But you can see enough to confirm that the extract on p125 is from the article I just linked to.
And all the assumptions would all have to be wrong in ways that they still end up systematically corroborating each other for no apparent reason. The very purpose of seeking corroboration from independent methods is that it becomes highly implausible they all systematically fail in the same way at similar magnitudes of effect.
When, where, how often, for what reason? References please. Not hypotheticals or stories, prove it.
Ironically it’s obvious how that could be false, as the different buckets could be shielding each other’s holes. But enough with the bucket, analogy, that is all it is. Just something you make up.
All measurements was done in the past, nothing is ever exactly repeated.
Wouldn’t that also hold about the past? God has not changed the operation of the world in the past either? You seem to be saying that God would be systematically changing how the world works such that historical inference is impossible, yet at the same time saying that God ensures the world is predictable and repeatable. You can’t have it both ways.
Isn’t that exactly why historical science is also possible, the long-term reliable operation of the cosmos?
Are you not here completely hoisted by your own petard?
But as discussed previously, you have an unattainable definition of knowledge, and then you just assume that God gives it to you anyway. A complete digression from the topic at hand of course.
You say this, but no argument you have advanced entails this conclusion, nor do you have any actual numbers to give for these supposed “way less” certainties. Nor does it even follow that SHOULD the certainties be “way less”, that they are so low or bad that historical inference has been fundamentally undermined or rendered impossible. All you have done is state what you think are reasons why the past is subject to more uncertainty.
1 Like
Sure, but it is still an inference about the past far above zero confidence, and [ I would argue, but not on this thread ] far above YEC interpretations of the evidence.
Miracles are a suspension of the normal operation of things. Evolutionists do their historical science by assuming, contrary to the Bible’s history, that no miracles have occurred in the past. Just as 2 Peter 3 predicted, they work under the assumption that “all things continue as they have from the beginning.”
On the other hand, creationists do their historical science with an understanding of history given to us in the Bible. We do not expect that “the present is the key to the past”, but rather, the past is the key to the present.
So Creationists ignore all the physical evidence for evolution over deep time and just assume a huge series of undocumented “miracles” to hand wave away the data. That’s why what Creationists do isn’t science. In science the data drives the conclusion. In Creation you assume your conclusion then twist and cherry pick data to fit.
1 Like
That would be the Carol Cleland who used that terminology in her 2001 publication Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method, right? The publication where she concludes
When it comes to testing hypotheses, historical science is not inferior to classical experimental science. Traditional accounts of the scientific method cannot be used to support the superiority of experimental work. Furthermore, the differences in methodology that actually do exist between historical and experimental science are keyed to an objective and pervasive feature of nature, the asymmetry of overdetermination. Insofar as each practice selectively exploits the differing information that nature puts at its disposal, there are no grounds for claiming that the hypotheses of one are more securely established by evidence than are those of the other.
She also, incidentally, would not agree with your assertion that historical nature is not subject to falsification:
Historical scientists are just as captivated by falsificationism as experimental scientists; as three
eminent geologists (Kump et al., 1999, p. 201) counsel in a recent textbook discussion of the extinction of the dinosaurs, ‘‘a central tenet of the scientific method is that hypotheses cannot be proved, only disproved.’’ … This doesn’t mean, however, that hypotheses about past events can’t be tested. As geologist T.C. Chamberlin (1897) noted, good historical researchers focus on formulating multiple competing (versus single) hypotheses. Chamberlin’s attitude toward the testing of these hypotheses was falsificationist in spirit; each hypothesis was to be independently subjected to severe tests, with the hope that some would survive.
In fact she spends a lot of the article pointing out that very few scientists focus on falsification so it’s really a moot point.
As can be seen from the above, your claim that the “asymmetry of overdetermination” makes historical science “fundamentally less trustworthy than operational science” is diametrically opposed to what Cleland actually wrote, because she says it is as securely established and isn’t inferior. Either you didn’t go to the source (as you claimed is your practise), or you did go to the source and are misrepresenting it.
Which is it?
P.S. This wasn’t what I was expecting to find - I was just looking to see whether Cleland’s use of the terms postdated creationist usage (which it does, since AiG records the distinction being used by Geisler (a biblical inerrantist) and Thaxton (an ID creationist) decades earlier. I should have remembered the 3 stage process for refuting creationists:
- See what they say (“Historical science … fundamentally less trustworthy than operational science.”)
- See what their source says (“there are no grounds for claiming that the hypotheses of one are more securely established by evidence than are those of the other”)
- Note the glaring discrepancy.
4 Likes
I’m curious why would have expected Cleland’s conclusions to match my own, when I’ve already stated I’ve published something rebutting her conclusions. My mention of her was to show she used the terms, and they were not terms made up by creationists. You’re changing the subject to be about whether Cleland agrees with me, which obviously she does not.
Yeah it’s the same assumption you do, that the world has always operated basically by the same principles(the only difference is it isn’t assumed that God is the reason why this is so).
But you were of course being deliberately vague here and just talking about “no miracles have occurred in the past”, as opposed to God specifically doing stuff that would fundamentally undermine the use of presently used dating methods. I’m pretty sure that it doesn’t say anywhere in the bible that God has fundamentally altered the constants of nature, or otherwise messed around with nuclear decay chains. Even if he has tossed lightning bolts and pillars of fire around, or walked on water, or flooded the planet, presumably that doesn’t make Uranium decay faster or slower than otherwise. You’re welcome to just posit for fundamentally self-serving reasons that we just can’t know that so all options are equally likely, but that simply doesn’t follow nor is that even weakly implied. And as I said, you’ve even given reasons to doubt it when you claim God is the very reason we can be sure about nature’s repeatable operation.
