Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

Dear Board Members,

It is genuinely fascinating, as a Christian, to study the history of science and how religious belief has played into it. Often in modern religion vs science debates, this history gets lost or forgotten.

The reality is, the vast majority of western scientists prior to the 20th Century were devout Christians. Many from the east were from other Abrahamic faiths. These faiths informed how and why they approached scientific inquiry. Up until the 19th Century for example, it was widely assumed by most scientists that fossils were remains of animals killed in the flood of Genesis (chapters 6 - 9). The big questions is, why did these assumptions and beliefs change, even though their faith in God didn't?

The reason is, as evidence from the fossil record accumulated, it started to challenge the beliefs and assumptions of these faithful scientists. Most of all, it started to pose the following questions, that I'd love any YEC to try to answer in modern day:

1. Why are modern animals not found in the fossil record?

As fossils began to be found, scientists assumed that they were of creatures that were as yet undiscovered, but nevertheless had modern-day equivalents. As more exotic fossils were found (Dinosaurs, etc.), scientists began to theorise that perhaps these were the remains of creatures that had died out in Biblical times, but were nevertheless contemporary with man.

But as more and more fossils were found, scientists became more and more unsettled. The simple reason was, the vast majority had no modern day equivalents. They weren't even close to modern-day creatures. They represented totally different genera, families, sub-phyla of creature.

Scientists had assumed that two of each and every species or genus had been taken into Noah's Ark, and that all creatures alive in modern times had descended from these creatures. Yet the animals that were left behind and died in the flood bore little or no resemblance to these descendants. How was this possible?

In fact, modern creatures found in the fossil record are very much the exception. So called "fossil-animals" (such as crocodiles for example) represent a tiny percentage of animals alive today. This made scientists doubt that the flood had caused the fossil record. If you are a YEC, what is your explanation?

2. Why are humans not found in the fossil record?

Much more troubling to scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries was the fact that human beings didn't exist in the fossil record. It is impossible to be sure exactly what animals were alive in Noah's time. But it is absolutely certain that one type of animal WAS around, and WAS killed by the flood - humans! In fact, wiping out the fallen and degenerate population of humanity was the whole point of the exercise.

Yet not a single human was found in the fossil record. When a Swiss scientist found a fossil that sort-of looked like a child in 1726, he was delighted, and called the fossil "homo diluvii testis" - man who bears witness to the flood. It turned out to be the fossil of an extinct species of giant salamander. 

300 years later, and not a single human has been found in the fossil record, anywhere, ever. Surely somewhere, amongst the dinosaurs and trilobytes, human beings must have existed? Nor have any human tools, implements, household items, clothes, or anything else been found. Some of these would have been very hardy and surely survived in some form. Yet not a single trinket has been discovered among fossils.

3. Why are the vast majority of fossils sea animals?

Another fact greatly troubled scientists as fossils were discovered. The vast majority were of sea creatures, not land animals. Of course this is readily explainable by modern evolutionists: the sea and its formation of sedimentary rock is a perfect place for fossils to be created naturally - much moreso than land. But at the time the assumption was that the fossil record was created by the flood, which drowned land-based creatures. Noah didn't have to have an aquarium aboard this ark.

Doubtless some sea creatures would have died. "All the springs of the great deep burst forth," the bible says - that sounds like something that might cause considerable water pollution and tumult and kill quite a few marine animals. But the fact remains that, while some sea creatures would have died and been part of the fossil record, every single land animal died through the flood.

Yet, the fossil record is about 95% marine fossils (mostly shellfish), 4.75% plants and algae, 0.2% insects, 0.015% fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.

If the fossil record were formed through the flood, why is this?

4. Why has the fossil record been precisely sorted?

Finally, as radiometric dating techniques started to gain traction, scientists were able to approximate the age of fossils. Even before this date however, they had noticed an unsettling fact: groups of species were found in the same layers or strata together, and didn't tend to appear in others.

As dating techniques started to be used, scientists discovered that creature ONLY appeared between certain dates of rock, and NEVER in others. Many YECs doubt radiometric dating techniques for various reasons, but even if radiometric dating is wrong, why are species only found between certain "dates"?

Moreover, the order of the record didn't lend itself to natural explanations. For example, hydrological sorting in a flood would put larger creatures being at the bottom and smaller at the top. But there was no such "sizing" order to the fossil record, and if there was an average trend, it would be the other way around. Why then has a dinosaur never been found outside Mesozoic rock? Why have mammals only been found in rocks dating up to 65 million years old? What possible force of nature could account for this?

Conclusion

As a Christian, I would genuinely love to hear the views on YECs on all of this. However, there is a wider point.

Theories such as evolution by natural selection didn't come about in a vacuum. They were products of an age where the evidence being examined by devoutly Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc. scientists was already revealing huge inconsistencies in the theory that the fossil record, and the changes in species and life it represented, could be explained by Noah's flood and the literal reading of the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2.

Scientists genuinely believed, as the looked for fossils, that they would find overwhelming evidence of Noah's flood and biblical archaeology. But instead they found the opposite. Their predictions of what they would find based on their biblical or quranic beliefs didn't pan out at all. In many cases, they found the exact opposite. And these scientists, though devout, believed in the scientific method of making predictions and examining evidence based on these.

