@messenger @BicycleRepairMan

I want to share this video with you because it really gets to the heart of the issue. It shows how the conception of deep time came about, the history of it, the experiments that supposedly proved it, and the minds that contributed to it. It is presented by a PHD in Geology, a former atheist and professor who has published many papers and was involved in the scientific community before going into creation science. It can get pretty indepth and some of it was over my head. All in all, it is very interesting, even if you don't agree with all of the conclusions:

@BicycleRepairMan

Also vice versa. Which might sound circular, but isnt. Uniformitarianism is of course the simplest assumtion (occams razor) but it also correlates well with the available evidence. If natural laws acted differently in the past, we would presumably find EVIDENCE that it did. And correlating data is not a "hall of mirrors, it is evidence of correlation. This is basic statistics and empiri.

Thank you for your considered reply. Well see, here's the thing. Creationists and evolutionists are not looking at two sets of evidences. We are looking at the same evidence and interpreting it differently. There isn't creationist evidence and evolutionist evidence, there is just evidence which we both interpret according to the assumptions we bring to it. We are both looking at the same geologic record and saying it happened much differently. The evidence yields different conclusions depending on what assumptions you bring to it.

Uniformitarian is only the first assumption scientists bring to the evidence. The secondary assumption is that the different layers represent vast amounts of time. They come to this conclusion because they observe the rates of these processes are very slow today, and since in uniformitarian, the present is the key to the past, they assume that present day geological features must have taken millions or billions of years to form because of present day rates. Because of this, the completely exclude the hypothesis that the features we see could form very quickly. Therefore, they are biased in their interpretation and will miss the evidence which actually points to rapid formation. I'll give you a good example:

"Previously geologists had thought that constant, rapid water flow prevented mud's constituents -- silts and clays -- from coalescing and gathering at the bottoms of rivers, lakes and oceans. This has led to a bias, Schieber explains, that wherever mudstones are encountered in the sedimentary rock record, they are generally interpreted as quiet water deposits."

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/web/page/normal/7022.html

For a long time geologists believed that mudstones could only form a certain way, which is by slow moving water. They had completely ruled out that it could be formed rapidly. Therefore, whenever they saw mudstones the "story" the rocks told them was that of a slow process taking vast amounts of time. Yet, mudstones, they have found, can be deposited very rapidly. This is actually evidence for a global flood because mudstones make up 2/3s of the record for sedimentary rock. Yet they never saw that because of their assumptions of everything taking vast amounts of time to form. This is a classic example of how the assumptions you bring changes the interpretation of the data. Same mudstones, but the different assumptions yielded a different conclusion from the same evidence.

This is further complicated by the matter of evolution. Biostratigraphy has played a decisive role in determining the relative ages of rock layers around the world, which brings with it a whole other host of assumptions. Because evolution requires vast amounts of time, and they interpret a certain evolutionary progression through the fossil record, therefore they again make the assumption different layers must represent vast amounts of time, based on their evolutionary assumptions. They then use that assumption to validate their uniformitarian assumptions and call this evidence.

The main issue is the assumption of uniformitarian to explain the fossil record. It denies that a catastrophe like a global flood could have caused the features we see today. The geologists believe things happened very slowly, whereas creation geologists believe they have formed very quickly. There is a whole lot of evidence which shows that layers could be laid down rapidly, and canyons and other features could have been cut very quickly. Geologists do acknowledge this, which is why there is another branch of geology called Catastrophism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

They can not deny that many of the things they thought took millions of years "stalactites forming, fossilization, formation of oil and precious metals) can actually happen very quickly. They still deny, however, that a global catastrophe could have been responsible for all of it, despite the fact that the whole Earth is covered by sedimentary rock which is primarily laid down by water.

And this is where we are with fossils and dating. We dont just make wild guesses on the basis of 2 or 3 fossils and one shitty chemistry experiment involving half-lives; We have literally thousands of datapoints. If this is a hall of mirrors, then Satan is truly one crafty bastard making a pretty impressive one for us.

