Hmm..ok. There are many scientist who hold PHD's from Academia who reason a young earth, and not only the PHD holders at the ICR, although they are a lot smarter than me (and most of you I suspect):

"Dr. Jason Lisle
Director of Physical Sciences
Astronomy, Apologetics, Physics

As Director of Physical Sciences, Dr. Lisle leads ICR's gifted team of physical scientists who continue to investigate and demonstrate the evidence for creation. He graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy and minored in mathematics. He earned a master's degree and a Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado. Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics and has made a number of scientific discoveries regarding the solar photosphere and has contributed to the field of general relativity. "

Now the argument against these PHD holders , and all the others who use science for their hypothesis of a young earth, is that they are misguided or dishonest. Well that's a tag that might fit the evolutionist just as easily. Regardless, Academia or intelligence obviously isn't the litmus test for claiming the higher ground. It's as nonsensical as the stock market logic. Many can't, I can't therefore you can't. A fine paradigm.

quote:

---

Hmm..ok. There are many scientist who hold PHD's from Academia who reason a young earth, and not only the PHD holders at the ICR, although they are a lot smarter than me (and most of you I suspect):

---

No there really aren't many. In fact given how many people are in academia there are incredibly few. And most of those at the ICR are operating outside their degrees specialty. Even still, with examples like those, their beliefs aren't founded in evidence but rather faith, and many of those few acknowledge that. They get absolutely humiliated when having to compare evidence with other scientist. It's no accident YEC is virtually dead in academia. To pretend there isn't a correlation between learning and rejecting YEC is to shield yourself from a clear reality.

quote:

---

You have his comment backwards. He's not questioning your financial knowledge, he's surprised someone with expertise in that area would lack so much knowledge in another.

---

This. I actually think OA1 is probably a helluva trader. I may not respect traders that much, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with his investment advice, necessarily.

quote:

---

Hmm..ok. There are many scientist who hold PHD's from Academia who reason a young earth, and not only the PHD holders at the ICR, although they are a lot smarter than me (and most of you I suspect):

---

This is a ridiculous statement which only someone with little respect for academia could have made.

There is a reason young earth creationism has been laughed out of academia... and it's not some grand conspiracy to keep it suppressed. It's that all the available evidence points in another direction.

Dp

This would be what we are referring to. There aren't many REPUTABLE PhDs who believe in a young Earth. In fact there are zero because a young Earth is demonstrably false. There are virtually no fields of science that do not prove the age of the earth is 4+ billion years. Saying its only a few millionth of that age violates nearly everything we know about physics, vulucanology, genetics, biology, astrophysics, light, stellar formation, place tectonics, radiology, chemistry, take your pick.

There is a reason that the only "scientists" you see talking about a young Earth are Christians and that's because they assume the Bible to be true then reject any evidence it is not. Problem is the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. Its akin to saying electricity doesn't exist.

BTW Dr. Lyle dismisses the huge problems the speed of light presents for creationists by saying since the evidence contradicts Genesis it must be wrong and we simply don't understand things well enough to resolve the conflict.

That isn't science

quote:

---

BTW Dr. Lyle dismisses the huge problems the speed of light presents for creationists by saying since the evidence contradicts Genesis it must be wrong and we simply don't understand things well enough to resolve the conflict.

That isn't science

---

I'm not sure he dismisses anything. The beginning hypothesis by the 4 billion+ crowd is that time is the required "father" of the universe. Just give something enough time and anything is possible. Absent a designer and creator it's where common sense would be left as a starting premise. I get it. Truly.

However, I can also use common sense in reasoning that if there WERE a designer with such power as to be able to literally create a universe by speaking it into existence then the resulting observed science would necessarily be subserveant to that paradigm. "Let there be light" would mean instantaneous light. The creator who could create suns, stars, planets and the science of speed of light would not be bound to time. If he were to create sun, stars and the moon for light to mark seasons and give light on the earth he could have that light instantly visible from the farthest reaches of the universe.

This is the great divide between evolutionary scientist and young earth scientist. A fully formed universe explained without a designer versus one with it. Or as Paul was inspired to say "Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"

Just because the observable speed of light at 671 million miles per hour would take "x" to be seen by a light at distance "y" does not necessarily mean that a creator, with such power as to speak and it is done, could not have that light visible instantly as part of that creation.

And there is no impact on any scientific discovery for such a model. Granted there will be much gnashing of teeth, ridicule and poking fun by those subserveant to time and chance. That does not remotely trouble those of us who like Sir Isaac Newton who say design demands a designer.

quote:

---

t does not remotely trouble those of us who like Sir Isaac Newton who say design demands a designer

---

This is a false dichotomy. Catholics believe the same thing, and yet do not disregard the evidence of an extremely old Earth / universe.

quote:

---

Trickster god.

I like it.

EDIT- The big problem you are leaving out is the "Why". What point does instantaneously creating multiple geological layers of Dino bones have?

---

Trickster God told you what he did? You should love it!

I think the "why" might be answered by the "how" it might happen. A cataclysmic global flood that, as Peter was inspired to write, completely destroyed the earth that was and the earth which exists now is not like it. Instead of debating whether it is even possible it might be interesting to examine what 800 tons per sq inch of pressure for 10 months might result in for fossilization, strata and high pressure density outcomes.

Dp

quote:

---

You have this completely backwards. When our tools reached a level that we could calculate the age of the universe they were shocked by how old it was.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding of science here. Your STARTING point is not "what does the evidence say?" but rather "The Bible is literally true."

If the Bible didn't exist, no scientist in history would have concluded the Earth was 6000 years old. That should tell you something but it won't as you use a conclusion as your premise.

---

Hold on. You're telling me my starting point is wrong because you have tools that can take existing (I say created) conditions/laws/observations/whatever and calculate what they would mean backwards had they not been created?

How did the flood fossilize flying Dino's?

Correct.

Scientific approach:
1. Gather data
2. Examine data.
3. Reach conclusions based on data.

Creationist approach
1. Genesis was literal.
2. Examine data.
3. If data contradicts 1, data is wrong.

It's simply not science.

And if were going to accept the argument that the earth is 6000 years old but God planted millions odd pieces of evidence that it was not, there isn't a point in discussing ANY observation. A claim that the planet is 24 hours old but it just LOOKS like last week happened is equally as valid s saying Genesis was right but every piece of evidence shows it wasn't. It's a totally useless stance.

What data has been discarded that shows the universe is 6000 years old?

quote:

---

You guys are true believers in the integrity of science. No, there are never any scandals in science. Scientists aren't mere mortals. No, they're saints men of integrity, dedicated to find the truth no matter where the money may lie the opposition.

You guys have convinced me. Truth will always out in science. Of course, it may take a couple of hundred years, but who's counting?

Do you ever step back and think how remarkably similar you sound to religious zealots?

---

Not only you not have evidence of this vast conspiracy but you don't have evidence of a young earth either. All you can do is desperately cling to a literal interpretation of your holy book that even most christians don't take

quote:

---

You guys are true believers in the integrity of science. No, there are never any scandals in science. Scientists aren't mere mortals. No, they're saints men of integrity, dedicated to find the truth no matter where the money may lie the opposition.

You guys have convinced me. Truth will always out in science. Of course, it may take a couple of hundred years, but who's counting?

Do you ever step back and think how remarkably similar you sound to religious zealots?

---

I have an open mind.

Can you please show me the evidence that has been discarded?