big bang continued

[Tristen]

 

Yes – and I obviously disagree with these assumptions and interpretations. The capacity for objective critical thought permits me to examine the paper without having to be tied to their underlying speculations.

 

In context - I used this theoretical paper to demonstrate the point that when it comes to past claims, the mere existence of one story accounting for the facts does not necessarily make that story true.

I just find it ironic that the very paper you use to support your model is actually largely rejected. I guess this outlines the issue that I have with creationism claiming to be scientific. When we look at *why* you reject the interpretation of the data, isn't it because it comes into conflict with what you consider holy scripture? If so, how is this approach scientific?

 

 

“This paper actually doesn't tie the Chixculub event with a vernseshot either”

 

I’m not sure what you mean here. The paper explicitly names Chicxulub as a primary example of a possible verneshot event.

Ok I thought near the end they were expressing doubt that the chicxulub crater was a verneshot event.

 

 

 

“what I'd like to see is something that covers this same data in a biblical timeframe”

 

But when I point you to articles explaining the facts within the Biblical paradigm, you ignore the arguments; preferring to make silly, unjustified, innuendo-laced comments like “where’s the science?” Articles on the current creationist models are freely available for those inclined to look – but you refuse to recognise that the same logical methodology is used to investigate both secular and creationist models - i.e. models are formulated within the confines of the starting faith framework, then the facts are examined to see how well they can be fitted to the model. You seem to believe that if an interpretation doesn’t fit your preferred premise and model, it should be automatically rendered invalid – but you don’t seem to be able to rationally defend that position; preferring fallacy and opinion over rational argument.

 

There are no secular or creationist facts. We don’t have to find our own facts. Facts either exist, or they don’t. No existing fact can be disregarded with any scientific legitimacy. We don’t have to redo the research in order to address the facts – because our dispute is not with the facts. And we don’t have to redo the research in order to scrutinise the underlying logic of scientific claims.

I'm not ignoring them, I read what Oard had to say and I didn't have any issue admitting that there certainly are margins of error with dating methods etc. I don't buy the idea that we therefore declare secular dating methods as unusable. Keep in mind it's not like there's a small discrepancy here, creationists are suggesting extreme differences in ages everywhere we look. I don't feel that they're adequately accounting for this.

 

As a side note, the article from Oard is intended for a Christian audience correct? Or at least it doesn't appear that he's writing in any academic sense. So it's not like we have any experts to counter what he's writing. There may be data out there that would invalidate some of the claims that he's offering. I just want us to acknowledge that we're certainly not doing an exhaustive two sided critique of this data.

 

“Gerta Keller has an alternative theory about the extinction of the dinosaurs, I wouldn't go so far to say that the jury is out on this”

 

Absolutely correct! Have you considered why? At the outset you presented supreme confidence in an elaborate scenario about the origin of the Chicxulub crater. Hopefully by now you are starting to understand why such high confidence in past claims cannot be scientifically justified.

 

The main implication of Keller’s research is that Chicxulub cannot be responsible for the putative extinction event – so he needed to come up with another story to explain the extinctions. That’s how it’s done with historical models. Other explanations have since been presented.

I had actually hear of Keller's hypothesis before and I knew that there was some debate about whether the Chicxulub impact actually killed off the dinosaurs or not. I don't think Keller is suggesting the how the crater got there, she just isn't convinced it caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. She suggests that there was major volcanism in India and the impact happened a bit later [300k years].

Now I guess you believe the only mass extinction event was the flood and you say "kinds" were preserved but I'm not sure why we see dramatic disappearance from various species from the fossil records then. To be honest, I don't know if I've ever really read anything that outlines the creationist approach to the fossil record.

 

 

“It's so interesting how lovingly you embrace secular science when it suits you and turn around and abandon it elsewhere”

 

I neither “lovingly embrace” nor “abandon” any science. As I have previously stated, the capacity to distinguish between fact and theory is fundamental to scientific analysis. The facts are independent of ideology. Nothing in the scientific method obligates any person to accept any theory associated with any research. The facts are rationally indisputable (given the assumption that observation can be trusted). And I am rationally permitted to interpret the facts; regardless of how they have been interpreted in the original research.

