Christians: Does age of earth matter?

It also 'appears' that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We know better. But guess what terms we still use????

 

UT:
You gave reasons. However, they do not and cannot disprove what is recorded. I have posted documented evidence that is inconsistent with your position.
Now, take Genesis one, the recorded evidence, and show inconsistencies or contradcitions to it. You have not done this. In fact, your position is much like many liberal minded folk, my position is correct because I reason or think it is.

Now, from the scientific realm of the argument.

Inconsistencies abound in the evolutionists methods of dating. Consider the following:

1. Carbon 14 dating is nto accurate past 20,000 years. Who said this? The inventor of the method W. F. Lisby. One even wonders if it is posssible to get accurate dates for organisms less than 20,00 years. The shells of living Molluks have rendered an age of 2,300 years. Keith M.S. and G.M. Anderson ( 1963)," Radioactive carbon Dating Ficticious Results with Mollusks Shells," Science 141.634, August 16.
Freshly killed seals rendered an age of 1,300 years old. Dort, W. ( 1971)," Mumified Seals of Southern Victoria Land" Antarctic Journal of the U.S,6:210.
3. Radiometric dating in general will yield inconsistent results. Rocks from the islands of Hawaii were known to be 200 years old. However, when tested radiometrically, they yielded results of 160 million to 3 bilion years when tested buy the potassium argon method. Funkhouser and Naughton ( 1968)Journal of Geophysical Research, pg. 4601, July 15.

Radiometric dating makes three asummptions.

1. The rate of decay has always been the same.
Suppose you come upon a man cutting down trees. In one hours time he cuts down 1 tree. Then you count the number of trees felled and the number is 31. If you assume that he has been cutting trees at the same rate, then you think he has been working for 31 hours. However, after talking to the man, he informs you that, earlier in the day when his ax was sharp and his belly filled, he was cutting down 5 trees and hour; only in the last hour had he slacked. With this information, you understand that he worked only seven hours instead of thirty one.

2. No daughter element existed in the beginning.
Who is to say a rock did not begin with 23 grams of lead in it?

3. Elements have not been affected by outside forces. Who can empiracally deny water has caried away some of the lead from rocks.How does one know Uranium has not escaped through the pores of the rock.

More Later.

 

Paul:
The hebrew word for circle means having roundness. I believe the earth has roundness. Furthermore, Language must be understood in it's context. Many times hyperbole and some 21 other figures of speech are employed to present to the human mind spiritual ideas. Isaiah also said the earth had four corners. Was he wrong? No, the context indciates he was referring to the totality of the earth. This would be like one of my favorite vehicles of thought " Evolutionist live in their own little corner of the world."

 

Notice that in pure desperation - evolutionists leave the Creator's genesis "account" AND the summary of the genesis account (Exodus 20:8-11) in attempts to pursue the fallacious agrument "If ANYONE ANYWHERE in scripture speaks in a symbolic way OR is not scientifically accurate then NEITHER is the creator's Word accurate when HE speaks in Exodus 20 or in Genesis 1-2:3".

I find the fact that they are reduced to such tactics to be "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Helen

"thank you for your welcome back. I won't be here much for awhile"

Well, I knew you had been sick. I figured you were better by now, else I would have expected to see something pop up about it. I may not post on a lot of subjects, but I lurk throughout most of the board. Lot's of interesting things, it is just not often that I feel like I have something to add better than what others have already said. Any way, I had only seen one post from you in the last month. Since you were sick and since I know you sometimes have other, private issues that come up, it was a bit of a concern for you to have been gone. Good luck with all the construction. I don't know if I could ever have the stomach to build my own home.

To focus things a bit more, I think we both agree that the evidence from the Creation will tell us what its true age is. We happen to disagree on what it says. Despite the fact that we have each changed our minds on this in the past, I doubt that either of us will be able to change the other's mind again. The same could be said for the other participating in this debate. I also think we all feel that it is important to settle this, however. Therefore I think we can still do good by allowing our arguments to persuade those who have not made up their mind or have only weakly made up their mind. I believe we do have such lurkers since they pop in from time to time.

And yes, my mistake for saying Job instead of Isaiah. It happens.

 

Hello, again, Frank,

"Now, take Genesis one, the recorded evidence, and show inconsistencies or contradcitions to it. You have not done this. In fact, your position is much like many liberal minded folk, my position is correct because I reason or think it is."

Pot. Kettle. Black. You expect me to just accept your interpretation though all the evidence is against it. I am not trying to show any contradictions in the Bible. I think you have me confused with someone else.

"Carbon 14 dating is nto accurate past 20,000 years."

