Missing bellybuttons

[Calminian]

If Adam and Eve were observed today some speculate they wouldn’t have bellybuttons. I’m not sure I agree (I can’t see how eve would have been attractive without one) but let’s just grant it for the sake of argument. Practically everything else about them would have been mature looking. The only way one could possible know how recently created they were is by noticing little details like a missing bellybutton. So the question is, are there any missing bellybuttons in the world we observe today?

Finding them, seems to be the role YEC scientists are taking. They point to the comet life span problem, the problem of the moon moving further away from the earth every year, things such as this. OECs then hammer the point that even though these particular phenomena haven’t been explained yet, what about the vast majority of things about our creation that do look old? But my answer to them is, all YEC scientists need to find are the missing bellybuttons. The rest (which is the vast majority) they expect to look old (mature).

 

[Vance]

The problem is the deceitful nature of creating something with an UNECESSARY appearance of age. Not just maturity for function, or even aesthetics, but tons and tons of evidences of a vast age which are not "maturity" issues at all. Meteor craters? thousands of layers of varves on the bottom of lakes, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum (especially in astronomy). What YEC's would have to do is explain how these could have come into being WITHIN their young time frame since there is no reason whatsoever for God to imbed all these features into our universe. We know God is not deceitful and would never create a "false" impression.

A better example than a bellybutton would be a scar on Adam from an injury that never happened, giving Adam memories of a past that never existed, etc.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

If Adam and Eve were observed today some speculate they wouldn’t have bellybuttons. I’m not sure I agree (I can’t see how eve would have been attractive without one) but let’s just grant it for the sake of argument. Practically everything else about them would have been mature looking. The only way one could possible know how recently created they were is by noticing little details like a missing bellybutton. So the question is, are there any missing bellybuttons in the world we observe today?

Finding them, seems to be the role YEC scientists are taking. They point to the comet life span problem, the problem of the moon moving further away from the earth every year, things such as this. OECs then hammer the point that even though these particular phenomena haven’t been explained yet, what about the vast majority of things about our creation that do look old? But my answer to them is, all YEC scientists need to find are the missing bellybuttons. The rest (which is the vast majority) they expect to look old (mature).

Hate to stop you in mid flow, but both the comet life span and receding moon "problems" have been solved long ago.

 

[Calminian]

Hate to stop you in mid flow, but both the comet life span and receding moon "problems" have been solved long ago.

Solved huh? I know there are naturalistic theories as to what might explain them (Oort Cloud etc.), but I've not heard that the case was closed. Did they finally find it?

You see the fact is scientists could also put together theories to explain missing bellybuttons. They could come up with all kinds of speculations as to why a person wouldn't have one. That doesn't disprove the supernatural explanation it just proves they can come up with a naturalistic theory for anything if they're committed enough. And believe me they are. Naturalists are as religious as any other group out there. (BTW, just want to make sure you know I'm not calling all scientists naturalists).

So anyway, please share with us the new theories that ostensibly solve the comet and moon problems. Seriously I'm curious. Please don't post links to technical papers (they'll probably be over my head) just kind of share in your own words how they've now proven what really happened.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Solved huh? I know there are naturalistic theories as to what might explain them (Oort Cloud etc.), but I've not heard that the case was closed. Did they finally find it?

You see the fact is scientists could also put together theories to explain missing bellybuttons. They could come up with all kinds of speculations as to why a person wouldn't have one. That doesn't disprove the supernatural explanation it just proves they can come up with a naturalistic theory for anything if they're committed enough. And believe me they are. Naturalists are as religious as any other group out there. (BTW, just want to make sure you know I'm not calling all scientists naturalists).

So anyway, please share with us the new theories that ostensibly solve the comet and moon problems. Seriously I'm curious. Please don't post links to technical papers (they'll probably be over my head) just kind of share in your own words how they've now proven what really happened.

Hardly the point. In your post you said that these particular phenomena haven’t been explained yet.

They have. That you are not convinced of the explanations are neither here nor there.

Wrt the Kuiper belt, it's observed. It's there. What more do you want? The Oort cloud is not directly observed, but its existence is inferred not simply from the existence of comets that are believed to come from it, but specific observations about these comets:

http://www.ex.ac.uk/Mirrors/nineplanets/kboc.html

Can I point out that Oort cloud or no, the question which the Oort cloud hypothesis answers is not "is the solar system young", but rather "do long period comets come from inside the solar system or outside".