So are you suggesting that one persons take on the available data is just as relevant as any other? Yes you can interpret the facts however you want, how well your interpretation stands up to scrutiny should be of interest.

 

 

 

“It's not just that I prefer secular explanations, there's a reason why I shy away from creationist explanations. The creationist camp is not shy about their firm belief that their conclusions MUST, by default, support a biblical model”

 

And the secular “camp” “MUST, by default”, conform to naturalistic boundaries. Both frameworks have limitations. We’ve been over this already. The rejection of only one paradigm based on the existence of logical limitations is Special Pleading. None of these limitations renders either paradigm to be invalid with regards to truth – so neither can be legitimately rejected based on the existence of these limitations.

I don't see why naturalistic "boundaries" are a problem when it's a natural world we're investigating. I don't see why this would call into question our ability to study or investigate earthly features.

 

 

  

“Creationists have often criticized mainstream science by noting how the science community has changed it's position from time to time [in light of new data]. What this also shows is that science isn't just marching lockstep with some storyline they're obligated to uphold”

 

Except that they are obligated to naturalistic ideology (and therefore, in effect, dismiss the possibility of any supernatural cause).

Well if you can't provide an example of a time when this actually became or caused a problem I'm at a loss as to why we'd worry about this. If you say "Well I can't SHOW you the supernatural"...then why worry about it? If the supernatural doesn't exist then your objection to "naturalistic ideology" is unfounded. You are the one asserting there is such a thing to consider so I'll need some evidence to assess.

 

In context, there is no criticism of secular science changing its position, but in subsequently claiming their position to have survived scrutiny after changing their position.

Well their former stance wouldn't have survived but the new one evidently does. I don't see why that is a problem. I don't think that we have to necessarily reject framework because we adjusted our view on something.

 

 

 

“I gave you my assessment of what I see coming from mainstream science and what I see coming from creationism. What objective opinion should I be tapping into pray tell?”

 

The issue is not that you have an opinion, but that you express your opinion without rational support. The reason this conversation exists is because we differ in opinion. So your unsupported expression of opinion adds nothing to the discussion.

I don't represent modern secular science.

 

 

 

“You misrepresented my position, I gave examples of people who I think don't serve the creationist camp very well. Never did I say their "personalities" were why I reject creationism. I see you didn't bother to address that point”

 

It’s possible that I misunderstood the primary direction of your original question. Nevertheless, I still think I addressed this point by a) pointing to the logical fallacy involved in the rejection of creationism based on an impression of 3 people who b) have tenuous authority to speak on behalf of all creationists.

 

It’s also important to note that all you did was provide a list of names. You didn’t actually provide any argument as to why any of these people “don't serve the creationist camp very well” – because whether or not this accusation is true is dependent upon the arguments they present, not the mention of their names.

You're right I didn't offer examples of why I feel this way. Google Ray Comfort and "banana". This is just one example but it'll give you an idea.

 

 

 

 

“I mean the primary response I get for when extinction events took place is "It happened during the flood". So yes, you can count me as one that isn't impressed by that”

 

What “extinction events”? Are you still judging creationist claims by secular models? According to the Biblical model, most life on earth was wiped out in the flood, but samples of each life “kind” were preserved. Any “extinction events” were subsequent to the flood.

What is an "extinction event" to you? The imagery I get involves a global disaster caused by some natural calamity. Do you agree with Keller et al that there have been times where some disaster affected global conditions which caused the extinction of one or more species?

 

 

 

Hi Bonky

Sorry about the delayed response. My subsequent responses are likely to be delayed for the next several months – at least.

 

You said, “Surely they figured the ice has been around a while. What I mean is, I have no reason to believe that they had a certain age in mind before they started their analysis. I don't know that we can say the same for the creationist camp. They have a certain age they must work within correct?”

 Then why did they need a recount to find the missing 25,000 “years”/layers? (Meese et al. 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 102). Clearly the model pre-existed the observations.

 Both ‘camps’ operate on unverifiable presupposition. Both ‘camps” operate within a predefined framework. You incapacity to recognise this speaks to a lack of objectivity.