That seems like a reasonable, practical limit. I think with a properly built, modern laboratory and a very good sample, this might could be extended to about 50,000 years. But the difference is detectable levels of C14 for each age are not that great. Older than that and background radiation dominated and you cannot get any lower detection of C14. Your point?

"The shells of living Molluks..."

Yes, it is well known that organisms that get some (or all) of their carbon from the ocean will date incorrectly because of the long time it takes carbon to cycle through the oceans, I think. This is a known limitation. Your point? This is also another example of you violating your rule about telling the past from the present.

"Rocks from the islands of Hawaii were known to be 200 years old. "

Someone has fraudently kept you from hearing the rest of the story on this one. When forming new rocks from lava or magma, it is necessary for them to have been properly heated to have forced all of the argon out to "reset" the clocks. What was happening in this case was that the scientists were selecting rocks that had grains of xenoliths in the rock. Since the xenoliths were granular, they had not been heated enough to be melted during the eruption and therefore still contained argon. They were "dating" the xenoliths to show that they still contained this "escess argon." When the rocks surrounding the grains were tested, the rocks formed from the completely melted rock, there were found to NOT contain excess argon and correctly dated to what would be zero years by the method used. Morris (1974) is the original source for this mistake in reporting the scientist's work. Sorry. This is also another violation of your assertion that nothing about hte past can be learned in the present.

"Radiometric dating makes three asummptions.

1. The rate of decay has always been the same."

I have already shown you how we can show the dacay rates to be the same. Do you have an objection to this or are you going to keep asserting this without bothering to support your assertion?

"2. No daughter element existed in the beginning."

Isochron dating makes no assumptions about hte initial quantity of daughter elements.

"3. Elements have not been affected by outside forces. Who can empiracally deny water has caried away some of the lead from rocks.How does one know Uranium has not escaped through the pores of the rock."

Do you not think geologists have the ability to examine a rock and tell if it has been affected by such things? Proper sample selection is vitally important in any kind of study including this. Even if you think they are incapable, isochron dating will not produce an isochron if such things have happened. You simply will not get a date. The method checks for such problems.

"More Later."

Good.

 

UT:

The old testament is based on over 5,000 documents. These documents support a six day creation of the universe. I did not use someone's opinion. Rather, I examimed the text in context, by word meanings, and comparsion of language that is essential to the understanding of the word day.
Your response was to mention some opinion by a liberal theologian without documentation or exegesis of scripture. This is hardly the pot calling the kettle black. However, it is the case of one person using proper hermaneutics to interpret scripture, as opposed to someone who obviously knows little about the science of interpreting language.
I recently posted the following:
God created all things in a literal twenty four hour period. The evidence is overwhelming to the rational mind. Consider the following:
1. The Hebrew word (yom) is both used and defined in Genesis 1:5. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. This word is used 1,284 times and on a few occasions it does not mean a literal 24 hour day. However, the context clearly defines such usage ( Gen. 26:8;4:3,2:4, Jer. 46:10, Psalms 95:8,9). In Gen. 2:4, the total number of days of creation ( 6) is in view. In Psalms 95, the wandering in the wilderness of Israel is being chronicled. In Jeremiah 46:10, the punishment for the sins of Israel is being recorded.
2. The word phrase evening and morning as it relates to yom is used some 100 times in the Old Testament. It always refers to non-prophetic literal time. Furthermore, when the word yom is preceded by a numeral in a non-prophetic passage it is always a reference to literal time ( Gen. 8:3, Numbers 18:25, Exodus 20:11).
3. The plural form yamin appears 700 times in the Old Testament. In each of these 700 cases, it refers to literal days. Thus, in Exodus 20:11 God created the earth in six literal days.

Your respone was to dismiss without proper examination. The reason is obvious to me. You cannot rebutt the truth. Therefore, you use the opinion of some theologian who agrees with you, and obviously knows little about hermaneutics.
I do not have you confused. Your position MUST and does by IMPLICATION teach that God did not create the universe in six days. By implication, your position is the language used in the Bible is wrong. Your false position necessitates the word YOM to mean an indeterminable time. This is absurd.
Your positon cannot be supported by the totality of the harmonious evidence.

Your mode of argumentation continues to be dismiss without examination or documentation.

You said, "Someone has fraudently kept you from hearing the rest of the story on this one. When forming new rocks from lava or magma, it is necessary for them to have been properly heated to have forced all of the argon out to "reset" the clocks.

Really, who is the someone and by what method did he make this conclusion. Again, NO documentation.

You said, " I have already shown you how we can show the dacay rates to be the same. Do you have an objection to this or are you going to keep asserting this without bothering to support your assertion?"