Perhaps any YECs on this forum could help out where these many great scientists failed?

[Tristen]

23 hours ago, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

Dear Board Members,

It is genuinely fascinating, as a Christian, to study the history of science and how religious belief has played into it. Often in modern religion vs science debates, this history gets lost or forgotten.

The reality is, the vast majority of western scientists prior to the 20th Century were devout Christians. Many from the east were from other Abrahamic faiths. These faiths informed how and why they approached scientific inquiry. Up until the 19th Century for example, it was widely assumed by most scientists that fossils were remains of animals killed in the flood of Genesis (chapters 6 - 9). The big questions is, why did these assumptions and beliefs change, even though their faith in God didn't?

The reason is, as evidence from the fossil record accumulated, it started to challenge the beliefs and assumptions of these faithful scientists. Most of all, it started to pose the following questions, that I'd love any YEC to try to answer in modern day:

1. Why are modern animals not found in the fossil record?

As fossils began to be found, scientists assumed that they were of creatures that were as yet undiscovered, but nevertheless had modern-day equivalents. As more exotic fossils were found (Dinosaurs, etc.), scientists began to theorise that perhaps these were the remains of creatures that had died out in Biblical times, but were nevertheless contemporary with man.

But as more and more fossils were found, scientists became more and more unsettled. The simple reason was, the vast majority had no modern day equivalents. They weren't even close to modern-day creatures. They represented totally different genera, families, sub-phyla of creature.

Scientists had assumed that two of each and every species or genus had been taken into Noah's Ark, and that all creatures alive in modern times had descended from these creatures. Yet the animals that were left behind and died in the flood bore little or no resemblance to these descendants. How was this possible?

In fact, modern creatures found in the fossil record are very much the exception. So called "fossil-animals" (such as crocodiles for example) represent a tiny percentage of animals alive today. This made scientists doubt that the flood had caused the fossil record. If you are a YEC, what is your explanation?

2. Why are humans not found in the fossil record?

Much more troubling to scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries was the fact that human beings didn't exist in the fossil record. It is impossible to be sure exactly what animals were alive in Noah's time. But it is absolutely certain that one type of animal WAS around, and WAS killed by the flood - humans! In fact, wiping out the fallen and degenerate population of humanity was the whole point of the exercise.

Yet not a single human was found in the fossil record. When a Swiss scientist found a fossil that sort-of looked like a child in 1726, he was delighted, and called the fossil "homo diluvii testis" - man who bears witness to the flood. It turned out to be the fossil of an extinct species of giant salamander. 

300 years later, and not a single human has been found in the fossil record, anywhere, ever. Surely somewhere, amongst the dinosaurs and trilobytes, human beings must have existed? Nor have any human tools, implements, household items, clothes, or anything else been found. Some of these would have been very hardy and surely survived in some form. Yet not a single trinket has been discovered among fossils.

3. Why are the vast majority of fossils sea animals?

Another fact greatly troubled scientists as fossils were discovered. The vast majority were of sea creatures, not land animals. Of course this is readily explainable by modern evolutionists: the sea and its formation of sedimentary rock is a perfect place for fossils to be created naturally - much moreso than land. But at the time the assumption was that the fossil record was created by the flood, which drowned land-based creatures. Noah didn't have to have an aquarium aboard this ark.

Doubtless some sea creatures would have died. "All the springs of the great deep burst forth," the bible says - that sounds like something that might cause considerable water pollution and tumult and kill quite a few marine animals. But the fact remains that, while some sea creatures would have died and been part of the fossil record, every single land animal died through the flood.

Yet, the fossil record is about 95% marine fossils (mostly shellfish), 4.75% plants and algae, 0.2% insects, 0.015% fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.

If the fossil record were formed through the flood, why is this?

4. Why has the fossil record been precisely sorted?

Finally, as radiometric dating techniques started to gain traction, scientists were able to approximate the age of fossils. Even before this date however, they had noticed an unsettling fact: groups of species were found in the same layers or strata together, and didn't tend to appear in others.

As dating techniques started to be used, scientists discovered that creature ONLY appeared between certain dates of rock, and NEVER in others. Many YECs doubt radiometric dating techniques for various reasons, but even if radiometric dating is wrong, why are species only found between certain "dates"?

Moreover, the order of the record didn't lend itself to natural explanations. For example, hydrological sorting in a flood would put larger creatures being at the bottom and smaller at the top. But there was no such "sizing" order to the fossil record, and if there was an average trend, it would be the other way around. Why then has a dinosaur never been found outside Mesozoic rock? Why have mammals only been found in rocks dating up to 65 million years old? What possible force of nature could account for this?

Conclusion

As a Christian, I would genuinely love to hear the views on YECs on all of this. However, there is a wider point.

Theories such as evolution by natural selection didn't come about in a vacuum. They were products of an age where the evidence being examined by devoutly Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc. scientists was already revealing huge inconsistencies in the theory that the fossil record, and the changes in species and life it represented, could be explained by Noah's flood and the literal reading of the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2.

Scientists genuinely believed, as the looked for fossils, that they would find overwhelming evidence of Noah's flood and biblical archaeology. But instead they found the opposite. Their predictions of what they would find based on their biblical or quranic beliefs didn't pan out at all. In many cases, they found the exact opposite. And these scientists, though devout, believed in the scientific method of making predictions and examining evidence based on these.