[Bonky]

Hi Bonky

Sorry about the delayed response. My subsequent responses are likely to be delayed for the next several months – at least.

 

Seriously?

- So all this time we’ve spent examining the ice core assumptions and interpretations, when we should have been looking at the “deep sea sediment” assumptions and interpretations? Nevertheless, with regards to the ice core interpretations, you now recognise that the model pre-existed the observations. That is, you now have a “reason to believe that they had a certain age in mind before they started their analysis”.

I think we may be talking past each other. My original statement had to do with the initial analysis of the ice cores way back when. I'm not talking about current or recent research, I'm talking about when scientists first started studying the ice, how would they have any firm age in their mind before investigation? Creationsts on the other hand, MUST start with the idea that at MOST, they have roughly 6000 years [more likely 4500 or so] to work with. From the start, you have a max age you can deal with and you aren't allowed to go beyond that. I think that's a stark difference personally.

 

 

“They used a finer laser and found previously unseen dust bands”

 

Yes they did – and what they found were indeed indicators of “dust bands” – not years. But due to the constrictions of their model, they are forced to interpret any marker at that scale as a year. At that resolution, even whether or not the observations represent “dust bands” is questionable.

 

And it wasn’t just a matter of curiosity; they specifically went looking for missing years because the original count was 25,000 years less than their model predicted (i.e. close to a quarter of the predicted years were missing at first count). My next step would have been to increase the laser resolution further – to see if they could find any more “dust bands” – i.e. to see if there are artefacts associated with the method providing false positives at that scale. But they see no need for that; since they already have all the “years” their model requires.

I would have to look into this deeper, I can't assume that you are correct here. You're suggesting [you could be right] that they are just assuming those dust bands represent a year. They also may have very good reason to believe that they are. If there are good reasons for believing they represent a year, then I don't see a problem.

 

 

I think they are the same thing; using volcanic/acidic markers to validate the age of a specific ice core layers. The limitation of this method remains the existence of extant historical records – which is only available for recent history (with a few exceptions). Apart from these records, there is no way to determine “where they should be” (apart from making unverifiable assumptions).

I agree, they would be referring to volcanic events that were recorded by whatever means in the past.

 

 

#002060]“If I remember right [i can't access the article], they were only looking at a depth of 200M”

 

And only found 54 volcanic indicators.

Right with many more hundreds of meters to go yet.

 

 

“I really have no idea what geological impact there would be with a global flood. What I'd be very interested to find out is what would a global flood model predict about deep ocean sediment cores...and then of course, do we find what is predicted”

 

So do you have an argument to present using this evidence? What do you mean by “what is predicted”? Do you mean what was predicted before the evidence was obtained? I thought your position was “I have no reason to believe that they had a certain age in mind before they started their analysis”. By using the term “predicted” in this context, you are acknowledging that you understand that the models precede the evidence (and I would suggest that this bias influences the subsequent interpretations).

A global flood isn't a normal event right? Wouldn't we expect to see some sort of change in the deep ocean cores roughly 4400 years ago to support this claim? I don't think you understood my original statement about the ice cores. Based on what we already know about things like sedimentation, climate change, aquatic ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems etc....shouldn't we be able to come up with likely signatures in the core that would identify this event?? It was a global flood after all.

 

 

 

Oard isn't just summarizing, or if he is, he's doing it in a way to misrepresent what's being said. His statement is "scientists now are forced to believe that the temperature on Greenland changed up to 20°C in periods as short as 1 to 3 years!" Show me in the paragraph above where they actually say this. They specifically mention much larger time scales but mention that SOME CHANGES have occurred in as little as 1 - 3 years.”

 

You are grasping at straws. There is no misrepresentation here. Sure, the original paper talks about change over larger timescales as well, but it also explicitly says that climate deviations “up to 20^oC” occurring in “as little as 1-3 years”.

This is probably the first time in our discussion that I questioned your integrity. On one hand you admit they do talk about larger timescales, then proceed to ignore it and back Oards statement. I don't know if you caught this, but the "Up to 20°C" and the "as little as 1 to 3 years" are in different sentences altogther.