Yes, I have an objection. One, you have not shown any such thing. Two, Unless you collected data, tested the data, repeated the tests for validity, you are making an asssumption. Again, since you did not and cannnot collect or test, your findings are not valid, you have made an assumption that is unsubstantiated. I documented the scientific method in previous posts by quote from scientist (Danson, More, Sullivan, Curtis).

The halls of our science wing at school have the scientific method posted. These criteria are set forth in text books written by a group of scientist, not preachers. According to you, Holt, Harcourt, Brace and Glencoe should rewrite their texts.

You said, "Isochron dating makes no assumptions about hte initial quantity of daughter elements." See number one. Again, the problem is the inabiltiy to test matter from it's origin and original state.

You said, " Do you not think geologists have the ability to examine a rock and tell if it has been affected by such things? Proper sample selection is vitally important in any kind of study including this. Even if you think they are incapable, isochron dating will not produce an isochron if such things have happened. You simply will not get a date. The method checks for such problems."

Yes, they can tell if it has been affected. I can tell if someone has had a broken nose by looking at it. However, the when, the how, and by what force cannot be known precisely.

If one does not know what the original selection contained, he cannot be assurred he has measured the change properly.

Your straw man argument that I believe you can not tell the past from the present is simply an over simplification and untrue. I provided an example that demonstrated the falsehood of your statement. Let me refresh your memory.

I stated a house that had burned to the ground most definitely implies intense heat and energy involved. However the time, cause, and intensity cannot in the present be measured precisely. There are many factors that prevent us from knowing this. The factors are obvious. No one started the clock measuring the time required for the fire to burn the house. The exact cause and effect are also undeterminable because of the many posssible causes. IN SHORT, THE CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED FROM THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL EVENT. This is precisely why even trained professionals will state the reason for the fire as having a "probable cause."

The probable cause is based upon examining phenomena in the present. Therefore, the evidence becomes prima facie. Science tests things with the conditions as they are in the present, not the past. Science cannot test one time events or unique events as there is no way to validate the findings. Origin is NOT subject to being tested.

You can assert evolution from now to the end of time, but the Bible will still read God created the heavens and the earth and all that are in them in six days. The Finch that flaps his wings for a thousand years will still be a tired Finch, no more no less.

[ May 03, 2004, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

Frank

I will readily admit to you that I do not have the knowledge of Hebrew to dig in and make a reasonable discussion with you on that. I am not equipped for it. I have tried a few times to show where those who insist on a literal interpretation are perfectly willing to take a non-literal approach elsewhare when it suits them.

I do have enough knowledge, however, to look at the Creation itself and see what age It tells me it is. And it tells me it is ancient. You guys do a descent job of showing why you think your interpretation is the right one. Not a great job because I and a substantial number of others remain unconvinced. But a descent job. But, in my opinion, you have zero physical evidence to back up your claims of a young earth. And that puts you in quite a pickle. You insist that there in no compatability of Christianity with an old earth. But your only way to support this is to deny all of the evidence showing an old earth that exists in the Creation Itself. Look at your arguments. You cannot show me any problems. You cannot show me anything that firmly indicates a young earth. It is deny, deny, deny.

"Really, who is the someone and by what method did he make this conclusion. Again, NO documentation."

I told you who it was. It was John Morris and it was in 1974. Here is the rest Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Master Books, Arkansas, pp. 146-147. He misused the work that YOU referenced above. If you need the full citation so that you can go read your own reference, here it is: Funkhouser, J. G., and J. J. Naughton, 1968. Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from Hawaii. Journal of Geophysical Research 73(14): 4601-4607

These guys were deliberately testing xenolith inclusions in igneous rocks. They knew that the grains of xenolith would not date properly and they wanted to see how far off they would be. The rocks containing the grains dated properly. They were using the potassium-argon method. Morris knew all this and used only the part about the grains dating old to attempt to make dating look false. He purposely left out the details that make the story complete. I am sure this mistake has been pointed out many times in the past 30 years, I cannot be the first. Yet he continues to deceitfully put it out there as evidenced by you citing it this very week. I find it appalling that someone claiming to be a Christian is willing to knowingly lie to try and make a point. But it happens regularly. And the willing spoon it up and regurgitate it without ever bothering to check to see if it is true or even to listen to someone who points out the mistakes.

"Yes, I have an objection. One, you have not shown any such thing. Two, Unless you collected data, tested the data, repeated the tests for validity, you are making an asssumption. Again, since you did not and cannnot collect or test, your findings are not valid, you have made an assumption that is unsubstantiated."

Are you saying that I cannot post evidence for the constant rate of decay of radioactive isotopes because I am not the one who has collected the data? Amazing!