Perhaps any YECs on this forum could help out where these many great scientists failed?

 

Hello IgnatioDeLoyola,

You said, “Up until the 19th Century for example, it was widely assumed by most scientists that fossils were remains of animals killed in the flood of Genesis (chapters 6 - 9). The big questions is, why did these assumptions and beliefs change, even though their faith in God didn't? The reason is, as evidence from the fossil record accumulated, it started to challenge the beliefs and assumptions of these faithful scientists”

I disagree with this interpretation of history.

Historically, the Protestant Reformation gave everyone who could read access to scripture. As such, people understood that God gave each of us freedom, and what we now call “rights”, to think outside of established paradigms. People were thus free, even to challenge the Christian narrative – leading to the rise of popularity in Philosophical Naturalism – the assumption that no god has ever interfered with the progression of the natural universe (and subsequent related assumptions like uniformitarianism).

When interpreting the available facts, the conclusion stems from the paradigm. Facts are neutral. No fact tells you about its history. Those details must be, of logical necessity, read into the facts based on an external narrative – i.e. the paradigm comes first. It is secular mythology to claim that scientists simply followed the facts to their natural conclusion. This can be verified by demonstrating that every fact which has been interpreted to support the secular narrative of history can also be interpreted to fit the YEC narrative of history – because the paradigm is the starting point, not the facts.

Which is all to say, the change of paradigm preceded the facts, not the other way around (as you have suggested).

 

“Most of all, it started to pose the following questions, that I'd love any YEC to try to answer in modern day:”

In my experience, these conversations can get very big and messy very quickly. I am therefore only going to address one of your questions at a time – moving on to the next after a resolution or impasse has been reached on each issue.

 

“1. Why are modern animals not found in the fossil record?”

I would firstly suggest that there are many so-called “living fossils”. That is, many examples of fossils that are indistinguishable from their “modern” living forms. The mere existence of these extensive examples represents more of a problem for the secular narrative than the YEC narrative – given the massive amounts of supposed evolution that was happening in other forms while these creatures remained unchanged over the same (putative) periods of time.

Secondly, I would suggest that it is specious to presuppose what we should be finding in the fossil record. Fossilization is a rare process. It is true that the flood provided ideal conditions for fossilization on a massive scale, but that doesn’t make it any more likely that any particular creature was necessarily fossilized. Most creatures that succumbed to the flood would have undergone predation and/or decay. Therefore, it is logically spurious to argue, ‘If you were right, we should find these specific fossils in the record’.

With regards to fossils, I would also argue that the mere fact we haven’t found something does not mean it doesn’t exist. In terms of fossil sites, we have barely scratched the surface of planet. Therefore, not having what you might be expecting is meaningless, and technically an Argument from Ignorance (logic fallacy).

I would also wonder what you mean by “modern” forms? The typical YEC position is that most “modern” forms speciated from their ancestors on the Ark. That means, for example, that there were no lions, or tigers, or panthers, or Jaguars, or domestic cats etc. on the Ark – but only a pair of cat-kind ancestors – since the “modern” cat forms did not exist yet.

 

“As fossils began to be found, scientists assumed that they were of creatures that were as yet undiscovered, but nevertheless had modern-day equivalents. As more exotic fossils were found (Dinosaurs, etc.), scientists began to theorise that perhaps these were the remains of creatures that had died out in Biblical times, but were nevertheless contemporary with man. But as more and more fossils were found, scientists became more and more unsettled”

This is more storytelling.

In reality, contemporaries of Darwin had begun contemplating Philosophical Naturalism (which had recently become permitted). Darwin himself, having become disillusioned with the Biblical concept of God (due to personal tragedy), was well-read regarding the thoughts of his Naturalist contemporaries. Therefore, Darwin interpreted his observations according to that Naturalistic paradigm.

 

“The simple reason was, the vast majority had no modern day equivalents”

An observation which is very easily explained by extinctions (either pre or post flood).

 

“They weren't even close to modern-day creatures. They represented totally different genera, families, sub-phyla of creature”

All classification systems are subjective – so this claim is logically meaningless.

Ironically, the classification system you are appealing to was created by an avowed YEC, Carl Linnaeus. Therefore, the purpose of this system was to group creatures according to morphology (and not relatedness – which is commonly assumed). In that sense, fossils only provide limited information (especially when fossils are rarely found complete).

 

“Scientists had assumed that two of each and every species or genus had been taken into Noah's Ark”

The YEC claim is that the Ark contained the representative ancestor pair of every surviving Biblical “kind” (e.g. the ancestor pair of all extant dogs; including domestic breeds, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, foxes etc.).

The term “species” is also part of the Linnaean classification system. It is unlikely that scientists before this were thinking in terms of “species”.

 

“and that all creatures alive in modern times had descended from these creatures”

Yes – but not to be confused with each “species” being represented on the Ark.

 

“Yet the animals that were left behind and died in the flood bore little or no resemblance to these descendants. How was this possible?”

This is a confusing statement. The YEC paradigm does not claim that “modern” animals are the “descendants” of those that perished in the flood, but rather those that survived the flood.

All major “kinds” have representatives in the fossil record.

