Evolution Question

12,453 Views | 175 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by DirtDiver
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 10:43a, 11/20/24
AG
Stop and think about what you just said for a moment. In a post challenging the veracity of evolution and geology you stated that it's been unchallenged and uninvestigated by all for decades. Clearly not if you're doing it and referring to others doing the same thing.

The question is not why hasn't evolution been challenged, it's why haven't those challenges changed the widely accepted view on evolution. And the clear reason is that those challenges haven't held up to scrutiny.

We've got lots of experience with floods, even very large ones. They don't alter the landscape like you're claiming this one did. It just doesn't make sense. Since we can find fossils buried hundreds of feet under the ground the flood hypothesis implies the earth at least that far down must have been disturbed by the flood. We're supposed to believe that the flood somehow churned up all of the soil and dirt enough to allow the formation of geological layers hundreds of feet deep (and the animals within to be buried and fossilized) but that the soil and plant life were able to survive that?

And what's the water balance between fresh and salt water here? Did they magically stay separate? In lots of cases, freshwater aquatic creatures don't survive in salt water and vice versa.

The problem is you started with your conclusion and are now looking for facts to support it and discarding everything that doesn't.
Reply Quote
4
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 10:51a, 11/20/24
Quote:
We've got lots of experience with floods, even very large ones. They don't alter the landscape like you're claiming this one did.
How would you describe the effects of the Lake Missoula flood(s), the Lake Bonneville flood, and the possible Hopi Lake/Lake Bidahochi flood?
Reply Quote
1
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 11:57a, 11/20/24
AG

Quote:
Here are my thoughts as to "why do so many scientist believe that the earth is millions of years old?"
1. They believe what they have been taught since elementary school about the age of the universe/earth.
2. The Bible is not allowed in most school systems public or private and this is where we get most scientists from.
3. They have never been presented with the evidence against an old earth view.
4. Spiritual: I want to be my own god and determine my own rules. Many times the reason for disbelief is based upon the evidence.
5. Are all of the world scientists lying too us? About molecules to man evolution and the age of the universe? I believe so. I believe most are doing it out of ignorance vs maliciousness.

I cannot expect a majority of people to believe a set of claims that they have never been exposed to or challenged. When a student has been taught from elementary school through college that the word is a certain age, it takes a bit of time and examining the evidence to overturn that belief.

I can accept that some amount of laymen believe in an old Earth because that is what they have been taught. The idea that professional scientists across the globe with decades of experience and expertise have been unable to overcome what Mrs. Smith taught in 6th grade, I think, is not giving science any credit. And I would like to point out, again, that even the vast majority of Christian scientists believe in an old Earth.

The practice of attempting to date geological structures, rocks, formations, and fossils is universal within several disciplines of science. The suggestion that all these scientists never been presented with evidence of a young Earth or that they've never studied and researched these questions themselves is not one that I think can be take seriously. Understanding dating methods is a critical element of literally hundreds of thousands of professional scientists. And virtually every one of them agrees we have an old Earth.

Now, maybe they are all wrong. But, unless I myself am a professional geologist with decades of education and experience, mountains of evidence, and peer reviewed ideas and papers. . . . I would be hesitant to call them all ignorant. These are people that have forgotten more about geology and dating practices than I'll ever learn. Therefore, I expect that you must be an expert in geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, and radiometric dating since you can be so certain that the quarter million professionals in this area are all just ignorant.

In other words, I think one ought to be careful about saying that hundreds of thousands of experts in a field are all ignorant about a topic that you are not an expert in. Right?

Quote:
The description of the mature creation comes from the Biblical text. God created the stars, moon, and sun specifically to be visible to you and me. (purpose, power, intent). He told us how He did it.
The Bible claims that God did it. It gives us literally zero information about 'how'. This is exactly one of the reasons why Genesis is not science. Genesis tells us that God magic'ed the stars and moon and sun into existence. Genesis did not explain how the sun was created. It did not give us information about the process of nuclear fission. It did not give us anything beyond an observation that this glowy thing in the sky exists. Which again, is an observation that anyone can make.


Quote:
Also note some of the progression in the days of creation: He formed man out of the ground vs instant existence and then breathed life into Him, he formed woman out of the man, the earth brought forth vegetation.

Are men made of dirt? Are women made of rib bone? Can you provide links to scientific articles that show that men are chemically the same as dirt and that women are chemically the same as rib bones? Either this is just bad science or we explain it away with the supernatural or we recognize that Genesis is not reliable for factual information about the formation of life. And if you explain it away with God's supernatural abilities, thats fine. But, supernatural means its outside of science.


Quote:
Age of mountains - I don't know what level of maturity the mountains would have exhibited on the day of creation. For most people today age is based upon the assumption that rocks are in layers over long process of time vs in layers by a global flood. The most reasonable explanation for rocks in layers and fossils is a global flood vs every other theory.

. . . . so says 0.1% of trained geologists. Again, what is your background in geology that you can so easily discount virtually every other geologist on the planet?

I'm not a brain surgeon. The idea that I would go to a room full of brain surgeons and tell them they are all wrong about their understanding of how to do brain surgery is ridiculous.

Unless you are an expert in this study, then I think you have to admit that you have elected to believe the 0.1% of geologists purely based on a bias. Which is not meant as an accusation. We all have bias. But, we ought to be able to acknowledge our bias.


Quote:
Moon craters: don't know enough about this one. How does one determine the age of the universe by craters? How many assumptions are made to draw this conclusion?
Everything requires assumptions. The number of craters on the moon versus the rate at which we see collisions suggests the moon has been bombarded for far longer than 6000 years. We could assume that God peppered the moon with collisions for a short period and then stopped. There certainly is zero scientific evidence to suggest is the case. Many craters also appear 'old' in that they are covered in layers of dust that accumulates at reasonably understood rates.

The largest crater on the Moon is the South Pole-Aitken Basin. It is 1500 miles across, 5 miles deep and would have been caused by something 150 miles wide and moving at 15km per second. It would have fractured the moon's crust and sent almost 10 quadrillion tons of materials off of the moon resulting in a noticeable cloud of debris around the moon and an noticeable increase in meteroic activity on Earth for at least a hundred thousand years. In other words, there is no way the crater was created in the last 6000 years. So, either we have an old moon or God created the moon with the appearance of age.