Look, I have explained this to you several times. Do you deny that it takes a finite time for light to travel a distance? If so, give me your objection. I do not think that I have the burden of proof to show that light travels at some velocity and is not instantaneous. If you have no objections to this, then wwhen we look into space, we are looking back in time. This allows us to DIRECTLY observe the past. These observations show us that as far back as we can look, isotopes decay the same. Do you require that I give you some citations to supernova studies to prove this? Do you have any reasonable objection to this? We have repeated the observations with many different scientists, many different observatories, many different supernovae. What more do you want? You need there to be a problem or else you are in a pickle since I CAN demonstrate constant decay rates. But you cannot and have not provided any reason to doubt the decay rates. Deny, deny, deny.

"See number one. Again, the problem is the inabiltiy to test matter from it's origin and original state."

Did you not read that? Isochron dating does not need to know the initial state.It makes no assuptions about the initial number of daughter elements.

"Yes, they can tell if it has been affected. I can tell if someone has had a broken nose by looking at it. However, the when, the how, and by what force cannot be known precisely."

If they can tell that it has been affected, they DO NOT use it. If they miss one, isochron dating will not yield a date. It does not matter when. You admit they can tell. Well, they pick samples that have not been disturbed. It is the most important part of the process.

"Your straw man argument that I believe you can not tell the past from the present is simply an over simplification and untrue."

I do not care about your burning house example. I have given you many, many observations that can be made. Show why they actually cannot be made or admit that they can be made. Either way is fine.

 

Ut:

I somehow knew you would ignore the genesis one account. If I were in your position, I would too.


Again, one who does not use the scientific method should not contend his conclusions are valid. You make conclusions based on assumptions that phenomena observed in the present are the same as in the past. This is unsound in practice. It violates the scientific principles that matter degrades over time not remains constant. Matter does not increase but decreases. The world is winding down not up.

You assert light travels at a constant rate. Was the scientific method used to establish it?

Your assertion about Morris is your interpretation of the data.

I do not care for your asertions of data that are not based on the scientific method. I would suggest you debunk the scientifci method,then yo uwould have a case. However, until then, you are simply blowing in the wind.

 

Just because Genesis One is not interpreted literally does not mean it is ignored.

It would be unsound in practice if it were unchecked. Scientists have examined the idea that the laws of physics may have varied in the past and they continue to examine that idea. The operation of the Oklo natural nuclear reactor left evidence that nuclear reactions a few million years ago proceded in the same fashion as nuclear reactions today. The astronomical observations of stars and how they shine gives us definate information about the atoms within the stars and they act just like atoms do today all the way out billions and billions of light years back. Ancient life forms show that photosynthesis worked in geological past ages and that swimming was a feasible way to get around in water, and so forth.

Let me see now. You deny the findings of science because of a law of science? You think that scientests have made up a law that denies their own findings? Give me a break! In science, verbal tricks don't get you anywhere.

How about supernova halos?

UT even provided documentation so his assertions can be checked. Why not look up the references and show where UT is misinterpreting things? You could cite Morris' source, show where Morris did NOT misquote the source, stuff like that.

Well, simply debunking science is not a way to learn God's truth. Science is knowledge.

 

Gina

Did I do that...

May be that was some sort of Freudian slip.

I just cannot type.

 

"I somehow knew you would ignore the genesis one account."

I am not ignoring it. I am just not buying your insistance on a literal interpreation. I admitted that I do not have the knowledge of Hebrew to engage you properly. What more do you want?

"Again, one who does not use the scientific method should not contend his conclusions are valid...I do not care for your asertions of data that are not based on the scientific method."

I disagree with your assertion that this work does not follow the scientific method. I believe that all these biologists and archeologists and paleontologists and geologists and astronomers would be shocked to be told by you that they do not follow the scientific method. I take that back. I don't think they would be shocked, I think they would dismiss such absurdity with a laugh and not give it a second thought. I do not believe that there is any requirement that only things in the present can be observered. I have given you plenty of observations that can be made from the past, how other scientists can test the findings, and how they can be repeated. That this does not follow the scientific method is an unproven assertion of yours. It is a convienient attempt to be able to dismiss all information with which you disagree, but it falls short of any kind of realistic criticism.

"You make conclusions based on assumptions that phenomena observed in the present are the same as in the past."

If you wish to show that things happened differently in the past, the burden of proof is on you to show this. I have given you some of the ways to test this and you have dismissed them without reason. Well the time is now for you to actually show that something was different in the past rather than simply asserting that it is so.

"It violates the scientific principles that matter degrades over time not remains constant. Matter does not increase but decreases."