Unfortunately, things like tidal regression cannot be explained non-technically - the maths is what the maths is. But just a simple calculation:

4 cm per year = 184000 kilometres over 4.6 billion years.
Earth/Moon distance now = c. 400000 kilometres

Distance at 4.6 billion years b.p. = about 220000 kilometres. What's the actual issue here?

 

[Calminian]

I did read the article, thanks for supplying it. I actually think I understood it.

Hardly the point. In your post you said that these particular phenomena haven’t been explained yet.

They have. That you are not convinced of the explanations are neither here nor there.

That I am convinced of the solution naturalists throw out is neither here nor there? Are you saying I should blindly accept the whatever naturalistic hypothesis is offered?

Wrt the Kuiper belt, it's observed. It's there. What more do you want?

I want to know if what we're observing solves the problem? Have we observed enough to say “this is what has supplied the solar system's comets, there’s no need to speculate any further”? This is what your post implies (or actually says quite categorically), I just want to confirm it.

A scientist at AiG said this:

There is no reason to expect that the solar system would end abruptly at Pluto’s orbit, or that minor planets could not exist beyond the orbit of Neptune. Many thousands of asteroids exist in the inner solar system, so we should not be surprised that some objects have been discovered beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto.6 Several hundred of these ‘KBOs’ have now been observed.7 But a Kuiper Belt would need around a billion icy cores in order to replenish the solar system’s supply of comets. It remains to be seen whether KBOs exist in such abundance. Currently, this is merely an evolutionary speculation.

It should also be noted that the observed KBOs are much larger than comet nuclei. The diameter of the nucleus of a typical comet is around 10 kilometers. However, the recently discovered KBOs are estimated to have diameters ranging from about 100 to 500 kilometers.8 This calls into question the idea that these objects are precursors of short-period comets. So, the discovery of objects beyond Neptune does not in any way confirm a Kuiper Belt—at least not the kind of Kuiper Belt that evolutionary astronomers require. As such, the term ‘Kuiper Belt Object’ is a bit misleading. ‘Trans-Neptunian Object’ (TNO) would be a more descriptive term for these distant minor planets—and many astronomers use these terms (TNO and KBO) interchangeably.

Do you dispute what he says? If not we still have a legit missing bellybutton.

And your own article BTW, said this:

A team of astronomers led by Anita Cochran report that the Hubble Space Telescope has detected extremely faint Kuiper Belt objects (left). The objects are very small and faint perhaps only 20 km or so across. There may be as many as 100 million such comets in low-inclination orbits and shining brighter than the HST's magnitude-28 limit. (A follow-up HST observation failed to confirm this observation, however.)

Sounds like no one on either side is claiming "mystery solved." Do you disagree?

 

[Calminian]

Unfortunately, things like tidal regression cannot be explained non-technically - the maths is what the maths is. But just a simple calculation:

4 cm per year = 184000 kilometres over 4.6 billion years.
Earth/Moon distance now = c. 400000 kilometres

Distance at 4.6 billion years b.p. = about 220000 kilometres. What's the actual issue here?

Another question. An AiG scientist (Jonathan Sarfati) wrote this:

How long has the moon been receding?

Friction by the tides is slowing the earth s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum.7 The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1? inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.8 NB: this is the maximum possible age  far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric dates assigned to moon rocks)  not the actual age.

Do you disagree?

 

[The Lady Kate]

If Adam and Eve were observed today some speculate they wouldn’t have bellybuttons. I’m not sure I agree (I can’t see how eve would have been attractive without one) but let’s just grant it for the sake of argument. Practically everything else about them would have been mature looking. The only way one could possible know how recently created they were is by noticing little details like a missing bellybutton. So the question is, are there any missing bellybuttons in the world we observe today?

So if Adam and Eve did have bellybuttons, what would that tell us about God?

But my answer to them is, all YEC scientists need to find are the missing bellybuttons.

A thousand times no! Finding the missing bellybuttons may help YEC, but it would cause untold damage to Christianity!

It would show that God deliberately added an appearance of maturity for no other reason than to show maturity that's not real, then God would be a deciever.

The rest (which is the vast majority) they expect to look old (mature).

Perhaps it looks mature because it is mature? And the missing bellybuttons are missing for a reason?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I did read the article, thanks for supplying it. I actually think I understood it.



That I am convinced of the solution naturalists throw out is neither here nor there? Are you saying I should blindly accept the whatever naturalistic hypothesis is offered?

No. I am saying that you should not put forward as mysteries to which mainstream science is saying "we do not yet know" things which we have perfectly good, if currently tentative, explanations for.

