"Polystrate" Fossils

Faith & Science Conversation
28

[quote=“jon_doe, post:27, topic:386”]
Your statement is correct but worded to produce a misconception that I represented it differently.[/quote]
You represented science as entirely retrospective.

I am flatly stating that the prospective part that you avoid is how science minimizes confirmation bias. So let’s do science, Jon–what’s your hypothesis and what empirical predictions does it make?

[quote]You built up an argument that I never made and used it to question my comprehension of the subject.
[/quote]I still question your comprehension.

[quote=“jon_doe, post:27, topic:386”]
Evidence doesn’t speak,[/quote]
Where did I say that it speaks?

You are dead wrong. The scientific method bakes the interpretation in before you get the data.

[quote]As the saying goes: Every interpreter is a traitor. Personal biases are always going to find their way into an interpretation whether of languages or of fossil evidence.
[/quote]The prospective nature of real science minimizes them. You are making a false portrayal of science as entirely retrospective interpretation.

[quote=“jon_doe, post:27, topic:386”]
by the way, science can be retrospective.
[/quote]Not good science. Pseudoscience pretends that ALL science is retrospective. So what’s your hypothesis and what are its empirical predictions?

29

Thank you for proving my hypothesis.

You’re not interested in questions. This is why I never engaged you in the last thread (which was closed because you couldn’t stay on topic). You target semantics and argue with rhetoric.

I’m familiar with the scientific method. What part of polystrate fossil creation is observable and repeatable? What experiments have been done to prove what hypotheses? How does this baking process work in relation to this question?

can you validate that claim? Even if you can, who cares?! That’s not the question given.

And i reckon this isn’t “good science” (may or may not be I only referenced for the title) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12002920

I think it’s time you looked critically at your own comprehension. None of this has to do with the question given. I’ve searched and beyond articles like at Wikipedia and ncse dismissing polystrate fossils I can’t find reference to any effect they have on strata dating.

Last try. Can you answer the question? Can you even acknowledge the question? Or will you continue to pretend this is about some claim to knowledge by pseudoscience?

1 Like
30

[quote=“jon_doe, post:29, topic:386, full:true”]
Thank you for proving my hypothesis. [/quote]
You clearly don’t understand the scientific method, as no hypothesis can ever be proven.

Not if you think a hypothesis can be proven.

That’s a different usage of the term “retrospective.” You don’t get it.

What is your hypothesis and what are its empirical predictions?

[quote=“jon_doe, post:29, topic:386”]
None of this has to do with the question given. I’ve searched and beyond articles like at Wikipedia and ncse dismissing polystrate fossils I can’t find reference to any effect they have on strata dating.
[/quote]It has everything to do with it. You seem to be afraid to advance a hypothesis and test its empirical predictions. Instead you pretend that science is about questioning other people about existing data instead of questioning nature and producing new knowledge.

Why can’t you state your question as a scientific hypothesis, Jon?

31

The general impression I get from, YEC organizations — perhaps not all — is that YEC Scientists aren’t often actively engaging in the evidence itself, or seeking to find new data. But rather, more often than not, just reading the data produced from other scientists, and giving it a different spin, so to speak. Inserting it into their global flood model.

The argument seems odd to me though, because usually the articles they site, they disagree with large portions of the data (typically all references to time) … So it comes off as seemingly strange argumentation.

Most YEC organizations seem to make fun of the Alvarez Hypothesis, yet they accept the fact that meteors did in fact hit the earth and is quite possibly responsible for the large quantities of iridium in specific geologic layers!

The only difference is that the new data that others produced got viewed through a “new lens”. From my perspective, if YEC scientists really trusted in their conclusions, we’d see more and more people actively engage with the evidence itself, and seek to find new data and new information. But we don’t see that, unfortunately.

-Tim

32

did I mention all you do is pick semantic arguments?

What kind of person requires a question to be phrased as a hypothesis? Is this Geek Jeopardy?

It occurs to me that I gave this forum too much credit and assumed trolling would be quickly rooted out. I was right to ignore you in the past and I reckon i’d do well to return to that position.

33

Yet another example where science denialists don’t understand two very important terms: “observable” and “repeatable.”

Many denialists think that “observable” only means “see with my eyes in the present.” No. (Also, all observations involve events which happened in the past—not just some—whether that past was eons ago or merely nanoseconds ago.)