No, matter is neither created nor destroyed. Matter is not decreasing.

"The world is winding down not up."

Not phrased well, but I know what you mean. The entropy of the universe increases. But local decreases are not prohibited.

"You assert light travels at a constant rate. Was the scientific method used to establish it?"

I have already given you a reference to this. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301184 Paul has given you another. If you have a problem with it, dissect the two given methods and show us where they are wrong.

"Your assertion about Morris is your interpretation of the data."

Absolutely wrong. There is NO interpretation needed on my part. He purposefully misrepresented the work of a respected scientist. You have both references, go read them yourself. The gist is this. The scientist deliberately chose both samples that would be expected to date correctly because they had been heated to melting to remove all the argon and samples that would not be expected to date correctly because they had not been melted and therefore would be expected to contain excess argon. They did this to see how much excess argon there would be in the samples. (I think they expected this to be useful in the future for proper sample selection and to be able to show errors in dating where samples were chosen that still contained xenoliths.) As expected, the properly selected samples dated to zero and the samples with unmelted grains gave a date that was known to be wrong. Morris deliberately chose to report the "date" measured for the grains (really a measurement of the excess argon) without giving the context of what was actually being done. He presented this as a problem for dating when in reality it was confirmation of the methods for proper sample selection. This is dishonest beyond any doubt. The dishonesty is compounded by noting that Morris originally did this in 1974, 30 years ago, and rather than being withdrawn because of the mistake, this garbage is still out there duping those who want to believe what they say. I repeat, it is appalling that a Christian would feel the need to resort to such tactics to defend his faith and can justify such in his mind and that other Christians seem unwilling to call a spade a spade when such things happen.

I was once YEC. This kind of junk turned my stomach as it turned me away from YEC. This kind of junk is what I battle against because of the faith it can rob of believers when they come across it (did you read my quotes from Glenn Morton above?!?) and the harm that can be done to the opinions of the unsaved to make them that much more difficult to reach. Imagine the mind of an unsaved person who was to witness someone claiming to be a Christian, a leader even, who must lie to defend his faith.

 

Ut:
I will be brief and to the point about the scientific method. I have worked for 24 years in schools. I have perused each science text in those years. The texts have set the age of the Earth as 5 billion, 12 billion, 14 billion and 18 billion years of age. The rational mind looks at these ages and asks, why the inconsistencies? Is it the method? Is it the individual testing the data? There are only 2 possible conclusions regardless of the reasons. One, They are all wrong. Two, Three of the four are wrong. A twenty five percent success rate will keep you in middle school for life.

The Bible is always correct when stating a scientific fact. There are hundreds of them. I have a list of some 25 that I have investigated for validity. I have not one time found a false statement about any scientific fact. However, this cannot be said for science. I know you like to dismiss it as a red herring. However, The rational mind will not accept that explanation. When someone is corrrect 100 percent of the time they become a reliable source of information over someone who is reliable about 25 percent of the time.

The text books in our school use evolutionary time. They also contain the scientific method. However, the validation of the age through the use of the method is not provided or mentioned. It is simply accepted because it is in print.

However, the creationist is expected to defend his position in a scholary manner. If he does, then, those opposed resort to, prove it scientifically! The standard for the creationist is set higher than that of the evolutionist. Well, I have stated many times that my position will not allow me to state such. Why? One time events are not subject to testing by the method among other factors. I believe I am both honest in my defense, and correct based on the totality of the evidence.

I was asked about the motivation of those who I believe print untruths as facts in our texts. I cannot answer. I do not wish to make light of science or scientist. However, creatures are always subject to their creator. The honest scientist will admit the field is not a sacred cow.

Furthermore, the science teachers at my school, all of them with degrees in the field, without exception, will tell you the evolutionary time table cannot be proven. They will state it is an unprovable hypothesis.

If you have not studied the word Yom in the text of Genesis, how can you rationally disagree with it? If you tell me you do not believe in the inspiration of the Bible, I then understand your position. However, I believe you indicated you did accept it as the word of God. This does confuse me.

 

Edit to add: It looks like you posted while I was composing the following. I think it is still a valid response to the issue of the scientific method.

Frank

I am usually a big opponent of large copying and pasting, so I am breaking my own rules here. Since it will not go away, I must have done a poor job of demonstrating how geology and biology and paleontology and astronomy fit the scientific method. So maybe this will explain it better. I really do not expect you to accept this either, but sometimes you must yield to someone who can speak better than you can.