That seems to be functionally equivalent. If we can trust in the continued operation of the present moment from the past, because God ensures it is so, then we can also trust that the past was like the present.
1 Like
The rule seems to be “If Creationists like the conclusion then natural processes in the past acted just like they do today. If Creationists don’t like the conclusion then natural processes in the past acted very differently and corrupted the data.” Heads I win, tails you lose. 
2 Likes
Despite the YEC fixation of the distinction between observational and historical science, they routinely elevate their historical interpretations over observation and repeatable experimentation. Cases in point.
The half life of isotopes has been measured repeatedly in the lab and are well supported and cataloged. They are also supported, roughly, by theory. YEC avoids the implications of these experimental results by appealing to notions of speedup up decay, which is not supported by any lab results whatsoever. [ there are known variances with regard to beta modes of decay and electron configuration, that makes no difference. Please do not bring up fully ionized heavy nuclei ].
Then there is the speed of light. The repeatable, laboratory measurement of the speed of light has never shown any variance, and is now woven into the technology which attends our daily life. Again, YEC shows no regard for the observational science and invents all sorts of out there theories to account for distant starlight.
When YEC likes the results of repeatable experiments, they call it observational science. When YEC does not like the results, they pejoratively call it uniformitarianism.
At least, from experimental results, we know the half lives can be as they are, and the speed of light can be 300,000 km/sec, and so the extrapolation of observational science to mainstream historical science is founded. There is no experimental indication that physical law would even allow for the fanciful values advanced by YEC. I do not see much respect from YEC for science, historical OR observational.
1 Like
No, I already explained that is not the case. My assumption is that 1) the universe normally operates according to predictable patterns and 2) there are sometimes deviations in this called miracles that God has revealed to us in Scripture. One of the biggest of these non-normal, non-ongoing events would have been the Flood.
The Bible is a record of history with a very specific narrative goal–which is Jesus the Savior. It is not the purpose of Scripture to reveal the scientific details of everything God has done (but many times the statements of Scripture do have implications relevant to science). But we do know there were major upheavals of the normal order in the past (like the Flood), and evolutionists ignore this in all their assumption-making.
Presumably. How could you claim to know what all the effects of the Flood were? Obviously you cannot.
Certainly not. I assume the Bible’s history is true, and that means that the ongoing processes we see around us today are insufficient to explain all the evidence we find. There is no global flood in process today. There is no Creation Week in process today. You assume the exact opposite.
So Noah’s globe covering Flood was a series of major miracles. Then God screwed up and left a whole planet’s worth of physical geologic evidence that a global Flood on a 4.5 BY old Earth didn’t occur. Why would He do that unless the intent was to be deliberately deceptive?
2 Likes
So could you produce a citation and/or a quote to answer my question?
What was that about?
Did she? Or did she refer to “experimental science” rather than “operational science”?
Still no evidence that she used the term “operational science”, and yet there’s evidence that it was made up by creationists.
It is you who is making the extraordinary claim concerning speeded up decay; it is you that maintains this is consistent with science, it is up to you to demonstrate the science, historical or observational.
3 Likes
@PDPrice I’m not accusing you of error, but I often encounter YECs who do not understand what constitutes an experiment in “historical” science, like paleontology for example.
A paleontologist may think there is a “gap” in the fossil record, then use geological data to find a location where the “missing” fossil might exist, then go look for a fossil that meets the criteria of the gap. This constitutes a repeatable experiment, with hypothesis, data seeking and discovery (or not).
Just throwing this hat in the ring to see if it is useful.
1 Like
You did not explain any such thing. You vaguely hinted this could be the case, but gave no specific example that would entail any presently used dating methods are based on assumtions about he laws of nature having operated differently in the past.
That’s an event, not a fundamental constant or law.
If particular Biblical declarations are interpreted in particular ways and those interpretations are taken axiomatically to be true, which there is no rational basis for. That is of course a completely unjustified method for discovering what is true about the world as it is putting the cart before the horse.
Again that’s an event, like a raindrop falling to the ground, not a fundamental physical force, law, or constant of nature. Even if the entire world really was flooded by God, that statement entails no conclusion about the basic physical properties of water being altered, that gravity had stopped working or been systematically altered, or that nuclear decay chains stopped.
That is simply not true, you are confusing the magnitude of the forces of effect, with the consequences of those effects. A colossal meteor could crash in to the Earth in a few years, an event never before directly witness in that way by any living person, and yet that would not entail gravity had been fundamentally altered, that energy was created out of nothing, or that nuclear decay rates would be changing up and down.
I assume no such thing, it is an evidentially derived conclusion. You are as usual falsely insinuating that I am somehow making assumtions that are the diametrically opposite of yours, but that is your fundamental mistake. Not joining you in making the assumptions you make, is not to assume the opposite.
You understand the difference between NOT assuming that A, and assuming that not-A, right?
Look, we’ve already been over this whole assumptions canard, no reason to re-hash it all over again.
2 Likes
Or in the present for that matter
So radiometric dating is reliable then. Decay rates have been constant throughout time. Cool cool.
2 Likes