended to mislead and confuse later scientists and deliberately planted false evidence all over the Earth, that all happens to coincide with a similar (misleading) date range. Your 'excuses' really just don't add up.

Note that you have now handwaved at two different "methods" of dating samples (ice cores and radiometric dating) and yet you haven't produced any actual evidence of any sort to support a young Earth? This is exactly the reason why YEC isn't ever going to be accepted by actual "scientists'. Your position is not based upon a presentation of actual scientific evidence to support a young Earth, it's based upon a complete denial of any and all scientific evidence.

We could of course discuss astronomy and the distances involved in various objects and the fact we see light from objects that are billion of light years from Earth if you prefer? Why would even see light from such distant objects today?

The one point that is related to religion that I would like to hear you explain is why your personal "revelation' is any more valid or accurate than the 'revelations' of the majority of Christians the world over? Most Christians come to a completely different conclusion than you do. Are their revelations less accurate than yours, and how do you know that for a fact?

 

[Michael]

No I have swallowed the bible whole. I use creation science as a source of questions which most mainstream scientists are either too blind or cowardly to ask.

Considering the fact that even the majority of Christians disagree with your assumptions about the age of the Earth, that is a rather an egotistical statement wouldn't you agree? Not only have they asked themselves these questions, they've answered them publicly too.

But my purpose is only to establish legitimate grounds for doubt....

FYI, you really haven't done anything of the sort however. The so called "doubts' that you raise haven't really been anything close to "legitimate" to begin with. They've been simple handwaves at the evidence based on some perceived superiority over your personal ability to receive "revelations" that most Christians disagree with, and that virtually all scientists disagree with as well. I've yet to see you present any actual scientific evidence to support your own beliefs, or anything resembling an actual scientific argument against the overwhelming amount of evidence that refutes your assertions.

It is only when they start talking about origins, human nature or remote cosmology that they go all wild eyed and frothy at the mouth.

FYI, personal insults aren't a valid scientific argument either.

 

[Loudmouth]

I predict that men will remain men and chickens will remain chickens. That speciation in the broadest sense will never occur.

You have failed in 3 major ways. Nice accomplishment.

First, evolution also predicts that men will remain men and chickens remain chickens just as both men and chickens have remained amniotes, as was their common ancestor. Apparently, you don't understand how evolution works.

Second, we have directly observed speciation happening.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Third, you didn't answer the question. As usual, creationism can't be used to answer real questions about the real world. The answer is that humans and mice are genetically equidistant from chickens so the differences should be the same. Only by using evolutionary relationships can you make this prediction. Again, creationism is pretty useless for doing actual science. Evolution is extremely useful.

 

[Loudmouth]

all lies , your religion , the priests of your religion doesn't know how anything alive even works.... they should stick with dead ,cold and hard.. ... the religion that pawns itself off as naturalists , what a joke ! it and it's minions are just the biggest bully on the block today anyway. nothing new.. but that shall end.

Funny how you can't even address the evidence.