The fact that some fossils have no obvious extant counterpart can be explained either by extinction, or speciation. Regarding speciation, consider the morphological variety in dogs; a bulldog fossil would look nothing like a German Shepherd fossil – yet to us, they are technically the same “species”.

 

“In fact, modern creatures found in the fossil record are very much the exception. So called "fossil-animals" (such as crocodiles for example) represent a tiny percentage of animals alive today”

Do you mean “Living Fossils”?

I don’t know the relative percentages, but there are many, many examples of these types of fossils (that look identical, or nearly identical, to their extant representatives) – that are said to have experienced “evolutionary stasis”. There are enough examples that creationist, Dr Werner, has authored a 260 page text-book dedicated to such examples.

 

“This made scientists doubt that the flood had caused the fossil record. If you are a YEC, what is your explanation?”

You have presented no fact that cannot be explained within the YEC worldview.

Nothing you have written here provides a person of faith with any reason to “doubt that the flood had caused [the majority of] the fossil record”. Nothing here compels a Christian, by science or logic, to distrust the most obvious meaning of Genesis.

 

[farouk]

5 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 

Hello IgnatioDeLoyola,

You said, “Up until the 19th Century for example, it was widely assumed by most scientists that fossils were remains of animals killed in the flood of Genesis (chapters 6 - 9). The big questions is, why did these assumptions and beliefs change, even though their faith in God didn't? The reason is, as evidence from the fossil record accumulated, it started to challenge the beliefs and assumptions of these faithful scientists”

I disagree with this interpretation of history.

Historically, the Protestant Reformation gave everyone who could read access to scripture. As such, people understood that God gave each of us freedom, and what we now call “rights”, to think outside of established paradigms. People were thus free, even to challenge the Christian narrative – leading to the rise of popularity in Philosophical Naturalism – the assumption that no god has ever interfered with the progression of the natural universe (and subsequent related assumptions like uniformitarianism).

When interpreting the available facts, the conclusion stems from the paradigm. Facts are neutral. No fact tells you about its history. Those details must be, of logical necessity, read into the facts based on an external narrative – i.e. the paradigm comes first. It is secular mythology to claim that scientists simply followed the facts to their natural conclusion. This can be verified by demonstrating that every fact which has been interpreted to support the secular narrative of history can also be interpreted to fit the YEC narrative of history – because the paradigm is the starting point, not the facts.

Which is all to say, the change of paradigm preceded the facts, not the other way around (as you have suggested).

 

“Most of all, it started to pose the following questions, that I'd love any YEC to try to answer in modern day:”

In my experience, these conversations can get very big and messy very quickly. I am therefore only going to address one of your questions at a time – moving on to the next after a resolution or impasse has been reached on each issue.

 

“1. Why are modern animals not found in the fossil record?”

I would firstly suggest that there are many so-called “living fossils”. That is, many examples of fossils that are indistinguishable from their “modern” living forms. The mere existence of these extensive examples represents more of a problem for the secular narrative than the YEC narrative – given the massive amounts of supposed evolution that was happening in other forms while these creatures remained unchanged over the same (putative) periods of time.

Secondly, I would suggest that it is specious to presuppose what we should be finding in the fossil record. Fossilization is a rare process. It is true that the flood provided ideal conditions for fossilization on a massive scale, but that doesn’t make it any more likely that any particular creature was necessarily fossilized. Most creatures that succumbed to the flood would have undergone predation and/or decay. Therefore, it is logically spurious to argue, ‘If you were right, we should find these specific fossils in the record’.

With regards to fossils, I would also argue that the mere fact we haven’t found something does not mean it doesn’t exist. In terms of fossil sites, we have barely scratched the surface of planet. Therefore, not having what you might be expecting is meaningless, and technically an Argument from Ignorance (logic fallacy).

I would also wonder what you mean by “modern” forms? The typical YEC position is that most “modern” forms speciated from their ancestors on the Ark. That means, for example, that there were no lions, or tigers, or panthers, or Jaguars, or domestic cats etc. on the Ark – but only a pair of cat-kind ancestors – since the “modern” cat forms did not exist yet.

 

“As fossils began to be found, scientists assumed that they were of creatures that were as yet undiscovered, but nevertheless had modern-day equivalents. As more exotic fossils were found (Dinosaurs, etc.), scientists began to theorise that perhaps these were the remains of creatures that had died out in Biblical times, but were nevertheless contemporary with man. But as more and more fossils were found, scientists became more and more unsettled”

This is more storytelling.

In reality, contemporaries of Darwin had begun contemplating Philosophical Naturalism (which had recently become permitted). Darwin himself, having become disillusioned with the Biblical concept of God (due to personal tragedy), was well-read regarding the thoughts of his Naturalist contemporaries. Therefore, Darwin interpreted his observations according to that Naturalistic paradigm.

 

“The simple reason was, the vast majority had no modern day equivalents”

An observation which is very easily explained by extinctions (either pre or post flood).

 

“They weren't even close to modern-day creatures. They represented totally different genera, families, sub-phyla of creature”

All classification systems are subjective – so this claim is logically meaningless.

Ironically, the classification system you are appealing to was created by an avowed YEC, Carl Linnaeus. Therefore, the purpose of this system was to group creatures according to morphology (and not relatedness – which is commonly assumed). In that sense, fossils only provide limited information (especially when fossils are rarely found complete).

