Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Thor]

[quote='Thor' pid='111553' dateline='1293583185']

I never said or implied that scientific facts are determined by the majority. However, when 99.5% of scientists agree on something (such as the age of the Earth) and they can support their contention with solid evidence, I'm inclined to believe their conclusion. In contrast, when a very small minority wants to claim that the 99.5% are off by a factor of over 400,000, and they have no evidence to support this notion,

You keep doing the very thing you are claiming to know not to do. I will say it again, scientific fact has never been and never will be based on consensus. It doesn’t amount to a hill of beans what any percentage of the scientists believe and don’t believe.

Do you even read my posts? Because you should look at it again. Notice the words solid evidence? Nowhere have I indicated that scientific facts are based on consensus, I have said they are based on solid evidence. And your usage of the word "believe" is inappropriate. Scientists do not have beliefs. They make conclusions based on evidence. "Beliefs" are what YOU have.

You’d be the guy in the early 20th century saying, “General relativity is a load of crap because only one crank named Albert believes in it and the vast majority of scientists don’t!”

Actually, I probably would have said "What an interesting idea! Is there any evidence to support it?".

The majority of scientists have been wrong time and time again.

Any examples in the last century?

Then you go on to say that the evidence says the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Evidence doesn’t “say” anything. One interpretation of some of the evidence says the earth is that old. However, another interpretation of the evidence says it is very very young.

And the way people like you "interpret" evidence would make it impossible to ever convict anyone of anything.

This would be like scientists measuring the distance from NY to LA and concluding it's 3,000 miles. Then people like you come along and want to insist that the measuring instruments are unreliable, and the actual distance from NY to LA is only 35 FEET!

It is not like saying that. Measuring the distance from NY to LA is done by direct observation.

And radiometric dating is also done by direct observation.

You cannot directly observe the age of the earth.

No, but we can directly observe the results of radiometric dating.

Horrible analogy.

I'm sure you think it is...

Rather it would be like one group saying, “Todd grew one inch this year, he is 72 inches tall, therefore he must be 72 years old.”
While a second group says, “No no, we believe that Todd has not grown at a constant rate for his entire life, and probably was not born zero inches tall, therefore we feel Todd is way younger than 72 years.”

Comparing radiometric dating with growth rates for people? Now THAT is a horrible analogy...

Of course you’d laugh at this second group and call them a bunch of cranks,

Actually, the one I would call a crank is the person who would make such a ridiculous analogy.

but you’d be just as wrong as you are now.

Yes, I'm wrong... the planet is really only 6,000 years old and I'm too blind to see it.

Really? Dozens, huh? Since you have "dozens", give me two dozen.

Sure! I’ll give you the ones we have already discussed first…


1. Soft tissue in dinosaur fossils
2. C14 in coal and diamonds.
3. Observed genetic entropy rates in the human genome indicate it can only be a few thousand years old.
4. Very small variation in Y chromosome differences around the world indicates mans origin was only a few thousand years ago.
5. Racemization of amino acids not reaching 50/50 in bones that are supposedly millions of years old. 50/50 racemization occurs in only a few thousand years.
6. Large amounts of strata are tightly bent but unbroken, indicating they were laid down in short periods of time like we observed with Mt. St. Helens, rather than millions of years.
7. Polystratic fossils. Fossilized trees spanning layers of strata that are supposedly millions of years old, yet there is not more decay in the areas of the tree that would have remained unburied for all that time indicating the trees were buried quickly not slowly.
8. Labs mimicking natural conditions have shown that black coal can naturally form in months, not millions of years like previously thought. (same thing is observed with oil.)
9. Complete lack of bioturbation in layers of strata that are supposedly millions of years old.
10. Observed formation of canyons in very short periods of time suggests that canyons we didn’t observe form but believe to be very old could be very young.
11. Horizontal and vertical erosion on coast lines happens far to quickly for the continents to be very old.
12. Discordant drainage systems found worldwide do not fit the deep time model.
13. Observed erosion rates at Niagara Falls match a time scale of a few thousand years, not its assumed age of millions of years.
14. Even ignoring the affects of a biblical flood, observed saline net input rates into the oceans indicate they are 1/50 the age the old earth crowd believes they are.
15. Also, even ignoring the affects of a global flood, the accumulation rates of sediments on the ocean floors indicates they are very young.
16. Iron-manganese nodules on the sea floor form at a rate that indicates they are only a few thousand years old. Not millions like previously believed.
17. Exponential decay in the Earth’s magnetic field indicates it is far younger than even 20,000 years.
18. The amounts of helium in zircon crystals indicate only 6000 years of radioactive decay has actually occurred.
19. Evidence of recent volcanic activity on the earth’s moon indicates it is far younger than it’s assume age of over a billion years.
20. The moon receding from the earth due to tidal friction indicates that the two would have been touching long before their assumed ages. (Note, this recession rate is slowing down, not speeding up).
21. The fact that the planet mercury has a very significant magnetic field indicates it cannot be its assumed age of billions of years, but rather much younger.
22. The faint young sun paradox.
23. No observed method for comet creation, despite their observed decay rates would mean they could only last for 10,000 years max.
24. 0.5 % p.a. growth for humans (far smaller than today’s rate) from six people 4,500 years ago would yield today’s population.
25. I’ll even spot you one in the spirit of Christian charity lol… lack of nearly enough “stone age” skeletons and artifacts for the assumed ages of human history.

Okay... now show me a legitimate scientific source that agrees with your contention that these things are all evidence of a young Earth. Good luck!

Well that was easy!

Yeah, spewing unsubstantiated bullshit is very easy.

No, it's not a non-sequitor. My point is that there is just as much support for a flat Earth in the scientific community as there is for a young Earth.

Back to not understanding what establishes a scientific fact and how evidence works again I see.

And this response is a non-sequitor.

Can you provide a scientific source that reached this conclusion? Because I'll bet you can't.

Only because you define “scientific source” as one that believes the earth is 4.5 billion years old, which of course is a logical fallacy.

So you can't cite a legitimate scientific source. Didn't think you could.

Try this analogy:

An autograph of Abraham Lincoln surfaces. Experts examine it and declare that the paper it is written on wasn't manufactured until 1920.

Would you now consider the autograph to be a forgery? Or would you think this is proof that Abraham Lincoln was alive in 1920?

Not proof that Abraham lived in 1920 considering his death was observed to happen long before that. Nobody has observed the earth to be 4.5 billion years old so this analogy fails.

Why isn't it evidence that Lincoln was alive in 1920? Couldn't I interpret this evidence and reach that conclusion? And you say Lincoln's death was observed? How do you know there wasn't a conspiracy to cover up the fact Lincoln had survived the assasination attempt? I must also point out that there have been instances where someone's death was "observed" and that person later was found to still be alive.

You seem to have the misconception that we can't know something for sure unless it is observed. That is a crock. In fact, we can know things much better when they aren't observed! Which would you give more weight? The testimony of a woman who claims she was attacked by Tom Smith? Or the results of a DNA test that indicates the skin found under the woman's fingernails most certainly was NOT from Tom Smith? According to what you're trying to sell here, you would throw out the scientific results, believe the testimony and convict Tom Smith.

Wrong. My reasoning is based upon logic, not observation. No matter how you want to twist it to match your argument.

That explains a lot considering science is based on both logic and observation. Hide in a dark box where your senses cannot pick up anything and see how much knowledge about the physical world you gain in there haha.

And how does this relate to finding a boulder at the base of a cliff and concluding the boulder fell from the cliff?