I want to know if what we're observing solves the problem? Have we observed enough to say “this is what has supplied the solar system's comets, there’s no need to speculate any further”? This is what your post implies (or actually says quite categorically), I just want to confirm it.

A scientist at AiG said this:

There is no reason to expect that the solar system would end abruptly at Pluto’s orbit, or that minor planets could not exist beyond the orbit of Neptune. Many thousands of asteroids exist in the inner solar system, so we should not be surprised that some objects have been discovered beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto.6 Several hundred of these ‘KBOs’ have now been observed.7 But a Kuiper Belt would need around a billion icy cores in order to replenish the solar system’s supply of comets. It remains to be seen whether KBOs exist in such abundance. Currently, this is merely an evolutionary speculation.

It should also be noted that the observed KBOs are much larger than comet nuclei. The diameter of the nucleus of a typical comet is around 10 kilometers. However, the recently discovered KBOs are estimated to have diameters ranging from about 100 to 500 kilometers.8 This calls into question the idea that these objects are precursors of short-period comets. So, the discovery of objects beyond Neptune does not in any way confirm a Kuiper Belt—at least not the kind of Kuiper Belt that evolutionary astronomers require. As such, the term ‘Kuiper Belt Object’ is a bit misleading. ‘Trans-Neptunian Object’ (TNO) would be a more descriptive term for these distant minor planets—and many astronomers use these terms (TNO and KBO) interchangeably.

Do you dispute what he says? If not we still have a legit missing bellybutton.

I dispute what he says on a number of grounds:

1. Nothing to do with KBOs can be "evolutionary speculation" as the relevant field of science is astronomy, not evolution. Someone calling it "evolutionary" is either being intentionally misleading about the nature of evolutionary theory, or is extremely ignorant. Either way, this makes his opinion highly suspect.

2. I'm not surprised the observed objects are the larger ones. Of course they are! They are easier to see. What's interesting about this is that with most such objects, frequency is invertionally proportional to size - the smaller ones are more common. This implies that there are indeed many smaller objects we cannot yet observe.

3. Same error. Astronomers are not "evolutionary". Using this adjective is either deceptive or ignorant.

4. The Kuiper belt hypothesis predicts the existence of TNOs. TNOs are observed as predicted. No, this does not prove the Kuiper belt hypothesis, it merely fails to falsify it. This tends to be the way science works.

In order to demonstrate that this is a "missing belly button", I think you need to show that the Kuiper belt hypothesis is false, and the existence of these comets indeed inexplicable under mainstream models, as a non-existant belly button on Adam would be. [/QUOTE]

Next post:

Another question. An AiG scientist (Jonathan Sarfati) wrote this:


How long has the moon been receding?

Friction by the tides is slowing the earth s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum.7 The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1? inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.8 NB: this is the maximum possible age  far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric dates assigned to moon rocks)  not the actual age.

Do you disagree?

Emphatically. The rate at which angular momentum passes from the earth to the moon depends on many factors, including the shape of the continents. Evidence shows that the rate of regression is actually currently uncharacteristically fast, presumably because the continents are currently fairly split up and therefore the sea's shape is complex and there's a lot of tidal friction. Here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html the matter is explained, together with the evidence that regression has actually been slower in the past, when the continents were more joined together.

Safarti's error is to assume that tidal friction has always been a constant.

 

[Calminian]

3. Same error. Astronomers are not "evolutionary". Using this adjective is either deceptive or ignorant.

I highly doubt he's ignorant, so explain what type of deception you're accusing him of. What is he trying to trick us into believing by using the term "evolutionary speculations"? Seems like you’re making a little too much of this.

4. The Kuiper belt hypothesis predicts the existence of TNOs. TNOs are observed as predicted. No, this does not prove the Kuiper belt hypothesis, it merely fails to falsify it. This tends to be the way science works.

Okay, what would prove it? Seems all you have so far is a guess that hasn't been debunked. But you implied earlier the problem had been solved. Are you now backing off that?

In order to demonstrate that this is a "missing belly button", I think you need to show that the Kuiper belt hypothesis is false, and the existence of these comets indeed inexplicable under mainstream models, as a non-existent belly button on Adam would be.

Sounds like a stacked deck to me. But wait a minute, if the Kuiper Belt hypothesis is falsified, wouldn't we have to falsify the Oort Cloud hypothesis also? And then if we did that, wouldn't we have to also falsify every model put forth afterward? If this is the case I don't even think even a missing bellybutton would qualify as a missing bellybutton.