If you still maintain that it is not science, tell me what things you find objectionable in the following. Even if you do not accept this, there are several things that are important that I hope you pay attention to. One is that YECers, including you and Bob, like to think that if you can only show one problem, score one point, you have ended the game when the reality is that "The validity of a hypothesis does not stand or fall based on just a few confirmations or contradictions, but on the totality of the evidence. Often, data that initially may seem to be inconsistent with a theory will in fact lead to new important predictions."

All the discussion in the following about testability leads me to one final question(s). If "creation science" is valid, what is its testable hypothesis? What observations does it predict that can show whether the earth is young or not? Would you accept an old earth if it failed the tests?*

* I would gladly go back to young earth if it were shown to be true. Can you say the equivalent?

------------------------------------------

What is meant by scientific evidences and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish "truth" or "fact" in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to reevaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. "Proof", then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics. That said, we often hear "proof" mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear "proof" used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms "proof" or "prove" in this article.

Common Sense is Not Science

Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. Often these ideas are quite unobvious, and usually they clash with common sense. Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, that the Sun truly rises and sets, that the surface of the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that particles don't curve around corners like waves around a floating dock, that the continents don't move, and that objects heavier-than-air can't have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science has been used to demonstrate that all these common sense ideas are wrong.

Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for things that really matter. For example, the most important discoveries of science can only be inferred via indirect observation, including such things as atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radiowaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, though no one has ever observed the process to this day and in spite of the fact that direct observation indicates the very opposite. All of these "invisible" inferences were elucidated using the scientific method. When the term "evidence" is used in this article, it is used strictly in the context of this scientific method.

The Scientific Method: More than Mere Experimentation

What is the scientific method? This is a complex and contentious question, and the field of inquiry known as the philosophy of science is committed to illuminating the nature of the scientific method. Probably the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century was Sir Karl Popper. Other notables are Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Paul Kitcher, A. F. Chalmers, Wesley Salmon and Bas C. van Fraassen. This is not the place to delve into an explication of the various philosophies represented by these scholars; for more information I refer you to their works and to the discussion presented by John Wilkins in his Evolution and Philosophy FAQ. I personally take an experimentalist and comparative Bayesian view of the scientific method (Salmon 1990; Mayo 1996), and this will come through in how I present the evidence for common descent.

Now, to answer the question "What is the scientific method?" - very simply (and somewhat naively), the scientific method is a program for research which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a logical order than a chronological one:

1. Make observations.
2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
4. Search for confirmations of the predictions; if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).

Because scientists are constantly making new observations and testing via those observations, the four "steps" are actually practiced concurrently. New observations, although they were not predicted, should be explicable retrospectively by the hypothesis. New information, especially details of some process previously not understood, can impose new limits on the original hypothesis. Therefore, new information, in combination with an old hypothesis, frequently leads to novel predictions that can be tested further.

Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations (#1 in the steps outlined above). Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure—but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used.

The Testable Hypothesis

The defining characteristic of science is the concept of the testable hypothesis. A testable hypothesis must make predictions that can be validated by independent observers. By "testable", we mean the predictions must include examples of what should be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what should not be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible observations and data is not testable nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions—the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. These scientific requirements are the essence of Popperian falsifiability and corroboration.

For instance, the solipsistic hypothesis that the entire universe is actually an elaborate figment of your imagination is not a scientific hypothesis. Solipsism makes no specific or risky predictions, it simply predicts that things will be "as they are". No possible observations could conflict with solipsism, since all observations always may be explained away as simply another detailed creation of your imagination. Many other extreme examples can be thought of, such as the hypothesis that the universe suddenly came into existence in toto five minutes ago, with even our memories of "earlier" events intact. In general, creationist and "intelligent design" conjectures fail scientifically for these same reasons, since both can easily explain all possible biological observations, and since both make no risky, specific predictions.

In contrast, Newton's scientific theory of universal gravitation predicts that the force between two masses should be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them (otherwise known as the "inverse square law"). In principle, we could take measurements which indicated that the force is actually inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. Such an observation would be inconsistent with the predictions of Newton's universal theory of gravitation, and thus this theory is falsifiable. Anti-evolutionists, such as the "scientific" creationists, are especially fond of Karl Popper and his falsifiability criterion, and they are well known for claiming that evolutionary theory is unscientific because it cannot be falsified. In this article, these accusations are met head on. Each of the evidences given for common descent contains a section providing examples of potential falsifications, i.e. examples of observations that are predicted not to be observed if the theory is correct.

