The Problem of a Different Past

[RedAndy]

First of all, I'd like to say hi to everybody, as I'm new here. I've been reading these boards for some time now, but only now have I chosen to post on them.

Since I've started reading the boards I've seen a number of members alluding to a hypothesis that can roughly be defined as the "different past." Generally speaking, this means that physical and environmental conditions immediately before and/or after the Fall and Flood allowed for some of the processes Creationists use to explain some of the evidence (hyper-adaptation to explain speciation following the Flood, etc.)

My question is: why do we need such an explanation? Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me the "different past" hypothesis just isn't parsimonious. Why do we need to invoke different physical laws for the past, when the ones we have currently work just fine - providing, of course, that we accept the evidence for an old Earth as it is?

My own feeling is that Creationists are trying to explain away the evidence by coming up with something that is even more improbable, and even less supported by evidence than the theories they are trying to undermine. But perhaps I'm wrong: perhaps someone can put me right on this, because at the moment I just don't see the logic.

 

[crimsondeath]

creationists like to make up things to prove their hypthesises right.

 

[Contracelsus]

First of all, I'd like to say hi to everybody, as I'm new here. I've been reading these boards for some time now, but only now have I chosen to post on them.

Since I've started reading the boards I've seen a number of members alluding to a hypothesis that can roughly be defined as the "different past." Generally speaking, this means that physical and environmental conditions immediately before and/or after the Fall and Flood allowed for some of the processes Creationists use to explain some of the evidence (hyper-adaptation to explain speciation following the Flood, etc.)

My question is: why do we need such an explanation? Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me the "different past" hypothesis just isn't parsimonious. Why do we need to invoke different physical laws for the past, when the ones we have currently work just fine - providing, of course, that we accept the evidence for an old Earth as it is?

My own feeling is that Creationists are trying to explain away the evidence by coming up with something that is even more improbable, and even less supported by evidence than the theories they are trying to undermine. But perhaps I'm wrong: perhaps someone can put me right on this, because at the moment I just don't see the logic.

I too am relatively new and found this argument absolutely fascinating. It is almost impossible to argue against absolutely.

It is a pretty tight argument, but the thing I am hoping will be revealed is why we "need" a different past as shown in the data about the earth's age.

I can't claim to know much about earth science, but I always thought the earth science people had a pretty good lock on what we see in the rocks.

Now if there is a place in the rocks that just "screams" "break from the present!" that would be really neat to see.

I'm holding out on passing too much judgement on the issue until someone provides some info. Otherwise it really is a "parsimony" issue and without some reason to _need_ the break I'm not sure we can justify using it as an explanation.

I think the Bible can provide some useful information but I don't know if we can rely on it solely, especially when in a discussion that is technically a "science discussion".

-Cc

 

[Mystman]

If the alternate-past-theorists actually had a theory, then maybe we could have a discussion.

As it stands, it's:

* All the evidence points towards an old earth.
* A bunch of people are annoyed by that conclusion, and prefer that the biblical account is true.
* Said people just say "well maybe if everything was different in the past in an unspecified way, then the biblical account is true!"

There is nothing that suggests the need of an alternate past with strange laws. Nothing at all. If they (well, it's mostly Dad around here) could actually say how it was all different back then, and show that this alternate set of laws would also produce the results that we now see, then maybe it would be worth discussing.

But at the moment, it's just people yelling "I don't like your conclusions, there must be something wrong with your ideas!". It's the same in many other YEC-areas. Flood geology for example: they still don't have a working model for how exactly the flood deposited all those earthlayers, but they're completely sure that the accepted scientific account isn't correct.

The exact same thing. Just yelling "all your decades of scientific research are wrong wrong wrong!! It came about via some stuff that I can't really specify!"

 

[moogoob]

I'm just waiting for dad to post in here.

To put it succinctly, without taking the Bible literally there is no reason to assume a different past. If what the bible describes doesn't line up with observation then it's not literal! To paraphrase AV1611's sig: "if it doesn't agree with the King James Bible, it's wrong." is a mantra of many YECs. Unfortunately, this might mean that the natural world itself is wrong!

