The Proper Domain of (Natural) Science

[Vox Oculi]

I'm not sure how YEC/OEC fits into these.

What has been created now only comes before our observation as a "product." The act of creation as a "process" is beyond human investigation. We only come to understand the process by divine testimony. On the other hand, the sciences are observing processes.

Well, empirical sciences do this. But historical/forensic science, which involves both Creation and Evolution as origins theories, do not observe the processes being investigated. Experiments can be performed, sure, but not on the process in question, only on a process one substitutes as being (one thinks) quite like the one in question, and then extrapolating the results. You're quite right that the only way to be fully confident about what happened in the past is if someone told us. History does an adequate job of this through human writers. But before there were any humans alive to record what happened (Day 1-5), another witness is necessary--and only God satisfies this for us, giving us unquestionable hard data that can be used to formulate further hypotheses and investigate how subsequent events may have unfolded and yielded the tangible evidences we observe today.

In either case, whether young earth or old earth is the hypothesis, the attempt is to convert the "process" into a "product" which cannot itself be investigated. Hence the "ism." The young earther is beginning with the "process" as he understands it from special revelation, and trying to reduce it down to smaller pieces of evidence. The old earther is beginning with the smaller piece of evidence and building up to a larger process without any evidence that the larger process could take place naturally.

I would say that this is only really the case for nonChristians without a witness, and practically speaking, the OECs who don't take God's Word seriously and therefore can't appeal to His witness to bolster their hypotheses. Given what I said above.

 

[chuckd]

God spake and it was done! I expect small scale experimentation to prove long periods of time would have been required for any act of creation to become a reality by natural processes. The evidence in fact suggests that natural processes would have required an infinite amount of time to produce what we see since natural processes could not have produced anything that we see.

Dinosaur fossil evidence suggests large reptile creatures roamed the earth 100+ million years ago (based on radioactive carbon dating) well before man. Do you deny this conclusion or do you believe they were living creatures created in the first days of earth?

 

[MW]

Dinosaur fossil evidence suggests large reptile creatures roamed the earth 100+ million years ago (based on radioactive carbon dating) well before man. Do you deny this conclusion or do you believe they were living creatures created in the first days of earth?

You say the evidence "suggests" a certain hypothesis and then ask if I "deny" or "believe" the hypothesis. A rational man does not form beliefs based on suggestions. At most he could entertain it as something requiring further investigation.

This reveals a problem with the way people tend to respond to the scientific process. Science changes, and even has its own forms of revolution, but people treat it as if it intends to speak finally and infallibly.

My answer is, I "deny" the conclusion has sufficient evidence to support it.

 

[Vox Oculi]

God spake and it was done! I expect small scale experimentation to prove long periods of time would have been required for any act of creation to become a reality by natural processes. The evidence in fact suggests that natural processes would have required an infinite amount of time to produce what we see since natural processes could not have produced anything that we see.

Dinosaur fossil evidence suggests large reptile creatures roamed the earth 100+ million years ago (based on radioactive carbon dating) well before man. Do you deny this conclusion or do you believe they were living creatures created in the first days of earth?

Note: this is not to put down your intelligence or education, but to make an instructive point.

1. Carbon dating is specific to only material containing the element Carbon. Carbon 14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. That means that if the whole earth's mass was solely C-14, within 1 million years, all of it would decay to N14. Therefore, the presence of measurable C14 in a sample indicates the sample must absolutely be younger than 1 million years. Actual levels of C14 in actual samples tested show they must be younger than 80,000 years (the upper limit for AMS instrument detection, corresponding to roughly 1 in 12 Trillion atoms of C14 to C12.

2. Radioisotope or radiometric dating are the generic terms to refer to all forms of radioactive dating, not just C-14 but potassium-argon, uranium, etc.

3. I would like to challenge you to consider the possibility that because you incorrectly characterized the scientific method of age determination of fossils over 100,000 apparent years of age, and because the conclusion therefore either rests on someone else's misconception forwarded to you and accepted uncritically, OR rests on your misconception of someone else's assertion about the dating of dinosaur fossils,
THAT therefore,
you are missing information necessary to make an appropriate judgment on the matter and therefore stand to have your mind changed about what is the true age of dinosaur fossils if you have an open mind to the possibility that what you believe now is based on incorrect data.

