Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9027 total)
52 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, xongsmith (4 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,466 Year: 1,112/14,102 Month: 104/411 Week: 0/125 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Methods of Historical Science to demystify the process for the public:
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16741
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 13 of 33 (848670)
02-13-2019 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by candle2
02-12-2019 8:05 PM


quote:

The thing with historical science is that it is extremely subjective. I don't doubt for one second that you know this

As I am sure you know it is far less subjective than young-earther’s would have us believe.

quote:

Evolutionists view the evidence through a materialistic mindset, and their interpretation of historical facts are determined by their mindset. You know this, and I know this.

More accurately scientists - and historians - employ methodological naturalism to understand the evidence. While many of them are, in fact religious. Creationists on the other hand feel free to invent miracles in order to ignore where the evidence points.

quote:

Everyone has access to the same historical facts. No one can deny that there are fossils of organisms not known to be living today. We also know that there are many layers of strata. Neither side has a monopoly on this knowledge.

Everyone knows that the fossil record contains organisms anatomically intermediate between taxonomic groups. Yet Creationists are known to quite frequently deny this.

quote:

The major difference between creationists and evolutionists is their paradigm of the world and history.

Incorrect. The major difference is in epistemology. For Creationists the truth is determined by authorities. Evolutionists agree with the scientific approach that puts the empirical evidence first. As the motto of the Royal Society says “Nullius In Verba”.

quote:

Fossils don't come with tags on them stating when they lived and died; nor the various levels of strata come with a label explaining when it was laid down.

To determine the answers to these questions we observe what is "going on" today. In other words, we employ operational/observable science.


And this evidence does let us determine answers to these questions.

quote:

What we observe is that "kind produce kind." Both historical and observable science support this fact.

We observe that the offspring are similar to their parents - which is consistent with evolution. We do not observe any evidence of absolute boundaries between “kinds”. Indeed, the evidence points against it.

quote:

When we look at the fossils we soon realize that they do indeed support both creation and a global flood.

And this is where the Creationist epistemology runs into trouble. Because what Creationist authorities tell you is not always true. The fossil evidence is NOT consistent with a global flood. And that has been known since the 19th Century.

quote:

After a global flood we would expect to see fossils of fish and bottom dwellers in the lower strata. Above this we would expect to see amphibians. Next would come reptiles, including dinosaurs. Mammals, humans, and birds would be in the upper layers. However, because of the turbulence and them not being buried, we should find very, very few of these.

And, this is exactly what we do observe.


That is false both in that the order is not expected and that the order is not observed. Most obviously, the order listed is for earliest appearances - fish continue to appear throughout the record.

The supposed expectation is also odd. Why would we expect to find amphibians before other creatures living in the same environment ? Why would we expect to find only fish at the bottom ? Surely the land life would drown first ? Why would all the tremendous range of dinosaurs be found in only three eras and why would we see distinct differences in the fauna found in the three ? The questions just go on and on, and the Flood offers no viable explanation at all.

quote:

The strata in the Grand Canyon looks exactly like levels that were laid down by a global flood (look at the aftermath of Mt St. Helen's).

Provided you ignore differences in scale and material - both highly relevant.

quote:

When the flood waters began to run off after the upheavel of mountain ranges, the runoff would have carved the GC in days.

Nonsense. The canyon meanders and meanders are not a result of rapid carving.

quote:

If the various levels of strata had been laid down on millions of years, why do we not see any (none) erosion within the layers?

You don’t see it because your authorities tell you it isn’t there. But it is. There is evidence of massive erosion between layers. Look up angular unconformities sometime.

quote:

Also, we have petrified trees (some upside down) extending through numerous levels of strata. Again, read of Mt St. Helen's.

These trees were deposited during a global flood. No one in their right mind believes that these trees remained standing, exposed to the elements, and without decay, for hundreds of millions of years.


I suggest you look up the explanations offered by geologists.

quote:

We observe dino fossils with significant amounts of Carbon 14 in them, which limits their age to under 75,000 years

With tiny amounts consistent with contamination.

quote:

We have dino fossils with soft, squishy, and pliable tissue inside. And veins that are still elastic.

But still altered, and still incredibly old by all the other evidence.

quote:

We have the recorded words of dozens of reputable men who have seen live dinosaurs.

Only if you count birds.

quote:

We have pottery with engravings, embossments, and drawings of dinosaurs on them. They are also recorded on rocks and cave walls.

Excepting some modern examples, all of these require questionable interpretation.

quote:

Creationists have historical science; observable science; and, written records Including the Holy Bible) to support their convictions.

Creationists have falsehood and myth.

quote:

Creationists have the upper hand here, and it's not even close.

Creationists are deceived by their false idols. Which is why they don’t have the upper hand - or even get close.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by candle2, posted 02-12-2019 8:05 PM candle2 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16741
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 15 of 33 (848673)
02-13-2019 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by candle2
02-12-2019 8:05 PM


Order of the fossil record
This subject has been discussed extensively. One thread here is The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Objectively the fossil record was not produced by a global flood, even before the geological evidence is considered.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by candle2, posted 02-12-2019 8:05 PM candle2 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16741
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 23 of 33 (848699)
02-14-2019 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by candle2
02-13-2019 7:53 PM


Re: Evidence
quote:

The HGP proved conclusively that there was a human population bottleneck. MtDNA and Y chromosomes clearly point to four men and four women around 4500 years ago. This was at the time of the global flood.

Whoever told you that was making things up. And they don’t even understand the science they are misrepresenting (the interesting thing is that it implies that Noah’s sons all had different fathers!)

Here is an actual study Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences the full article requires payment however the abstract tells us that European and Asian populations underwent a severe bottleneck 10-60 thousand years ago (a report on the article says that effective population size - which is almost always lower than the real population size was 1200 individuals), while African populations underwent a less severe bottleneck.

Needless to say this does not agree with the Flood story at all.

quote:

It is known that humans are degrading. Each successive generation has over 100 more mutations than the previous one. This is consistent with thousands of years, not millions. I'm not referring to the age of the earth, merely the history of humans.

Mutations keep appearing but selection helps keep them under control. We have conclusive evidence that humans have been around for a long time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by candle2, posted 02-13-2019 7:53 PM candle2 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021