 

[grimbly]

It's really quite simple, if reality absolutely crushes what you want to believe, then just create your own make believe pretend world devoid of evidence, logic, rational thought and even internal consistency. Then all your problems melt away into one grand delusion.

Actually arguing against this nonsense takes a little more time but I watched Frumious Bandersnatch reduce Dad to an incoherent mass of blubbering gibberish... It was not pretty.

Interestingly enough, the question (Have the laws of the universe changed in the past?) is actually a legitimate one and has been extensively investigated by scientists from many disciplines. Of course the overwhelming answer is NO or at best not more than 1 part in 10^11 in the last 14 billion years. Of course what happened in the very early stages of the formation of our universe is still up for grabs, but this doesn't help the literalists since we are talking about a period that existed 10 billion years before our planet even began to coalesce.

If you get into it, there is a lot of fascinating work that went into that conclusion. Google Oklo reactor ...neat stuff!!!!

 

[KerrMetric]

My God - grimbly actually posted something.

I see your name on this boards current viweing list and the Origins Theology board list all the time but you never seem to bother posting.

 

[grimbly]

This place is like a bad habit... very addicting.. I hang a round a lot because of the gems that occasionally pop up Like your evisceration of the Setterfield scam. Nice!!

 

[Contracelsus]

Actually arguing against this nonsense takes a little more time but I watched Frumious Bandersnatch reduce Dad to an incoherent mass of blubbering gibberish... It was not pretty.

If you know the thread that is in, I'd like to read the exchange!

The frustrating thing I find with Dad in particular is that he has a good "nugget" in the "can't know the past absolutely" argument, but he doesn't seem to actually grant anything that is a point against his arguments. And I think he fails to appreciate how his own arguments can be used against his claims to knowledge.

I suspect, like most people of faith, his heart is in the right place, but his debating techniques seem heavy-handed, and sometimes dismissive, or strangely one-sided.

Interestingly enough, the question (Have the laws of the universe changed in the past?) is actually a legitimate one and has been extensively investigated by scientists from many disciplines.

I like the question from the purely philosophical side as well. I think it is quite good to ask. But I also wish that the debate could be clearly outlined that science never claims absolutes, but just a best understanding of the data.

Unfortunately the "different past" model can quickly spiral out of control to make one question our very understanding of everything around us. We are then forced to give up crime-investigation (because you cannot absolutely know what was done unless you witness it yourself), and we have to give up inductive reasoning altogehter.

Overall I like the argument, but I am not sure that even Dad would like to live in the world he is espousing form a philosophy point of view.

If you get into it, there is a lot of fascinating work that went into that conclusion. Google Oklo reactor ...neat stuff!!!!

I've read about that deposit before. That is pretty neat.

 

[grimbly]

Search KT Flood layer on this forum... It's long but well worth the read.

 

[moogoob]

This place is like a bad habit... very addicting.. I hang a round a lot because of the gems that occasionally pop up Like your evisceration of the Setterfield scam. Nice!!

Agreed. I tend to lurk more than post as well. Then I'm well mentally rested when I find a thread I'm knowledgeable about.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It's really quite simple, if reality absolutely crushes what you want to believe, then just create your own make believe pretend world devoid of evidence, logic, rational thought and even internal consistency. Then all your problems melt away into one grand delusion.

Actually arguing against this nonsense takes a little more time but I watched Frumious Bandersnatch reduce Dad to an incoherent mass of blubbering gibberish... It was not pretty.

Thanks. I haven't had any time for posting for the last few months but it is good to see that I am not forgotten.
F.B.

 

[grimbly]

I look forward to your return to this board. Always informative, usually very entertaining.

 

[nvxplorer]

Actually arguing against this nonsense takes a little more time but I watched Frumious Bandersnatch reduce Dad to an incoherent mass of blubbering gibberish.

What do you mean "reduce?"

 

[grimbly]

My Bad!!!