Quote:
Tangent - the moon. This should completely rock our world: Prophesy of the blood moon in the OT book of Joel, Peter quoted Joel in Acts 2 saying they saw the event. We can date the crucifixion by the blood moon. This implies that the moment created the universe He knew the exact moment His Son would pay the price for our sins.

I don't know much about this. Blood moons occur on a regular schedule and are predictable. They occur at set and predictable intervals. My research shows that a regularly schedule eclipse would have happened in April of 33 CE and that it would have been a penumbral lunar eclipse which does not result in a blood moon.


Quote:
He absolutely could have created the grand canyon that way. I'm not sure the point you are trying to make: If we examine the Genesis account in detail he created different things with different ages of maturity (from our perspective).
The starlight from space appears to be one age
Birds with the ability to fly would be a different age of maturity (birds vs eggs)
Humans with maturity would be a different age of maturity
Trees with fruit and seeds in them would be a different age.

Genesis does not state that he created things with different ages of maturity. It gives a chorological description over a couple of days which does not follow scientific understanding. Genesis tells us that vegetation is older than sunlight. How does that work?

Either way, the above is just an exercise in bias. You observe things with different ages. And rather than conclude they are different ages, you conclude God must have created them at different ages. If you pre determine that any observation that contradicts Genesis must be wrong or can be explained by supernatural, thats fine. But, you can't call that science. It is the opposite of science. It is the disregard of science in favor of the supernatural. And again, thats fine. But, lets call a spade a spade here.


Quote:
All of these things are possible for God but the question is, what does the evidence point to in reality? We have an account that claims to be from God that matches our reality better than the other options.
Do we have an account from God that matches our reality better than science? We have an account from Genesis that makes the observation that the sun, moon, stars, and animals exist. It offers us no other useful or verifiable information. Science also confirms that the sun, moon, stars, and animals exist.

Science also provides an understanding that allows for all manner of verifiable and testable predictions. Genesis does not do this.


Quote:
The term "kind" has been understood for at least 6,000 years by mankind prior modern dictionaries.

It was also understood for thousands of years that disease is caused by witches, that natural disasters are the works of gods, and that the Earth is the center of creation. And then we learned we were wrong.


Quote:
I don't believe you and I share a common ancestor with an ape. I believe humans have always reproduced and made humans. I see no evidence that this has ever happened in the past.

Were Neanderthals humans or apes?


Quote:
Where is this list of the 99% of the species compared to the ones alive today?

Just do a google search, there is no shortage of lists.

Quote:
Quote:
Why does the Bible never mention organisms that science thinks predates humans.
Post flood conditions? Hunting, disease?

We have fossilized evidence of hundreds of species of huge reptilian animals. Some were 40 foot long, 20,000 lbs meat eating dinosaurs with gigantic teeth that might have run 30 miles an hour and they get no mention? Genesis is not an account that matches our observation of reality. It is an account of what little our ancestors knew.





Reply Quote
5
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 12:21p, 11/20/24
Quote:
We have fossilized evidence of hundreds of species of huge reptilian animals. Some were 40 foot long, 20,000 lbs meat eating dinosaurs with gigantic teeth that might have run 30 miles an hour and they get no mention? Genesis is not an account that matches our observation of reality. It is an account of what little our ancestors knew.


"Maybe we should mention the Tyrannosaurs?"
"Eh. We've got lions in there. Besides, I'm more of an ass man, myself. Get it?"
Reply Quote
2
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 1:31p, 11/20/24
AG
Jabin said:
Quote:
We've got lots of experience with floods, even very large ones. They don't alter the landscape like you're claiming this one did.
How would you describe the effects of the Lake Missoula flood(s), the Lake Bonneville flood, and the possible Hopi Lake/Lake Bidahochi flood?
Good question! Let's consider those and floods in general.

Flood waters are absolutely erosive, especially large scale floods. But they're erosive in some pretty specific ways which leave behind evidence of what happened. The Missoula and Bonneville floods you mentioned are both example of entire lakes of water draining all at one time and at one place because of a natural dam failing. The draining water leaves behind a clear path which enables us to understand the event. What the flood doesn't erode is just as important a thing to look at as what it does.

I'd note that a massive lake draining is quite a bit different from the Biblical flood account which is forty days of consistent rain. That would produce very different erosive conditions. Higher elevations would see little to no erosion while any large scale erosion would occur in existing river basins where the flood waters are concentrated. And once an area is completely and deeply inundated, conditions would actually be fairly calm and not conducive to overturning hundreds of feet of rock. As a modern example of that, consider that a submarine only needs to dive about 100' to escape the effects of a hurricane above it.

So yeah, a global flood caused by forty days of rain across the entire world would be devastating. But it would be devastating in some pretty specific ways that would leave behind physical evidence that just isn't apparent.
Reply Quote
2
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 1:58p, 11/20/24
Why do you assume that the only thing happening during the Flood is 40 days of rain?

The Bible also states that the "fountains of the deep" were opened up.

In addition, the geologists who do believe in a world-wide flood also believe that much if not most of plate tectonics occurred during the Flood year. That was first proposed by John Baumgardner, who was for years the world's leading deep earth geophysicist (perhaps). Mountains and mountain chains rising suddenly and precipitously could well cause the type of catastrophic damage that exists in the geological record world-wide.

There are lots of geological phenomena that conventional geology cannot explain, such as sedimentary deposits that cross not only entire continents, but much of a hemisphere. There has not been any sedimentation like that for at least hundreds of millions of years (in conventional time).
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 2:56p, 11/20/24
AG
That actually raises more questions than it answers. If "most" plate tectonics occurred over a year span that implies a lot of continental drift over a very short time span. Forget the flood, that would be catastrophic in of itself in ways I don't know that creationists appreciate.

It's also funny that the Bible mentions cities we can identify as existing before the flood, which should have apparently destroyed all evidence they ever existed.

And regarding the geological record, the issue isn't that it is chaotic and unpredictable. It's that it largely makes sense when you understand just a few key principles.

It's always amusing to me that whenever a scientist supports some creationist idea they're always presented as the leading expert on the subject, without fail. And then you look them up and the most notable thing about them is being a creationist.

