Young earth creationist needing info here...

[Willtor]

No its not. Factor in the so called anomalies and the fact that the distribution of fossils along with the appearance of man towards the latter stages in no way ever conflicted with the information garnered from text, then what is actually being erected is a straw man. Further, when all tests indicate that adaptation occurs within limits(among other findings), this renders the distribution of fossils subject to the concept which has accommodated these findings. This is Creationism.

What limits?

 

[Papias]

Sorry Greg, but after repeated unsupported and false statements (such as:

Greg wrote:

• when all tests indicate that adaptation occurs within limits(among other findings),

• In fact, with their application into experimental analysis, just the opposite occurs.

), and other incidents, like your claiming to be able to make a meaningful nested hierarchy of cars, and then refusing to actually do to so for dozens of posts, have shown me that you simply aren't credible.

Nonetheless, I wish you the best in your walk with Christ-

Papias

 

[lucaspa]

Oh, I have seen tons of interpretations of evidence to the contrary but no raw data or hard evidence that debunks young earth creationism.

You haven't been looking very hard.

My biology professor used to be a presbyterian sunday school teacher or something but became an athiest. He taught against pseudoscience but didn't give any conclusive evidence to an earth older than 10k years. I asked him once how far back can dating methods be accepted as realiable. He answer 10k years, yet evolutionists are saying things are millions and billions of years old.

That is very strange, since as a biology teacher he should at least be aware of C14 dating that goes back 50,000 years.

It would, on the other hand, cause me to relook at my accepted interpretations of some Scripture. None of these would change my view of the nature and character of God though.

Look at the first quote in my signature. That is the response of Christians when they did find out that the earth is millions of years old. Look at the date.

PS: If Adam was allegorical and not an actual Adam, how does that affect the view of original sin? This is just one of those things that will have to be modified. Thanks.

Now, the data is waay too extensive to include in a post. What I can do is point you toward books and websites that will summarize the data. To look at raw data, you will have to go deep into the geological literature. I will give you some primary papers in the scientific literature. I presume, since you are in the top 1-2% of your class, that you know how to find a university library, ask the librarian for help, and obtain the articles.

I would start out with the books: The Biblical Flood by Davis A Young nad Genesis and Geology by Gillespie. Young is both an evangelical Christian and a geologist. Both books summarize the geologcial work in the period 1600-1850 that led Christians to conclude that the earth is old.
Another book is Science and Earth History by Arthur Strahler. It is an extensive look into both geology and YEC arguments and why they are flawed.

Websites that will be of help:
www.porites.geology.uiowa.edu/index.html
http://www.palaeos.com/Geochronology/stratigraphy.html this one will give you the basics of stratigraphy
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/1/siccar-point
[URL="http://www.scottishgeology.com/outandabout/classic_sites/locations/siccar_point.html"]http://www.scottishgeology.com/outandabout/classic_sites/locations/siccar_point.html[/URL] These are sites for "Siccar Point", the most famous of unconformities. This unconformity could not possibly have been formed in less than 10,000 years.

Radiometric dating:
1. radiocarbon WEB-info
5. Radiometric Dating
8. http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html K-Ar dating intro
9. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
1. S Nemecek, Who were the first Americans? Scientific American 283: 80-87, Sept. 2000. Also good discussion of carbon-14 dating and corrections.

There are other methods of dating that show an earth at least 200,000 years old. These are ice cores showing the annual layers of accumulating ice in glaciers. These are primary papers:
[1] "Complexity of Holocene Climate as Reconstructed from a Greenland Ice
Core" S. R. O'Brien, P. A. Mayewski, L. D. Meeker, D. A. Meese, M. S.
Twickler & S. I. Witlow (1995) Science 270, 1962-1964.

[2] "The Accumulation Record from the GISP2 Core as an Indicator of Climate
Change Throughout the Holocene" D. A. Meese, A. J. Gow, P. Grootes, P. A.
Mayewski, M. Ram, M. Stuiver, K. C. Taylor, E. D. Waddington & G. A.
Zielinski (1994) Science 266, 1680-1682.