 

[dad]

First of all, I'd like to say hi to everybody, as I'm new here. I've been reading these boards for some time now, but only now have I chosen to post on them.

Hi.

My question is: why do we need such an explanation?

If it was there, why explain it away? Heaven needs a new state, or we would be decaying and dying there. Adam could not live forever in theis present world as is.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me the "different past" hypothesis just isn't parsimonious.

You could be right, you may be missing something.

Why do we need to invoke different physical laws for the past, when the ones we have currently work just fine - providing, of course, that we accept the evidence for an old Earth as it is?

They work fine here, but the bible says this is a temporary heavens that will be no more one day. They won't work fine then, will they? So, why doubt the past was a s the bible says since you have no science to force the past to be this same state? Just for kicks?

My own feeling is that Creationists are trying to explain away the evidence by coming up with something that is even more improbable, and even less supported by evidence than the theories they are trying to undermine.

I explain away no evidence, like old agers I work with it. It is all ours as well as yours.

But perhaps I'm wrong: perhaps someone can put me right on this, because at the moment I just don't see the logic.

God changes the universe to limit the lifespans of wicked man temporaily, and changes it back when the time is right. Or some such wonderful reason. Simple.

 

[dad]

It's really quite simple, if reality absolutely crushes what you want to believe, then just create your own make believe pretend world devoid of evidence, logic, rational thought and even internal consistency. Then all your problems melt away into one grand delusion.

Actually arguing against this nonsense takes a little more time but I watched Frumious Bandersnatch reduce Dad to an incoherent mass of blubbering gibberish... It was not pretty.

Interestingly enough, the question (Have the laws of the universe changed in the past?) is actually a legitimate one and has been extensively investigated by scientists from many disciplines. Of course the overwhelming answer is NO or at best not more than 1 part in 10^11 in the last 14 billion years. Of course what happened in the very early stages of the formation of our universe is still up for grabs, but this doesn't help the literalists since we are talking about a period that existed 10 billion years before our planet even began to coalesce.

If you get into it, there is a lot of fascinating work that went into that conclusion. Google Oklo reactor ...neat stuff!!!!

I wasn't crushed, not even dented, hardly amused. Some are fervent believers in a same past, but that means nothing unless they had evidence. Light as it is, varves as they now form, and trees as they now grow are just present observations. Oklo was not universal decay.
Frumy did at least make a desperate actual attempt, more than the denial of most.

 

[grimbly]

Nope, sorry dad there are no "believers" in the same past that I could find on this board. Just rational people who have
a) got themselves an education rather than spout off from a position of profound ignorance
b) actually went out and studied some aspect of this universe and logically went where the evidence led them.

You have missed a golden opportunity to actually learn something about this world. Your loss, it's a pity.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I wasn't crushed, not even dented, hardly amused. Some are fervent believers in a same past, but that means nothing unless they had evidence. Light as it is, varves as they now form, and trees as they now grow are just present observations. Oklo was not universal decay.
Frumy did at least make a desperate actual attempt, more than the denial of most.

Your nonsense was completely anhiliated. Your absurd attempts to explain the data even with your supposed different fanasy past failed miserably on point after point. All you could do was repeat over and over that impossible and sometimes contradictroy things could have somehow happened to make the earth look exactly as if it were far older than your fantasy allows because of a "different past" even though the only "different past" that could explain the data is one in which a supernatural being constantly intervenes to manipulate nature to give the false impression of great age. It was proven beyond any doubt that either God created a world intended to deliberately deceive us or you are wrong. Your version of silly last Thursdayism is fully as silly as the standard Omphalos version of silly last Thursdayism without having the virtue of actually explaining why the earth looks the way it does.

The fact that you can't see how badly you lost is simply more evidence that you are totally incapable of rational thought. I see no need to waste further time agruing with you after showing that all your arguments are absurd nonsense that don't even begin to explain the data.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Oklo was not universal decay.
.

IIRC you claimed it Oklo was intended to heat water for Eve's bath or some such nonsense, LOL.
F.B.