Not sure what issue you're saying doesn't have an answer per current geological understanding regarding sedimentary deposits. Do you have something more specific?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 3:47p, 11/20/24
AG
Jabin said:
Why do you assume that the only thing happening during the Flood is 40 days of rain?

The Bible also states that the "fountains of the deep" were opened up.

In addition, the geologists who do believe in a world-wide flood also believe that much if not most of plate tectonics occurred during the Flood year. That was first proposed by John Baumgardner, who was for years the world's leading deep earth geophysicist (perhaps). Mountains and mountain chains rising suddenly and precipitously could well cause the type of catastrophic damage that exists in the geological record world-wide.

There are lots of geological phenomena that conventional geology cannot explain, such as sedimentary deposits that cross not only entire continents, but much of a hemisphere. There has not been any sedimentation like that for at least hundreds of millions of years (in conventional time).

I think that the problem I have with trying to scientifically justify a young Earth is this: The young Earth creation idea proposes an Earth that was created with maturity in a mature universe where mysterious water holes in the Earth open up and then swallow the water back. Entire contents drifted thousands of miles, mountains form, and canyons are created all in the blink of an eye. People were made from dirt and plants lived without sunlight.

And the explanation for all of this is unapologetically supernatural. No one who is YEC is suggesting that the Genesis creation story is a scientific explanation. And no one who is YEC is proposing actual material physical mechanisms for fountains of the deep or massive plate shifting or mountains created in a year. The explanation is God. The explanation is supernatural.

When your explanation for an observation is that it is the action of an all powerful supernatural being - then there exists zero possible observations or evidences that can possible prove your explanation wrong. Because with an all powerful God, everything is possible. And any observation that doesn't back up the supernatural explanation can be waived away with 'God is all powerful, and is responsible, and it was magic.

So - when you hold a belief in an idea, for which there is zero scientific data that can convince you the belief is false, then you must stop claiming your idea is scientific.

Aliens could visit Earth tomorrow and explain that they've been travelling to us for a million years and the YEC will say that God created them already in transit. Tomorrow we could dig up an ancient city of dinosaurs that was created by a branch of dinosaur that evolved to be intelligent and sentient. and we could find a diary from those dinosaurs written as their city was been buried and their civilization was being destroyed documenting their existence along with a stop watch that read 65 million years. . . . and YEC would say that God created all of that 6000 years ago. And why not? If God is all powerful, certainly those things are possible and its possible that God created an alien race in transit and the remnants of a dinosaur civilization that didn't exist.

TLDR:
If 'God did it through violation of the natural and physical laws' is valid explanation, then why on Earth do we expect the study of natural and physical laws to corroborate the story?
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:34p, 11/20/24
AG
I've found the best way to deal with the various kinds of science denial folks is to work backwards.

Ask for two things. What sorts of evidence would disprove this theory? And why doesn't that evidence exist.

And the big one, what sort of evidence would convince you this theory is accurate.

From there you tend to find out pretty quickly if you are even talking to someone remotely interested in scientific evidence. Most the time it's some version of a Time Machine proving Jesus wasn't real or some such.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 6:58a, 11/21/24
AG
Aggrad08 said:
I've found the best way to deal with the various kinds of science denial folks is to work backwards.

Ask for two things. What sorts of evidence would disprove this theory? And why doesn't that evidence exist.

And the big one, what sort of evidence would convince you this theory is accurate.

From there you tend to find out pretty quickly if you are even talking to someone remotely interested in scientific evidence. Most the time it's some version of a Time Machine proving Jesus wasn't real or some such.
Sure. And to be perfectly clear, I don't have a problem with the fact that Dirt believes in a young Earth. He's a grown ass adult and gets to decide for himself what he thinks is true. And what I think of Dirt's views is not a reflection on him personally. He may be a lovely human being.

Anyway, just want to make sure its clear that I don't want for anything above to be seen as a personal attack.

Reply Quote
1
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 8:01a, 11/21/24
AG
Sure plenty of YEC are sweet people that has nothing to do with it. The issue is constantly talking past each other when someone fundamentally isn't really interested in what the scientific evidence is. It's a waste of time and it's also deceptive. To say "I'm not convinced by the science" is a claim that might literally be true but it reads a bit different than "no realistic scientific evidence could persuade me". There is an implication in the first sentence that the evidence is wanting that doesn't truly exist.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DirtDiver • 8:07a, 11/21/24
AG

Quote:
If we assumed that all life evolved from common ancestry I would expect to see mass hybridization/transition not only in the fossil record but living today vs distinct kinds of animals. I would expect this between all forms of life.


Sorry, I missed this post. I'll just address this one point since others were already discussed.

A scientific theory about evolution should be consistent with what we observe today and what we observe in the fossil record. So, when I ask you to explain what you would expect to see if we evolved from common ancestry, those expectations should not violate current observation.

We do not, today, observe sharks reproducing with other fish and primates reproducing with reptiles and mammals reproducing with birds. What we do observe is species can reproduce only with the same species or species that are close enough genetically. So transitional species exist along the lines in the diagram above - not as jumps from one line to the other.

This is why we don't see Ray Comfort's crocoduck. The expectation for that type of species hybridization where organisms make huge leaps across evolutionary branches is not something that is consistent with modern observation.

But, since evolutionary theory makes the prediction that fish and land animals share common ancestry, we should expect to see species that suggest a population of fish that began to diverge toward land animals. And we observe fossils of species like Tiktaalik that shows that transition. And archeopteryx which shows a reptile with a whole lot of bird like qualities. And ambulocetus which has a lot of qualities of a land mammal and also a lot of modern whales. And the list goes on. All of the so called transitional species must live along those evolutionary tree lines.

To expect differently would be to ignore what we currently observe, right?
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 10:07a, 11/21/24
Quote:
That actually raises more questions than it answers. If "most" plate tectonics occurred over a year span that implies a lot of continental drift over a very short time span. Forget the flood, that would be catastrophic in of itself in ways I don't know that creationists appreciate.
That's why John Baumgardner's theory is referred to a "catastrophic plate tectonics". And the creationists I know and read are very, very aware of the extreme catastrophic implications.

Quote:
It's also funny that the Bible mentions cities we can identify as existing before the flood, which should have apparently destroyed all evidence they ever existed.
There's a super easy answer for that - people named post-flood cities after the pre-flood cities. They're not the same cities at all. Brits did the same when they came to settle the New World - they gave New World towns the same names as the towns they were familiar with back in England.