[3] "Greenland Ice Evidence of Hemispheric Lead Pollution Two Millennia Ago
by Greek and Roman civilizations" S. Hong, J.-P. Candelone, C. C. Patterson &
C. F. Boutron (1994) Science 265, 1841-1844.

There are also "varves", geological features that show annual layers:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/greenriver.htm
The Green River Formation Revisited: Crucible for New Concepts and Advances in Paleoclimatology, Tectonics, Chronostratigraphy, Sequence Stratigraphy, Isotope Geochemistry, and Paleontology (Posters)

What is an allegory? It is an example that stands for a class. The ant and grasshopper in Aesop's fables stood for the class of people that saved and stored versus the class of people that lived only for today without a thought for tomorrow.

Adam and Eve, as allegory, stand for all people. You, me, Moses, Mary Magdalene, Abraham Lincoln, etc. Each of us sins sometime during our life. Remember, Jesus died for your sins, not Adam's. Yours. Adam is an allegory to say that, at some point, each of us disobeys God (sins).

 

[ServantJohn]

You haven't been looking very hard.

How about you keep your rude comments to yourself. Are people like you what this site is made of? I came here to start looking and all I have found is rude comment after rude comment. If you people can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. What makes you guys think you have the right to be rude to anyone that does not agree with you or in my case has a question. Do you honestly feel that you are doing God's will here?

 

[lucaspa]

Further, when all tests indicate that adaptation occurs within limits

The tests show the opposite. I suggest you read up on phylogenetic analysis or we can discuss that in more detail if you wish. Adaptation does not have limits in creating new "kinds".

Lol

You might want to try to avoid the Argument from Ridicule. What you are doing by laughing at "all truth is God's truth" is denying that God created. That violates one of the prime tenets of the Christian faith -- look at the Nicene Creed.

 

[Papias]

John, you may have missed them in the fold, but I posted a couple somewhat lengthy posts, #18 and #19, in response to your OP (and welcoming you to the forum. Did you see them?


God Bless-

Papias

 

[ServantJohn]

John, you may have missed them in the fold, but I posted a couple somewhat lengthy posts, #18 and #19, in response to your OP (and welcoming you to the forum. Did you see them?


God Bless-

Papias

Post #18 seemed to be more applicable after I have come to a final decision as opposed to helping me come to a final decision either way. The information about the different methods is good but I have seen the counter argument before. The argument is that if a method does not agree with accepted scientific beliefs, it is thrown out as unreliable. That is used to explain why the methods all agree, because those that didn't got thrown out. It's kind of the difference between precision and accuracy. They may all be precise in that they give the same dates but all completely inacurrate as to the actual age.

I actually looked up the information you provided in #19 and it was very helpful. Someone linked me to the Beyond the Firmament videos and I watched all of them. They were very informative and convincing I might add.

My issue has been that I have read much of the information in the books which is an interpretation of the data. At times I actually started to look to get answers, I would find an article but then have to pay for it to get deeper into the raw data and see how they handled things, if they actually did show that information. It just wasn't worth it to me at the time to pay to find out. I was hoping that someone here would be able to point me to free resources of the actual studies, not just the researcher's interpretations of the data.

When I was taking hydrology, we would develop formulas to be used to determine how much water was flowing based on depth. You could estimate discharge using the formulas within the range of sampled depths such as if I had calculated the discharge when the stream was 1 foot deep and again at depth of 3 feet, I could use the formula to estimate between 1 to 3 feet. I could not use the formula to estimate discharge when the depth was 4 feet. Well, you get the idea.

I'm not feeling very well today so gonna cut this short right now.

His will be done,
John

 

[Greg1234]

The tests show the opposite. I suggest you read up on phylogenetic analysis or we can discuss that in more detail if you wish. Adaptation does not have limits in creating new "kinds".

It's up to you to provide testing showing the creation of new kinds. There is no reason to entertain speculation derived from looking at the distribution of fossils, an oservation already adequately explained in my persuasion, unless I am already binded by a materialistic clause.

You might want to try to avoid the Argument from Ridicule. What you are doing by laughing at "all truth is God's truth" is denying that God created. That violates one of the prime tenets of the Christian faith -- look at the Nicene Creed.

