Faith has posted another response at her blog: Let's Bring "Proof" Back to Reality
It's just another way of saying that when you are dealing with the prehistoric past you can never be sure of your hypotheses because they aren't testable,...
This is as false as it ever was. Let's see what Faith offers to support it this time.
The argument about the difference between observational and historical/interpretive science is completely valid.
All science is observational and interpretive. If Faith thinks not then in her next blog post she can provide a few examples of fields of science that are missing one of these.
...but there is a legitimate argument here that is being evaded by all this abstract nitpicking.
But does Faith ever tell us that legitimate argument? After reading on to the end I find the answer is, "Apparently not."
The main argument I've made along these lines is that both Old Earth Geology and Evolutionist Biology make assertions about what they believe occurred in the distant past that they couldn't possibly PROVE, by which I mean all they have is their conjectures and hypotheses which they have no way of confirming, although they treat their conjectures about these things as if they were solidly proven facts.
As Faith knows, when she actually confronts evidence from the distant past she is unable to describe why we can't
analyze it, as here:
The structure of DNA for instance has been "proved" in a way you could never prove the scenarios concocted about the distant past that are palmed off on the public as fact.
The Denisovan's are an extinct species of Homo
. Analysis of Denisovan mitochondrial DNA from 41,000 years ago shows they share genes with both Homo sapiens
and Home neanderthalensis
. If we didn't already know the structure of the DNA then we could have used 41,000 year-old Denisovan DNA to analyze its structure.
Evidence can degrade and disappear over time, but no matter how old, as long as some is left it can be subjected to scientific scrutiny to reach valid conclusions. Faith here attempts to describe why old evidence can't be used to reconstruct the past:
We can reconstruct a Stegosaurus from its bones, but when you go on to describe the supposed habitat of that animal, based on the other contents of the rock in which its bones were found, you are giving your hypothesis about those things. If you go on from there to talk about it as if it were known fact you are asserting theory as fact though it can't be verified; in a word you are committing fraud.
So Faith tells us that Stegosaurus fossils are valid evidence from the past, but that the surrounding sedimentary rock in which the Stegosaurus fossils are buried is not. But the evidence from that sedimentary layer tells us a great deal pretty conclusively, such as the age of the layer and the nature of the environment at that time. No one's "asserting theory as fact." Paleontologists are merely relating what the evidence leads them to conclude.
Looking for other kinds of examples of unprovables described in dogmatic terms I found the Wikipedia article on Stegosaurus where such unknowable/unprovables are asserted, such as when the creature lived:
They lived during the Late Jurassic period (Kimmeridgian to early Tithonian), some 155 to 150 million year s ago...
This is interpreted simply from the fact that it is found in a particular layer of sedimentary rock. This becomes a time period because that's what the theory says it is.
We knew the Jurassic was a time period after the one below and before the one above simply from the Law of Superposition (new sedimentary layers can only be deposited on top of older ones, not beneath them) and from the distinct flora and fauna even before radiometric dating allowed us to give it a specific age. There's evidence for everything science has concluded about the Jurassic and the Stegosaurus. There's nothing in science that is accepted "because that's what the theory says it is."
Faith quotes about the paleoecology of the Morrison Formation from the Wikipedia article on the Stegosaurus
, then correctly summarizes:
Whatever has been found within that layer along with the bones of the Stegosaurus, goes to make up the interpretation of its "environment," the climate and the kind of vegetation that grew in that "time period."
But she dismisses this:
The Morrison Formation is a layer of rock. Here it is called an "environment." This is of course because the theory says each of the layers represents a time period.
Faith doesn't believe sedimentary layers contain the sediments, flora and fauna of the environment where they formed. She thinks the flood carried them from hither and yon and deposited them together into a single layer. She believes Stegosauri from anywhere in the world all came to be deposited in a narrow portion of the Jurassic period along with other unique flora and fauna that appear nowhere else. How can a flood do this? Well, it was a very special flood unlike any flood we've ever experienced, and it apparently can do anything Faith needs it to do.
I am of course emphasizing the rock=time period equation because it is so absurd...
Faith possesses the infinite ability to declare things absurd while exhibiting no ability to actually demonstrate it.