If the situation was reversed you would have been crying strawman so fast and so hard you would've pulled muscles. They specifically mention "decades" and intervals that are taking place over a grand timescale of 100,000 years. Oard is either sloppy or he's intentionally misquoting them. At this point, I'll need to see some honesty from you [a trait of a Christian I thought] before we continue. I don't want to waste my time with someone I can't trust to be honest.  I really didn't think it would such a slam to your ego to admit that Oard is definitely not representing that particular statement in context.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Bonky

[Tristen]

 

Hi Bonky

Sorry about the delayed response. My subsequent responses are likely to be delayed for the next several months – at least.

 

Seriously?

- So all this time we’ve spent examining the ice core assumptions and interpretations, when we should have been looking at the “deep sea sediment” assumptions and interpretations? Nevertheless, with regards to the ice core interpretations, you now recognise that the model pre-existed the observations. That is, you now have a “reason to believe that they had a certain age in mind before they started their analysis”.

I think we may be talking past each other. My original statement had to do with the initial analysis of the ice cores way back when. I'm not talking about current or recent research, I'm talking about when scientists first started studying the ice, how would they have any firm age in their mind before investigation? Creationsts on the other hand, MUST start with the idea that at MOST, they have roughly 6000 years [more likely 4500 or so] to work with. From the start, you have a max age you can deal with and you aren't allowed to go beyond that. I think that's a stark difference personally.

 

 

“They used a finer laser and found previously unseen dust bands”

 

Yes they did – and what they found were indeed indicators of “dust bands” – not years. But due to the constrictions of their model, they are forced to interpret any marker at that scale as a year. At that resolution, even whether or not the observations represent “dust bands” is questionable.

 

And it wasn’t just a matter of curiosity; they specifically went looking for missing years because the original count was 25,000 years less than their model predicted (i.e. close to a quarter of the predicted years were missing at first count). My next step would have been to increase the laser resolution further – to see if they could find any more “dust bands” – i.e. to see if there are artefacts associated with the method providing false positives at that scale. But they see no need for that; since they already have all the “years” their model requires.

I would have to look into this deeper, I can't assume that you are correct here. You're suggesting [you could be right] that they are just assuming those dust bands represent a year. They also may have very good reason to believe that they are. If there are good reasons for believing they represent a year, then I don't see a problem.

 

 

I think they are the same thing; using volcanic/acidic markers to validate the age of a specific ice core layers. The limitation of this method remains the existence of extant historical records – which is only available for recent history (with a few exceptions). Apart from these records, there is no way to determine “where they should be” (apart from making unverifiable assumptions).

I agree, they would be referring to volcanic events that were recorded by whatever means in the past.

 

 

#002060]“If I remember right [i can't access the article], they were only looking at a depth of 200M”

 

And only found 54 volcanic indicators.

Right with many more hundreds of meters to go yet.

 

 

“I really have no idea what geological impact there would be with a global flood. What I'd be very interested to find out is what would a global flood model predict about deep ocean sediment cores...and then of course, do we find what is predicted”

 

So do you have an argument to present using this evidence? What do you mean by “what is predicted”? Do you mean what was predicted before the evidence was obtained? I thought your position was “I have no reason to believe that they had a certain age in mind before they started their analysis”. By using the term “predicted” in this context, you are acknowledging that you understand that the models precede the evidence (and I would suggest that this bias influences the subsequent interpretations).

A global flood isn't a normal event right? Wouldn't we expect to see some sort of change in the deep ocean cores roughly 4400 years ago to support this claim? I don't think you understood my original statement about the ice cores. Based on what we already know about things like sedimentation, climate change, aquatic ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems etc....shouldn't we be able to come up with likely signatures in the core that would identify this event?? It was a global flood after all.

 

 

 

Oard isn't just summarizing, or if he is, he's doing it in a way to misrepresent what's being said. His statement is "scientists now are forced to believe that the temperature on Greenland changed up to 20°C in periods as short as 1 to 3 years!" Show me in the paragraph above where they actually say this. They specifically mention much larger time scales but mention that SOME CHANGES have occurred in as little as 1 - 3 years.”

