I don’t know the reason why the continents broke apart, or why the flood happened. I only know it did. But without knowing the causation behind it, it’s virtually impossible to even get started modeling the process. There are too many unknowns. But there are creation scientists who are coming up with models. One of them is CPT. There’s another one I forget the name of, and then there’s hydroplate theory which I have learned is not held in high esteem by most creationists I know.
Plate tectonics, at the rate of a few mm a years. This rate of continental drift has been relatively constant since Pangaea broke up as evidenced by the dates of seafloor spreading zones.
These dates also agree with the fossil distribution and genetic evidence for the age of species splitting.
4 Likes
That’s simply not true. I don’t need to know the cause of a somatic mutation in an oncogene to advance and test hypotheses about how it caused a tumor.
Great news! Science, specifically testing hypotheses, helps you to know the previously unknown.
3 Likes
Heh. So you can’t defend any of the YEC “science” claims, you don’t even know what they are. You’re just here to be a cheerleader for the YEC cause. Interesting.
2 Likes
From Answers in Genesis (you seem to be out of the loop on YEC Flood arguments)
There are numerous evidences that support the contention that the pre-Flood supercontinent split and the resultant continents shifted apart catastrophically during the Flood. Several of these are highlighted below. [AIG goes into detail, this is just a sample]; Folded Fossil-Bearing Sediment, “ In order to fold and later bury these coal deposits, the continental division and shifting responsible for these mountain-building collisions had to have occurred during the Flood. This is also the same movement of continents that then subsequently separated what is now North and South America from Europe and Africa to form the Atlantic Ocean basins, all during the Flood.”
1 Like
None of which are based on a shred, not even an iota, of observational science, unlike mainstream geology, which at least has observational measurements of plate movement.
1 Like
Pity AIG has not one shred of evidence for that fantasy while there exists tons of contradictory evidence. See the oceanic lithosphere data posted above. Oops!
1 Like
You should know that before Pangaea, there were a number of separate continents, and before that, another supercontinent we call Rodinia, and before than, more separate continents. How does that fit your scenario?
2 Likes
Hello @PDPrice – I really like Cleland’s work. I’ve skimmed a bit of this thread and would be interested in reading your paper. Do you have a pre-print copy you’d be willing to share? It looks like your paper is behind a pay/registration wall.
For what it is worth, I draw the “historical science vs observational science” distinction differently for my students where I work. I tend to use “forward looking” or “backward looking” experimentation/science/inference – choose your favorite term.
The idea being that “backward looking” requires constructing a most likely (probabilistic) explanation for what needs a causal explanation. This often requires stringing together various pieces of evidence that need to be reevaluated as new evidence is discovered. Often, something like a “smoking gun” pushes a certain explanation over others as the most likely. However, these explanations are also always at threat of being undermined by new evidence. In fact, here is an interesting editorial challenging the asteroid hypothesis
“Forward looking” denotes any field of inquiry that controls for variables and then “tests” for results. It isn’t a stitching together of data points, but the tweaking of variables and seeing what happens. The results, if any, are future based. Although, all data points get recorded in the historical record that then become an historical artifact, e.g., journal article. Most lab based science is of this sort. My assumption is that most laity have “forward looking” in mind when they think about science.
I know that most scientists DO NOT make the “historical/observational” distinction and get frustrated trying to get clear as to what it means. However, when I try out the “backward/forward” looking distinction, I’m usually greeted with that other hazard of being a philosopher – Is that all which was meant? Then why all the fuss?
7 Likes
i read your article in the Journal.
Yes there is a great difference and I aslways used the terms.
However i now do’t the terms.
i see science as a verb and not a noun.
To me science is oNLY a high standard of investigation that can DEMAND confidence in its conclusions.
So its all about investigation methodology.
IN origin subjects, past and gone processes and actions, the investigation is very difficult. unlike present processes/actions. In short we can observe the latter but not the former.
its not two species but one species.
Origin subjects really are more complicated. whatever is true.
Evolutionism and friends have gotten away with saying they have dONE a high standard of investigation when they did none, or very very little. ITS hard indeed for them to do it but thats too bad. Don’t yell out conclusions.
YES attacking evolutionism on its standards of science is the way to destroy its legitimacy as science.