Emphatically. The rate at which angular momentum passes from the earth to the moon depends on many factors, including the shape of the continents. Evidence shows that the rate of regression is actually currently uncharacteristically fast, presumably because the continents are currently fairly split up and therefore the sea's shape is complex and there's a lot of tidal friction. Here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html the matter is explained, together with the evidence that regression has actually been slower in the past, when the continents were more joined together.

Safarti's error is to assume that tidal friction has always been a constant.

I skimmed through the article and it sounded interesting and informative. Thanks for posting it. I will read it more thoroughly soon.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I highly doubt he's ignorant, so explain what type of deception you're accusing him of. What is he trying to trick us into believing by using the term "evolutionary speculations"? Seems like you’re making a little too much of this.

He's trying to paint a picture of "evolution" being this huge construction involving cosmologists, astronomers and the lot - in other words, everything he disagrees with. The reason for this is that he hopes that his audience will fall for a "if I cast doubt in this (Kuiper Belt) then somehow I debunk this (biological evolution)" when in fact the two are completely unrelated fields of science. There is a general idea amongst the less informed creationists that evolution is everything from the Big Bang onwards; he's reinforcing that ignorant view. Ignorance is a great weapon; if people don't really understand what something's about it's easier to use emotive rhetoric to get them to be agin' it.

Okay, what would prove it?

Proof is for maths and whisky. Science doesn't deal in proof.

Seems all you have so far is a guess that hasn't been debunked.

No. You make a mistake in equating anything less certain than the sky being blue with being a "guess", like it's something some desperate astronomer dreamt up over coffee in the Senior Common Room. The KB and Oort cloud are infered from specific observations about the comets. It's not more "guessing" than when ballistics experts infer from bullet wounds where the bullet was fired from and from what sort of gun.

But you implied earlier the problem had been solved. Are you now backing off that?

My implication is that you are wrong to call them "mysteries" where mainstream scientists just say "we don't know." We think we do know, we're just not absolutely 100% about it. But we're never more than 99% on anything.

Sounds like a stacked deck to me. But wait a minute, if the Kuiper Belt hypothesis is falsified, wouldn't we have to falsify the Oort Cloud hypothesis also?

No. Different comets come from the two sources. KBO comets cannot come from the Oort cloud.

And then if we did that, wouldn't we have to also falsify every model put forth afterward?

If those models are well supported, as the KB and OC is, then yes. That's how science works. You have to show that your model - a young cosmos - supports the evidence better than the mainstream one.

If this is the case I don't even think even a missing bellybutton would qualify as a missing bellybutton.

I'd be hardpushed to come up with a good hypothesis consistent with normal plancental development for a human and them having no navel.

I skimmed through the article and it sounded interesting and informative. Thanks for posting it. I will read it more thoroughly soon.

Do. Safarti is simplifying to the point where his calculations are meaningless.

 

[Calminian]

He's trying to paint a picture of "evolution" being this huge construction involving cosmologists, astronomers and the lot - in other words, everything he disagrees with. The reason for this is that he hopes that his audience will fall for a "if I cast doubt in this (Kuiper Belt) then somehow I debunk this (biological evolution)" when in fact the two are completely unrelated fields of science.

Well then I’m happy to inform you that his sinister plan failed. I never inferred this from that statement and I certainly qualify one that is scientifically “less informed.”

There is a general idea amongst the less informed creationists that evolution is everything from the Big Bang onwards; he's reinforcing that ignorant view. Ignorance is a great weapon; if people don't really understand what something's about it's easier to use emotive rhetoric to get them to be agin' it.

This is coming off a little hypersensitive. It’s an issue of origins. Are you saying that the origins of life is totally unrelated to the origins of our solar system and galaxy and universe? It all comes from the big bang (ostensibly). To me evolutionary thinking is akin to naturalistic thinking (and it’s pretty obvious to me that is what he was implying). In language words can mean many things depending on context. Sounds like you’re just objecting to his style of speaking. It’s obvious from the context he was speaking about the philosophical approach of many astronomers. It’s just like that of evolutionists. He didn’t say they were evolutionists, he said their approach was “evolutionary,” i.e. naturalistic. My goodness you really believe he’s engaged in a covert ploy to deceive the masses? What could he possible gain by doing this?

Proof is for maths and whisky. Science doesn't deal in proof.

Fine then what would make it no longer “tentative.”

No. You make a mistake in equating anything less certain than the sky being blue with being a "guess", like it's something some desperate astronomer dreamt up over coffee in the Senior Common Room. The KB and Oort cloud are infered from specific observations about the comets.

