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

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

17 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. We are not told if things were any different outside the garden, but Romans makes it clear the entire universe was affected by the fall. Interestingly based on satellite data of where some scientists believe the 4 ancient rivers were, it is likely the garden of Eden was located in the present location of the Persian Gulf. We are not told exactly how long Adam and Eve lived in the garden, but we can make an educated guess. Adam was 130 years old when he had Seth. Seth was the 3rd listed son. So we know Cain and Abel occurred before this. If we assume that Cain killed Abel when he was around 30 , and if Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel within a year or two after their eviction from Eden, then we can make a rough estimate that Adam and Eve lived in the garden for up to 100 years before they sinned and were kicked out. 

 

Great questions. A reading of Genesis will show that God made Adam and then PUT him in the garden. Also, after Adam and Eve sinned, they were kicked out of the garden with the entrance blocked so they could never again get in. Therefore it was a specific location, not the whole world.

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

18 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.

 

I'm sure we can find those answers in scripture but I don't know where to look. We are not told if things were any different outside the garden, but Romans makes it clear the entire universe was affected by the fall. Interestingly based on satellite data of where some scientists believe the 4 ancient rivers were, it is likely the garden of Eden was located in the present location of the Persian Gulf. We are not told exactly how long Adam and Eve lived in the garden, but we can make an educated guess. Adam was 130 years old when he had Seth. Seth was the 3rd listed son. So we know Cain and Abel occurred before this. If we assume that Cain killed Abel when he was around 30 , and if Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel within a year or two after their eviction from Eden, then we can make a rough estimate that Adam and Eve lived in the garden for up to 100 years before they sinned and were kicked out. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by TrueFollowerOfChrist
something wrong with the site.

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

I just tried to answer this question twice, but something is wrong. The first time it cut off half my answer when I tried to post it, the 2nd time it added part of the question and still cut off part of my answer. Sorry if my 2 posts on this thread look a little confusing. I'm not sure if its a glitch with the site or my computer.

[FJK]

9 minutes ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

if Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel within a year or two after their eviction from Eden, then we can make a rough estimate that Adam and Eve lived in the garden for up to 100 years before they sinned and were kicked out. 

Was old age and death designed in to man, as he was perfect as God designed him in the Garden, or did the process of aging and death begin when he sinned and only occurred after the expulsion from the garden?    Could man have lived millions of years in eternal youth in the Garden, or would he still have grown old and died in a few short years there anyway?

Does the Scripture offer any insight into this?

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

Dear @Dennis1209,

I'm not sure how your post adds to this topic. Your definition of science is very general (taken from a dictionary I guess?) and doesn't address *the scientific method*, which is what is being discussed in this thread...

On other matters:

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

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.  

Technically Dennis, this doesn't relate to the theory of evolution, which is how life changes over generations once it is established. This would related to the theories of abiogenesis, how life came to be in the first place.

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

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.

This is also unrelated to the science of evolution. However, I should point out, most government reports also assume thermodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's laws of electromagnetics, etc. It is standard practice for scientists and indeed engineers or government employees to assume well established and proven scientific theories in their discourses and papers.

[teddyv]

 

6 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

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?

You are making many claims in here, but have not produced any sources or examples to support them. This may not be the right thread for it, but why don't you pick one, supply your support and we can examine it?

[Tristen]

On 3/7/2023 at 12:13 AM, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

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:
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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

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...

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.

Agreed and noted above.

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!

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:

All the best,

N

 

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

As you can see, addressing “one” question quickly becomes more-than large enough for a substantial conversation.

But if you think I am dodging, I am happy to switch the conversation to one of the other questions. But I’ll still only be dealing with one at a time.

 

“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)”

Actually, under the Christian paradigm, science advanced quite a bit prior to the Protestant Reformation. This progress was simply amplified by the Industrial Revolution (another notable historical period stemming from the Reformation).

 

“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.”

I would firstly point out that there is a difference between historical modelling, and the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method uses experimentation to generate precise mathematical confidence in hypotheses about the current, natural universe. By contrast, historical modelling observes existing facts, then makes up a story (model), which may or may not be true, to explain those facts – and any subsequent facts are then tested against the story to generate only anecdotal confidence in the model – given that the model can not be claimed to be confirmed without Affirming the Consequent (logic fallacy).