Quote:
It's always amusing to me that whenever a scientist supports some creationist idea they're always presented as the leading expert on the subject, without fail. And then you look them up and the most notable thing about them is being a creationist.
I assume you're referring to my mention of John Baumgardner? If so, do a bit more research on him. Among his many other accomplishments, he created a piece of software named Terra, which as I understand it is the software used by all deep-earth geologists for deep earth modeling.

One reason that many may seem to be known primarily for being a creationist on quick google searches is that it is an easy and lazy way for their opponents to try to discredit them. Once a scientist has that label stuck on them, most other scientists then simply ignore them.

Quote:
Not sure what issue you're saying doesn't have an answer per current geological understanding regarding sedimentary deposits. Do you have something more specific?
I don't understand your question. Can you be more specific? The point I was trying to make is that there appears to be lots of stuff in the geological record that cannot currently be explained by an old earth model but can be more readily explained by a world-wide flood.

As a caveat, I will readily admit that there's lots of evidence for an ancient earth and universe, and that there are many issues, questions, and problems that YEC cannot yet explain. But I am convinced that it's not as cut and dried as the old earth and materialistic proponents try to make it.
Reply Quote
1
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 8:05a, 11/22/24
AG
If that "catastrophic plate tectonics" happened there would be no plant life left. The top soil would be completely eradicated and that doesn't come back quickly. But I do think kurt's previous post makes a valid point. We can argue about the flood as if it were a real and natural event where the normal laws of nature held true but that's not really what the story implies. Any seeming impossibility can just be waved away with a magical fix.

So instead I'll say this: You may be able reconcile the Biblical narrative of the flood and the physical evidence we see in the world today, but I'd argue no one would come to that conclusion based on the evidence alone without already believing in the Biblical flood.
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 8:23a, 11/22/24
Quote:
So instead I'll say this: You may be able reconcile the Biblical narrative of the flood and the physical evidence we see in the world today, but I'd argue no one would come to that conclusion based on the evidence alone without already believing in the Biblical flood.
Very interesting point; I'll have to ponder that.
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 8:34a, 11/22/24
Quote:
So - when you hold a belief in an idea, for which there is zero scientific data that can convince you the belief is false, then you must stop claiming your idea is scientific.
I'm not sure that's an accurate statement of my beliefs. Rather, that's a box that you and Aggrad have constructed to try to define my beliefs for me.

What I told Agggrad months (years?) ago is that there's not a single piece of evidence that would cause me to reject my beliefs. First, that is because, unlike you and Aggrad, I don't believe that science is the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. It's a powerful, even extremely powerful tool, but it is limited in what it can "prove" to us. Second, there are so many pieces of scientific evidence that I feel support my beliefs that it is impossible to point to one, hypothetical, contradictory piece of evidence to "disprove" all of the supporting evidence.

Also, hypothetically speaking, if there was sufficient scientific data, in aggregate, I might well be forced to reject my beliefs. But as I've rolled up my sleeves and examined the scientific data, I've discovered that it's not at all as clear cut and black and white as you, and certainly Aggrad, assert.

To me and many others, the scientific evidence is perfectly compatible with a Biblical history of creation.

ETA: Your point is purely theoretical, from my perspective, because I've yet to see any scientific "data" that would even come remotely close to "disproving" my beliefs.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 8:47a, 11/22/24
AG
Despite the mountains of evidence in favor of my position and that yours truly is virtually abandoned in every university in the first world I can name real evidence that would disprove evolution. Sure I'd need to be very convinced it's not a hoax due to the generations of exploration and investigation that turned up nothing of the sort, but I can still clearly name it.

In fact the utter absence of such evidence despite thorough investigation is a huge reason to substantiate my belief. This is fundamentally the scientific method. It's really why YEC views are dead in academia for so long. You very simply cannot use the scientific method and believe them. We can come up with countless experiments and testable evidences that discredit the notion and we have.

It's very simply not accurate to say you can commit to the scientific method and come to YEC beliefs. It's the exact opposite.

Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 8:55a, 11/22/24
AG
Jabin said:

I don't understand your question. Can you be more specific? The point I was trying to make is that there appears to be lots of stuff in the geological record that cannot currently be explained by an old earth model but can be more readily explained by a world-wide flood.

To me, the problem with explaining geological phenomenon with a world wide flood is that the flood itself is still not explainable except through the supernatural. The flood described in Genesis was something caused when God intervening in the natural process on the Earth. Its still an attempt to explain a natural observation with a supernatural cause.

Lets say there was a worldwide flood 4500 years ago. What is the meteorological model that is consistent with our current scientific understanding of whether patterns that allows for a rain event to last 40 days across the globe and adding about a billion cubic miles of water that previously didn't exist on the Earth only to once again disappear after the flood? Of course, that model does not exist.

Let me try another analogy. There are other geological formations that we do not currently have good explanations for. One such example are the Moeraki boulders. These are rounded boulders on the coast of New Zealand. As I understand it, we understand something about the formation of these rocks through a process of concretion, but the details of how and why these boulders were formed is still a mystery. Now, there is a local myth about how the boulders are the remnants of the cargo of a fishing canoe that was magically turned to stone and then washed ashore. So, with this myth, we have an explanation that explains the mystery and offers a model that more accurately and fully explains the phenomenon than any scientific model does.

We have a Moeraki boulder shaped mystery and we have a Moeraki boulder shaped myth that perfect fits and solves the mystery. Problem solved, right?

The obvious problem with the myth above is that we lack an explanation for how fishing nets and cargo items were turned to stone. Or any credible process for evaluation whether or not a violation of the natural laws occurred.

The myth may be correct. How can any of us disprove it? How does one go about proving that a supernatural event did or did not occur? Regardless of how unlikely you think it is, how can you claim there is a zero percent chance it is correct?

And what would be the consequences of assuming that because the myth perfectly solves the mystery, that its likely true. Well, we might decide we've answered the question, decide science does not have anything to offer in terms of an explanation, and potentially miss out on increasing our geological knowledge by finding an actual answer.