 

“Scientists had assumed that two of each and every species or genus had been taken into Noah's Ark”

The YEC claim is that the Ark contained the representative ancestor pair of every surviving Biblical “kind” (e.g. the ancestor pair of all extant dogs; including domestic breeds, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, foxes etc.).

The term “species” is also part of the Linnaean classification system. It is unlikely that scientists before this were thinking in terms of “species”.

 

“and that all creatures alive in modern times had descended from these creatures”

Yes – but not to be confused with each “species” being represented on the Ark.

 

“Yet the animals that were left behind and died in the flood bore little or no resemblance to these descendants. How was this possible?”

This is a confusing statement. The YEC paradigm does not claim that “modern” animals are the “descendants” of those that perished in the flood, but rather those that survived the flood.

All major “kinds” have representatives in the fossil record.

The fact that some fossils have no obvious extant counterpart can be explained either by extinction, or speciation. Regarding speciation, consider the morphological variety in dogs; a bulldog fossil would look nothing like a German Shepherd fossil – yet to us, they are technically the same “species”.

 

“In fact, modern creatures found in the fossil record are very much the exception. So called "fossil-animals" (such as crocodiles for example) represent a tiny percentage of animals alive today”

Do you mean “Living Fossils”?

I don’t know the relative percentages, but there are many, many examples of these types of fossils (that look identical, or nearly identical, to their extant representatives) – that are said to have experienced “evolutionary stasis”. There are enough examples that creationist, Dr Werner, has authored a 260 page text-book dedicated to such examples.

 

“This made scientists doubt that the flood had caused the fossil record. If you are a YEC, what is your explanation?”

You have presented no fact that cannot be explained within the YEC worldview.

Nothing you have written here provides a person of faith with any reason to “doubt that the flood had caused [the majority of] the fossil record”. Nothing here compels a Christian, by science or logic, to distrust the most obvious meaning of Genesis.

 

@Tristen Hebrews 11.3 is a great reference point also:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, farouk said:

@Tristen Hebrews 11.3 is a great reference point also:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Actually, not.  The Greek word translated "framed" or "created" or "formed" is 'katartizo'.

2675 katartízō (from 2596 /katá, "according to, down," intensifying artizō, "to adjust," which is derived from 739 /ártios, "properly adjusted") – properly, exactly fit (adjust) to be in good working order, i.e. adjusted exactly "down" to fully function.

Among the verses containing 'katartizo' we find in Matt 4 "disciples MENDING their nets".  My lexicon has:  "adjust to fit, mend, repair, refit, to restore, to reinstate.

 

This is a fascinating verse.  The major translations render ‘katartizo’ as “prepared, formed, or framed”.  That is unfortunate, because the word has a significantly different meaning.  It is found 13 times in the NT.

Matt 4:21 and Mark 1:19 used for “mending their nets”

Matt 21:16 used for “perfecting praise out of the mouths of babes”

Luke 6:40 used for “every disciple is not above his master, but one that is perfect shall be like his master”

Rom 9:22 used for “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction”

1 Cor 1:10  used for “perfectly joined”

2 Cor 13:11 used for “be perfect”

Gal 6:1 used for “restore such a one with gentleness”

1 Thess 3:10 used for “might perfect that which is lacking in your faith”

Heb 10:5 used for “a body you have prepared Me”

Heb 11:3  used for “worlds were prepared”

Heb 13:21  used for “make you perfect”

1 Pet 5:10  used for “make you perfect”

From Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

to render fit, sound, complete

a. to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair: Matt 4:21

b. to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange, adjust: Heb 11:3

c. ethically, to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be: 1 Peter 5:10

So Heb 11:3 actually supports a restoration of earth as seen in Genesis 1.  v.1 is about original creation, but from v.2 on, the text is about restoring what BECAME an uninhabitable wasteland.

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

Dear @Tristen,

Many thanks for your detailed reply (at least, detailed in answer to one of my questions, and to my narrative).

While I do agree with your hypothesis that the Protestant reformation did indeed give rise to the freedom of personal thought that led to philosophical naturalism (and also much scientific advancement, to be fair), I do not agree that this had a material impact on the early interpretation of the fossil record.

I also disagree with your interpretation of how science works - that it inevitably is starts with the paradigm (or worldview) of the scientist, and then facts (which are neutral and common to all scientists) are interpreted to "fit" the paradigm of the viewer. 

On the Origins of Philosophical Naturalism in Science and the Fossil Record

Philosophical naturalism is a movement that may have predated the 19th Century, but without doubt it became a popular or common paradigm in the 2nd half of this Century, at least in Europe. 

However, doubts as to the flood narrative as explaining the fossil record predated this time considerable. What could be termed modern paleontology (although the word would only gain traction in the 19th Century) really formed in the 17th Century. While this is after the Protestant reformation, it is at a time when the vast majority of scientists globally, and in Europe, were certainly not philosophical naturalists. Indeed, most weren't protestant!