Fun fact: dinosaur fossils are routinely found in rock layers ABOVE cenozoic-mammal-fossil containing rock layers (e.g. mammoths, rabbits, etc). In secular geology, this is termed "overthrusts" (because the only way to salvage an old earth belief is to suppose that older layers somehow were pushed over top of younger layers). If you take the evidence at face value, the dinosaur fossils were deposited after the mammal fossils and are therefore more recent. This does not coexist peacefully with a 65-Ma extinction date.

For your consideration.

 

[Vox Oculi]

Another educational point: the fallacy of reification is ascribing human like intent to inanimate or abstract entities. Evidence does not "suggest" anything. Evidence is interpreted within a framework.

It's not wholly inappropriate to use the term 'the evidence suggest' -- so long as you implicitly recognize that what you are really saying is that the evidence is incorporated into and inferred to suggest some thing according to one interpretive mechanism. It does not mean something on its own, and other mechanisms can interpret it to mean something else, possibly more conclusively.

 

[MW]

Another educational point: the fallacy of reification is ascribing human like intent to inanimate or abstract entities. Evidence does not "suggest" anything. Evidence is interpreted within a framework.

Precisely; and there may be more than one filter through which to sift the data.

 

[chuckd]

Another educational point: the fallacy of reification is ascribing human like intent to inanimate or abstract entities. Evidence does not "suggest" anything. Evidence is interpreted within a framework.

It's not wholly inappropriate to use the term 'the evidence suggest' -- so long as you implicitly recognize that what you are really saying is that the evidence is incorporated into and inferred to suggest some thing according to one interpretive mechanism. It does not mean something on its own, and other mechanisms can interpret it to mean something else, possibly more conclusively.

Poor wording I admit. I meant scientific consensus. What mechanism do you interpret it? Do you believe the dinosaurs were created living and became extinct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chuckd]

Dinosaur fossil evidence suggests large reptile creatures roamed the earth 100+ million years ago (based on radioactive carbon dating) well before man. Do you deny this conclusion or do you believe they were living creatures created in the first days of earth?

You say the evidence "suggests" a certain hypothesis and then ask if I "deny" or "believe" the hypothesis. A rational man does not form beliefs based on suggestions. At most he could entertain it as something requiring further investigation.

This reveals a problem with the way people tend to respond to the scientific process. Science changes, and even has its own forms of revolution, but people treat it as if it intends to speak finally and infallibly.

My answer is, I "deny" the conclusion has sufficient evidence to support it.

Well put. I mean to say that scientific consensus, albeit secular, has concluded that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Like you said earlier, you would expect the earth to show evidence of age (even infinite).

Prior to the latest scientific revolution, how would we interpret the dinosaur fossil record? That they lived among men and became extinct? Or that they are part of an earth that would show an infinite age (they never lived)?

I believe young earth creationists attempt to prove the former, but it becomes pseudoscience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MW]

how would we interpret the dinosaur fossil record?

I would begin by pointing out there is no "record," and whatever we have it is not singular. The plan of systematisation has an agenda, and this agenda has no science to support it.

While there were a few fossils to support the myth of prehistoric creatures they were able to hold people on the edge of their seats waiting for more discoveries to prove the "record." As each piece came to hand it kept filling out the "record," but the "record" itself had never actually been substantiated. The evidence has not been researched to prove a "record," but is merely added to the "record" in a schematic way so as to give the impression of undeniable evidence.

The dinosaur fascination is a little like the bearded lady at the circus. That some scientists use the fascination to bolster their theories is unimpressive from a rational point of view.

The YEC's are at least keeping some of the paleontologists honest by offering critique which forces them to be more stringent. But yes, it is pseudoscience when the behemoths and dragons of the Bible are turning up in the so-called "fossil record" when there is nothing in the fossils to demonstrate it.

 

[Vox Oculi]

Aristotle was a huge influence on natural philosophy during the Renaissance and the Church unfortunately did then what many in it are attempting to do today -- marry theology subserviently to a naturalistic, secular belief system about natural history. It was Aristotle who promoted the idea that life forms are immutable and thus it was not because of Biblical reasons but because of convenience that the consensus of the Church was to assume that no life forms had ever gone extinct. They neglected to consider the effects of the Fall, and subsumed Aristotelian teleology to the point that the discovery of clearly extinct animal remains rocked their system so much that many in society thereafter tended to atheism.