Degrees of Testability: Hypotheses, Theories, Facts

"Testability" is not an either-or concept; some hypotheses are more testable than others. Contrary to some anti-evolutionist claims, not all hypotheses are equally valid scientific "interpretations" of the evidence. Some hypotheses are more successful in terms of the scientific method. Based on the scientific method, a hypothesis that simply and elegantly explains the observed facts, that predicts many previously unobserved phenomena, and that withstands many potential falsifications is considered a valid and useful hypothesis. From a Bayesian perspective and according to Popper's corroboration measure, the best hypothesis available is the one that explains the most facts with the fewest assumptions, the one that makes the most confirmed predictions, and the one that is most open to testing and falsification.

In scientific practice, a superior and well-supported hypothesis will be regarded as a theory. A theory that has withstood the test of time and the collection of new data is about as close as we can get to a scientific fact. An example is the aforementioned notion of a heliocentric solar system. At one time it was a mere hypothesis. Although it is still formally just a well-supported theory, validated by many independent lines of evidence, it is now widely regarded as scientific "fact". Nobody has ever directly observed an electron, stellar fusion, radiowaves, entropy, or the earth circling the Sun, yet these are all scientific facts. As Stephen J. Gould has said, a scientific fact is not "absolute certainty", but simply a theory that has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent".

Testing Involves a Totality of Evidence and Statistics

The validity of a hypothesis does not stand or fall based on just a few confirmations or contradictions, but on the totality of the evidence. Often, data that initially may seem to be inconsistent with a theory will in fact lead to new important predictions. The history of Newtonian physics gives a clear example. The abnormal movement of Uranus was initially considered a potential falsification of Newton's new theory. However, by claiming the existence of an unseen planet, the anomaly was explained within Newton's paradigm. In general, an explanation for anomalous behavior should be considered ad hoc unless it is independently verifiable. Positing a new, unseen planet might be considered hedging if there were no independent way to detect if a new planet actually existed. Nevertheless, when technology had advanced enough to reliably test the new prediction, the unseen planet was found to be Neptune.

The lesson to be learned is that alternate explanations for "anomalies" should be treated like any other hypotheses: they should be weighed, tested, and either ruled out or confirmed. But a hypothesis should not be considered falsified until thorough testing has produced multiple lines of positive evidence indicating that the hypothesis is truly inconsistent with the empirical data.

A crucial related point is that modern scientific theories are probabalistic. This means that all testing of scientific predictions is carried out in a statistical framework. Probability and statistics pervade modern scientific theories, including thermodynamics (statistical mechanics), geology, quantum mechanics, genetics, and medicine. The mathematics of probability is a discipline that many people find, shall we say, distasteful. However, a working knowledge of statistics is absolutely essential for judging the fit between observed data and the predictions of any theory.

References

Chalmers, A. F. (1982) What is this thing called Science? Queensland, Australia, University of Queensland Press.

Stephen J. Gould (1981) "Evolution as Fact and Theory." Discover. May issue.

Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Lakatos, I. (1974) "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Progammes." Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 91-196.

Mayo, D. (1996) Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Popper, K. R. (1968) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, Hutchinson.

Salmon, W. (1990) "Rationality and Objectivity in Science, or Tom Kuhn meets Tom Bayes." Scientific Theories. C. W. Savage. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. 14.

von Fraassen, B. C. (1980) The Scientific Image. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Reference

 

UT:
I do not pretend or contend to prove creation scientifically. I can do so by the use of language, comparative studies and the testimony of other inspired men. In fact, the challenge to rebutt the evidence is still open. I doubt I will get any takers.

My faith rests on the word of God. It remains steadfast because of the rational conclusions made about the harmonious evidence in his word.

One cannot say the evidence for origin amd time is harmonious in evolutionary theory. Rather, many conflicting views have been offered in the name of evolutiopnary theory. The age of the Earth is set in texts as being 5 billion, 12 billion, 14 billion, 16 billion years of age.
Evolutionary theory cannot answer the question of Origin or Time. It is obvious from the plethera of age estimations this is the case with time.

I am shocked when I hear the stories of Carl Sagan and his gaseous theories that are really nothing more than hot air.
He never quite got around to telling me about the BEGINNING. However, Carl, and those of his ilk need not try. It has already been done. SEE GENESIS ONE.

In my ten years of preaching, I have converted many people with the static standard of truth. It never changes. It is the one reliable standard that has stood the TEST. These people have put their faith in the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal God, not some fable that changes almost as much as the weather. I tremble to think of the end of those who reject the word of God. This makes me sick to my stomach.

 

Frank

What did you think of the better explanation of the scientific method?

"I do not pretend or contend to prove creation scientifically. I can do so by the use of language, comparative studies and the testimony of other inspired men. In fact, the challenge to rebutt the evidence is still open. I doubt I will get any takers."