 

You are grasping at straws. There is no misrepresentation here. Sure, the original paper talks about change over larger timescales as well, but it also explicitly says that climate deviations “up to 20^oC” occurring in “as little as 1-3 years”.

This is probably the first time in our discussion that I questioned your integrity. On one hand you admit they do talk about larger timescales, then proceed to ignore it and back Oards statement. I don't know if you caught this, but the "Up to 20°C" and the "as little as 1 to 3 years" are in different sentences altogther.

If the situation was reversed you would have been crying strawman so fast and so hard you would've pulled muscles. They specifically mention "decades" and intervals that are taking place over a grand timescale of 100,000 years. Oard is either sloppy or he's intentionally misquoting them. At this point, I'll need to see some honesty from you [a trait of a Christian I thought] before we continue. I don't want to waste my time with someone I can't trust to be honest.  I really didn't think it would such a slam to your ego to admit that Oard is definitely not representing that particular statement in context.

 

 

 

Hey Bonky, You said, “My original statement had to do with the initial analysis of the ice cores way back when. I'm not talking about current or recent research, I'm talking about when scientists first started studying the ice, how would they have any firm age in their mind before investigation?”

 

You’ll have to point me to the research you’re referring to. It’s not so much about having a “firm age” as it is about the foundational assumptions of the model. If you assume standard rates of deposition over uniformitarian time frames, then that directly impacts the model. Ice layers are compressed by the overlaying ice; which, over millions of years, would shrink the lower layers of ice to the scale of millimetres thick and under. But apart from those assumptions of the model, there is no reason to interpret the various indicators at that scale as “years”. But that is the prevailing model of reality amongst the secular scientific community, so that is how the evidence is interpreted.

 

 

 

“Creationsts on the other hand, MUST start with the idea that at MOST, they have roughly 6000 years [more likely 4500 or so] to work with”

 

And secularists start with the assumption of a billions-of-years-old earth with uniformitarian processes and time frames. Secularists interpret the available facts to conform to their model of the unobserved past, and creationists interpret the available facts to conform to our model of the unobserved past. Both parties interpret the data within their given paradigms. If there was something within the facts themselves that contradicted our model, then that would be a problem for our model – but the only discrepancy is between our model and the secular interpretations of the facts, not with the existing facts themselves.

 

 

 

“From the start, you have a max age you can deal with and you aren't allowed to go beyond that. I think that's a stark difference personally”

 

It’s no difference at all. We have a model for testing – and if the facts contradict that model, then we would have to account for that discrepancy. But since they don’t, we don’t.

 

And you have still failed to consider that the reason they went looking for those extra 25000 years in the ice cores is because they had predetermined expectations about the what ‘should be there’ – the same accusation you are levelling against creationists. In the ice-core example, they came in too far under expectations. But if you want, I can find many examples of age determinations that were rejected because they came in beyond their predetermined “max age”; especially with radiometric dating methods.

 

For starters; Bell & Powell (1969, Journal of Petrology, Vol. 10) rejected their 773 million year old Rb/Sr age attributed to the tested lava rock because the rock was determined to be sub-Pleistocene – and therefore must be less than 2 million years old. So the age interpretation based on Rb/Sr testing was rejected because it was well over their predetermined “max age”. You don’t like it (or have never previously considered it), but the same kinds of logical restrictions apply to both creationist and secular methods – the specific numbers are different, but the logic is identical. The models of both paradigms have starting parameters to which the facts are expected to conform.

 

Now if the facts themselves cannot be interpreted to conform to a model, then that is a problem for the model – but if they can, then the model remains viable. The same is true for both secular and creationist models – and remains true, even in the face of contrary interpretations of the facts.

 

 

 

“You're suggesting [you could be right] that they are just assuming those dust bands represent a year. They also may have very good reason to believe that they are. If there are good reasons for believing they represent a year, then I don't see a problem”

 

The reason they have to assume markers at that scale are years is because the model requires it. If the lower layers have been compressed to millimetres thick (which the secular model assumes), and our instruments only have the capacity to detect markers at that scale, then those markers must be assumed to represent annual layers. Whether that reason is “good” or not is subjective. The main criteria for objectivity is the acknowledgement of assumptions, and their influence on the interpretation process.

