Biblical Flood: Actual Event or Myth

You are missing my point. If God wanted to have life/mankind evolve over billions of years I have no problem with it.

I just don't think the evidence of it very compelling. I do not base my skepticism of evolution on the Bible. I don't know where you get the idea that I am driven by a literal reading of the Bible. I thought I made that clear but I will say it again.

I think the earth is younger than 5 billion years because I think things like carbon dating, red shift, the earth's magnetic field, etc. have been misinterpreted.

 

I do defer to scientists on matters like evolution, that is why what the Pope says about evolution is meaningless to me.

Are you not aware that there are scientists who reject evolution? There are scientist who reject global warming as well. They just don't get much publicity because they don't fit the narrative pushed by the secular media.

 

Re-read my comment. Note I said certain fundamentalist sects believed in the literal interpretation of the bible.

As to your assertion that the data is miss-interpreted, cite some sources that support the supposed errors. Claims like that tend to use the term 'if 'as a qualifier and note some speculation then follow up on it as a fact. There are mountains of data from multiple different areas of science that agree on the age of the earth. BTW counting on one outlier scientist to be the one correct doesn't have good odds of success.

 

Good post, Winston. I do find it particularly interesting that fundamentalist christians like to point to the .01% of scientist who "disagree" with current Scientific thought. Its like we have polled 1000 scientist about __________ and 999 agree that X is true and 1 have dissented and believe that Y is true.......and the fundamentalist take this information and then say, "This one guy must be on to something!"

It is a classic case of seeking facts to prove your position rather than having a position that is supported by the facts. They extend this to other areas also, and I suppose it is an extension of their faith, but you will recall in the 2012 election when 15 out of 16 polls showed Obama with a 4-5 point lead over Romney and 1 single outlying poll that had Romney up and an entire news network took that information to believe, "This one poll must be on to something."

 

I re-read your post and I don't know if it's because of typos or what but I am not 100 percent sure what some of your sentences mean.

the @flabengal comment is difficult to understand. Are you implying that I am ignoring evidence? I don't think so....I am aware of much of the evidence cited in support of evolution. I am also aware that problems arise with this evidence upon closer examination.

So I will start with dating techniques, more specifically radiometric dating:

1) Carbon-14
Carbon-14's half-life is so short it is gone after 50,000 years. Evidence against this statement is welcome. From wikipedia:

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14C to be measurable. Older dates have been obtained by using special sample preparation techniques, large samples, and very long measurement times. These techniques can allow dates up to 60,000 and in some cases up to 75,000 years before the present to be measured.[44]
​

Carbon-14 is incapable of providing support for a 5 billion year old earth.

2) Potassium-Argon dating
Apparrently this is a popular method of dating volcanic flows. It seems it all stems from the idea that all of the Argon will always escape from the lava before it solidifies. This means any Argon found in the sample results from the decay of potassium which we can calculate. However, if the reading is unacceptable to the scientist he can simply come up with an explanation for the anomaly. In order to "massage" the number to his desired result the scientist then postulate a "heating event" or something else to explain the difference.

This is my main point, and this potassium-argon dating method is a good example. If the reading comes back with what the scientist wants he leaves it alone. If it comes back with a reading his doesn't like then he adjusts things until if fits nicely where it should.

In short, the scientist is an advocate for a position. It's like the gov't inflation numbers....does anybody really believe them? They want inflation understated and they massage the number to get their desired result. I am of the opinion the same principle applies here.

My main point here being I am aware of the existence of scientific evidence for evolution. I am also aware of the fact that evidence which does not agree is not accepted....it will always be modified.

The scientist is then an advocate for a position.

​

 

There have been a few rogue scientists who have manipulated data and even claimed credit for the work of others in order to gain recognition and enhanced status but that usually blows up in their faces when they are inevitably discovered. No respectable scientist is going to manipulate the data to make it come out the way he wants it to.

 

Whether it is a conscious decision or not is hard to say. In any case evidence that does not fit the narrative is unwelcome.
For example background radiation in the universe is pretty evenly distributed. There are different interpretations for this....side with the one outside the “consensus“ and your future employment opportunities diminish considerably,

 

No, they don't get as much publicity because they're in the minority (Less than 4% of climate scientists, in fact) and there is evidence that their research is funded by parties who are paying for that opinion. Scientific advancement requires a dissenting opinion. I take no issue with that at all. It's when people have a preconceived idea and then go looking for something to support that idea rather than go looking with an open mind that I take issue with. It is impossible to definitively prove evolution and minus the ability to travel through time, it will remain that way. However, there is a reason why greater than 99% of scientists are convinced the theory is valid.

That is why this argument is pointless...