Searching for Ancient Truth

I think, for the purposes of the debate, it is assumed that the man does not tell you how he got there, he just tells you a few ways that he didn't get there. Well, you can apply basic observed physics and chemistry to explain how things are the way they are. The only way this can really fail is... ...if the fundamental way nature works radically changed at some point. We have tested many of these things and found that they worked in largely the same way in the past (eg, radio decay rates tested using supernovae).Stating that basic rules about how the world works were radically different involves proposing an unobserved entity (ie some mechanism that would change the laws of nature). Proposing additional, unneeded and unobserved entities is not good since it makes your ideas less parsimonious. I'd prefer to accept that the world worked in basically the same way as we observe it working now.

No, he said All the man said was how long it took him, what the journey was, that he used no money and does not own a car. The man never told us how he got there. The example isn't useless. We assume the man will tell us no more information than he has given and we have to work out how he got there. I can think of better examples, but Linear did say it was a simple illustration.If it is easier for your imagination, imagine that the man promptly died after telling you what he told you and you aren't going to bother interviewing witnesses. You can still formulate some kind of reasonable idea on how he got to where he was.

I understand that, which is why I mentioned that if it helps your imagination, consider that the guy died, and you weren't going to speak to any witnesses. If you can't imagine that, imagine this, could you work out viable scenarios as to how the man got there, before asking him or witnesses?Without a single witness, without the man himself, there shouldn't be an objection. Rather than object to such minor issues, perhaps you could address the spirit of the analogy? It seems quite clear - we can work out how somebody got where they are now, even based on limited information. Ie, without being told the information we can still work out some reasonable ways he could have got there.In short, we don't need to be told something explicitly to be able to work it out based on what data we have.

---

If you are still having difficulty with it, try the same analogy wordly differently:

quote:

---

You meet a man walking on a street in Salt Lake City. He says "I have a puzzle for you...Imagine it took me 2 days to get here from Washington DC and I used no money and I do not own a car. How do you think I got here?"

​

Two things spring immediately to mind:
1. He walked there in two days. Or
2. He rode in a mechanized transport of some type for free.

---

In this example he is setting you a puzzle to solve, he isn't going to tell you the answer (and you aren't going to start trying to psych the answer from him), there are no witnesses to the event, because it is a puzzle and it didn't really happen.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 11-March-2006 11:27 PM

And I believe that is the point that Message 35 seeks to address. It says you can't test the past, but you can test other things that are pertinent, discount certain scenarios etc.

I agree. It can happen that there are two competing theories about an event and simply not enough evidence to support one more than another. Happens with a fair amount of frequency, especially with historical/forensic sciences.One can never KNOW the explanation, but one can offer various explanations. One can reject explanations that could not have realistically happened. Hopefully when two competing ideas are presented, both ideas will have predictions associated with them, and falsifications...tests which may be able to be carried out in order to come to a more confident conclusion.We can't test the past, but we can test the processes that leave certain types of evidence to conclude what kind of processes can leave that type of evidence and what kind of processes cannot leave that type of evidence.

I wouldn't say that that it's prejudice, closer to discrimination. If we look to the flood, by your own reckoning there are some problem with the scenario. From what I have seen around and about, there are pieces of evidence that could not exist if a global flood happened...unless some other (unknown) mechanism is in play. Since this is not parsimonious, it gets rejected. After all, I could easily make up a random event that I say happened in the past, and say that the reason the evidence disagrees with it is because some other mechanism came into play that I choose not to describe. Most creationists do say that the Flood was supernaturally influenced. Obviously the water wasn't supernatural, but some kind of supernatural mechanism is often put forward to answer problems with the model. I think the issues you raise are valid, but they are minor and easily corrected. Imagine what it's like for us poor evolutionists who have to constantly battle caricatures and strawmen from creationists. It is rare for a creationist to really understand the position they are attacking. So trust me, I can sympathize.However, the problem remains that the Flood has more solid evidences that suggest it didn't happen than it does non-specific/indirect evidence that it did. I have no personal issue with the Global Flood idea, but I see nothing that would be best explained by a global flood. This global flood, should it have happened, acted like no other flood has ever acted, and somehow managed to create a geologic column, and sort fossils not only vertically but also geographically...in such a way that radiodating and the molecular clock would agree with one another. In such a way that radiodating and historical records, tree rings, supernovae and many many other dating methods all give the same results.Personally, I look at that and think, if a global flood happened, all those pieces of evidence saying what they are saying can't be a coincidence. So either the evidence says what it says and there wasn't a global flood, OR there was a global flood and some other mechanism sorted all these things to tell us what they seem to be telling us.The latter is anathaema thinking in science, for good reason. It's not prejudice when you consider all the facts and arrive at a conclusion, but I agree that some people are simply not listening to what you are saying and are seemingly attacking a position you don't hold. All I can say is that both sides of the fence get that, you'll have to develop your own method of dealing with it.I post this, not trying to attack your position or engage in debate. I'm just both sympathizing with your problem and trying to express as best I can why your opponents hold the contrary view and exactly why they see the flood as an untenable idea to consider.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 12-March-2006 01:42 PM

I've seen 'God' or 'miracle' posited as a defense for the inconsistencies the flood has with physical evidence. I've even heard that God sped up radioactive decay to make doubly sure all life died in the flood.

Its not really a question of motivation, more 'reason'. There is not reason to hunt for an explanation when there is a functioning explanatory framework in place that has yet to be falsified. If anyone can come up with a more useful model, it'll be used - but most geologists are not in the field for changing the already existing model. Most geologists simply work with the model to develop explanations for smaller things.The only reason to suppose that a flood happened is because a religion says it did. Science has to reject all of religion, lest its biases get in the way of the truth. Imagine if astronomers were still trying to explain Ra going into the underworld every night? Critical thinking. If a model has major problems, its not worth pursuing...otherwise they would have no time to do practical work, which they get paid for. I'm fine with that, but the issue is, that my made up scenario uses the same reasoning the flood does. Whose to say that I wasn't inspired by God/aliens to make up my tale? The flood story suffers because it is not possible to differentiate it from a story that somebody just made up. More power to them. But science cannot have preconception about what happened. We have to say, 'if the Bible didn't say anything about a flood, would there be any reason to suppose one had happened?'. I haven't got a problem with people starting with the idea that the flood happened and trying to explain the evidence around it, but it doesn't hold up to the level of scrutiny demanded by science. It makes the explanation unparsimonious because it is adding unexplained undescribed entities into the explanation.Therein lies the divide. Science works from tabula rasa, and YECers don't. 'evos' work by criticising and seeing if a model holds up to scrutiny, if it doen't it gets rejected. You should be able to see the sense in it at least - after all, that kind of enquiry has been of immense practical use. 'creos' work from the assumption that there was a flood, and try to seek ways to confirm this idea and falsify long geological period.

Who shot Kennedy:1. Ruby
2. Lee Harvey Oswald
3. The CIA
5. Me
6. A unicorn.I'd probably rank them 2,3,1,6,5

Rumours that I was born under Thatcher's rule are merely wild speculation.Sorry, I'm going to be the instigator of sending thread spiralling out of all sanity aren't I?