Thats the very thing which surely must be said in jest. Witnessing the monopolization of truth, means that it will soon dangle above the fireplace next to "reason" and "interpretation". All victims of a prior hijacking. No one is denying that God created. And to be lying because Darwinism is "truth", is a novel but laughable venture.

 

[Mallon]

It's up to you to provide testing showing the creation of new kinds.

Until the term "kind" can be defined and a means to objectively identify what it is is established, the whole notion is an untestable idea wrapped in pseudoscience.

 

[Willtor]

It's up to you to provide testing showing the creation of new kinds. There is no reason to entertain speculation derived from looking at the distribution of fossils, an oservation already adequately explained in my persuasion, unless I am already binded by a materialistic clause.

Thats the very thing which surely must be said in jest. Witnessing the monopolization of truth, means that it will soon dangle above the fireplace next to "reason" and "interpretation". All victims of a prior hijacking. No one is denying that God created. And to be lying because Darwinism is "truth", is a novel but laughable venture.

What is a "kind"?

 

[Greg1234]

It's no surpise that the word of today is now "kind". Brought up in the form of a hackneyed deflection to not only create the appearance of a science v religion debate, but also to give the impression that the only hindrance to Darwin's assertion is the definition of the word "kind". Unfortunately, "kind" does not need to be defined for the level of conservation exposed through both long term and short term experiments to be acknowledged. Results expressing the true nature of adaptation do not have to be thrown out because you cannot obtain the definition of the word "kind". Truly noteworthy conveniences should these requests be acknowledged. Speculations do not surpass experimentation results and are taken into consideration whether or not you choose to divert attention from same to the religiously oriented concepts. As they are manifested in the scientific community, the results obtained fall well short of even the broadest definition of a kind, much less for anymore constriction which would come to the forefront and be imposed. If anything, it will be creationists who may need to tighten the definition of "kind" to further comply with the discoveries being unraveled and established, not it's accommodation to Darwinian concepts. The infinitude of Darwinian assertions first form around random mutations, a concept which continues to plagiarize the results obtained, advertising it's viability under the sponsorship of the Darwinian enterprise. Should any debate be pursued regarding the faculties for an indefinite climb across the planes of life, the potency of stochastic changes is first examined.

 

[Mallon]

It's no surpise that the word of today is now "kind". Brought up in the form of a hackneyed deflection to not only create the appearance of a science v religion debate, but also to give the impression that the only hindrance to Darwin's assertion is the definition of the word "kind". Unfortunately, "kind" does not need to be defined for the level of conservation exposed through both long term and short term experiments to be acknowledged. Results expressing the true nature of adaptation do not have to be thrown out because you cannot obtain the definition of the word "kind". Truly noteworthy conveniences should these requests be acknowledged. Speculations do not surpass experimentation results and are taken into consideration whether or not you choose to divert attention from same to the religiously oriented concepts. As they are manifested in the scientific community, the results obtained fall well short of even the broadest definition of a kind, much less for anymore constriction which would come to the forefront and be imposed. If anything, it will be creationists who may need to tighten the definition of "kind" to further comply with the discoveries being unraveled and established, not it's accommodation to Darwinian concepts. The infinitude of Darwinian assertions first form around random mutations, a concept which continues to plagiarize the results obtained, advertising it's viability under the sponsorship of the Darwinian enterprise. Should any debate be pursued regarding the faculties for an indefinite climb across the planes of life, the potency of stochastic changes is first examined.

Am I the only one who didn't understand that?

 

[Papias]

John wrote:

The information about the different methods is good but I have seen the counter argument before. The argument is that if a method does not agree with accepted scientific beliefs, it is thrown out as unreliable. That is used to explain why the methods all agree, because those that didn't got thrown out.

John-

There are two reasons that scientists are probably not throwing out data that doesn’t fit the old age data.