Homo Diluvii Testis, for example, was discovered in 1726. The paper on it was published by an extremely devout, bible-believing Christian to a group of peers who were almost uniformly devout Christians. The idea of multiple extinction events predates this discovery also. In the late 17th Century devout Christian scientists (such as John Ray) wrote of their deep concern about the possibility of extinction events in relation to fossils that had been found, stating their opinion that mass extinction events were contrary to the known biblical narrative. 

In other words, doubts and problems thrown up by the fossil record predate the popularity of philosophical naturalism in the natural sciences. They were therefore not caused by a new dominant worldview that rejected divine intervention.

On how Science works - and avoids pandering to worldviews of scientists

While I clearly agree that all scientists have a preferred paradigm or worldview, I do not agree that all scientific conclusions, by extension, must derive from this worldview. You stated:
 

On 3/4/2023 at 12:17 PM, Tristen said:

When interpreting the available facts, the conclusion stems from the paradigm. Facts are neutral. No fact tells you about its history. Those details must be, of logical necessity, read into the facts based on an external narrative – i.e. the paradigm comes first.

If science merely worked by taking known facts and evidence and interpreting them one way or another, you would be 100% right. But that isn't how science works.

Rather, a scientist if forced to form a hypothesis (which may well be coloured by his worldview) and then list testable predictions or retrodictions of his hypothesis in order to allow other independent scientists to test these. Only hypotheses whose predictions and retrodictions pan out are accepted as scientific theories. 

While this does build in inertia to science (old theories have to have predictions disproven, which can take many years of research), it also builds the possibility of objective falsification to scientific discovery. Indeed, in Mclean vs Arkansas Board of Education, presiding Judge William Overton noted that "Creation Science" could not be science because its adherents refused to make or disclose testable predictions that would lead to the falsification of their central hypotheses. 

Such was not always the case with scientists who believed in the literal biblical account of creation. They did indeed have predictions and expectations of the evidence they would find. When these predictions started proving false, they started to doubt themselves. In similar ways, the idea that the earth is very old and that the fossil record shows various changes and extinctions to life on earth also makes testable predictions. The difference in the modern age is that these predictions are public and testable, whereas modern creationists avoid making predictions at all costs. 

On your specific counter-arguments

On 3/4/2023 at 12:17 PM, Tristen said:

The mere existence of these extensive examples represents more of a problem for the secular narrative than the YEC narrative – given the massive amounts of supposed evolution that was happening in other forms while these creatures remained unchanged over the same (putative) periods of time.

Firstly, I disagree that living fossils are particularly abundant. There are of course many millions of species on earth, and therefore there are bound to be examples of prolonged evolutionary stasis among them. But these should be, and are, a small minority. But with millions of species available, there should always be enough to write a book on them.

Secondly, this doesn't advance the YEC narrative. While living fossils may or may not challenge the evolutionary narrative, YECs are still faced with the challenge that the vast majority of living forms today do not appear in the fossil record, and that the vast majority of the fossil record does not record forms in the same species, genus, or even family as living creatures today.

On 3/4/2023 at 12:17 PM, Tristen said:

Therefore, it is logically spurious to argue, ‘If you were right, we should find these specific fossils in the record’.

It would be spurious to argue that, yes. But it is not what I argued (other than for human beings, which is one of the only particular species we are certain existed in Noah's time, and was certainly killed in massive numbers by the flood). However, to have the vast majority of modern species not appearing in the fossil record is a massive challenge to the literal biblical narrative found in Genesis 1 - 9. Which is a very different proposition.

On 3/4/2023 at 12:17 PM, Tristen said:

With regards to fossils, I would also argue that the mere fact we haven’t found something does not mean it doesn’t exist. In terms of fossil sites, we have barely scratched the surface of planet. Therefore, not having what you might be expecting is meaningless, and technically an Argument from Ignorance (logic fallacy).

Sadly this misunderstand statistical sampling. We have found literally hundreds of thousands of fossils. While this may be only a small percentage of the total to be found, it gives us a valid statistic sample on which to base conclusions. For example, that the vast majority of the fossil record does not bear significant similarity to creatures alive today. 

If you are hoping for a massive fossil trove that completely overturns this statistical anomaly, then I would suggest the chances diminish every day, and are now almost zero.

On 3/4/2023 at 12:17 PM, Tristen said:

I would also wonder what you mean by “modern” forms? The typical YEC position is that most “modern” forms speciated from their ancestors on the Ark. That means, for example, that there were no lions, or tigers, or panthers, or Jaguars, or domestic cats etc. on the Ark – but only a pair of cat-kind ancestors

I have also heard this hypothesis Tristen, many times. The ark could not possibly contain all species (there are millions), therefore it must have contained creatures at the level of genus or family (and this must be what the Bible means when it discusses "kinds").

While this supposes a ludicrously accelerated period of evolution between the ark and modern day, it still doesn't help Young Earth Creationists. The simple reason being, the vast majority of families represented in the fossil record are not alive today. 

On 3/4/2023 at 12:17 PM, Tristen said:

In reality, contemporaries of Darwin had begun contemplating Philosophical Naturalism (which had recently become permitted).

That is true. But doubts over the Biblical narrative explaining the fossil record predate Darwin by almost two centuries.

On 3/4/2023 at 12:17 PM, Tristen said:

An observation which is very easily explained by extinctions (either pre or post flood).