Hmmm. Let me see if I can explain better my struggle with what you're saying. If jesus really did miraculously create wine from water, wouldn’t observations about the wine cause the naturalist to infer wrong conclusions? (BTW if you haven’t had a chance to look over the thread I posted on this subject please do so. I’d appreciate your input.) You see if wine were instantaneously and miraculously created, and then later observed by “evolutionary minded” scientists, they could easily come of with many viable naturalistic explanations—explanations that would be very difficult to falsify.

It's not more "guessing" than when ballistics experts infer from bullet wounds where the bullet was fired from and from what sort of gun.

How does this analogy fit? Where is the alleged miracle that has to be taken into consideration?

If those models are well supported, as the KB and OC is, then yes. That's how science works. You have to show that your model - a young cosmos - supports the evidence better than the mainstream one.

Again, there would be many well supported naturalistic explanations for the wine Jesus created. This doesn't touch the real issue.

I'd be hardpushed to come up with a good hypothesis consistent with normal plancental development for a human and them having no navel.

But believe me Karl, if a man were found today with no navel you know as well as I there would be an abundance theories put forth to explain it naturally. Naturalists are fervently religious. They cannot possible accept a supernatural explanation. Yes they would be hardpushed, but anything threatening their religion of naturalism would be plenty hard enough. If the KB and OC are ever falsified, trust me other hypotheses will emerge.

 

[The Lady Kate]

But believe me Karl, if a man were found today with no navel you know as well as I there would be an abundance theories put forth to explain it naturally.

100% True Fact: Legendary filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock had no navel.

Cal, care to offer up your theory as to why?

 

[gluadys]

This is coming off a little hypersensitive. It’s an issue of origins. Are you saying that the origins of life is totally unrelated to the origins of our solar system and galaxy and universe?

In a sense, yes. True, the origin of life on earth depends on the existence of the earth and its life-supporting characteristics. The existence of the earth depends on its place in the solar system, and the solar system is what it is because of where and how it was born in the galaxy. And the galaxy is a consequence of the big bang.

But let's run the film the other way. Given a big bang, did the Milky Way galaxy have to exist? No.

Given the galaxy, did the solar system have to exist? No.

Given the solar system, did the earth have to exist? No.

Given the earth, did life have to originate on it? No.

In that sense the origin of life is a separate question from the origin of the universe or the solar system.

So applying a term like "evolutionary" to scientific field unrelated to evolution is misleading.

To me evolutionary thinking is akin to naturalistic thinking (and it’s pretty obvious to me that is what he was implying).

Naturalistic thinking existed before evolutionary thinking. They overlap, but they are not quite the same. Sarfati could have said naturalistic if that is all he meant.

Fine then what would make it no longer “tentative.”

Science is always tentative.

Hmmm. Let me see if I can explain better my struggle with what you're saying. If jesus really did miraculously create wine from water, wouldn’t observations about the wine cause the naturalist to infer wrong conclusions?

On the basis of the evidence, their conclusions would not be incorrect. They are only in error because a non-naturalistic cause was introduced, and they have no way to factor that in. It is not part of the evidence.

Remember a scientific conclusion is always implicitly accompanied with the proviso that no miracle occurred to change the ordinary course of events.

But believe me Karl, if a man were found today with no navel you know as well as I there would be an abundance theories put forth to explain it naturally.

And each of those theories would be examined as to testability, and if testable they would be tested. Each that was falsified would be discarded. If all are falsified, science is left with no natural explanation.

Science is not just a matter of putting forth theories. It is also a matter of inquiring into the strength of those theories.

If the KB and OC are ever falsified, trust me other hypotheses will emerge.

Of course they will. Something has to explain the comets.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

100% True Fact: Legendary filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock had no navel.

Cal, care to offer up your theory as to why?

how to disprove this statement:

The only bellybuttonless comedian in the world!

Ok. I have no navel. Neither did Alfred Hitchcock. Neither did Adam. Long story. So that's for another day. As far as I'm aware, no either stand-up comic in the world lacks a bellybutton. A navelless maths comedian. I've found my niche. Hence, record validated.
from: http://www.paulkerensa.com/index.php
a comedians webpage

how can a placental mammal not have a navel?

...

 

[Calminian]

In a sense, yes. True, the origin of life on earth depends on the existence of the earth and its life-supporting characteristics. The existence of the earth depends on its place in the solar system, and the solar system is what it is because of where and how it was born in the galaxy. And the galaxy is a consequence of the big bang.

I think that’s all that was implied. There’s no covert effort here to blur the distinctions between various disciplines.

But let's run the film the other way. Given a big bang, did the Milky Way galaxy have to exist? No.