The first is that science doesn’t work that way. In science, it is the evidence, above all else, that is the ultimate authority. That’s why science moved past the ideas of Aristotle, and why we had a scientific revolution in the first place. If scientists threw out data that didn’t agree with expectations or with other studies, then you can see that throwing out data doesn’t fit the scientific method. That’s why it is drilled into our heads, over and over, not to ignore results that don’t fit. Scientists are trained to look for them, and investigate them. We’ve got a sign in our lab that reads “the most exciting thing you can hear in a lab is not “Eureka!”, but instead is “now that’s odd……..””. If scientists threw out data that didn’t fit, nearly all major discoveries wouldn’t have happened, and we’d still be riding in horse & buggys. That leaves one to claim that science normally doesn’t work that way, but in this one area, in this one subject, they throw out data. That doesn’t make sense.

The second reason is even more significant, and that second reason to reject the idea that scientists around the world are throwing out the data from hundreds of dating methods is simply that scientists know that a result that doesn’t fit expectations, if that result can be confirmed, is their ticket to fame, fortune, and tenure. Scientists have a HUGE incentive to disprove evolution (or any other established idea, like the age of the earth or even just an established dating method, like K-Ar) with verifiable evidence. Science works by greatly rewarding anyone who provides evidence that doesn't fit with the prevailing model. Any other scientist can confirm this as well, and it's what I've seen in the 20 years I've worked in science. We are all desperately looking for any hard evidence that doesn't fit with the prevailing models, even chasing down rumors of such from others, because we know if we publish hard evidence that doesn't fit, we get fame, fortune and tenure. Einstein got those because he found evidence that didn't fit with Newton's widely accepted physics, Dirac got that because he found evidence that didn't fit in the prevailing chemistry ofthe day, Newton got that because his evidence didn't fit with Aristotle, Mme Curie got that because her evidence didn't fit in the prevailing view of chemistry, and on and on, including practically all the big names, like Hubbel, etc. The hard part is that it must be repeatable, real evidence, not word games and distortions. That’s why the discoverer of the As tolerant bacteria named the experimental batch of bacteria “GFAJ”, for “Give Felise A Job”. That's why saying that a scientist would throw out or ignore data that doesn't fit expected ideas is like saying that a homeless person would throw out a winning lottery ticket.


Papias

 

[ServantJohn]

John wrote:



John-

There are two reasons that scientists are probably not throwing out data that doesn’t fit the old age data.

The first is that science doesn’t work that way. In science, it is the evidence, above all else, that is the ultimate authority. That’s why science moved past the ideas of Aristotle, and why we had a scientific revolution in the first place. If scientists threw out data that didn’t agree with expectations or with other studies, then you can see that throwing out data doesn’t fit the scientific method. That’s why it is drilled into our heads, over and over, not to ignore results that don’t fit. Scientists are trained to look for them, and investigate them. We’ve got a sign in our lab that reads “the most exciting thing you can hear in a lab is not “Eureka!”, but instead is “now that’s odd……..””. If scientists threw out data that didn’t fit, nearly all major discoveries wouldn’t have happened, and we’d still be riding in horse & buggys. That leaves one to claim that science normally doesn’t work that way, but in this one area, in this one subject, they throw out data. That doesn’t make sense.

The second reason is even more significant, and that second reason to reject the idea that scientists around the world are throwing out the data from hundreds of dating methods is simply that scientists know that a result that doesn’t fit expectations, if that result can be confirmed, is their ticket to fame, fortune, and tenure. Scientists have a HUGE incentive to disprove evolution (or any other established idea, like the age of the earth or even just an established dating method, like K-Ar) with verifiable evidence. Science works by greatly rewarding anyone who provides evidence that doesn't fit with the prevailing model. Any other scientist can confirm this as well, and it's what I've seen in the 20 years I've worked in science. We are all desperately looking for any hard evidence that doesn't fit with the prevailing models, even chasing down rumors of such from others, because we know if we publish hard evidence that doesn't fit, we get fame, fortune and tenure. Einstein got those because he found evidence that didn't fit with Newton's widely accepted physics, Dirac got that because he found evidence that didn't fit in the prevailing chemistry ofthe day, Newton got that because his evidence didn't fit with Aristotle, Mme Curie got that because her evidence didn't fit in the prevailing view of chemistry, and on and on, including practically all the big names, like Hubbel, etc. The hard part is that it must be repeatable, real evidence, not word games and distortions. That’s why the discoverer of the As tolerant bacteria named the experimental batch of bacteria “GFAJ”, for “Give Felise A Job”. That's why saying that a scientist would throw out or ignore data that doesn't fit expected ideas is like saying that a homeless person would throw out a winning lottery ticket.