So between 10 thousand years ago and 4.5 thousand years ago, there have been multiple catastrophic extinctions that, though they wiped out between 65% and 97% of all life on earth (including all creatures over 20kg twice), never wiped out humans?

And presumably these were then followed by vastly accelerated periods of guided biological evolution by unnatural selection to create a totally new set of species? And these affected both land and sea animals?

Such an outlandish hypothesis must make hundreds of testable predictions. Perhaps you could list them? After all, it's only a maximum of 10k years after the end-Permian extinction. Shouldn't we still be feeling the after effects? And if the Chicxulub meteor landed 8000 years ago, shouldn't we still be able to measure the atmospheric disturbance?

You see the issue here Tristen - a series of massive catastrophes (that BTW are mentioned nowhere in the Bible) in the last 10000 years - it's bound to bring up some questions and demand some predictions...

On 3/4/2023 at 12:17 PM, Tristen said:

All classification systems are subjective – so this claim is logically meaningless.

Ironically, the classification system you are appealing to was created by an avowed YEC, Carl Linnaeus. Therefore, the purpose of this system was to group creatures according to morphology

Bizarre you would make two claims in the same paragraph that are clearly mutually exclusive.

If Linnaean classification has to do with the morphology of animals (which is objective), how can the hierarchically nested taxonomy it naturally produces be subjective? 

By the way, you are right that Linnaeas was describing morphology not relatedness. Evolutionary biology is merely one possible explanation for this nested morphological similarity.

On 3/4/2023 at 12:17 PM, Tristen said:

The term “species” is also part of the Linnaean classification system. It is unlikely that scientists before this were thinking in terms of “species”.

 

Agreed and noted above.

On 3/4/2023 at 12:17 PM, Tristen said:

The YEC paradigm does not claim that “modern” animals are the “descendants” of those that perished in the flood, but rather those that survived the flood.

Yes, and it also claims that each "kind" of animal on earth was saved in the flood. The question is, what happened to the Trilobytes and Dinosaurs, I guess!

On 3/4/2023 at 12:17 PM, Tristen said:

Nothing you have written here provides a person of faith with any reason to “doubt that the flood had caused [the majority of] the fossil record”. Nothing here compels a Christian, by science or logic, to distrust the most obvious meaning of Genesis.

I think your historical challenge there Tristen is that these facts did indeed cause people of faith to doubt this. And that the reason such people doubted is because they were following the scientific method of prediction, observation and falsification. 

If you can come up with an account of the fossil record that conforms with the account in Genesis, you are free to do so and publish it here. But to conform to the method that another devout Christian, Francis Bacon, pioneered - you will need to make testable predictions and retrodictions about the evidence you expect to find as a result. 

Just before I leave you with that, I have an interesting example of modern creationist methods for you to consider.

Creationists have long been challenged by the results of radiometric dating methods. While their early attacks on these focussed on the assumptions of radio-dating methods (lack of initial daughter product, lack of heat-based metamorphosis of the rock etc.), eventually they were confronted with answers to these assumptions (zircons chemically exclude lead, argon is never present in significant concentrations in any rock, isochrons check initial assumptions and account for leaching or partial melting of a rock, Ar-Ar plateaus allow for partial melting too, multiple independent methods lead to the same results despite making different assumptions, etc. etc.)

So in more recent times, creationists started to throw doubt on more fundamental assumptions of radiometric dating methods. For example, that the speed of light, and therefore the speed of radioactive decay, had remained constant. They dressed this up as an attack of "uniformitarianism" in science (even though we have no reason to believe, in any measurements, that fundamental constants have changed significantly since the beginning of the universe). Like you, these creationist fellows said that scientists were merely coming from a naturalist worldview, and therefore discounted the possibility of God's intervention in changing such constants. 

What they failed to do however, is think through what significantly changing fundamental constants in nature was likely to do to nature. They didn't, and still refuse to, make any predictions based on their hypothesis that constants must have changed. 

Since radioactivity is about nuclei releasing energy to become more stable, and indeed the energy released by current levels of nuclear radioactivity is enough to keep the core of the earth molten, what would happen if radioactivity were suddenly to speed up by billions of times? Would the rocks that contained these elements stay solid (a necessary condition for all rocks to be dated)? Would the earth still exist or instead be completely vaporised? Would Noah and his crew be able to survive the massive radiation poisoning that would ensue from the entire earth, sun and solar system irradiating them? Would otherwise stable elements start exhibiting radioactive decay as a result of lowering of binding energy per nucleon, leading to even greater levels of heat and radiation?

Hypothesis have consequences. Consequences lead to wonderful avenues for prediction-making and testing. And yet, despite positing massive changes (for periods of a couple of years maximum) in nature and the universe, modern creationists have failed to form a single prediction, or even consider the possibility that any can be made, from their hypothesis. While I'm almost certain you will not heed my entreaty, I would be remiss not to urge you to avoid their philosophical mistake. When Christians make these sorts of huge unforced errors in basic scientific method and theorising, it makes Christians look ignorant (something no scientist in the 17th century could have possibly countenanced). It looks, to all the world, that we are living in a la-la land where evidence and reason does not intrude, and not only to those who unquestioningly accept philosophical naturalism. 

As the bible says:

Quote

“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the Lord.

Isaiah 1:18.