Given the galaxy, did the solar system have to exist? No.

Given the solar system, did the earth have to exist? No.

Given the earth, did life have to originate on it? No.

In that sense the origin of life is a separate question from the origin of the universe or the solar system.

Not sure I follow. Not sure I agree. Given the galaxy, it’s order, the position of its components and an almost an infinite number of other variables, wouldn't one have to conclude life many eons down the road was inevitable? In fact I actually met a calvinistic atheist a while back. To him freewill was an illusion because everything is controlled by the laws of physics including every chemical reaction in our our brain. I’m not disagreeing with you that there are separate scientific disciplines, but it’s not right to say they’re not related when it comes to the origins issue. I mean look hydrogen adams eventually evolved into you and me. (BTW I just realized someone may criticize me for describing an atheist as calvinistic. Okay okay, most I’m sure realize I meant that in the sense that he held to compatibilistic freewill. Both convey the same point when taken in context.)

Naturalistic thinking existed before evolutionary thinking. They overlap, but they are not quite the same. Sarfati could have said naturalistic if that is all he meant.

Yes he could have. I wish he did. It’s caused quite a distraction.

On the basis of the evidence, their conclusions would not be incorrect. They are only in error because a non-naturalistic cause was introduced, and they have no way to factor that in. It is not part of the evidence.

I guess you’re going to have to define “correct” then. I look at correct as free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth. In this sense, they were not correct. Why? Their approach followed the guidelines of scientific investigation but was flawed philosophically (as you mention above). It’s the same flaw long-agers make in approaching Genesis. The text conveys several miracles. But even more importantly, it gives us very few details about those miracles. Yes we know the time frame but we know very little about what went on in those 24 hour periods. We also know very little about the mechanisms God used to bring about the flood. Did He add water to the earth? Were meteorites and asteroids involved any way perhaps as a trigger? And not knowing these details makes it difficult if not impossible to try to predict how the aftermath is going to look. So it’s really not logical to claim that a literal reading of Genesis has been ruled out by science.

Remember a scientific conclusion is always implicitly accompanied with the proviso that no miracle occurred to change the ordinary course of events.

This is the point. How can anyone read Gen. 1-11 and not see miracle after miracle? I just don’t think long-agers realize how unhelpful science really is in this area.

I then made the comment:

If the KB and OC are ever falsified, trust me other hypotheses will emerge.

You replied:

Of course they will. Something has to explain the comets.

IOW, something apart from the young solar system Genesis talks about. This is exactly how a naturalist would approach the wine. This is exactly how he would approach Adam’s lack of a navel. And for that matter this is exactly how the pure naturalist would approach the virgin birth, resurrection and all other biblical miracles. There has to be a natural explanation. It truly is a religious world view.

 

[gluadys]

Not sure I follow. Not sure I agree. Given the galaxy, it’s order, the position of its components and an almost an infinite number of other variables, wouldn't one have to conclude life many eons down the road was inevitable?

Given the order, position, variables it did have, yes. But that order, that position, those particular variables were not a given in the first place. If they had been different, the consequences would have been different. So no, stars would not be inevitable if circumstances had been different. Life would not be inevitable if circumstances had been different. Hence the use of biological terms in reference to cosmological processes obfuscates the issue.

Yes he could have. I wish he did. It’s caused quite a distraction.

And it is not as if it is just Sarfati. Too many creationist writers do the same thing, and too consistently, for it to be an oversight.

I guess you’re going to have to define “correct” then.

I am using it here to mean a conclusion which flows from the evidence and is in no way contradicted by the evidence. In other words, the evidence leads to this conclusion and no other.

Evidence, however, is almost always partial. A conclusion that cannot be doubted with the evidence at hand can be thrown out the window when new evidence comes to light that the conclusion cannot account for.

Their approach followed the guidelines of scientific investigation but was flawed philosophically (as you mention above).

Science does not deal in philosophy. It is the task of philosophy to accommodate itself to science, not the reverse. Using the guidelines of scientific investigation, the investigators approached their task with the correct scientific methodology. That is all you can ask of science. That method will give a standard conclusion all can agree on regardless of philosophy. But how the results are dealt with philosophically will vary with a person’s philosophical approach. Some will be willing to disregard the scientific conclusion in favour of a miracle; others will not.

It’s the same flaw long-agers make in approaching Genesis. The text conveys several miracles. But even more importantly, it gives us very few details about those miracles. Yes we know the time frame but we know very little about what went on in those 24 hour periods.