Papias

As a whole, I agree with you. You make an excellent point and to conclude that all scientists have done this or that is farfetched. In the time that I have worked in a lab, I saw scientists do exactly that when it came to throwing out data. I have seen outliers simply erased and another number put in that fit the rest of the samples. There was no other reason for this other than it didn't look right. That's why I quit working at that lab. I did not want my name associated with anything going on there.

We also don't have to look very far back into history and find numerous people who lost everything they had because they came up with something that didn't fit the status quo. Remember the scientist that did a study on the intelligence of various ethnic groups and interpreted his findings to show that blacks were less intelligent as a whole than whites? I am not sure where he is today but he was forced to come out and apologize for his study. I never heard anything about the data and how his study was conducted. Simply because it appeared to be racist, he was ridiculed.

With that said, I will agree with your points. There are plenty of christian creation scientists that could develop other dating methods instead of simply trying to debunk everything the other team is doing.

 

[lucaspa]

How about you keep your rude comments to yourself. Are people like you what this site is made of? I came here to start looking and all I have found is rude comment after rude comment.

Did you read the rest of the post? I gave you possibility after possibilty of where to look. But I suppose this is good way to distract from the information you were looking for but contradicts your statement "I have not seen any evidence"

But the comment was not meant to be rude, but simply a statement of your efforts. The information is out there in multiple places, from geology textbooks to numerous websites. To say "I have not seen any evidence" would be like me saying "I have not seen any arguments for young earth" Those arguments are all over the place and even a minimal research effort on my part would find them.

Do you honestly feel that you are doing God's will here?

Actually, yes. Now, would you like to get down to cases and comment on the sources of evidence I posted for you? I did go to some effort to put them up for you. Can you be polite enough to acknowledge that effort and the sources?

 

[lucaspa]

The argument is that if a method does not agree with accepted scientific beliefs, it is thrown out as unreliable.

Can you give us some examples?

That is not the case. After all, young earth was the accepted scientific theory prior to 1800. The methods of geology were showing ages that did not agree with that accepted theory. The methods did not get thrown out, the theory did. The same would happen today.

That is used to explain why the methods all agree, because those that didn't got thrown out. It's kind of the difference between precision and accuracy. They may all be precise in that they give the same dates but all completely inacurrate as to the actual age.

Precision is used within a test, not between tests. It is a measurement of how close the different trials of the test give the same answer. It is agreement between different methods that helps establish accuracy.

For instance, the amount of sea salts is sometimes used as "evidence" for a young earth. Each salt is precise within measurement of that salt, but when you look at the ages of the earth calculated btween the different salts, you find an age of the earth ranging from 350 million years to 2,000 years. That tells you that the method itself is not accurate.

Can you give us some examples of tests you think get "thrown out" because they don't agree?

My issue has been that I have read much of the information in the books which is an interpretation of the data.

It's more accurate to say it is a summary of the data. For a free resource, I suggest any university library. They will have copies of the relevant journals so you can get to the primary articles.

 

[Papias]

John wrote:

You make an excellent point and to conclude that all scientists have done this or that is farfetched.

Thanks!

I have seen outliers simply erased and another number put in that fit the rest of the samples. There was no other reason for this other than it didn't look right. That's why I quit working at that lab. I did not want my name associated with anything going on there.

Good move. It sounds like what they were doing wasn't science, but rather was mental self gratification. With that kind of unethical behvior going on, it's good that you left. Humans can sometimes be all too human. Also, economically, it's good you left. Working there means that your pension will come from there, and if they aren't actually doing the science they claim to be doing, the company will miss any big discoveries (because they falsified the data showing it), and thus miss out on the profit from them, and you'll have no pension.