Back to the flood myth - we find geological questions and we solve those questions by proposing a solution that requires supernatural input. Its a solution that requires us to believe that a violation of natural laws occurred. A violation that we cannot study or prove. A supernatural violation that, by its very definition, cannot be proven by science - unless of course you believe that the understanding of your God is reducible to scientific and natural explanation.

When we have a mystery that we solve for by introducing an explanation that is not just a mystery itself, but an inherently incomprehensible mystery, I fail to see how we've furthered any sort of actual scientific understanding.
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 9:23a, 11/22/24
Good discussion!

It's actually a question discussed among YEC geologists but it's my impression that few are willing to propose a mechanism for the world wide flood because of the complete lack of evidence suggesting any specific mechanism.

One possible mechanism that I've always wondered about as a possibility is the vast amount of water that is under the earth's surface. Its existence is not a YEC daydream; modern geologists readily acknowledge it (or at least I think they do. I am merely an interested layman.) Could a major meteorite strike have 1) vaporized that water, resulting in massive rainfall as it condensed back to liquid form as it entered the upper atmosphere, 2) triggered catastrophic continental movement, and 3) that catastrophic continental movement in turn forced the remaining subsurface water into massive movement (the fountains of the deep)?

That is just one layman's speculation. The primary point is that it might not taken direct supernatural intervention (i.e., a "miracle") in order to have caused the Flood.

It's my understanding that almost all geologists believe that ancient earth suffered numerous catastrophes. The solar system itself also seems to have suffered similarly. That is, the asteroid belt appears to be the remains of an exploded planet and, interestingly, only one hemisphere of the moon contains most of the bombardment craters. A YEC might contend that all of these catastrophes occurred close in time, rather than spread out over hundreds of millions of years, and were all interconnected.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 12:17p, 11/22/24
AG
Jabin said:
Good discussion!

It's actually a question discussed among YEC geologists but it's my impression that few are willing to propose a mechanism for the world wide flood because of the complete lack of evidence suggesting any specific mechanism.

One possible mechanism that I've always wondered about as a possibility is the vast amount of water that is under the earth's surface. Its existence is not a YEC daydream; modern geologists readily acknowledge it (or at least I think they do. I am merely an interested layman.) Could a major meteorite strike have 1) vaporized that water, resulting in massive rainfall as it condensed back to liquid form as it entered the upper atmosphere, 2) triggered catastrophic continental movement, and 3) that catastrophic continental movement in turn forced the remaining subsurface water into massive movement (the fountains of the deep)?

That is just one layman's speculation. The primary point is that it might not taken direct supernatural intervention (i.e., a "miracle") in order to have caused the Flood.

It's my understanding that almost all geologists believe that ancient earth suffered numerous catastrophes. The solar system itself also seems to have suffered similarly. That is, the asteroid belt appears to be the remains of an exploded planet and, interestingly, only one hemisphere of the moon contains most of the bombardment craters. A YEC might contend that all of these catastrophes occurred close in time, rather than spread out over hundreds of millions of years, and were all interconnected.

It is my understanding as well that there is a large amount of water under the surface. However, it is my understanding that YEC geologists do not propose a naturalistic mechanism for raising that water to the surface and then back down.

I don't know the physics or mathematics of what it would take from an asteroid in order to create this level of catastrophic event. The concern I have with this theory is that an asteroid too small would not be sufficient to explain the proposed catastrophic results. And an asteroid too big would create other / bigger issues. The Chicxulub asteroid that is thought to have hit off of Mexico around the end of the dinosaurs would have been felt around the world and kicked up trillions of tons of stuff into the atmosphere and would have blocked sunlight for months or years. In terms of how it affected the planet, it would have been massive, but not massive enough to have raised a trillions cubic miles of water or raise mountain ranges or move entire continents. And so I think the problem with proposing an impact big enough to do things like raise mountain ranges 4500 years ago is that such an impact would have resulted in a description by an observer that does not necessarily match Genesis. Moses observed rain and flood, not a massive explosion, tsunamis of the sort that would have shattered a wooden boat into splinters, earthquakes on a scale far greater than we've ever seen, shock waves, and years of freezing nuclear winter.

Introduction of an all powerful God as the cause for the flood has the possibility of answering all questions and eliminating any need to explain for consistency of any known physics, A God this powerful can do anything.

So, if we can explain the floods through purely natural explanations, then we have no use for God in the explanation. If God is the explanation, then there is no sense in trying to corroborate any natural observations. If the flood was caused by magic, then we don't need mechanisms or physics or science or logic or anything else. In fact, observation and naturalism should contradict such an event. Miracles involve violations of the natural. Right?
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 12:29p, 11/22/24
Quote:
I don't know the physics or mathematics of what it would take from an asteroid in order to create this level of catastrophic event. The concern I have with this theory is that an asteroid too small would not be sufficient to explain the proposed catastrophic results. And an asteroid too big would create other / bigger issues. The Chicxulub asteroid that is thought to have hit off of Mexico around the end of the dinosaurs would have been felt around the world and kicked up trillions of tons of stuff into the atmosphere and would have blocked sunlight for months or years. In terms of how it affected the planet, it would have been massive, but not massive enough to have raised a trillions cubic miles of water or raise mountain ranges or move entire continents.

Those are legitimate questions to which I lack the knowledge to respond properly. However, it's my limited understanding that whatever triggered the catastrophic plate tectonics, it did not "cause" it. Rather, runaway subduction would have been the cause of the catastrophic plate tectonics.

As some corroboration, there's no current secular explanation for the Himalayas or Andes. They are way too young for their height, given current rates of continental drift. I actually met with Baumgardner years ago and, if my memory serves me right (an increasingly dubious proposition), he pointed to them as significant evidence in support of his theory/hypothesis. He contends that the continents would have to move at much, much higher velocities than we see them moving today for those mountain chains to have been created within the currently estimated times.

Quote:
And so I think the problem with proposing an impact big enough to do things like raise mountain ranges 4500 years ago is that such an impact would have resulted in a description by an observer that does not necessarily match Genesis. Moses observed rain and flood, not a massive explosion, tsunamis of the sort that would have shattered a wooden boat into splinters, earthquakes on a scale far greater than we've ever seen, shock waves, and years of freezing nuclear winter.
Moses did not observe anything of the flood. He was born long after it.

And nowhere does the description of the Flood claim that it was complete. Your argument is an argument from silence.