Faithlessness with the text leads to faithlessness writ-large if uncritically accepted. I submit that accepting the secular, established natural-history belief in an old earth will result and is resulting in the same thing: an undermining of the fundamental doctrines in Genesis which the Gospel roots itself in -- inerrant Scripture, a loving God, humanity made in God's image, the Fall, sin, Adam's headship and Christ as the 'Last Adam,' etc etc etc. It results in successive generations abandoning belief and cultural apostasy.

Biblical Christianity is wholly consistent with -- even implies -- that created lifeforms have existed which do not now, and therefore extinction is a natural conclusion from taking the text at face value. On the contrary, novel creations which did not exist in the past but now do are a violation of natural law as well as a challenge to God's finished act of creation on the 6th Day. He is working even now, said Jesus, yes -- but not "creating" new things out of nothing. The young earth view has a much stronger Scriptural argument in favor of it.

 

[chuckd]

how would we interpret the dinosaur fossil record?

I would begin by pointing out there is no "record," and whatever we have it is not singular. The plan of systematisation has an agenda, and this agenda has no science to support it.

How would we interpret the dinosaur fossils? Were these bones from once living creatures?

 

[Vox Oculi]

how would we interpret the dinosaur fossil record?

I would begin by pointing out there is no "record," and whatever we have it is not singular. The plan of systematisation has an agenda, and this agenda has no science to support it.

How would we interpret the dinosaur fossils? Were these bones from once living creatures?

The "fossil record" is an imaginary ladder of sedimentary rock layers which is not found completely anywhere on the world. In many places whole layers are missing, or are out of order. You can find "young" layers resting on bedrock with supposed billions of years missing. The "record" as MW said, does not exist. There is no "geologic column," as you may have seen it in dinosaur books, going from Cambrian, Ordivician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, etc.

The idea that such a sequence is actual comes from inferring that layers in one place must fit in somewhere with layers in another place, either side by side, on top, or on bottom. But who says they have to? The inference is not from science but from necessity because it comes from a naturalistic worldview where the layers must represent long ages of sequential time periods. If they are simply sediment deposits from a worldwide flood, there is no reason to assume that global sediments must have been deposited in the same sequence at all locations on the globe. So the missing layers and out of order layers are no problem in a Biblical framework.

Question the reasons for the assumption of anything you've been told.

There is no evidence that natural means can form fossiliferous rock in the absence of organic material, so there is no reason to question that fossils are the remnants of bones of once living creatures.

This is no problem at all unless one assumes that the Bible says "there are no such things as dinosaurs." But it does not. That, as well as the "curse of Ham" and many other canards attributed to American Christians are actually originally Mormon ideas. The Bible states that God made all land dwelling animals on Day 6, and dinosaurs were evidently land-dwelling animals, so they were made on Day 6 together with Adam, rabbits, mammoths, etc.

 

[MW]

How would we interpret the dinosaur fossils? Were these bones from once living creatures?

Vox gives a good answer. I would add that the classification of "dinosaur" has already predetermined that it was a once living creature. Many conclusions are of this kind, which build on categorical assumptions.

 

[chuckd]

That, as well as the "curse of Ham" and many other canards attributed to American Christians are actually originally Mormon ideas. The Bible states that God made all land dwelling animals on Day 6, and dinosaurs were evidently land-dwelling animals, so they were made on Day 6 together with Adam, rabbits, mammoths, etc.

Thank you for your post. Very informative. I'm not sure I understand this part about the curse of Ham and what that has to do with dinosaurs.

 

[chuckd]

How would we interpret the dinosaur fossils? Were these bones from once living creatures?

Vox gives a good answer. I would add that the classification of "dinosaur" has already predetermined that it was a once living creature. Many conclusions are of this kind, which build on categorical assumptions.

The assumption being any bone found is from a once living creature? Is that not a reasonable assumption? I wouldn't think God would create something dead, much less only the bones.