Again, it is the assumptions you bring to that data which colors the interpretation. I can also tell you that the assumption that decay rates never change is wrong:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5441/882.summary

Pressure and chemistry can alter decay rates according to that experiment. In that instance, they were able to alter the decay rate by 1.5 percent. In much more extreme conditions, however, the decay rate could change significantly. It shows that the uniformitarian assumptions of radiometric dating can and will produce unreliable data.

These are things that they don't teach you in science class. When it comes down to it, there is no actual proof for deep time in the fossil record, when we're talking about actual empirical evidence. We only have circumstantial evidence based on assumptions which I have shown to be faulty. That is where the hall of mirrors comes in, where everything you see is reflecting the assumptions you make. It is what is called a worldview, which is like a set of glasses you use to see the world. Everyone has a worldview. The apriori assumptions you make about reality constitutes your worldview. That is what is going on here..their worldview of the world forming from purely naturalistic processes, and that slowly over vast amounts of time, is a bias which skews all of their data to that direction, when as I showed previously with the mudstones that it could just as easily point in the other direction.

I read it and found it interesting, but it sounded highly inconsistent with the scientific mind to just dismiss evidence that doesn't fit. That's what religious or otherwise dogmatic people do. So I decided to find out something about how reliable the method and the dates are.

I found this, which I think directly addresses your issue. It suggests that anyone who makes the claim that geological dating is circular or that certain data is ignored simply doesn't understand the science.

Tell me what you think:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#Circularity

Your error here is conflating micro and macro evolution. Creation scientists believe in micro evolution and speciation.

The error is entirely on your part. I am conflating the two, because they ARE THE SAME THING. Creationists are the ones who are trying to divide evolution up into two things so that their whacky worldview can include things that have been observed in real time, so as not to look completely at odds with reality. Unfortunately they are still completely at odds with reality.

Its like if I divided between micro time and macro time, and in some context we actually use words to describe very long spans of time ie: "geological time", "deep time" and so on, but these are not different concepts from the time it takes to boil an egg. Time is still time. 5 billion years is alot longer than 5 minutes, but its just more of the same.

The exact same thing is true for evolution.

130 years ago, the assumption in the Western world (where all the science was getting done) was the the Bible was correct. There was no geological scientific evidence either way. Then geological evidence started coming out that the biblical number was way, way wrong. That evidence was challenged and yet survived, so the accepted value of the age of the Earth changed. That's how science works; you change your mind in the face of evidence. That's how intelligence works, in fact.

It's the same evidence. There isn't creationist evidence and secular scientist evidence. They're both looking at the same evidence and interpreting it different. And there is plenty of geologic evidence of the flood. Recently, scientists have started to embrace catastrophism over uniformitarian because the evidence of a worldwide disaster is undeniable.

The evidence that was initially advanced for long ages by Charles Lyell was based on either misinterpretation or outright fraud. He claimed that Niagra Falls was eroding at the rate of one foot per year. He then made the leap that since the gorge was 35,000 feet long it was 35,000 years old. Very scientific. It has been confirmed however that the gorge erodes at 4 to 5 feet per year which means it is most likely under 7 thousand years old.

The "evidence" is obtained by making assumptions about the past that can't be proven, and you can't date the rocks without these assumptions. If you change the assumptions then you come up with much different dates.

It's like quantum physics. Everybody just assumed that all matter was made of solid matter that has definite speed and location, but it turns out that all matter is made up of things with probabilities only. No matter how much Einstein wanted to believe that all matter was solid all the way down, he had to agree that the evidence for quantum physics was undeniably accurate and that matter is composed of chancy waveforms. Anyone who studies it will have to come to the same conclusion. Same goes for what we're talking about.

Everyone who studies it does not come to that conclusion. The hard evidence you have for quantum physics does not exist for deep time. You can test quantum physics; you can't test deep time. All there is a pile of circumstantial evidence all based on the same unprovable assumptions.

"Any evidence...discarded" is misleading. If there's a single outlier result once, it may get some attention or it may be ignored. If there's repeatable experimentation that yields the same contradictory results again and again (dual slit experiment), or a theory that fits all evidence better than current models (quantum physics), it will stir controversy and get a lot of attention. Again, that's how science works.