All the best,

N

[FJK]

Some questions occurring to me as I read this thread, questions I think could be given some degree of contemplation.

Was the Garden of Eden all of the earth, or was it a specific territory of the earth with all things outside of it existing as well as all things within it? 

Were those things, the ones within and without, the same and for the entire length of passing time before the fall of man?

Could things outside of the garden been developing differently and independent of the things God placed within it?

If it was a specially cordoned off part of the earth, were conditions outside of it and within it the same with all of the same content of flora and fauna and the same governing rules?

How long did man live in the perfection of the Garden, 90 days?  90 million years?  Did time even have the same meaning, or progress at the same rate, within and without the Garden?

 

I'm sure we can find those answers in scripture but I don't know where to look.

 

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

13 hours ago, FJK said:

Some questions occurring to me as I read this thread, questions I think could be given some degree of contemplation.

Was the Garden of Eden all of the earth, or was it a specific territory of the earth with all things outside of it existing as well as all things within it? 

Were those things, the ones within and without, the same and for the entire length of passing time before the fall of man?

Could things outside of the garden been developing differently and independent of the things God placed within it?

If it was a specially cordoned off part of the earth, were conditions outside of it and within it the same with all of the same content of flora and fauna and the same governing rules?

How long did man live in the perfection of the Garden, 90 days?  90 million years?  Did time even have the same meaning, or progress at the same rate, within and without the Garden?

 

I'm sure we can find those answers in scripture but I don't know where to look.

 

Dear FJK,

For me the plainest reading of Genesis 2 is that Eden was a place, rather than a "condition" or "era" or the whole earth. 

Otherwise, how do you make sense of the fact that the bible refers to it as in the "east", or talks about the four (real) rivers flowing out of Eden:

Quote

 

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

 

In other words, the story of Eden was meant to represent a real physical place on earth in the East, presumably near modern-day Baghdad in Iraq.

[FJK]

3 hours ago, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

In other words, the story of Eden was meant to represent a real physical place on earth in the East, presumably near modern-day Baghdad in Iraq.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Eden wasn't a place, I meant to imply that maybe physical conditions, possibly even the passage of time itself, could have been very different within that place and outside of it.

That would explain why we don't find human fossils alongside the fossils of those Dinothings, humans (Adam and Eve at the time) were not where they were and they were not where Adam and Eve were.

 

(FWIW, I really don't believe in two creations with only Adam common to them, but I don't deny the possibility of it either)

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

Hey FJK,

For obvious reasons, the flood occurred outside of the narrative of the Garden of Eden, because it was meant to wipe out the sinful race of man and make a covenant with Noah. Fossils could not be created in Eden because, before the fall of man, there was no death and therefore no fossilisation. And there was no sin, so no reason to wipe out the fallen race of man. 

Thus the fossil record, if you take the biblical narrative literally, must have been created after Gen 3:6-8. Right after this Adam and Eve get chucked out of the garden as part of their punishment for the original sin of disobedience against God. 

Best

N

[Dennis1209]

23 hours ago, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

I also disagree with your interpretation of how science works - that it inevitably is starts with the paradigm (or worldview) of the scientist, and then facts (which are neutral and common to all scientists) are interpreted to "fit" the paradigm of the viewer. 

Let us talk about what science is and what science is not. Since shifts in the paradigm of what science was (observable and repeatable) changed with Darwin, we need a definition of what science was during this period.

SCI´ENCE, n. [Fr. from L. scientia, from scio, to know; Sp. ciencia; It. scienza. Scio is probably a contracted word.]

1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.

2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.

A principle in science is a rule in art.        Playfair.

3. Art derived from precepts or built on principles.

Science perfects genius.    Dryden.

4. Any art or species of knowledge.

No science doth make known the first principles on which it buildeth.          Hooker.

5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz. grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.         Bailey. Johnson.

[Note.—Authors have not always been careful to use the terms art and science with due discrimination and precision. Music is an art as well as a science. In general, an art is that which depends on practice or performance, and science that which depends on abstract or speculative principles. The theory of music is a science; the practice of it an art.]^[1]

Working from a general and faulty theory cannot be science. The idea of evolution is nothing more than a religion, the religion of atheists, and it is taught and presented as fact outside of any objective scientific evidence.

Is this new “science” of evolution open to higher criticism and critical thinking, debate, and experimentation? Absolutely not; it is rebuked, ostracized, and not allowed in public schools and institutions of dumber learning.

Many careers and tenure have been destroyed by mentioning an alternative view of creation or opposing the status quo of the religion of no God.

Dozens of examples can be cited on how and why “scientific evidence” is erroneously manipulated to fit the evolution narrative. I will mention a couple of recent examples that can be independently verified for brevity.

Many evolution scientists now admit DNA is so complex that it had to be engineered by someone; natural processes could not have created it over time. They developed their evolutionary theory of panspermia to fix that problem to fit their narrative.  

Scientific and government reports, in general, and the official government UFO report, in particular, assume evolution in its findings. The two most likely reasons for this phenomenon are not even mentioned, supernatural and dimensional, for apparent reasons.

When the foundation of “science” is built upon sand and a lie, how does it stack up to the truth?

 

 

---

^[1] Webster, Noah. Noah Webster’s first edition of An American dictionary of the English language. 2006: n. pag. Print.