“Repeatable” doesn’t mean "If you can’t build a solar system in a laboratory—that is, repeat the formation of the planetary system and the origins of planetary motion and observe the orbital period of Pluto—then the claim that Pluto takes 248 years to complete its orbit around the sun (something no scientist has ever observed) “isn’t repeatable observational science.” (My apologies for including the comical, bizarre label of “observational science” from the infamous “observational vs. historical science” mambo dance.)

As for the demands that “polystrate fossils” are some sort of problem for geologists, we have yet to see posted an example of such a problematic “polystrate fossil”. So here’s the challenge: Let’s see your very best example of a paradigm-defying, “embarrassing to modern geology” polystrate fossil that will establish that this is not just another “creation science” pseudo-science ploy meant to impress science-challenged audiences who want the earth to be 6,000 years old. (Reality check: the polystrate fossils propaganda tactic is an embarrassment to “creation science”, not to PhD geologists or paleontologists.)

And yes, there are many forums (including this one) where it is fun to discuss the “entire-areas-of-science could-be-entirely-wrong” hypothetical—but the scientific method and the demand for supporting evidence is not suspended here or anywhere else. (Not if reality matter, that is.) So, yes: the brash but nevertheless very real demand from the science academy to “put up or shut up” is still how real science operates, for both the science professional and the non-professional. And yes, it can be very fun to pretend that the enormous consilience of so many different kinds of dating methodologies (e.g., radiometrics, varves, ice cores, plate tectonics, biodiversity/geodiversity, dendrochronology, etc.) don’t exist and that there actually exists actual compelling evidence for a 6,000 year old universe. That kind of pretending can not only be very interesting to watch, it can be very educational—it reminds me of collegiate debate tournaments where one must alternate affirmative and negative positions with each round—as long as we don’t also pretend that that is how science operates. Real science does not suspend reality and ignore vast piles of evidence in favor of desperate cherry-picks which might introduce some sort of appearance of ambiguity or mystery to non-specialists and non-scientists longingly hoping to find justifications for holding on to cherished traditions of a 6,000 year old earth they learned in Sunday School long ago.

And if that reality check sounds harsh I should point out that I’m describing myself, having grown up in a Young Earth Creationist church and tirelessly crusading as an enthusiastic “creation scientist” professor of a half-century ago. I was guilty of the human foibles I’m describing here, so I do understand the difficult emotions and the theological struggles which come with eventually confronting the actual scientific evidence. For years I was very willing to assign human error and fallibility to the science academy but not to the scripture interpretations of my church and my “Christian heroes.” I pretended that the latter could not be in error because “This is not just my interpretation. This is what God says in the Bible!” I truly believed that and refused to budge for a great many years.

3 Likes
34

That may be true but is it really wrong to read the results of a study, examine the data retrieved, and then evaluate the legitimacy of the researchers conclusions? If I build a crappy website do you have to be a web developer to recognize that? Can I really say you don’t have the right to look at my coding and determine if it’s any good? Of course not. If you get a 500 server error you can know I did something wrong without having the knowledge to do it right yourself.

If, and it’s still if because I can’t find the answer, certain number of strata have been dated by whatever means to have been laid over thousands or millions of years and it’s found that a polystrate fossil runs through them, is it unreasonable to ask for an account of that dating method? That is really the only question I found compelling in this thread and it remains completely avoided by everyone but johnZ, who posited it and myself who repeated it.

curiously, its not even a YEC question. At least not directly.

The only position I’m fixed on is Creation. I don’t require physical evidence of God, I know my God; origins on the other hand are not so evident. Young or old, time doesn’t much matter to me. I think Ham makes a mistake when he insists on doctrinal purity and declares his doctrine pure. I think Biologos makes a mistake much the same way and each picking fights with the other is really discouraging.

First hand [edit] research is expensive. Most research is funded by universities and governments (or universities with gov’t money) and creationist research will never see this type of funding. So right or wrong, when papers are published there will be scrutiny. I can’t fault them for doing this, it’s all they can do.

35

That’s an impressively long post to discuss something I’m not even talking about. Are you really concerned that I don’t understand or just want to prove you do? Because in attempting to do so you only show that you have no idea what I’m even asking.