I am sorry I do not have the knowledge to properly debate you on that. There are other threads going on now where others are better able to do so. I agree with the statement that was made today on one of them that "The contextual approach of Gensis would lead us to study the when, where, why, and by whom the book was written and so arrive at the conclusion that Genesis 1 teaches religious truths, not precise scientific data."

But I think that it is impossible to divorce the interpretation of Genesis from the evidence from Creation. To insist that your literal interpretation is the only valid one without being able to dovetail in the evidence for a young earth invites the kinds of attacks from the outside that Bob keeps referring to. It has the potential to do so much harm as people find out the truth of the old earth and are forced to try and reconcile what they have been told is unreconcilable. Both are needed.

"In my ten years of preaching, I have converted many people with the static standard of truth. It never changes. It is the one reliable standard that has stood the TEST. These people have put their faith in the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal God, not some fable that changes almost as much as the weather. I tremble to think of the end of those who reject the word of God. This makes me sick to my stomach."

Praise God for His success through you. We do have Truth on our side. We just disagree on this little bit.

 

Ut:
You see, once again, your subjectivity becomes transparent. What do I think of the "BETTER EXPLANATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD." At best, it demonstrates the scientific community is hopelessly divided on what is true science.
I do not invite attacks because of my stance on creation. The truth, for the most part, is doubted, and rejected before it is accepted.

Ut, I say this with all the sincerity in my heart I can muster. There is not one man walking this planet that can refute the literal Genesis account of creation. If it were possible, the Bible would be a book relegated to the confines of archaic literature. Furthermore, it is one thing to say the Genesis account is not to be taken literal. It is quite another to prove it to the rational mind. I believe it was henny penny that said, " the sky is falling; the sky is falling." We all know this was not substantiated. It matters not mattter how deep her convictions or how many times she proclaimed it. The person who says the Genesis one account is not literal should just step up to the plate and do the scholarship and prove it. God said something about that,too. " Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." ( I Thes. 5:21).

Have a good evening.

 

"At best, it demonstrates the scientific community is hopelessly divided on what is true science."

No. It means that your view of the scientific method is at odds with the scientists' views of the scientific method. I imagine you would be hard pressed to show, for example, that a large fraction of the professional astronomers are running around out there trying to warn their colleagues that they have a glaring problem with their methodology. This is more of a case of you using this as an excuse to dismiss their findings because you find them troubling not because there are any actual problems with their findings. This line that you are using sounds very similar to the century old adage that evolution is crumbling from within. Neither are true, but they make you feel good in your beliefs.

"There is not one man walking this planet that can refute the literal Genesis account of creation."

If you would open your eyes to God's Creation you would see that the Creation Itself refutes the literal interpretation of the Creation account.

"If it were possible, the Bible would be a book relegated to the confines of archaic literature."

The Bible is God's revelation to man. It will not be regulated to "archaic literature" because some men have misinterpreted a part of it. Though I think by continuing to force such an interpretation by denying the evidence to the contrary, you allow many to come to that conclusion already.

"It is quite another to prove it to the rational mind."

I consider myself rational. I am even one who once held YEC beliefs. It is settled in my mind. What would it take to convince you? Is there any type of physical evidence that could convince you or have you already decided that anything that goes against your interpretation is wrong and therefore invalid without even being examined?

 

Ut:
We simply draw different conclusions based on the scientific evidence. This is not unusuall the scientific community does it all the time. For me, There are to many inconsistencies and answers science cannot provide that indicates to me that God in six days created the world.
I am amazed people do not ask evolutionists How and When did origin and time exist for the initial time. I have asked many times. Invaribly , they are as quiet as an oyster. This is because like the oyster, they cannot answer those questions. However, the Eternal first cause has answered them.
Why would I change my mind? Is it because of the various ages of the earth evolutionist purport? Is it the ever changing notion of what science actually is and is capable of doing? Which interpretaion of the data should one use and why?
My friend these are just a few reasons why most do not believe in evolution. However, for me, it is God's spoken word on the matter that has made me steadfast in my acknowledgement of him as the Lord and Creator of my life.
I have examined many evidences on this subject. I do not always agree with the conclusions some make with the data. Our science books in school testify to the many and varied ideas about the age of the earth and the origin of man. None of them have answered the questions of origin and time. For me, this serves notice of our limitations as mankind. I enjoy reading about the progress we make though science. I applaud them. However, I also understand from the evidence our limitations.
Do you believe science can prove time and origin? I know they can't. You may disagree. However, to convince me you would have to prove it, not just provide me with assumptions based on the present looking back at the past. Although you did not like my house fire example, it rationally follows the point made about the dangers of using the present to make conclusions about the past.

Have a Good day.