It has often been asserted that scientific evidence actually disproves evolution, but it is also fairly common to hear that anything contradicting evolution is not real science. Do scientific facts line up with Evolution, or Creation?
I didn't say "wrong" presuppositions, I said "different" presuppositions. Although, I do still suggest that evolution theorists do use some faulty presuppositions. See my post above on presuppositions. Presuppositions are certainly not an invention of creation science. They are simply a reality.
I am also seeing the word "presupposition" rising its head once again. In the past, I have seen this word thrown around by young Earth creationists when they want to invent a reason to ignore good science. As stated before, if you are going to claim that scientists are using false presuppositions, show us what those presuppositions are and why they are wrong. As shown by previous posts on 14C dating, young Earth creationists often think scientists are using presuppositions when they aren't.
Why shouldn't bad science be denied? Young Earth Creationism is bad science, as I already showed. There is nothing in the Grand Canyon that requires a recent global flood or a young Earth, and J.E.S. has not shown that anything in the Grand Canyon requires a recent global flood or a young Earth. How can you say that J.E.S. made good points when he made none at all? Where is the science demonstrating that the Grand Canyon is young? Where are the dating methods demonstrating that it is young? Where is the science demonstrating that these deposits could not have been produced by slow deposition and uplift?
Re: Earth's Magnetic Field
The thing is, we have records of the Earth's magnetic field going back hundreds of millions of years. When lava solidifies, the crystals inside of it will align to the Earth's magnetic field, recording both its strength and direction. Those records show that the Earth's magnetic field has strengthened, then weakened, then flipped poles, then stregnthened, then weakened, then flipped poles, and so forth. This process has been repeated thousands of times. It has nothing to do with any theories.
In fact, I think I have discussed magnetic striping with you before. As the sea floor expands away from the mid-ocean rifts it produces new sea floor. When that sea floor hardens, it aligns with the Earth's magentic field. When we measure the magentic field in those rocks you get stripes running parallel to the ridges as the Earth's magnetic field strengthens, weakens, and flips.
It's ironic, but the same accusations of falsehood that are here leveled at creation scientists could more easily be applied to evolution theorists. Evolutionary philosophy asserts several falsehoods as scientific fact and makes many assertions that are simply scientifically unverifiable. In this information-saturated age of the internet you can easily find "facts" that agree with your presuppositions. J.E.S. made a point about the Grand Canyon, which I believe is an excellent example. Biblical creationists see the Grand Canyon as clear proof of a global flood. Secular evolutionists see it as an example of billions of years. We're both looking at the same data, but our differing worldviews and presuppositions have a tremendous impact on our differing conclusions. And yet, this obvious difference in worldviews (and the corollary presuppositions) is denied by some. Fascinating.
The facts just put forward on decaying magnetic fields appear to be false. It also appears that some are just stepping through well known YEC arguments based on falsehood.
The issue I have is not belief in YEC, but the reliance on falsehood to support it. This is not about presuppositions, but about honestly. To be clear, I am not accusing anyone here of lying. Rather, most YECs are just repeating falsehood they have heard from other. The God I know has no need for false witness.
Really all the arguments here run afoul of Deuteronomy 25:13-16. The author here lays out some key questions by which we can make this clear: https://howoldistheearth.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/an-examination-of-answers-in-genesiss-ten-best-evidences-for-a-young-earth/
1. Does it get its facts straight?
2. Does it actually place a specific numerical limit on the age of the earth at all?
3. Is it measuring the right things?
4. How well defined are the limits it places on the age of the earth?
5. Are its assumptions realistic?
6. How rigorously have the “rescuing devices” been falsified?
7. What are the sources of its data?
8. What is the extent of its data?
9. Have they received a level of scrutiny appropriate to their complexity?
10. How have they responded to critique?
Since measuring of the magnetic field first began in 1845, the total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field has been decaying at a rate of 5% per century. Archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000). Therefore, the field's energy has halved every 1,465 years or so. These are facts that are undeniable.
Scientists have proposed that the earth’s magnetic field is caused by a freely-decaying electric current in the earth’s core. The electric current naturally loses energy, or “decays,” as it flows through the metallic core. Based on what we know about the conductive properties of liquid iron, this freely decaying current would have started when the earth’s outer core was formed. However, if the core were more than 20,000 years old, then the starting energy would have made the earth too hot to be covered by water at its beginning. Thus a younger earth is supported and even plausible.
Once again, there are multiple theories regarding the earth's magnetic field. There is the "Dynamo Theory" which you have just expressed, and there is the "Rapid-Decay Theory," which is pretty self-evident in meaning. I feel the need to note that, when predicting the magnetic field levels of Mercury and Mars, the Rapid-Decay Theory was shown to be more reliable than the Dynamo theory, in that Mars (I am not an expert on the Mercury business) was predicted (by Dynamo) to have a magnetic field, yet it did not (however, evidence was found that it did have a magnetic field at one point, furthering the cause of the Rapid-Decay theory.) To be fair, there was some way that the Dynamo Theory is better than the Rapid-Decay Theory, but I cannot remember it off the top of my head...