Good morning,
I thought I would try to pick up this a.m. where I left off last night & go ahead and respond to your post.
Originally posted by Josephus
"And I love facts, because it is with pure basic facts that both of these theories can be tested, assuming they both make highly specific predictions about what facts can or will be found."
I thought I did give a list of predictions.
You did. I was merely giving you my assessment of the facts. However, since we are on the subject:
Predictions are useful for testing theories, and the more specific they are, the better we can test a theory. Vague predictions are not as good for testing a theory.
For instance, my theory is that invisible yo-yo strings are the cause of a planets elliptical orbit. I predict therefore, that there will be spots on the surface where the invisible strings attach to the sun's surface. I further predict that the spots will rotate with the sun, in order to keep the strings from getting tangled up. I also predict that the planets will all "spin" like yo-yos spin when they are being tossed by a child.
Now, if I refuse to be more specific than that, finding the evidence from my predictions doesn't do much for my theory.
After all, there is a lot more I
could predict with my theory: I could predict that orbits of the planets should be synchronized to avoid one planet's string getting tangled with another. I could predict that the spots on the sun will align with the planets, and that there will be at least nine of the spots, aligned with the planets. I could predict some evidence of an equatorial "crack" where the yo-yo strings attach to the planets. I could predict that the yo-yo strings would burn up close to the sun very quickly and the planets would therefore fly out into space.
So, when we use facts and predictions to test theories, we must be sure we are looking at as many predictions that must follow from our theories as possible, in as much detail as possible: not just a few, and not in just general ways.
For a short answer to this, let me entreat you to something recent that just happened a while ago.
I made a prediction, if you remember, a few days ago in this thread, that evidence for a sudden massive meteor storm in the solar system would be found quite possibly as close as our own moon. That the moon's surface is nearly devoid of serious craters and impacts on one half, and riddled with a tremendous bunch on the other, was listed as a "proof" that we can see with our own eyes, and with mapped moon globes.
I'm going to challenge the notion first that the moon's surface is "nearly devoid of serious craters" on "one" half. I did check and found that the near side (the side that faces earth) was more scarred than the far side.
What makes difference in craters from one side to the other evidence for your hypothesis of a single catastrophic meteor shower?
What that predicted, is that the evidence for this massive storm, would be a similar feature on other bodies in the Solar System. Of course, I didn't bother to check that prediction until I came across an article yesterday that said the planet Mercury is potmarked with craters on one side more heavily than it is on the other hemisphere!
Could you tell me what article? I can find nothing like that. I've looked at several astronomy web-sites, including one sponsored by NASA, and I haven't been able to turn up anything like that about Mercury.
My jaw dropped. Here was proof for an inherent prediction I just made a few days ago, always assumed was true for the last two years of my life, and here I was faced with the evidence!
So yes, predictions can be made, and have been. Sadly though, some people are unwilling to accept that much of the data predicted is in fact also the same data used by another interpretation of that data: Evolution! This involves strata layers, mass extinction evidence & fossils; all data that you've conceeded could also support the Creation/Flood Theory.
I've conceded that these features could, in general terms, also support the Creation/Flood theory. I haven't conceded that the details that are known about these features could support the Creation/Flood theory.
For instance, "strata layers" are known to come from sequential depositions of silt or a similar material. Stratified rock often has evidence of a soil horizon between each layer. The layers of stratified rock are chemically distinct from one another. The flood only predicts one stratum, not several (the completely separate issue of volcanic lava "layering" aside.)
I conceded that the flood must produce not "mass exinction" but COMPLETE extinction, for which we can find no evidence.
I have conceded that that the Flood would produce remains (loosely speaking "fossils"), but one must go further and predict that if the flood was recent then the fossils should rarely be mineralized.
Yet you bring up an interesting point. Why believe it if another explanation is simpler?
Or supported by more data, and better data. Simpler, by itself, means little (my yo-yo string theory is "simpler" in the intuitive sense than the inverse square law). What if it is simpler - meaning that it requires fewer untestable assumptions to work?
I disagree that evolution is a simpler explanation than the theory I've been mentioning for the past several pages.
I think that is because you are using a different definition for "simpler"
I agree it has more popular support at this time, and thus a greater concentration to continue to "prove" it out, but I disagree that Evolution is more valid than the submitted theory of a Global Flood.
I know you do - that is why we are having the discussion. What I am trying to do now is to see WHY you think the interpretation of the data as support for the Global Flood is as valid (or more valid) than the conventional geology interpretations.
One person says "I see no evidence for Evolution." Another says "I see no evidence for a Global Flood." Both people come from two perspectives of data interpretation.
Then at least one of them must be in error, and they should compare notes and see if they can determine some of the errors.
Unless one is willing to consider the other side, as I found myself doing a few years ago (I used to be a staunch theistic evolutionist), one will never be convinced of the other side. In my rationale, I've seen it fruitless to engage in discussion where one side refuses to seriously consider the other side - even if just for a moment.
Here we have you and I, both willing to consider the other side. Lets compare notes.
In which case, though contrary to my stated purposes for this forum, I'd be happy to point you in the direction of articles from the "Creationist" camp that explain this with the work already done. If so, give me a few days to see if I can find something online. I'm sure there is.
Ok. I would be happy for you to show me the explanation of the features found in coal deposits based on the Global Flood model from someone else's work. Here is another good suggestion (for your own benefit) - take those same notes & explanations to the geology department at your U. and ask one of the faculty to examine them to see if there is anything wrong with them. Ask them to explain to you what is wrong with them if they find anything.