I am happy to call them both “science” – but they are not the same method – and can therefore not be considered equally robust. My claim about Philosophical Naturalism only applies to historical modelling. The Scientific Method applies Methodological Naturalism (basically, the assumption that no supernatural force is messing with the experiments).

Whether or not a paradigm is required to interpret the historical conclusion is very easy to demonstrate. Produce a fact that you think ‘points’ exclusively to the secular conclusion. We can examine the fact to determine what information is derived from the fact itself (and is therefore rationally indisputable), and what has been inferred onto the fact from external sources. If I can interpret the very same fact to fit the YEC conclusion, then we know that each paradigm has molded the fact to itself, rather than the fact having been neutrally followed to the paradigm.

 

“doubts as to the flood narrative as explaining the fossil record predated this time considerable”

The very idea that fossils can be explained by the Biblical flood was only a new idea at the time. It would be disingenuous to imply that some longstanding view was being questioned. Therefore, a general statement that some devout Christians questioned this new interpretation of fossils does not have any logical relevance to our debate. It certainly does not logically address my claim that interpreting the facts towards a particular historical conclusion requires a starting premise (paradigm).

That is, I nowhere claimed that the fossil/flood explanation could not be questioned by devout believers. I rather claimed that whatever explanation one arrives at, is implicitly, necessarily influenced by one’s pre-existing world view.

The devout doubters “as to the flood narrative as explaining the fossil record” where not questioning the “flood narrative”, but rather, they were questioning whether or not the Biblical flood adequately explained the fossils. As such, this evidence of their “doubt” is not logically relevant to how the Naturalistic paradigm is a required starting premise for the generation of the secular interpretation of fossils.

 

“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 10:17 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.”

I think I addressed this adequately above – notably: that my comments only applied to historical modelling, and not to the Scientific Method – and therefore not to “all scientific conclusions”.

 

“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”

I’d say this is a close-to accurate summary of the Scientific Method. The scientist(s) making the hypotheses are usually the one(s) testing the hypothesis through experimentation. It’s actually rare for these to be repeated externally (though publication usually requires internal repeats).

 

“Only hypotheses whose predictions and retrodictions pan out are accepted as scientific theories.”

This is a propagandist definition of “theory”. It is not how the word is used in scientific literature – because it is a logically useless definition.

In actual scientific usage (i.e. in the Scientific Method), the “hypothesis” predicts the outcome of the experiment. The “theory” describes the proposed mechanics that underlie the rationale of the “hypothesis” – that is, the reasons the scientist believes he/she will see this outcome.

Ask yourself – what is this magic standard that transitions an “hypothesis” into a “theory”, and where is this standard recorded in the scientific literature? What exactly/precisely does it mean for an “hypothesis” to “pan out”? Where can I find the list of such proceedings in the literature – where this graduation is recorded? And why are thoroughly debunked “theories” still called “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.”

All historical models - stretching into the unobserved past - are logically impossible to falsify (or verify). The fact that the “Judge” only recognized this for “Creation Science” speaks to the bias of either the “Judge”, or the case itself (was it only considering the falsification capacity of creationism, or was the secular historical narrative also being assessed for falsifiability?).

But yes – much of creationism also uses historical modelling. The question is, are we applying these standards consistently – across the spectrum of belief, or it is different rules for different paradigms?

As far as logical consistency is concerned, if historical modelling is “science”, then it is “science” – regardless of who is using it to support their position.

 

“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.”

This is all rhetorical bluster. There is no argument here for me to respond to – just an array of Unsupported Assertions (logic fallacy).

 

“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.”

You are dodging the point. Your question is, “1. Why are modern animals not found in the fossil record?”. Therefore, a book full of examples of living creatures that are found throughout the fossil record directly contradicts the central premise of your question.

Now you want to Move the Goalposts (fallacy) to – ‘but not as many as I would expect’. Well, that is subjective. Your expectations are biased, and not based on the YEC understanding of the YEC model.