Every time they measure the age of the rocks they get a range of dates, and then they discard the ones that don't agree with their assumptions as "anomalous". I think I've said this before..bif the evidence were there I would believe it. I used to believe it, but when I found out the extremely flimsy and weaknature of the evidence and realized I would have to put more faith in the scientists than I would the bible, so I decided to believe the bible instead. The whole thing stinks to high heaven but this is a religious proposition to many people. To them, they are satisfied with its explanation of reality and use it as an excuse to deny God. Take note of the awe and reverence and love people pay to the Cosmos and "mother Earth" because it is a religious experience you are witnessing They are seeing Gods glory in creation but they make naturalism their religion instead of acknowledging Him, and worship the creature rather than the Creator.

Psalm 19:1-2


The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

And here's the real question. Name one current product based off of any hypothesis/theory that was posited and proven by 'Creation Science'. Too hard? What about any process, maybe based on the geology or biology research.

Read the above link.

That link does not provide evidence of any usefulness of "creation science" it simply mentions that some real scientists are also creationists. I think what Hatsix was asking for was if there has been any progress made because creation was assumed or discovered via actual science. Lets say a creationist that solves a particular problem in biology because he or she used creationism or "creation science" instead of, or in addition to, just, well... science.

At present, the very best we have seen of "creation science" are rather pathetic attemps at poking holes in evolution by people like Michael Behe who keeps yapping on about how something is "too complex" to have evolved. Even if these people had been completely successful of bringing down Darwin once and for all (they arent even close), that wouldnt be ANY help whatsoever to actually justify calling it "creation" science (or intelligent design).

After essentially nullifying and disproving everything we have learned about biology the last 200 years, you still have all the work ahead of you, I'm afraid. You now have to build a completely new framework and model for every single observation ever made in biology that makes sense of it all and explains why things are the way they are. Shouting that a thing is "complex" is not cutting it, I'm afraid. You need a new theory of DNA, Immunology, Bacterial resistance, adaptation, vestigal organs, animal distobution, mutation, selection, variation, genetics, speciation, taxonomy... well, as Dobzhansky put it: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" That quote is more relevant than ever.

130 years ago, the assumption in the Western world (where all the science was getting done) was the the Bible was correct. There was no geological scientific evidence either way. Then geological evidence started coming out that the biblical number was way, way wrong. That evidence was challenged and yet survived, so the accepted value of the age of the Earth changed. That's how science works; you change your mind in the face of evidence. That's how intelligence works, in fact.

It's like quantum physics. Everybody just assumed that all matter was made of solid matter that has definite speed and location, but it turns out that all matter is made up of things with probabilities only. No matter how much Einstein wanted to believe that all matter was solid all the way down, he had to agree that the evidence for quantum physics was undeniably accurate and that matter is composed of chancy waveforms. Anyone who studies it will have to come to the same conclusion. Same goes for what we're talking about.

"Any evidence...discarded" is misleading. If there's a single outlier result once, it may get some attention or it may be ignored. If there's repeatable experimentation that yields the same contradictory results again and again (dual slit experiment), or a theory that fits all evidence better than current models (quantum physics), it will stir controversy and get a lot of attention. Again, that's how science works.

In order to be a scientist, you have to practice science. Getting an advanced degree does not make you a scientist any more than me studying football make me a football player.

Here's a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science#Scientific_criticism

If scientists are those that practice science then every creation scientist who has published a peer reviewed paper is a scientist.

http://creation.com/do-creationists-publish-in-notable-refereed-journals

And here's the real question. Name one current product based off of any hypothesis/theory that was posited and proven by 'Creation Science'. Too hard? What about any process, maybe based on the geology or biology research.

Read the above link.

You can talk about 'the controversy' all you want, but the proof is that we use technology daily that is based on physical properties discovered by the same individuals that studied Rubidium. Sure, the specific Rubidium research didn't go into daily life, but the research into radioactive isotopes led to Nuclear Fission, and then after that, it 'exploded'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Natural_fission_chain-reactors_on_Earth

Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived were creationists, does that make all of their claims valid?

You're not a martyr, and neither is anyone in the US. None of this conversation has anything to do with the religious Zealots that are killing other religious individuals in other countries.

