Searching for Ancient Truth

In message 226 of the Global Flood Evidence topic (my emphasis)I have seen the statement about the lack of ability to test past events before and not just from her. Although, it sounds semi-logical on the surface, there are some things done now that would not be allowed if this statement were wholly true.What is it about these events that make them untestable?What does "Testable" mean to creationists with respect to this statement? Is it the same meaning as that of scientists who study ancient events?I would like to dissect this statement on testability from the creationists point of view, and understand the reasoning that is used to come up with this position.

The problem with being on page 2 is that the majority of people here don't look at the topic. I kinda feel like I'm stuffing the ballot box by writing another input.However, I feel that there is a disconnect here and was hoping that someone could provide an insight into the meaning of the statement about testability.

I think I may have been unclear about the Topic. This thread was brought about by your statement that the things of the past (The Flood, in particular) were not testable.Now, I realize that you are not the only one saying this so the onus is not just on you to explain or defend the statement. But you are here so....What do you mean by "not testable" in regards to the events of the past?What information are you privy to that brings you to this conclusion?

Could you give me more detail how replicable tests in chemistry and physics differ from those involving TOE or geology?How does this different replicability in the testing eliminate "some other explanation" for a particular theory in chemistry or physics?An example involving...say...The Theory of Gravitational Attraction or The Atomic Theory of Matter will do if you have problems articulating answers to the questions above.Edited to change subtitle (don't want 'em ta get old!!)This message has been edited by LinearAq, 03-09-2006 06:55 PM

---

Hey pastor! Where do we set up the Deuteronomy 23:1 inspection station?

Do you mean all explainations of past events or only those that support TOE and old Earth?Besides that, I was asking you to explain what you meant by saying that events of the past are not testable.Do you mean....1. No event that happened in the past can be repeated?or2. We cannot speculate with any accuracy on things in the past by performing tests in the present?or3. All of the above?or4. None of the above?If you choose #4 please provide some definition or qualification concerning the non-testability of past events that better explains your position on this issue.I would like to establish a base from which we can explore where the limits of testability differ between scientists and non-scientists.The rest of your response was too close to the Flood topic for me to seriously consider it without drawing this thread OT. Additionally, it didn't really flesh out the definining qualities of testable or non-testable.edited..."threat" to "thread"This message has been edited by LinearAq, 03-10-2006 11:27 PM

Hi ThingsChange,Examples of testable things are typically helpful to a discussion. However, your particular examples may draw the thread off-topic toward that Flood-thing.It would be very instructive if you could provide a working definition of testable or replicable as it applies to your understanding of science.

Well...yes...and no. Yes they are interpretations and cannot be tested in and of themselves. However, as you said.... And you do this by designing tests on things involving those interpretations.Example:
You meet a man walking on a street in Salt Lake City. He says it took him 2 days to get there from Washington DC and he used no money and does not own a car. Assuming all statements above are true, two interpretations of how he got there are:
1. He walked there in two days. Or
2. He rode in a mechanized transport of some type for free.Now, we can't repeat the past exactly, but these interpretations can be checked for accuracy by testing things related to the problem at hand.
1. Distance from DC to SLC,
2. Limits on human foot travel in relation to speed and endurance.I mean this example is obvious but it gives some idea how "interpretations" can be checked for accuracy through repeatable tests or through logic using data that has been repeatedly tested. Most of the time you "do the logic" in your head without really thinking hard about it. Then you might ask, "Did you hitchhike?"I think, with this type of approach, that carefully designed testing can reasonably rule out some interpretations and support other interpretations of past, even ancient, events.Admittedly, each person's logic makes sense to himself. So, I would appreciate it if you would critique my statements above. Your feedback on where I am "missing something" would be very helpful.

Actually, we are trying to understand how we can test the likelyhood of different possible events of the past with only the evidence left from the past and knowledge about how things work. The information was left cryptic, despite the source, to make it into a simple puzzle. Why is the source of the information such a problem? The source had no bearing on how the puzzle had to be solved.Ok, how about this example.You have read about a cult in America that sacrifices animals to their strange god. You own a cat but are not worried since the cats are sacred to this cult. You let the cat out and go to town for a day of shopping. When you get back you find the rended bloody carcasses of two pigeons at your back door.
Two possibilities are:1. Your cat, who holds you in some kind of feline esteem, has presented her kill for your enjoyment.2. The cult has determined that back side of your house is the perfect spot to provide their god with the blood of the birds on that particular day.No witnesses that can tell you anything. The cult members are inidentified and secretive. The answer seems obvious only because we have personal experiences that make one seem far fetched. But for this example let's assume, like a child, that either option appears as likely as the other.What experiments can we conduct to determine which of these two options is most likely? What can we do to eliminate or minimize one of these as an option?