Quote:
Introduction of an all powerful God as the cause for the flood has the possibility of answering all questions and eliminating any need to explain for consistency of any known physics, A God this powerful can do anything.

So, if we can explain the floods through purely natural explanations, then we have no use for God in the explanation. If God is the explanation, then there is no sense in trying to corroborate any natural observations. If the flood was caused by magic, then we don't need mechanisms or physics or science or logic or anything else. In fact, observation and naturalism should contradict such an event. Miracles involve violations of the natural. Right?
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. I'm not arguing that magic, or God's supernatural intervention, had any role in the Flood.

I do believe that God did have a role, but perhaps only in the sense that he has a role in maintaining every particle and sub-atomic particle in the universe at every moment. He may have miraculously intervened to cause the Flood, but that's not what I'm arguing, contending, or even suggesting.
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 1:04p, 11/22/24
AG
Quote:
As some corroboration, there's no current secular explanation for the Himalayas or Andes. They are way too young for their height, given current rates of continental drift. I actually met with Baumgardner years ago and, if my memory serves me right (an increasingly dubious proposition), he pointed to them as significant evidence in support of his theory/hypothesis. He contends that the continents would have to move at much, much higher velocities than we see them moving today for those mountain chains to have been created within the currently estimated times.
This is strange one as I've never heard anyone say this about either the Himalayas or the Andes. But yes, it's assumed that as the tectonic plates collided their velocity decreased. That's exactly what you'd expect to see happen.
Reply Quote
1
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 1:07p, 11/22/24
Rocag said:
Quote:
As some corroboration, there's no current secular explanation for the Himalayas or Andes. They are way too young for their height, given current rates of continental drift. I actually met with Baumgardner years ago and, if my memory serves me right (an increasingly dubious proposition), he pointed to them as significant evidence in support of his theory/hypothesis. He contends that the continents would have to move at much, much higher velocities than we see them moving today for those mountain chains to have been created within the currently estimated times.
This is strange one as I've never heard anyone say this about either the Himalayas or the Andes. But yes, it's assumed that as the tectonic plates collided their velocity decreased. That's exactly what you'd expect to see happen.
That's because the secular scientific community simply ignores facts that contradict their paradigm.

And you're missing the point. The issue is the speed of continental drift necessary to raise current mountain ranges. That speed is way, way higher than any secular scientist is willing to even discuss.
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 1:26p, 11/22/24
AG
Maybe. I'm not a geologist and don't claim to be any kind of expert on this subject. I couldn't say whether this point is valid or not.

However, I have seen creationists exclaim "Science can't explain THIS!" where it concerns topics I am pretty well educated about and know that science absolutely can explain them so consider me skeptical when it comes to this kind of claim.

That being said, the Himalayas are currently observed at growing between 1 and 2 millimeters per year. A quick Google search says that they are about 29,000' tall.

29,000 ft x (304.8 mm / ft) = 8,839,200 mm

So even assuming the 1 mm per year growth, it would take about 9 million years for the Himalayas to form. What's the problem there? That's well within the expected timeline.
Reply Quote
1
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 1:43p, 11/22/24
Because there's not enough kinetic energy in the continents at their current velocity to raise the mountains that high. According to Baumgardner, it would take a much, much higher velocity.
Reply Quote
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 2:04p, 11/22/24
AG
As far as I can tell this seems to be regarded as an interesting topic to study rather than "OMG there is no possible explanation for this!"

And I don't know why we'd ever assume that the velocity of an object after it collided with another object would be the same as it was prior to that collision.

Of interest... India-Asia collision and the Cenozoic slowdown of the Indian plate: Implications for the forces driving plate motions
Reply Quote
3
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 8:09a, 11/25/24
AG
Jabin said:
Because there's not enough kinetic energy in the continents at their current velocity to raise the mountains that high. According to Baumgardner, it would take a much, much higher velocity.

I don't know your background in geology. Its possible you have a wall full of degrees in the field of geology and that you 'wrote the book' on plate tectonic kinetic energy studies. I suspect that this is not the case, because I think you would have mentioned that by now. My suspicion is that you are a layman like the rest of us.

Any meaningful discussion about whether or not plates have sufficient energy to raise mountains ought to be held between people with vast knowledge on the subject. If I wanted to dispute Baumgardner's claim, I would need to find another expert in the subject and post their published work, which would no doubt be based on scientific and computer generated model data that is well outside of my expertise. And to counter that, you would need to post some published work from Baumgardner which would be full of scientific information and data that is well over your head.

The point is that none of us are experts and so our beliefs about the age of the Himalayas for either of us is more a reflection of pre-existing bias than of actual scientific knowledge.

That said, there are other ways for us laymen to consider questions like this. Consider a scientific question where 99% of scientists believe in answer A. And 1% believe in answer B. And of the 1% believing in answer B, 100% of those scientists also hold a religious belief that the answer is B. We can ask questions like "Is the scientific position that the answer is B based on religious information or scientific information? Are there scientists outside of the religious belief that also believe the answer is B?

In other words, to me, it appears that the scientific geological conclusion that these mountain ranges are young and formed over a year appears to be very specifically tied to a very small and very specific sect of a religious tradition.

Recall the story about the Moeraki boulders in New Zealand. Imagine a scenario where virtually every scientist on the planet believed in a naturalistic explanation for the rocks. And the only dissent to this conclusion on the planet came from New Zealand geologists who were decedents of Maori people who still practiced the ancient religion of their ancestors and who held to the belief that these boulders were the result of fishing canoe cargo, fishing baskets, and fruits being magically turned to stone and washing ashore. It would be very easy to tie the belief of eel baskets turning to stone to a religious belief rather than to 'best scientific understanding'. Is it a reasonable conclusion from a layman like myself to suggest that these boulders most likely had naturalistic causes and were not the results of ancient Maori gods?
Reply Quote
2
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 11:35a, 11/25/24
Kind of good points.

For many decades, I rejected YEC because I concluded it was full of charlatans. And then I met Kurt Wise and a handful of scientists who are doing good science and are YEC. Are they informed or predisposed because of their religious beliefs? Yes, absolutely so. Kurt Wise is explicit about acknowledging that fact.