I’m not demanding that polystrate fossils be a problem for anyone. You seem to be laboring under the delusion I’m trying to establish some sort of claim to knowledge here. I’m not laboring with emotional turmoils over the age of the earth.

my only claim so far has been to say that talkorigins articles are not scholarly in nature, they are ideological. I then repeated the question from johnZ regarding dating of strata where it can be shown that the strata were laid down quickly due to the presence of polystrate fossils. In return for my daring to repeat a question that apparently questions conventional wisdom that polystrate fossils are no problem for geologists (and I emphasize question because that’s what it was) I’ve been told a great many things regarding my lack of understanding, poor grasp, rudimentary pseudoscience, whacked-out YEC beliefs, and so on.

I’m not here to convince anyone of a young earth.
I’m not here to convince anyone of a young earth.
I’m not here to convince anyone of a young earth.

Get it?

What I have not been told is the answer to this question. Seems there isn’t one. Perhaps polystrate fossils are a problem for geologists. They are certainly a problem for some folks here.

1 Like
36

I’m startled at this comparison. How has Biologos insisted on doctrinal purity and declared its own doctrine pure? (I confess to not having read every Biology article on this topic so I’m very curious to read an example of what you are talking about in the Biologos literature.) Also, how has Biologos “picked fights”? Can you provide specifics, jon_doe?

Likewise, I did not notice a specific “problematic” polystrate fossil anomaly in johnZ’s comments. Also, it has been a few years ago now, but the last time I went searching for such, I was unable to find any of these alleged embarrassments to modern geology which various Young Earth Creationists have claimed existed among the polystrate fossils. (Instead, what I found were many examples of deceptive quote-mines and a great deal of geology and paleontology ignorance in the creationist ministry literature.)

I don’t doubt that there are many people who simply don’t care about the age of the earth. But I care and I was talking about the many people who do.

37

Startled by the comparison? After this thread I don’t think you should be. The mere possibility that I should be a YEC proponent has resulted in every word I’ve written being dissected and scrutinized for any possible fault. paragraph upon paragraph written to explain why science is irrefutable and I’m not smart enough to grasp why. (yea a little hyperbole). The demand for purity in this [theistic] evolutionary doctrine is every bit as voracious as that of AIG.

Have you all forgotten the Gospel of Christ? The lessons of Peter and Paul regarding causing your brother to stumble? “They shall know us by our love one for another”

I can only assume that people on this forum who refer to Biologos as ‘we’ or similarly presume to represent the organization’s positions are representative of the organization. Perception is reality in these matters.

You yourself made it clear that my question was irrelevant, the nature of my question is intolerable. I don’t even think you know what my question was (again, not mine originally). You’re just so ready to fight YEC that you lash out.

I can excuse the atheist trolls because that’s what they do, but for a Christian to jump so quickly into defaming another is sad.

good day

38

Hey Jon Doe.

I was looking online for an explanation of Polystrate Fossils with the least amount of bias that I could … Perhaps there other sites out there.

The site is made by a Christian. Do you agree with J. W. Dawson’s explanation for the fossils in question? Also note that in the last passage quoted, Dawson is clearly not an atheist and believes in God, so it seems hard to view it as a “bias toward geology despite implications to Christianity etc.,”

And if Dawson’s explanation IS sufficient, then why is it still being brought up as a serious issue? Unless there’s a new issue that I’m not aware of.

While I can’t speak for the entirety of BioLogos (that would seem near impossible since everyone here seems to have such diverse viewpoints) … I don’t get the impression that you get, that BioLogos is arguing for “doctrinal purity for an old earth”. There might be, on occasion, unnecessarily harsh dialogue towards different views, which is best kept at a minimum as best as possible. But I get the impression from Ken Ham that people the hold to different viewpoints on the HOW of Creation, as not being “true Christians”… Which I think (as it seems you do as well) is rather unfortunate, and an unnecessary dividing line.

From a Christian perspective it doesn’t bother me at all that people believe in a young earth or not, because it doesn’t affect key Christian doctrine. Where my ultimate concern would lie is treating different ideas about the “how’s” of Creation as being a key determining factor in separating Christians from non-Christians (like the parable of separating sheep from the goats).

I personally find the evidence for an old universe quite staggering. Will you be convinced on the matter? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s not my duty, as a Christian, to make sure that you see what I see, as a matter of fundamental importance where doctrine is concerned. I would speak only as a friend to a friend, about scientific matters. And speak as a Christian on how these views can still be biblical.

On a different note … It seems to me that if AiG has enough money to make an entire Creation Museum, and is in the process of creating an Ark Park, as well, then research money wouldn’t seem much of an issue… But I could be wrong.