But we don’t know the time frame. All we have is a text. We choose, based on our knowledge and/or belief of how and when and why the text was written (and of course, that varies enormously from individual to individual) how to interpret that text.

Neither the text itself, nor the various interpretations of the text figure as evidence for scientific investigation of the origins of the cosmos, the earth or life on earth.

We also know very little about the mechanisms God used to bring about the flood. Did He add water to the earth? Were meteorites and asteroids involved any way perhaps as a trigger? And not knowing these details makes it difficult if not impossible to try to predict how the aftermath is going to look. So it’s really not logical to claim that a literal reading of Genesis has been ruled out by science.

Change “very little” to “nothing” and you are closer to the truth. We know nothing about a global flood because no global flood occurred so far as the evidence goes. How can one ever know the details of a non-existent event or an event which leaves no evidence at all?

On the other hand, we can investigate both the Black Sea flood and the Mesopotamian flood that have been suggested as possible real life floods that led to the biblical flood story. They left evidence and can be studied by geologists and archeologists.

To introduce a global flood, one must assume a miracle which left no evidence whatsoever. But science cannot do its work if it must constantly assume that events happen without leaving evidence. No evidence means no scientific conclusion. It also means that those who choose to believe in the miracle do so on the basis of faith, not science.

So, if you are stating that a literal reading of Genesis based on faith has not been ruled out by science, you are correct. But a literal reading of Genesis based on evidence has indeed been ruled out. The person who favours a literal reading of Genesis not only has no evidence to point to, but must actually close their eyes to contradictory evidence which is there. (Worse than the wine case; in that situation, while there was no evidence for a miracle, there was none against it either.) It is a position which can rest only on faith that a literal reading is the correct reading.

This is the point. How can anyone read Gen. 1-11 and not see miracle after miracle? I just don’t think long-agers realize how unhelpful science really is in this area.

Science certainly does not support a literal reading of these chapters. But whether you consider that helpful or unhelpful will depend on the importance you attach to a literal reading. Many Christians find it helpful to read these chapters without the drawback of having to defend them as historically literal events. So for them, science is helpful in this area.

IOW, something apart from the young solar system Genesis talks about. This is exactly how a naturalist would approach the wine. This is exactly how he would approach Adam’s lack of a navel. And for that matter this is exactly how the pure naturalist would approach the virgin birth, resurrection and all other biblical miracles. There has to be a natural explanation. It truly is a religious world view.

No, there doesn’t have to be a natural explanation. There can be (from a scientific view) no explanation because of lack of evidence. If scientists agree the wine appears to be 5 years old, yet everyone in the village affirms it did not exist two days ago, all the scientists can say is that they have no idea how 2 day old wine can appear to be 5 years old.

Other natural explanations are possible---all the villagers are lying, or suffering mass hallucination, or some practical means of conveying 5-year old wine to the celebration, undetected by anyone occurred. So there is no necessity to affirm a miracle. But unless such naturalistic explanations can be confirmed, a miracle cannot be ruled out either.

Also remember that while the scientists will agree on the apparent age of the wine, they will not likely agree that finding a naturalistic explanation is imperative. After all, scientists differ in their philosophies too. Some might choose to believe in the miracle. Not because they are scientists, but because they are believers.

 

[The Lady Kate]

how can a placental mammal not have a navel?

...

Ah, that is the question...Actually, the question is, how would Cal go about finding the answer?

You don't suppose he'd stoop to naturalistic methodology?

 

[Calminian]

I am using it here to mean a conclusion which flows from the evidence and is in no way contradicted by the evidence. In other words, the evidence leads to this conclusion and no other.

But shouldn’t you make a distinction between scientific evidence and other types, like eyewitness? If I’m not mistaken, in a court of law, eyewitness evidence takes priority over scientific evidence.

Science does not deal in philosophy. It is the task of philosophy to accommodate itself to science, not the reverse. Using the guidelines of scientific investigation, the investigators approached their task with the correct scientific methodology. That is all you can ask of science. That method will give a standard conclusion all can agree on regardless of philosophy. But how the results are dealt with philosophically will vary with a person’s philosophical approach. Some will be willing to disregard the scientific conclusion in favour of a miracle; others will not.

You yourself said science first must assume a non miraculous environment. That is its philosophical foundation. Of course one must then decide to agree with what science reveals given its assumptions or reject those assumptions. When it comes to miracles like the virgin birth and resurrection many christian scientists choose to believe in those miracles. But for some reason many of those same ones choose to reject the miracles of Genesis.

But we don’t know the time frame. All we have is a text. We choose, based on our knowledge and/or belief of how and when and why the text was written (and of course, that varies enormously from individual to individual) how to interpret that text.