Ok. You had answered the example while I was writing my last post.Certainly you cannot rule out all explainations but this is about testing to put the various explainations in some sort of ranking as to which is more, or most, likely. Absolutely! However, this does not change the ranking of the possibilities unless that unrecognized element comes to light. It could get discovered or suggested. In either case, this element would have to be tested also, to see how it affected the ranking of the explainations.From my first example, let's say the for some reason you stuck around after the poor guy died. The police are going through his pockets to find out who he is. They find some notes with lots of equations that none of you understand and stating that he found a seam in the space time continuum in the basement of the Lincoln Memorial. There are also some newspaper clippings, from the National Enquirer and The Globe, of stories about issues of the Washington Post being found at the Great Salt Lake Park on the same day they were published.Is this new element enough to change your reasoning with regards to the level of possibility of the two explainations presented in my original example?Is there more that should be done before accepting the existance of this new element at face value?

I don't think that "realistically" is a very good qualifier in this case, although you do provide some limiters on what realistically means in this context. Realistically is very subjective and, in some cases, can be seen as an arrogant statement. Remember, "realistically" a 10 Kg ball should hit the ground in 1/10th the time it takes a 1 kg ball to fall the same distance.I also wanted to say thanks for helping out when things got derailed a bit because of my poor wording in the example.

I was not working toward the Flood or the debunking of it. My quest is a bit more generalized. I'm not trying to misdirect you, make you concede a particular point, and then go "Aha! Then how can you say the Flood happened!!". I'm not that sneaky and I don't think you're that dense. Some of the results of this thread should apply to the investigation of the Flood scenario, but that is not where I was headed. Then you are saying that we can't rank explainations from most to least likely? Is this the point where we differ on the testability of past events?If so, what is it that prevents us from being able to determine the relative likelyhood of explainations for past events?As for the rest of what you wrote, as far as this topic is concerned...Frankly, Scarlett...

In post 62 you state: Is this considered an absolute for you? or is there some wiggle room since from post 64, in response to DrJones' list of possible earth ages, you said: ....some blah-blah-blah about evo-creo...then So, all explanations of past events are equally likely and there is now way to test them or is it that it is really difficult to test them?
I'm not sure I really need to ask that last question because you seem to support your nothing=from-the-past-is-knowable statement when you answered Modulus in post 66. See below: You can't even eliminate the idea of a unicorn killing Kennedy?
So now you have changed from a Christian to Solipsist...well, maybe you can be both, and believe in unicorns too.Just a fantasy example:The Miami Dolphins are kicking the snot out of the Pittsburg Steelers (told you it was a fantasy!) when suddenly the 50,000 spectators see two men run onto the field and stab the Dolphins quarterback. The witnesses all state that the two men who are in custody were the ones who killed the quarterback and were captured by the rest of the team. Their lawyer puts forth this explaination.
"The real killer is a Dwarf with thick glasses who hypnotized the entire crowd and the home audience. Additionally, every time the video is played that same hypnotic effect causes us to see the events as the Dwarf wanted it. My clients were actually trying to capture the Dwarf because they weren't hypnotized. That is why they wound up in the custody of the team and the police."
The judge dismisses the case since that explaination is as likely as any other so we surely can't put innocent men in jail.Do you have some reason why this would not be a consequence of operating the world under the premise that all explanations of past events are equally likely? I guess we don't need a justice system then because nothing in the past is knowable.Please don't take offense but I have to ask this. Are you taking this stance because you don't like where it might lead if you agree that explanations for past events can be ranked through some form of testing?BTW--Perhaps BuzzSaw and randman haven't seen this thread. I was hoping they could help flesh out the point of view of YEC's with respect to the testability of past events.

Why not? If there was a witness who said that she saw a unicorn shoot Kennedy would you believe her? Does her testamony now outweigh the forensic evidence that points to Oswald? Yes, you have. You have also been consistent in steadfastly refusing to provide any explanation as to what makes past events untestable. This is especially strange in light of the fact that you agreed with the example earlier that you could rank the likelyhood of particular events.But I will take you at your word. You don't believe any past events are testable as to their likelyhood.Because of your belief that events in the past cannot be testable, these are some of the things that you obviously can have no confidence in.
1. Who your mother is.
2. Who your father is.
3. Where you were born
4. Your birthdate
5. The outcome of WWII
6. If there were a WWII
7. The Flood
8. The sacrifice of JesusJust to name a few. In fact, you have given up knowing anything that you have not experienced yourself and can remember. If someone told you that they saw the President you could not believe it because the only thing you would know is that they told you they saw the President and you have no way of even verifying it. You would have to believe nothing or everything because all possibilities are equally likely.I have a strange feeling that this is not how you live your life.

You didn't answer the question about the witness and the unicorn.

Ok...you provide me with one independent way that you can check the validity of each of the first 6 items and I will provide a refutation of each instance of "independent" evidence.At EvC, one is not obligated to ignore witness evidence. Witness evidence just doesn't get any more weight than individual pieces of forensic evidence. It certainly doesn't outweigh ALL the forensic evidence. If you think it does then you must concur that a unicorn did kill Kennedy if a witness came forth and said so. As you wish. You can start with the top three common problems that you feel prevent the ranking of the likelyhood of individual explanations for ancient events.