What is objective, is that there are many (at-least a book full of) examples of such fossils that directly contradict your challenge to YEC.

 

“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.”

It's actually exactly what you “argued”. Allow me to rephrase my general statement to be more specific; you are arguing, “If YEC was right, we should find the vast majority of modern species in the fossil record”. It’s the identical logic flaw as my original statement claimed.

And given my overall argument, this is no “challenge” at all to the historical “biblical narrative found in Genesis”. This lack of “modern species” in the fossil record is actually the expectation of the YEC model, given that, a) many “modern species” did not exist at the time of the flood (discussed further below), b) there is no reason to assume any species would necessarily undergo fossilization, c) even if such a species was fossilized, there is no reason to assume they would be buried where we are looking for fossils, and d) there are, in fact, many examples (at least a book full) of living creatures found in the fossil 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).

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.”

Here you have moved from fallacy to empty posturing. E.g. ‘If I disagree with you, it “sadly” means I must not understand how to math’.

In order for your statistical method to make sense (in reality), you would have to assume a uniform distribution of fossils across the face of the planet (in statistics terminology, you would have to assume a ‘normal’ distribution). Then, you would be able to take a group of samples randomly from any part of the earth’s surface – and subsequently make inferences from the samples to the overall population of fossils. But there is no reason to assume that fossils are ‘normally’ distributed, and we observe that they are not ‘normally’ distributed, and the sampling is not random (as your statistical analysis would require). Therefore, “sadly”, it is you who have misunderstood both the utility and application of “statistical sampling”.

 

“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.”

My only hope was to convey to you that the logical integrity of your position is undermined by the fact that your argument is premised on a logic fallacy. As such, the fact that we don’t have fossils that you might expect to find, given your understanding of the creationist narrative, does not logically speak to the truth of the matter.

To be clear, the point of my above argument is that any argument based on logic fallacy is breaching the rules of logic – and therefore has no logical relevance to reality.

 

“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").”

There are not “millions” of animal species that would have qualified for the Ark (even assuming each species is representative of a “kind” – which it is not). The overwhelming majority of the “millions” figure are insects (and most are speculations as to how many might exist – I’ve heard guesses between 4-100 million). Whilst there were no-doubt insects on the ark, insects did not strictly qualify for the Ark (i.e. are not breathing, blood-bearing, land animals). But even if they did qualify, a few million insect pairs would fit on the Ark easily.

Once you remove the species that did not qualify for the Ark, we are left with about 50,000 species (give or take). Considering that many species-groups can be reduced to a single representative “kind”, creationist, John Woodmorappe, did an Ark feasibility study and generously estimated around 8,000 “kinds” were on the Ark (~16,000 individuals). Given the dimensions of the Ark, and assuming an average size of a sheep, that would leave about a third of the Ark free for whatever else they needed to take.

There is no reason to assume Biblical “kinds” directly mirrors any one level of the Linnaean classification system. So yes – some of the representative ancestors on the Ark could have subsequently produced a Class, or Order, or “Family”, or “Genus” of descendants (according to the Linnaean system).

 

“While this supposes a ludicrously accelerated period of evolution between the ark and modern day,”

It depends on what you mean by “evolution”. If you mean information appearing in the genome in an additive fashion, that is novel, functional, beneficial, heritable etc., then I would agree that this is “ludicrous” – regardless of the provided time frame. But if by “evolution” you simply mean that many diverse types of descendants can be produced from a high diversity ancestor due to speciation conditions, then your skepticism is “ludicrous”.

Scientific literature is saturated with examples lauding this kind of rapid “evolution”.

Also consider the example of domestic dogs (though not technically separate species). Around two centuries ago, there was only a handful of breeds. Through artificial selection, humans have generated hundreds of very diverse types of dog breeds - by breeding out the existing genetic diversity from each breed. Why shouldn’t Natural Selection be able to do the same over 4,000 years? In-fact, Natural Selection has been observed to change populations this way many times – as attested to in the scientific literature.

SIDE NOTE: I am more than happy to provide examples/references for anything I claim on request. For now, I am assuming you are somewhat familiar with what I’ve said enough to know it’s accurate (or at-least can do a rudimentary web search to test what I’ve claimed).