Ex. 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

The only choice here is to believe it or not. It’s clear from the context what “days” mean. There’s really nothing unclear about it. If God really wanted to convey the universe was created in six days I don’t see how He could have made it more clear.

Neither the text itself, nor the various interpretations of the text figure as evidence for scientific investigation of the origins of the cosmos, the earth or life on earth.

If God’s communication to us through grammar does not in any way serve as evidence, than one would also be justified in rejecting a literal resurrection. And many self described christians do.

Change “very little” to “nothing” and you are closer to the truth. We know nothing about a global flood because no global flood occurred so far as the evidence goes. How can one ever know the details of a non-existent event or an event which leaves no evidence at all?

It’s amazing to me how deep your trust in modern scientific investigation is. You don’t consider anything else to be evidence. We also don’t have scientific evidence for the resurrection. Does that mean there is no evidence for it?

To introduce a global flood, one must assume a miracle which left no evidence whatsoever. But science cannot do its work if it must constantly assume that events happen without leaving evidence. No evidence means no scientific conclusion. It also means that those who choose to believe in the miracle do so on the basis of faith, not science.

Which is why it’s very unwise to base all your beliefs on it. It’s limited and completely ineffective in investigating the supernatural.

So, if you are stating that a literal reading of Genesis based on faith has not been ruled out by science, you are correct. But a literal reading of Genesis based on evidence has indeed been ruled out. The person who favours a literal reading of Genesis not only has no evidence to point to, but must actually close their eyes to contradictory evidence which is there. (Worse than the wine case; in that situation, while there was no evidence for a miracle, there was none against it either.)

What do you mean? Of course there was "scientific evidence" for the wine being old. It had an alcohol level that was consistent with older wines. And there was no scientific evidence to confirm it was young.

Science certainly does not support a literal reading of these chapters.

Nor would science support literal instantaneously created wine.

But whether you consider that helpful or unhelpful will depend on the importance you attach to a literal reading. Many Christians find it helpful to read these chapters without the drawback of having to defend them as historically literal events. So for them, science is helpful in this area.

And as I said many self described christians find it helpful to view the resurrection as a figurative story. Why are they wrong for doing so?

No, there doesn’t have to be a natural explanation. There can be (from a scientific view) no explanation because of lack of evidence.

I’d be careful here. There is a difference between no explanation and an explanation not yet discovered.

If scientists agree the wine appears to be 5 years old, yet everyone in the village affirms it did not exist two days ago, all the scientists can say is that they have no idea how 2 day old wine can appear to be 5 years old.

More precisely, he should say he has no naturalistic explanation for how 2 day old wine can appear to be 5 years old.

Other natural explanations are possible---all the villagers are lying, or suffering mass hallucination, or some practical means of conveying 5-year old wine to the celebration, undetected by anyone occurred. So there is no necessity to affirm a miracle. But unless such naturalistic explanations can be confirmed, a miracle cannot be ruled out either.

I wish you’d only give Genesis the same benefit of the doubt. It seems many on your side are demanding naturalistic theories be discredited first. To draw an analogy it would be like the scientists in the illustration demanding their theory of the wine being made 5 years ago to be falsified before anyone can believe the miracle. But you gave a whole list of reasons why it cannot be falsified—lying villagers, etc.

Also remember that while the scientists will agree on the apparent age of the wine, they will not likely agree that finding a naturalistic explanation is imperative. After all, scientists differ in their philosophies too. Some might choose to believe in the miracle. Not because they are scientists, but because they are believers.

Precisely. The problem is with those who believe the alcohol content disproves the miracle. The alcohol content no more disproves the wine was recently miraculously created than radiometric dating disproves the universe was recently miraculously created. It seems some scientists understand this while others do not.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Cal - you say:

If God really wanted to convey the universe was created in six days I don’t see how He could have made it more clear.

My immediate response is that God didn't write Exodus, men did. How significant, I wonder, is this different perspective?

I do not think that God sat down and said "I'll explain creation to them using a six day model." Rather, I think that the writers of Genesis, under the inspiration, but not dictation or control, of the Holy Spirit, used an existing creation myth to communicate theological truth about creation.

I would not expect such an appropriated creation myth to contain scientific accuracy, or even to be vaguely historical in nature.

If you hold to a model whereby God dictated Genesis to Moses, or anyone else for that matter, then I can imagine why you see it the way you do. Those of us who consider the Bible to be a human artefact produced through inspiration of the Holy Spirit inevitably will see it differently.