 

I didn’t say there was “a problem” – I’m only demonstrating that the interpretations you have accepted as solid are fundamentally reliant upon unverifiable assumptions. Therefore, an objective, thoughtful person will factor this inherent logical weakness into their expressed levels of confidence of these interpretations; as well as remaining open-minded enough to consider the possibility of other interpretations which are themselves influenced by different unverifiable assumptions.

 

 

 

    “If I remember right [i can't access the article], they were only looking at a depth of 200M”

         And only found 54 volcanic indicators.

“Right with many more hundreds of meters to go yet”

 

Correct! “metres” – not years. In reality, a couple of thousand “metres to go” in several places.

 

 

 

“Wouldn't we expect to see some sort of change in the deep ocean cores roughly 4400 years ago to support this claim?”

 

I would have to assess any research claiming to have evidence of ‘time’ in their sediment cores. I would have to analyse their assumption regarding the formation of this sediment data. How did they determine these facts represented years etc.? – I.e. all the same process we went through with the ice cores. I am happy to look at any research you have to offer regarding the sediment data. Yet I would suggest that you examine the research for yourself first – as they probably acknowledge the assumptions upon which their interpretations depend honestly – right there in the text.

 

 

 

“I don't think you understood my original statement about the ice cores. Based on what we already know about things like sedimentation, climate change, aquatic ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems etc....shouldn't we be able to come up with likely signatures in the core that would identify this event?? It was a global flood after all”

 

Not without making assumptions. Creationists interpret many facts as signatures of the global flood. But these interpretations are rejected by secular science because they are inconsistent with the naturalistic paradigm. But they are consistent with our paradigm and models – and therefore rationally valid and worthy of objective consideration.

 

If the creationist model is correct, then there would be no record of the flood in the ice, since under the creationist model, all of this ice deposition was post-flood.

 

 

 

“This is probably the first time in our discussion that I questioned your integrity. On one hand you admit they do talk about larger timescales, then proceed to ignore it and back Oards statement. I don't know if you caught this, but the "Up to 20°C" and the "as little as 1 to 3 years" are in different sentences altogther”

 

 

In reality we are dealing with two consecutive sentences describing climactic change. The first sentence describes the types of change; including the claim of changes in temperature of “up to 20^oC”. The following sentence describes the timeframes of the change; including the claim of timeframes “as little as three years”. You appear to believe that the mention of other types of change (i.e. “twofold changes in snow accumulation, order-of-magnitude changes in wind-blown dust and sea-salt loading, roughly 100 ppbv in methane concentration, etc., with cold, dry, dusty, and low-methane conditions being correlated”) somehow cancels out the claim of temperature changes “up to 20^oC”, or that the mention of other timeframes (i.e. “The events often begin or end rapidly: changes equal to most of the glacial-interglacial differences commonly occur over decades”) somehow cancels out the claim of timeframes “in as little as three years”. That doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t see how it could possibly stand up to rational scrutiny.

 

So you can cast aspersions on my honesty and integrity all you want, but it seems increasingly clear to me that you are being unreasonably pedantic in order to satisfy some desperate need to set up an adhominem position – believing that if you can paint us as dishonest, you can justify avoiding any engagement with any of our actual arguments.

 

 

 

“At this point, I'll need to see some honesty from you [a trait of a Christian I thought] before we continue. I don't want to waste my time with someone I can't trust to be honest.  I really didn't think it would such a slam to your ego to admit that Oard is definitely not representing that particular statement in context”

 

So it is as I suspected. Rather than engage in any argument relevant to the paper, you focus in on a nonsensical criticism of a single sentence that doesn’t even relate to our discussion, then use that one criticism in an attempt to paint both myself and the original author as dishonest – supposedly justifying your refusal to engage in further discussion. That’s a classic Adhominem fallacy. I’m not sure how anyone being honest with themselves could be comfortable with such a logically flawed strategy – but it’s not the first time I’ve encountered it; and no-doubt won’t be the last.