 

“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.”

My suggestion that most living species did not exist when most fossilization occurred, directly, logically addresses your question as to why they are not prevalent in the fossil record.

Whereas the fact that some fossils are not represented by living descendant-relatives, is entirely logically irrelevant to the question.

 

“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.”

I’ll try another way to explain why this is not relevant:

My general claims:

- by the mid 1800s, Philosophical Naturalism was becoming increasingly popular.

- in the mid 1800s, Philosophical Naturalism was used to interpret the fossils to conform to Philosophical Naturalism.

Facts relevant to your response:

- in the late 1600s (early 1700s), some Christians proposed that fossils could be explained by the Biblical flood.

- in the early 1700s, some other Christians questioned whether the fossils could be explained by the Biblical flood.

Hopefully by this, you can see that your response does not logically address my claims in any relevant way.

 

“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...”

This is more bluster and posturing. Nowhere in our discussion have we addressed “multiple catastrophic extinctions”. So you don’t get to throw such ideas at the conversation as truisms, then proceed to build a Strawman argument (fallacy) against my position – all so you can tell me how “outlandish” my (not-my) position is. That is intellectually dishonest.

You have also addressed my statement out-of-context (Contextomy fallacy). My statement was a reply to your claim: “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” (no mention here of “multiple catastrophic extinctions”). Therefore, my perfectly sensible response was to point out that discrepancies between fossils and extant creatures can be easily explained by some creatures having gone extinct.

 

“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?”

I can only assume you are conflating “taxonomy” with relatedness. Otherwise, I don’t understand the contradiction you are claiming.

 

“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.”

Agreed.

 

“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!”

“Trilobites” are marine animals – that were therefore not on the Ark.

Some “Dinosaurs” were likely represented on the Ark – but have since gone extinct.

 

“I think your historical challenge there Tristen is that these facts did indeed cause people of faith to doubt this.”

That’s not a “challenge” for me at all. My job is to examine the facts for myself (along with the underlying logic used to interpret those facts). That is what I have done. The “challenge” for you is to provide some fact that can not be interpreted to fit the YEC model – thus justifying the implied intellectual obligation on me reject the straight-forward reading of scripture.

 

“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.”

I’ve already addressed (above) why it is logically flawed to conflate the Scientific Method with historical modelling. I won’t go over that again until you’ve had a chance to respond.

I would encourage you to look up "the Scientific Method" (usually represented as a flow chart) – and see if you can find where “predictions and retrodictions” actually fit into the process (hint – I’ve actually given you the answer above). You’ll quickly realize that they are far less important to the Scientific Method, than they are to modelling methods.

I’d also encourage you to find examples of actual “predictions” supporting the secular model (as in – a prediction that is in the literature before the fact was found). I’ve been able to find very few. In my experience, most so-called “predictions” are really new facts that happened to fit the model – and can therefore be claimed to be logically consistent with the expectation of the model (or more dishonestly, what the model “predicts” (present tense) we should find). That doesn’t count as a legitimate “prediction”. Surely, according to your confidence level regarding the nature of “predictions”, legitimate “predictions” should saturate the literature in support of the secular model.

I would also ask, what does it mean for the model when “predictions” fail (as is more the rule, than the exception for the secular narrative). If “predictions” are as fundamental to ‘science’ as you are suggesting, surely a failed “prediction” would be as catastrophic to the model as a successful “prediction” is confirming.

And finally, on a matter of logic, does a successful “prediction” add any objective, mathematical confidence to the model, or does it just mean the model still only might be right? Consider that attributing any solid confidence to a model based on a successful “prediction” requires Affirming the Consequent (another logic fallacy).

 

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

I’ll happily discuss any of the raised issues once the question we are discussing has come to a resolution.

 

[farouk]

Just remember that the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was linked with the spectactular Piltdown Man hoax.

[HAZARD]

Deleted Failed to upload

Edited March 8, 2023 by HAZARD

[HAZARD]

Deleted. Failed to upload a second time.

Edited March 8, 2023 by HAZARD