 

[Vox Oculi]

I only brought up the Curse of Ham as an aside (for one, it was Canaan who was cursed, not Ham, and the Mormons disseminated this racist idea to support the belief that slavery was justified because black people were condemned by God. It's understandable how come it spread outside of Mormonism because slavery was so widespread at the time--it was a convenient lie). The idea that Satan buried dinosaur fossils as a deception to test our faith is a Mormon teaching. The Bible has no issue with extinct animals. It was in fact an adoption of Aristotelian belief (that perfection = lack of change, and ignoring the fact of the Fall occurring after God's perfect creation) that led to the problem for mid 18th century christian scientist-philosophers to explain how come extinction could occur since they believed in "fixity of species," a belief they took from the Greeks outside of the Bible.

Basically the point I'm making is that dinosaur fossils are not a problem for Bible believers. It is ONLY a problem for those who abandon clear Biblical truth and take their ideas from pagan sources and mix it with their theology. That was the connection.

 

[MW]

The assumption being any bone found is from a once living creature? Is that not a reasonable assumption?

Again, the outcome is determined by the classification. This time it is "bone." As a matter of physical science, the "bones" cannot support the massive physical structures from which they are supposed to have come. This is beside the fact that some of these creatures would have required a massive food intake, and could barely have moved in order to access a food supply according to the laws of mechanics. One might as credibly hypothesise that the bones belong to an alien race which used to visit this planet for some unknown reason, and this would be just as credible in the eyes of those who deny the existence of God.

 

[Vox Oculi]

The assumption being any bone found is from a once living creature? Is that not a reasonable assumption?

As a matter of physical science, the "bones" cannot support the massive physical structures from which they are supposed to have come. This is beside the fact that some of these creatures would have required a massive food intake, and could barely have moved in order to access a food supply according to the laws of mechanics.

I'm not convinced. There have been numerous cases where something was deemed impossible by known mechanisms given the present understanding of some creature, until further information was uncovered that elucidated the method by which what was observed was accomplished. If pressured, I suppose I can hunt down some examples, but all I have right now is strong confidence but nothing off the top of my head as a case in point. Nevertheless, on my experience, I don't think that the idea that dinosaurs are 'too big to move/feed' is a strong objection. But perhaps this is exactly what you meant? You're appealing to secular 'physical science' but not as an affirmative supporter?

I suppose so, given that the most reasonable inference is that these creatures were at any rate created by God, and He wouldn't needlessly create something that couldn't survive by natural means. Pardon if I didn't catch your drift.

 

[MW]

You're appealing to secular 'physical science' but not as an affirmative supporter?

I am appealing to science as science. If we are awaiting further information it remains a bare hypothesis. It is not a fact of science. I am not required to make a decision as to its factuality until further evidence comes to light, nor can it be formative to my beliefs.

 

[Vox Oculi]

Okay, I'm a little confused. Do you disagree that commonly-termed "dinosaur fossils" are in fact permineralized remnants of the skeletons of once-living animals?

 

[MW]

Okay, I'm a little confused. Do you disagree that commonly-termed "dinosaur fossils" are in fact permineralized remnants of the skeletons of once-living animals?

How quickly would the "dinosaur" have to be encased before exposure to the environment ruled out permineralisation? How do we account for the speed of encasement on such a widespread scale as indicated by the "fossils?" What law of science has produced such an uniform replacement of skeletal material atom by atom contrary to the ordinary process of deterioration?

Perhaps these "bones" come from outer space. That might explain their extraordinary behaviour under earth's observable conditions.

 

[Vox Oculi]

Okay, I'm a little confused. Do you disagree that commonly-termed "dinosaur fossils" are in fact permineralized remnants of the skeletons of once-living animals?

How quickly would the "dinosaur" have to be encased before exposure to the environment ruled out permineralisation? How do we account for the speed of encasement on such a widespread scale as indicated by the "fossils?" What law of science has produced such an uniform replacement of skeletal material atom by atom contrary to the ordinary process of deterioration?

Perhaps these "bones" come from outer space. That might explain their extraordinary behaviour under earth's observable conditions.