This must not have been a lab the published papers. The peer review and replication process is there to weed those out. If a result is reported, and someone else doing it fails to get the same results, after multiple tries, it attracts a lot of attention, and so frauds are sometimes found, like in the case of the Korean scientist a few years ago. One can fake their own labbook, but can't get the rest of the natural world to do so.

We also don't have to look very far back into history and find numerous people who lost everything they had because they came up with something that didn't fit the status quo. Remember the scientist that did a study on the intelligence of various ethnic groups and interpreted his findings to show that blacks were less intelligent as a whole than whites?

It sounds like you are talking about "The Bell Curve". 'sounds like that was a case of extrapolating beyond the data, not that the data said what he claimed they said, in which case, science worked well to weed out his work.

Simply because it appeared to be racist, he was ridiculed.

I don't think so, if that's the case you are thinking of. I think Dr.Gould showed that he had ignored data and misrepresented what he didn't hide. Off topic though.

With that said, I will agree with your points. There are plenty of christian creation scientists that could develop other dating methods instead of simply trying to debunk everything the other team is doing.

But there is exactly the problem - the name "Christian Creation Scientist".

You know that huge chunk of scientists are Christian, and so there are literally hundreds of scientists who are outspoken, devout Christians, including in Biology, and including those at the top (look at Ken Miller, Dr. Ayayla, and Francis Collins, just to name a few). So there are already plenty of Christian Scientists (not the denomination, I mean).

So what could be meant by "Creation Scientist"? A scientist is someone who does experiments and follows the evidence wherever the evidence leads. So one can't put the name of a conclusion "Creation Scientist" as an adjective ahead of "Scientist". What would a "Creation Scientist" do? Conduct experiements and ignore results that don't support his preconceived creationism? It seems that "Creation Scientist" is a contradiction in terms, just as "super relativistic light" scientist, or "coffe cancer Cure Scientist" are contradictions. The point is that conclusions are made based on the data, not before (and they are always tentative anyway). Science is the polar opposite of starting with an idea and getting evidence for it. Science is taking a hypothesis, and finding data that will either support or reject it, and the doing what the data says to do.

In fact, all scientists already are looking for new dating methods, and especially are looking for ones that don't fit the expected results. There's a Nobel prize in it for them, and they know it.

Papias

 

[ServantJohn]

Did you read the rest of the post? I gave you possibility after possibilty of where to look. But I suppose this is good way to distract from the information you were looking for but contradicts your statement "I have not seen any evidence"

But the comment was not meant to be rude, but simply a statement of your efforts. The information is out there in multiple places, from geology textbooks to numerous websites. To say "I have not seen any evidence" would be like me saying "I have not seen any arguments for young earth" Those arguments are all over the place and even a minimal research effort on my part would find them.

Actually, yes. Now, would you like to get down to cases and comment on the sources of evidence I posted for you? I did go to some effort to put them up for you. Can you be polite enough to acknowledge that effort and the sources?

You really need to learn how to read. Do you judge a person's effort by their first few steps off of the starting line? You completely ignored what I had said and what I said after that post yet you want me to somehow bow down to you for your wonderful, merciful helpfulness? Don't worry about helping me out. There have been plenty of others who have helped greatly and they didn't have to be rude when doing it.

 

[lucaspa]

It's up to you to provide testing showing the creation of new kinds. There is no reason to entertain speculation derived from looking at the distribution of fossils, an oservation already adequately explained in my persuasion, unless I am already binded by a materialistic clause.

Sorry, but phylogenetic analysis has nothing to do with fossils, but rather with the sequences of bases in the DNA of currently living species. I suppose, now that we have a genome for H. neandertal, that this could be included.

Greg, a bit of advice. Before giving an irrelevant answer, you might want to either look up any terms that are unfamiliar to you or ask what those terms are.

No one is denying that God created.

I'm afraid you are not understanding the consequences of your own statements. One of the consequences of your Appeal to Ridicule is to deny that God created.

 

[Mallon]

Sorry, but phylogenetic analysis has nothing to do with fossils, but rather with the sequences of bases in the DNA of currently living species.

Surely you recognize that cladograms can be built on morphological characters, too, no?