I don’t thing saying its historical science is a way to destroy its credibility.
there is no historical science. There is only science. ONLY a high standard of investigation. origin stuff, especially by them, fails this standard.
Reductionism can happen here in terms.
YES we need philosphers of science to ENFORCE rules about what science. Evolutionists have been breaking the rules since old man Darwin.
Hi Paul,
Please excuse my earlier references to you @PDPrice as “PD”-- I just now happened upon this thread.
It"s interesting that you are in Atlanta. My daughter leads the InterVarsity ministry at Emory U, so a big part of my heart is there with her.
Actually, don’t! First read Proverbs 18:17 -
The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
It’s important to have the Scriptural mindset first. Then read the scientific literature.
I heartily recommend the followng practice as a way to obey Proverbs 18:17: When you see an article being submitted to Journal of Creation. go out to the original literature and see what it says. It might be a little different than what the JoC author says, and in a very important way. It might even be a lot different.
Then imagine the kinds of questions that the scientists here at PS might ask on “cross-examination.” No, don’t do that! Instead, you can come directly to this forum and say, “Here’s a YEC way to view this research, what do y’all think?” @stcordova frequently does so, and I imagine he finds some value in doing so, because he has done it quite a lot recently.
My $.02,
Chris
P.S. Be sure to use the 2d person plural properly whenever you post. We Southerners know that the correct form is “y’all.”
5 Likes
Correct, I find value in doing so.
1 Like
I appreciate your interest in the essay, but I want to be careful not to run afoul of any legal or ethical considerations in distributing that copyrighted content online for free. I’m afraid for the moment all I can say is that “If this sort of content interests you, it’s a good reason to subscribe to the Journal”; at an undetermined later date, it will be posted online at creation.com, but that could take quite a while.
You could at the very least tell us something about what the essay says. Summarize your argument. So far you seem to be conflating experiment with observation with operationality. (Is that last one a word?).
Cleland responds to the dilemma by attempting to knock down empirical science to the same uncertain level as historical science. She admits there’s a difference in methodology, but she attempts to wave this fact away by appealing to what she calls the ‘asymmetry of overdetermination’ in nature; that it is easier to deduce that something has happened than it is to predict what will happen in the future.
She acknowledges that biases influence scientific paradigms, but fails to apply that to her own ideas of evolution and deep time. She makes the mistake of thinking that pieces of evidence can be clearly and objectively regarded as ‘smoking guns’ that clinch a case in favor of one particular hypothesis.
What dilemma?
Once again you are conflating terms. Cleland isn’t talking about “empirical science” but about experimental science. These are not the same thing.
Do you apply that to your own ideas?
Why is that a mistake?
That historical science is often regarded as inferior to experimental science.
Once again you are conflating terms. Cleland isn’t talking about “empirical science” but about experimental science. These are not the same thing.
I’ve already responded to that elsewhere.
Do you apply that to your own ideas?
I do, but my belief in YEC is founded in Scripture, not in fallible postulations.
Why is that a mistake?
Because the concept of something being a ‘smoking gun’ is still subjective and ones ability or willingness to see something as a ‘smoking gun’ is also affected by ones worldview and biases, and by the scope of what types of causes one is able to consider or even aware of.
This is exactly the same for “experimental science”, so how is this a knock against “historical science”?
Well, first, thanks for finally using the correct term. But that seems less of a dilemma than a fallacy.
Where? What did you say?
I’m sorry, but it’s turtles all the way down. It’s your biased assumption that Scripture is infallible. Have you ever examined that assumption? You are also assuming that your interpretation of the bible is the correct one. Isn’t that affected by your own biases?
It appears to be your basic assumption that your understanding of Genesis nullifies all contrary observation. Is that correct?
This is discussed on another thread ‘YEC and perspicuity’. It is not my assumption, it is my belief and faith based upon sound reasons that I find convincing. Everybody must make up their own minds about Scripture, but it is my faith in the Bible that informs what I believe about historical science. My belief in the Bible is not, itself, ‘historical science’. It’s a worldview and it’s a faith.
It appears to be your basic assumption that your understanding of Genesis nullifies all contrary observation. Is that correct?
No, it nullifies all contrary speculations.