You said there was no persecution today, but in fact there is quite a bit. Christianity is illegal in 51 countries. It's almost getting to the point in America where sharing your faith might become a civil rights issue.

And you're absolutely correct, me slipping in a little jab at comparing Christian Zealots to Islam Zealots definitely reveal a bit about my 'character'... but just because it was an attack doesn't make it, or anything else I said, less true.

God says what is true about you and me, and that's all that matters.

In order to be a scientist, you have to practice science. Getting an advanced degree does not make you a scientist any more than me studying football make me a football player.

Here's a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science#Scientific_criticism



And here's the real question. Name one current product based off of any hypothesis/theory that was posited and proven by 'Creation Science'. Too hard? What about any process, maybe based on the geology or biology research.


You can talk about 'the controversy' all you want, but the proof is that we use technology daily that is based on physical properties discovered by the same individuals that studied Rubidium. Sure, the specific Rubidium research didn't go into daily life, but the research into radioactive isotopes led to Nuclear Fission, and then after that, it 'exploded'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Natural_fission_chain-reactors_on_Earth


You're not a martyr, and neither is anyone in the US. None of this conversation has anything to do with the religious Zealots that are killing other religious individuals in other countries.


And you're absolutely correct, me slipping in a little jab at comparing Christian Zealots to Islam Zealots definitely reveal a bit about my 'character'... but just because it was an attack doesn't make it, or anything else I said, less true.

It's not that there is a 'war' on... it's that there are a bunch of non-scientists walking around saying they're 'creation scientists'.

Many creation scientists have advanced degrees and have published many papers. Why aren't they scientists? What makes a scientist a scientist?

You're absolutely correct, there is no research being done on 'young Universe'... but there is also no science being done to prove 'old Universe'. Science is done by taking small bits of knowledge that have little gaps, and filling those gaps in. We didn't figure out the half-life of Rubidium in order to prove the age of the earth, we figured out the half-life of Rubidium to figure out the half-life of Rubidium. Some other scientists had taken measurements of the natural occurrence of elements and their isotopes in various parts of the world. And then more scientists apply the knowledge acquired in both fields and try to find out what it tells us.

There was a very concerted effort, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries to come up with evidence for an old age of the Earth to support the ideas of uniformitarian geology and macro evolution. There was an ideological war going on, just as there is today, between those secular scientists who wanted to establish their own secular idea of origins to undercut the account of biblical creation. Up until that point, all geologists were flood geologists. Now a days, you're right, they are resting on their laurels, because as I said it has become conventional wisdom, which is not science but philosophy.

I agree, you absolutely should question scientists with an agenda, but I've NEVER heard a non-christian suggest that there is scientific evidence for the earth being younger than 4-5 billion years old.

I grew up in a secular home with a great love for science, and I very activiely pursued studies in astronomy and biology. In all of my studies, I never heard so much as a peep about the controversy. There is an information filter on this subject, and it had kept me in the dark about the whole thing most of my life.

You want to cast doubt on scientists by saying that there are millions of dollars and reputations on the line, but this reasoning is more destructive if you aim it at the young-earthers: Their religion has made explicit claims as to time-spans that occurred 'in the beginning'... their religious leaders have made explicit claims as to the literalness of the Bible. And most church leaders have been explicit that other denominations of Christians may not be allowed into heaven... So you have a large group of individuals who are not only risking their reputation, but what they believe is their eternal soul, on something that they didn't discover, but have worked backward to find evidence to prove that their book is correct.

None of this has anything to do with the question of salvation. The conflict you're seeing is coming from a liberal movement within the church which tends to embrace secular values and rejects traditional interpretation of scripture. As numbers go, it is a small amount of people. As a recent survey shows, the majority of Americans (ie 46 percent) believe in creationism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

These views get overreprented in the media by liberals sympathic to their causes. It gets presented in such a way that it looks like it is the majority view when it is actually the minority view.

As far as what Creation scientists have to lose..not much. They already lost much of what they had to lose by becoming a creation scientist in the first place.

Young-earthers each, individually, have much more to lose than scientists. And let's be clear... religions have enough money to staff up scientific R&D labs and fund their own research if they wanted. In fact, the Vatican DOES have it's own, world-renowned observatory. So, how old does this Priest thing the Universe is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OwWqrXGtrRs#!