However, that does not mean that their science is wrong. And the fact that the vast majority of scientists disagree with them is irrelevant. As you know, science is never determined by majority vote. The only relevant question is whether their science is right or wrong.

I'd also submit that much of their science and work is unknown because of the gate keepers. Few of them can get published in peer reviewed journals, not because of their poor science, but because of the total blackballing of anyone with the YEC label on them. An exception if Art Chadwick who has had 3 cover articles published in Geology magazine, but even so he has to make sure that his articles never, ever mention anything that could relate to YEC, even though all of them did.

But you're right. I'm not a geologist and probably none of us here are. Even if we were, we probably wouldn't convince the other to change one's mind. That especially never happens on message boards. I take this as simply an opportunity to discuss the issues with intelligent people, see if there's any angle I've missed, and simply enjoy the discussion.

One last point is that you guys seem to believe that science should stand alone and should not be affected at all by religious beliefs. Two responses: 1) that's naive. Even secular scientists are deeply affected by their religious/world view beliefs. The assumption that the only explanation for any observation must be materialistic is the scientist imposing their world view on their observations. 2) If one is convinced that God exists and that the Bible is his divine revelation to humans, then it is supremely arrogant and silly to ignore it in studying his creation. If I need to work on my car, it would be the height of stupidity to ignore the repair manuals and other literature published by the car manufacturer.
Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 1:53p, 11/25/24
AG
Yes, what is true is not determined by popular vote. I don't think of YEC geologists as charlatans. Maybe some are, but I imagine that many of them hold their positions with sincerity.

I don't know the conditions by which YEC papers are blocked. But, I think I would need to know a bit more before I condemned scientific journals for acting out of prejudice. If I were in charge of a scientific journal and a paper was submitted which proposed supernatural explanations, I would be inclined to block it also. And if I were in charge of a scientific journal and a paper was submitted which simply made rational arguments for rapid formation of certain geological items or called into question radiometric dating accuracy and invoked scientific explanation instead of supernatural explanation. . . then no problem. As long as it stays within the realm of science, I'd have no problem with it.

To stick with my Moeraki boulder example. If I were in charge of scientific paper and someone submitted an explanation to these boulders that included a magical being turning fishing nets into stones, I wouldn't publish it. Would you? I don't mean this rhetorically - would you publish that paper? Why or why not? Gotta teach the controversy and all that, right?


Quote:
One last point is that you guys seem to believe that science should stand alone and should not be affected at all by religious beliefs. Two responses: 1) that's nave. Even secular scientists are deeply affected by their religious/world view beliefs. The assumption that the only explanation for any observation must be materialistic is the scientist imposing their world view on their observations. 2) If one is convinced that God exists and that the Bible is his divine revelation to humans, then it is supremely arrogant and silly to ignore it in studying his creation. If I need to work on my car, it would be the height of stupidity to ignore the repair manuals and other literature published by the car manufacturer.

1) Yes, everyone is affected by their bias. But, this is a 'bug' of our ability to do science, not a feature. Science often progresses by overcoming those biases, not by leaning into them. If science is concerned with studying the reality of the physical and natural world, then any bias is a hurdle we have to overcome. A bias which favors an unobservable, unverifiable, supernatural, and untestable solution would be at the very top of the list as a bias we need to discard while doing science.

What you have above in bold is a problem for me. In my view, science explicitly requires this assumption. Science must be done with the assumption that there are rational, understandable, physical, natural, consistent solutions. Science done to prove a supernatural cause is not science. Even if its correct. . . its still not science.

The assumption that Genesis is accurate is a scientific non-starter as we've demonstrated in this very thread. Things that could be argued to be either young or old are assumed to be young because it matches the "evidence of Genesis". And things that are definitely old are discounted as the work of the supernatural creating the illusion of maturity. If you hold the YEC account of Gensis as truth, then there does not exist an observation or contrary evidence that cannot be explained away as God did it with magic. This is simply confirmation bias.

2) I object to your analogy. Your car was probably built in the last decade, maybe two. We know who the manufacturer is, exactly when it was made, we know where it was made, we know who produced each component, we know exactly where the manual was printed, we know who designed your car, and the authors of that manual are probably still alive today. There is no real question that the repair manual is exactly what it says it is. The belief that the Bible represents the word of God requires immensely more faith than the belief that your repair manual represents the word of the manufacturer.
Reply Quote
2
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 1:55p, 11/25/24
AG
As a second response to your post. Maybe you will indulge me.

1. Define science.

2. What are the assumptions on which science operates? (Or at least list some of them)
Reply Quote
1
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 1:56p, 11/25/24
Rocag said:
As far as I can tell this seems to be regarded as an interesting topic to study rather than "OMG there is no possible explanation for this!"

And I don't know why we'd ever assume that the velocity of an object after it collided with another object would be the same as it was prior to that collision.

Of interest... India-Asia collision and the Cenozoic slowdown of the Indian plate: Implications for the forces driving plate motions
I asked a geologist once what other geologists meant when they talk about something like a mountain range being 50 million years old or so. His response was that, in geological terms, 50 million years is the blink of an eye. What they are really saying is that the event happened really, really recently, geologically speaking. Other than that, they are completely unable to provide a precise date with any credibility. He told me that there is no geological dating mechanism that can provide that level of dating precision.
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 2:05p, 11/25/24
kurt vonnegut said:
1. Define science.
I have or had a book by Richard Feynman. In it, he quoted one of his profs that it is impossible to define science. He agreed with his prof and, with my much more limited understanding than either of them, think that I agree with both.

Quote:
Quote:
2. What are the assumptions on which science operates? (Or at least list some of them)
Since it is impossible to define science, it would appear to also be impossible to list the assumptions on which it operates.

Further, there are many different so-called "disciplines" that call themselves scientific that all operate under different assumptions.

Why do you ask these questions? They are interesting and perhaps profound but I'm not sure where you're going with them.

How would you answer the questions?
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 2:23p, 11/25/24
kurt vonnegut said:
And if I were in charge of a scientific journal and a paper was submitted which simply made rational arguments for rapid formation of certain geological items or called into question radiometric dating accuracy and invoked scientific explanation instead of supernatural explanation. . . then no problem. As long as it stays within the realm of science, I'd have no problem with it.
Unfortunately, you are not in charge of any scientific journal. And people who I trust inform me that their articles are automatically rejected even though they rely solely on science and make no claims for supernatural explanations. Examples (I think) are of the recent finds that everything has measurable 14C and that fossilized dinosaur bones contain soft tissue and DNA.