Well, one common sense appeal is to produce fossils that are demonstrably the form of living creatures, and then ask, do we suppose that these fossils are not the remains of these animals?
I would appeal to Occam's Razor, that permineralization is the most parsimonious and least ad hoc explanation, compared to aliens, undiscovered inorganic phenomena, or in situ ex nihilo creation.
Then I would refer to fossilized flour and hats, known recent examples, to show that some degree of fossilization does occur naturally.
Lastly I would defer to Christian geologists who have studied it in more detail and can elucidate the mechanisms of fossil formation.

I would also point out that the inorganic-organic material replacement has not been perfectly uniform, and has occurred to different degrees in different specimens. Specimens also show varying degrees of decay.

 

[MW]

I would appeal to Occam's Razor

My point about aliens was not intended to suggest it as a real possibility, but a rhetorical way of expressing the "extraordinary" factors involved in the dinosaur hypothesis. As OR applies to the theory with fewest assumptions in order to make it more testable, neither aliens nor dinosaurs are present for testing, so it is irrelevant.

 

[Nate]

I would appeal to Occam's Razor

...neither aliens nor dinosaurs are present for testing, so it is irrelevant.

It is now recognized that "fossilized" dinosaur bones are not necessarily completely mineralized. Many samples in museums and others currently being collected in the field are now found to have soft tissue still present inside. Analyses of this soft tissue is entirely consistent with what would be expected inside bone at the level of tissue and even down to the molecular level. Would this constitute reasonable evidence that these fossils are remnants of living beings?

 

[MW]

Would this constitute reasonable evidence that these fossils are remnants of living beings?

The processes involved must have been non-uniform. Now the evidence begs the question as to uniformity.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Would this constitute reasonable evidence that these fossils are remnants of living beings?

The point is, that all these proposals--every last one--belongs to the realm of hypothesizing, and not unto testable (i.e. scientific) results, but unto historical conjecture. Neither the evolutionaries nor the creationists--in terms of what science is--are doing anything other than making claims about "what happened," based on fragments of data accessible in the present, including written records.

You and I may be convicted that a "creationist" overlay supplies us with a generally reliable explanation (and much more reliable than an evolutionary account) of the remains. But it still is not a "scientific" account, except on the evolutionaries' redefinition of "science;" in other words, a capitulation by us on an elementary point of putative common-ground. Evolutionists must be confronted and refuted about their alleged claim to possessing something other than a "just-so" story.

There is no common ground on that point, from the Revelationist viewpoint. The whole question must be set by us on the proper footing. That, I believe, is what Rev.Winzer is getting at.

 

[Nate]

Would this constitute reasonable evidence that these fossils are remnants of living beings?

The processes involved must have been non-uniform. Now the evidence begs the question as to uniformity.

Is it begging the question as to uniformity or raising the question as to uniformity? I don't see how uniformity is included in the premise of the hypothesis that minerals in the earth configured in shapes resembling creatures are mineralized bones of those creatures, this specifically based on the soft tissue contained within those minerals.

 

[Nate]

Would this constitute reasonable evidence that these fossils are remnants of living beings?

The point is, that all these proposals--every last one--belongs to the realm of hypothesizing, and not unto testable (i.e. scientific) results, but unto historical conjecture.

Sure, I agree with this completely. If the research in my field was held only to the same standards of conjecture to which "historical science" is held, publishing our research would be much easier... This is a common gripe of experimental scientists!

 

[Peairtach]

We see the same hypothesising about - apparently - more recent history in the field of archaeology and archaeology connected with the Bible or "biblical archaeology". E.g. unbelieving archaeologists will deny the Exodus, while believing archaeologists will affirm it and other unbelieving archaeologists will affirm it at least in part.

How much this belief or lack of belief in the Exodus is to do with the empirical artifacts or lack of it or of commitments being brought to the artifacts is a moot point.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

Is it begging the question as to uniformity or raising the question as to uniformity? I don't see how uniformity is included in the premise of the hypothesis that minerals in the earth configured in shapes resembling creatures are mineralized bones of those creatures, this specifically based on the soft tissue contained within those minerals.

But you can see that the "new discovery" has not led to a fresh examination of all the evidence and the establishment of a new working model. Instead the old model is taken for granted and the new discovery is made to fit within that model. That is what I am looking at with my statement on uniformity. The so-called science is paradigm building, and its experiments are self-fulfilling predictions. There is no critical examination of the evidence to test the original hypothesis.