# Creation, Evolution and the Hindenburg Disaster



## MichaelNZ (Aug 13, 2014)

Something to think about with regards to the Creation-Evolution debate:

Apologetica Christiana - Christian Apologetics: Creation, Evolution and the Hindenburg Disaster


----------



## raydixon9 (Aug 13, 2014)

A good argument to have in the repertoire. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Edward (Aug 13, 2014)

raydixon9 said:


> A good argument to have in the repertoire.



Unless you are dealing with a conspiracy theorist.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 13, 2014)

Actually, it's a very poor argument. The author apparently understands nothing about forensic science.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 14, 2014)

While I've never studied forensic science and most of my knowledge comes from TV shows, I do understand what it is and how it works. However, the point I was trying to make is that we here in 2014 don't have access to the wreck of the _Hindenburg_ in order to carry out forensic analysis on it. All we can do in the present is try to replicate the conditions that were present at the time of the disaster and carry out experiments in these conditions.

Likewise, we don't have access to the distant past in which evolution is supposed to have happened. Even if scientists could make one kind of animal turn into another kind of animal (which they won't be able to do), that fact alone doesn't conclusively prove that similar events _did_ happen in the past.

Proving the possibility of something happening in the past is not proving the actuality of that thing happening in the past. Add this to the fact that macro-evolution has never been observed and the so-called fact of evolution goes down like a lead balloon.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 14, 2014)

Unlike the Hindenberg wreckage, we do have access to much of the past. Every fossil is a piece of wreckage, if you will. The geological strata are wreckage. Ice core data is marvelous evidence. Radiometric dating provides evidence. Tree rings are evidence. Molecular DNA analysis is one of the newest tools giving us phenomenal new insights. No doubt we could have much more data than we do, but there is still plenty of data from which to draw persuasive inferences. 

You are formally correct that proving possibility is not proving actuality. However, the issue is really probability. Forensic sciences rely on abductive reasoning, reasoning to the best fit. There is nothing wrong with this process. Furthermore, there is no philosophically meaningful distinction between "historical" science and "observational" science. No philosopher of science would grant such a distinction, nor is there any reason to do so. It is certainly not the case that the conclusions of "observational" science are always more secure than "historical" science. For example, I am much more sure about the fact that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America than anyone is about whether light is a wave and/or a particle, something that has been the subject of countless experiments.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 14, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> While I've never studied forensic science and most of my knowledge comes from TV shows, I do understand what it is and how it works. However, the point I was trying to make is that we here in 2014 don't have access to the wreck of the _Hindenburg_ in order to carry out forensic analysis on it. All we can do in the present is try to replicate the conditions that were present at the time of the disaster and carry out experiments in these conditions.
> 
> Likewise, we don't have access to the distant past in which evolution is supposed to have happened. Even if scientists could make one kind of animal turn into another kind of animal (which they won't be able to do), that fact alone doesn't conclusively prove that similar events _did_ happen in the past.
> 
> Proving the possibility of something happening in the past is not proving the actuality of that thing happening in the past. Add this to the fact that macro-evolution has never been observed and the so-called fact of evolution goes down like a lead balloon.



That would be, appropriately, a lead zeppelin, which is apparently how the band Led Zeppelin got their name 


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 14, 2014)

CharlieJ said:


> Unlike the Hindenberg wreckage, we do have access to much of the past. Every fossil is a piece of wreckage, if you will. The geological strata are wreckage. Ice core data is marvelous evidence. Radiometric dating provides evidence. Tree rings are evidence. Molecular DNA analysis is one of the newest tools giving us phenomenal new insights. No doubt we could have much more data than we do, but there is still plenty of data from which to draw persuasive inferences.
> 
> You are formally correct that proving possibility is not proving actuality. However, the issue is really probability. Forensic sciences rely on abductive reasoning, reasoning to the best fit. There is nothing wrong with this process. Furthermore, there is no philosophically meaningful distinction between "historical" science and "observational" science. No philosopher of science would grant such a distinction, nor is there any reason to do so. It is certainly not the case that the conclusions of "observational" science are always more secure than "historical" science. For example, I am much more sure about the fact that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America than anyone is about whether light is a wave and/or a particle, something that has been the subject of countless experiments.



It's how the evidence is interpreted overall - or by what paradigm. If intelligent men can persuade themselves by clunky reasoning that random chance gave rise to life and consciousness, and that ape-like creatures evolved into talking and reasoning human beings, I'm sure it's possible that they may have other things wrong.