Quote:
To stick with my Moeraki boulder example. If I were in charge of scientific paper and someone submitted an explanation to these boulders that included a magical being turning fishing nets into stones, I wouldn't publish it. Would you? I don't mean this rhetorically - would you publish that paper? Why or why not? Gotta teach the controversy and all that, right?
There are too many YECs who make the argument you're making. But it's not one I'm making, so it is a strawman argument for this discussion. I agree that scientific papers should not rely upon miracles or magic as explanatory mechanisms.

Quote:
What you have above in bold is a problem for me. In my view, science explicitly requires this assumption. Science must be done with the assumption that there are rational, understandable, physical, natural, consistent solutions. Science done to prove a supernatural cause is not science. Even if its correct. . . its still not science.
But, as a hypothetical example, let's say we had a real, genuine example of magic that could not be explained by science. If you deny that it was magic, despite any alternative scientific explanation, then science (as you define it) would lead you away from truth.

Quote:
The belief that the Bible represents the word of God requires immensely more faith than the belief that your repair manual represents the word of the manufacturer.
This may be the essence of our disagreement. I fundamentally disagree with what you just wrote.

And it's not just car manuals. You seem to have a high confidence in what "science" supposedly teaches us, even though all that you know about science is presumably third hand. And science doesn't actually teach us anything; scientists might. And scientists themselves are subject to all of the normal human foibles, making a reliance on what "science" teaches a great leap of faith.
Reply Quote
1
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:58a, 11/26/24
AG
Feynman gives a rather fun answer to what is science:

http://feynman.com/science/what-is-science/

Reply Quote
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 12:13p, 11/26/24
AG
Quote:
Unfortunately, you are not in charge of any scientific journal. And people who I trust inform me that their articles are automatically rejected even though they rely solely on science and make no claims for supernatural explanations. Examples (I think) are of the recent finds that everything has measurable 14C and that fossilized dinosaur bones contain soft tissue and DNA.

-----

There are too many YECs who make the argument you're making. But it's not one I'm making, so it is a strawman argument for this discussion. I agree that scientific papers should not rely upon miracles or magic as explanatory mechanisms.
And if that is the case, I am not going to defend scientific journals for blacklisting someone for their belief. Like I said, I really don't know the conditions on which these journals are rejecting these articles.

I think we are on the same page on your second paragraph. Apologize if it came off as a strawman argument. I only wanted to demonstrate an example of a "scientific paper" for which it is justifiable to reject in a scientific journal.


Quote:
But, as a hypothetical example, let's say we had a real, genuine example of magic that could not be explained by science. If you deny that it was magic, despite any alternative scientific explanation, then science (as you define it) would lead you away from truth.
Yes, I think this is 100% correct. I believe that science has limitations to what it can and cannot tell us. And I believe that the supernatural is beyond the reach of science. When I have time later today, I'll respond more to the posts about defining science.

Lets say that magic occurred. What scientific tool would you use to study the magic? Is this magic observable? Can you put it in a test tube and heat it up and see what it does. Put it in a spectrometer to see what the magic is made of? Can you duplicate the magic so that you can run experiments on it? Can you make predictions about the magic? Of course the answer is no.

Even if the magic exists - my position is that science is either a very incomplete tool to study it or the completely wrong tool to study it.

Quote:
And it's not just car manuals. You seem to have a high confidence in what "science" supposedly teaches us, even though all that you know about science is presumably third hand. And science doesn't actually teach us anything; scientists might. And scientists themselves are subject to all of the normal human foibles, making a reliance on what "science" teaches a great leap of faith.
A lot of what I know about science is third hand in that I have not personally made the observations, recorded the data, made predictions, checked predictions. . . . . etc. That much is true. However, there are many situations for which I have personally made the observations, recorded data, done the math, made predictions . . . etc. A level in trust in the process is thereby justifiable.

And (this is important) scientific knowledge is theoretically accessible for any of us to study and observe first hand. With maybe few exceptions, there is no scientific knowledge or claim for which someone could not say "Well, do the experiment and decide for yourself."

Truth revealed through someone else's divine revelation is not accessible to me.

Scientific claims need not and should not be taken on faith. But, religious claims of the supernatural, of divine intervention, of revelation, and of purpose must be taken on faith. I can run the experiment and prove Einstein's theory of general relativity. And I can observe it and document it first hand. This is possible and this is accessible to me. I cannot run the experiment and prove that anything in the Bible represents the word and intention of God. This is not possible and it is not accessible to me through anything other than faith.

So, back on topic - why else do I feel science is reliable?

Practical success. Medicine, vaccines, phones, computers, televisions, cars, planes, machinery, agricultural practices, energy systems. Every solution from the field of engineering is a testament to the reliability of science. It is not a testament to the infallibility of science. Nor is it a testament to a claim that our understanding is perfect. But, we are literally swimming in evidence of science's reliable practical applications.

Universal application. My computer does not run differently than yours because the physical laws that apply to my computer are the same that apply to yours. Science is not different in the U. S. and China. It it is not different for Christians or Buddhists.

Science is self correcting. Science is not static. It evolves as new evidence emerges, which means errors or limitations in understanding can be eventually addressed. Woven into our understanding SHOULD be the understanding that nothing we understand through science is perfect or complete.

Predictive Power. Science provides us with tools to make predictions and verify those predictions. Every time you use your computer and works, you have validated the predictions of science regarding the behavior of how 100 billion transistors a few nanometers in size will operate. Every time you use your car, get on a plane, flip a light switch, plug something in, take medication, turn on the tv. Science is the foundation on which all technology is built and the source of the justified trust we have in our expectations that all these things work. Science can predict the weather, the motions of the stars and planets, when we'll have an eclipse, where volcanoes and earthquakes are likely, how disease will spread, the best time to plant crops, what those crops will need to grow, and even verifiable probabilities of passing genetic traits to our kids. These predictions are not perfect, but they constantly get better as our scientific understanding gets better.

The idea that a belief in the reliability of science requires a leap of faith is ludicrous to me. I do not need to have run or witnessed every experiment in the history of mankind to recognize the utility of science.
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.