I don't agree with the catholic church on practically anything, let alone this.

So, to be clear, it's not Scientists vs. Christians. It's Scientists AND Christians vs. People Who Don't Trust Science.

It's actually the wisdom of God versus the wisdom of man.

And I expect this. Christians have long fought against persecution, and it thrived while it was being persecuted. Now that it's the dominant religion, many of the teachings have lost their luster. Members who believe that the Bible has something personal to say to them will pick up on the persecution aspect, which was intended to help those in the year 200AD... not 2012. So they make up bogey-men and pick a fight with anyone who says something that isn't explicitly allowed in the Bible (and is convenient for them)... hence the anti-Gay-Marriage protests, but no anti-shellfish protests.

Over 200 thousand Christians are martyred every year for their faith, all over the world.

You're a product of your environment, shinyblurry... you're as predictable as Islam producing suicide bombers... and just as pathetic in your misunderstanding of the Universe.

All I'll say to this is that ad hominem attacks reveal more about your character than they do mine.

@shinyblurry -- dinosaur fossils. There are good hearted folks who believe that dinosaur fossils were put there by God to test their faith.

Are you one of those folks?

No. I don't know any Christians who believe that. I believe the fossils were all laid down very rapidly during the flood by hydrological sorting, and that certain groups of animals are in certain layers because that is when the water level rose above their ability to survive the catastrophe. The geologic record supports catastrophism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

Scientific disciplines that young earth creationism contradicts (from Wiki, which has citations):

Physics and chemistry (including absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology and dendrochronology among others.

Damn, this scientific conspiracy goes deep!

My understanding is that the fracking isn't very easy to control. Basically, they're using pressure to fracture shale, but it's impossible to know exactly how it will fracture. You end up with these little natty gas springs everywhere.

That said, it's important to note that this sort of thing can also occur naturally. That's really been the issue with all of the legal challenges is that you need to demonstrate beyond all doubt that the contamination was the direct result of a fracked well nearby, not just natural geological activity.

Yes, this is part of the new gas extraction craze taking off around the world. In many cases, the natural gas, including methane, isn't worth collecting, it is easier to just burn it then to try and sell it. Usually they are after the liquid hydrocarbons in these new deposits that horizontal mining has allowed access too. One might point to some sinister aim in this kind of venting, but I imagine this offgassing happened outside their control, bubbling up outside of their containment. This can happen if care isn't taken or some geological factor comes into play which you didn't account for...it is a pretty neat science actually, gives geologists something new to do and map out. Generally speaking, if your venting gasses, your also venting the stuff you are trying to collect, which is undesirable, even more so if it is the gasses your after (and depending on the regional prices, that is usually what they are after, australian deposites are usually pretty low in liquid hydrocarbons, meaning they are usually after gas in the land down under). I just posted a very long winded video on the subject if you wish to learn more details about the environmental and health impacts of fracking and new gas extractions technologies. In the end, it might just be a new hydrocarbon to burn and throw into the atmosphere and cause harm. Butin the short term, it might be a good tool for destroying the coal lobby making way for actual low carbon systems to come online like solar, wind and nuclear. Like all things in life, its complicated with benefits and consequences.

So I have a list of video channels I turn to for my youtube science and information tidbits. I figured I would share mine, and we can make a list



http://www.youtube.com/user/numberphile

http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey

http://www.youtube.com/user/crashcourse

http://www.youtube.com/user/DeepSkyVideos

http://www.youtube.com/user/destinws2

http://www.youtube.com/user/DeepSkyVideos

http://www.youtube.com/user/mellenstei

http://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics

http://www.youtube.com/user/Vsauce

http://www.youtube.com/user/vlogbrothers

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBadAstronomer

http://www.youtube.com/user/sixtysymbols

http://www.youtube.com/user/scishow

http://www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos

http://www.youtube.com/user/ArgonneNationalLab


I also subscribe to a number of thorium energy channels for their video content, which is a very narrow focus, but Ill throw them in anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/user/gordonmcdowell

http://www.youtube.com/user/thoriumremix

what yall got?! I am interested in more chemistry and geology if you got it!