Are you a theistic evolutionist, Charlie, or just an old earth creationist?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 17, 2014)

CharlieJ said:


> Furthermore, there is no philosophically meaningful distinction between "historical" science and "observational" science. No philosopher of science would grant such a distinction, nor is there any reason to do so.



Historical science is probably a bad term to use. What some have been trying to get at is a shorthand for the metaphysics that undergird science. In some circles the embrace of logical positivism is taken as axiomatic and the only basis for science. There have not been a few thinkers (even in the hard sciences) who have been critical of what they refer to as a Scientism that reduces every question of true knowledge to empirical verifiability. Such an approach to knowledge makes history itself a "non-science".

Thus, while I agree that forensic sciences use of abductive reasoning is valid, it is still useful to point out to many the distinction between accepting the conclusions of some forensic data and concluding that logical positivism is the only proper "scientific" worldview.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 17, 2014)

A recent book by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel is highly critical of the materialist reductionism of modern science."Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" (128pp)

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 18, 2014)

CharlieJ said:


> Unlike the Hindenberg wreckage, we do have access to much of the past. Every fossil is a piece of wreckage, if you will. The geological strata are wreckage. Ice core data is marvelous evidence. Radiometric dating provides evidence. Tree rings are evidence. Molecular DNA analysis is one of the newest tools giving us phenomenal new insights. No doubt we could have much more data than we do, but there is still plenty of data from which to draw persuasive inferences.



What do fossils prove? They prove that the animal died. That's all. You don't know that animal had any offspring. You certainly don't know it had offspring different from itself. 

With regard to geological strata, trees have been found standing up and passing through multiple layers. This throws a spanner into the works for the evolutionists, who believe the layers are different ages. 

Radiometric dating is based on several assumptions that are untestable. We don't know how much carbon-14 was originally in the organism being tested. We don't know if the decay rate has always been the same. I remember seeing a programme about radiometric dating and it showed a couple of forms that were filled out in order to get something dated. One of the fields was "expected age". I have heard of specimens being re-tested because the age given doesn't fit with the evolutionists' time scale.



> You are formally correct that proving possibility is not proving actuality. However, the issue is really probability. Forensic sciences rely on abductive reasoning, reasoning to the best fit. There is nothing wrong with this process. Furthermore, there is no philosophically meaningful distinction between "historical" science and "observational" science. No philosopher of science would grant such a distinction, nor is there any reason to do so. It is certainly not the case that the conclusions of "observational" science are always more secure than "historical" science. For example, I am much more sure about the fact that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America than anyone is about whether light is a wave and/or a particle, something that has been the subject of countless experiments.



I know evolutionists don't like the terms 'operational science' and 'historical science'. But there _is _a fundamental difference between them. With operational science you can conduct experiments to test hypotheses and demonstrate that they are true. However, you can't directly study the past because, well, it's in the past. You can only do experiments here in the present and assume that the conditions in the past were the same as they are now. This is called uniformatarianism (the present is the key to the past), and it is foretold in 2 Peter 3.

_"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, *all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation*.” For when they maintain this, *it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water*._ (2 Peter 3:3-5)

The difference is ultimately your worldview. The facts for creation and evolution are the same. The creationists approach those facts with a Biblical worldview whereas the evolutionists approach the facts with a naturalistic, materialistic worldview. For example, it is a fact that there are layers of rock seen in various parts of the world. The creationist sees these layers as being laid down during the Flood mentioned in Genesis. The evolutionist sees these layers as being laid down over long periods of time. However, the evolutionists are always trying to erase the line between the fact and their own interpretation of the fact.

Also, proper science allows theories to be tested and thrown out if serious problems are found. Evolution isn't treated like that - it's the Holy Grail of the materialist scientists and woe to anyone who threatens to question it. Academics have lost their jobs from announcing that they don't believe in evolution. Do you think that grant money would be given to a project whose objective was to disprove the theory of evolution? I doubt it. *​This is not science. This is dogmatism.*


----------



## whirlingmerc (Aug 18, 2014)

I looked at the article and although I like Creation arguments allot, not sure this is the best argument to use. 
It also did too much hand waving without explaination of the reduction in genetic infomration... which is a great argument...

In general Evolution is not repeatable, testable, observable in the largest sense (although in narrow cases, maybe)
it is more akin to the stuff of detective work/historical science than operation al science

Better arguments... look at Mendel's Accountant by Stanford, look at In the beginning was information by Gitt, simulations of the world by Baumgartner interesting as well


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 18, 2014)

Apparently, some within creation science wonder about the clarity the "historical science" vs "operational science" distinction brings to the discussion: Cuviers analogy - creation.com


----------

