Originally Posted by Evie's Mama
I wish that were my experience in science classes. :P I've gotten into many a debate with a teacher or professor over this very issue and their presentation of it.
I was watching a show on dinosaurs on tv just a few days ago that was a perfect example of my thought that evolutionists don't start from scratch with new findings, but rather start from what they suppose to be true.
The show was on a woman who dissolves dinosaur fossils to see what they break down into and what is under the top layers, etc. It was really interesting. When she started dissolving one dinosaur bone to see what was under the first layer, she accidentally left it in the acid too long. It broke down all the way to the center marrow section. The insides were still elastic! She was blown away and did it with several other bones to back up her findings. This type of cell should not be able to keep it's elastic properties after being fossilized for millions of years. It was NEVER spoken of (at least on the show or at all it would seem from the way they spoke) that MAYBE the bone wasn't millions of years old. All the research was on what kind of conditions could make the elastic nature stuck around.
To me, that seems no different than me looking at it and saying, well it's because it's not that old and adding to my evidence of a young earth.
That's a good example. But I disagree with your take on it, and here's why.
You are equating a religious belief that the earth is young with the scientific belief that the earth is very old, and I don't think the two beliefs are based on anything remotely the same.
I don't think scientists started with the idea that the earth is billions of years old and set out to prove it. In fact, I think scientists were actually quite surprised that they were coming up with evidence that the earth was that old. And I think they continued to be surprised about it until they had enough evidence and enough time for it to sink in, and now we're in a place where it is pretty much accepted as fact that the earth is indeed much, much older than it would be if the Bible were literally true.
Creationists, on the other hand, were starting from the point of view that the Bible is literally true and the earth is only several thousand years old. They believe this based on their religion, and they approach all the science from this belief. That is exactly the opposite
of approaching science from "I don't know how old the earth is; let's find out." It's saying "I know the earth is this old because God said so; now let's prove it."
See the difference?
So I don't think the scientist in your example is wrong for trying to see why the bone is behaving a certain way in the framework of an old earth. The science supports an old earth, science that was not based on a preconceived belief (like creation) but on inquiry
|Oh PurpleSage, thats not true at all! We dont believe we have all the answers either! There is a LOT to discover. And creationists are in debate about how the flood occurred, what life was like before the fall and after and then again after the flood. I think there is a lot of evidence for a global flood and I watched a documentary that talked about how catastrophic water is and what a massive flood will do to a local area, with all the scientific studies and everything! They could accept that a massive flood could cause incredible damage and be so entirely catastrophic but couldnt apply it to the global flood, like they wouldnt go there. Its already been established that the earth is millions of years old and evolution is taught as a fact so lets not consider anything else. I just see so many holes in what I see taught in the media and schools. And like I said before I didnt have a firm grasp of a literal genesis either. I, personally, didnt come to the table with an 'I MUST take Genesis literal and find any and every way possible to make the evidence explain it' kind of mentality. That doesnt prove anything, obviously, but for me its been an important part of my search, studying.
I think you're the exception, though. I've been reading some creationist websites, and they specifically say that they're coming from the place where the Bible is literally the exact "eye witness" account from God on how everything happened, and all science must come from that viewpoint. It is not coming from a place of "I don't know" at all. So it is exactly that - the belief the God said there was a massive global flood is the starting point
for trying to explain rock layers, just to give one example. Then they try to say that mainstream science is doing the same thing only with evolution, and I don't think there's any comparison. Evolution is not anything like a religious belief.