If in my posts I come off as unnecessarily harsh towards YEC organizations then please let me know. It’s not my intention … As I can only speak from my own personal experience, and the general attitude I get from YEC organizations. I speak in very generalistic terms, so as not to cast down wholesale an entire organization or demographic. I used to be a YEC … So when I seem to speak negatively it’s probably because a lot of people in the YEC movement I really looked up too, and thought of them … In a bizarre sense … As sort of “heroes”. And when I came to realize that arguments weren’t as strong as I thought they were, or that those same people misconstrued evidence, or quote-mine sources (whether scientific or biblical) it tainted my view of it all … And left a bad taste in my mouth.

And now that I’m exposed too it, I can’t help but project it.

Maybe it’s something I need to work on.

-Tim

1 Like
39

I use general terms and labels to refer to the many denialist ministry leaders and millions of their followers because that’s who I’m talking about. I generally avoid naming individuals here with most of my remarks because my generalizations are not necessarily referring to them.

Also, I doubt that I’m laboring under the “delusions” you assume. But I’m entirely in favor of any and all clarifications you deem important.

As to TalkOrigins articles, they are indeed meant to explain science to a general readership. The articles are not meant to be published in peer-reviewed journals----just as science textbooks chapters reflect peer-reviewed science but are not necessarily “scholarly in nature” in being aimed at the academy, because they are aimed at students learning the science.

I’ve rarely, if ever, seen an “ideological” article at TalkOrigins—it’s been a while since I read extensively there so perhaps I’ve forgotten one or two—but once again I would be interested in specific examples. Could you please cite some of the most “ideological” articles at TalkOrigins? (I almost made a joke about the possibility that you are “laboring under the delusion” of such but I wasn’t entirely sure whether your original statement was tongue-in-cheek.) TalkOrigins authors run the gamut in terms of theological ideologies, from conservative evangelicals to agnostics to atheists to everything in between. So I’m also curious as the specific ideologies you are talking about. Would you please cite some of the most egregious ideological agendas you believe exist at TalkOrigins? (As a born-again Christian, I’m extremely sensitive about various anti-theist ideologies found on many websites as well as the “liberal” political agendas common to some. So I’d be very surprised if I’ve missed the ideological agendas you’ve found there at Talkorigins.)

Thank you for clarifying your positions. Yet, whether or not whether you actually care about any of these topics, the fact remains that many people do. And those are the people I’m addressing. So you may want to merely skim or even completely ignore my posts on this thread. I have great personal interest in these subjects because I used to have a lot of undergrads from Young Earth Creationist backgrounds and many had spiritual crises of faith when they got to college and realized that they had been misled by their pastors and youth ministry leaders on topics like polystrate fossils, alleged failures of radiometrics----but they were also very angry about the vast arrays of ignored old-earth evidence that they were NOT told about. Needless to say, many sat in my office and said, “If my church lied to me about the science, why should I trust what they taught me about Jesus Christ and the Gospel?” Yes, I explained to them that they were allowing themselves to be misled by the Genetic Fallacy…but we humans tend to be guided by emotions more than logic in many such instances.

Polystrate fossils in and of themselves are not an “emotional” topic for most people. But they are just one example of an ideological process of propaganda that drives many young people away from the Gospel. I’ve seen it provoke a lot of anger in Christian young people to where they walk away from spiritual moorings and the local church at the very time in life when they are making such major decisions about the direction of their life. And that certainly does make me angry. Shouldn’t it? (Again, I’m addressing everyone, not just one person.)

Seeing how this issue is apparently of concern to you, I will repeat yet again–but in a different way, since apparently I was not sufficiently clear in my previous explanations—no geologist worth his salt has doubted that some strata “were laid down quickly”. This fact is known by various means, not just by the presence of “polystrate fossils”. The fact also remains that JohnZ has yet to cite specific geologic examples in the peer-reviewed literature where any of these strata and their fossils present any problem! I realize that a lot of ministry leaders and their followers think that they’ve found some sort of problem but they’ve yet to publish anything compelling on the topic. So even though it may be fun to pretend that “scientists are ignoring the tremendously embarrassing problem of polystrate fossil” (as one popular speaker puts it), unsubstantiated claims get ignored because they are unsubstantiated claims.

And once again, since these are not issues you care about (nor do you have “emotional turmoil” about them, as you said), please keep in mind that I’m addressing those readers who do care about these topics.

40

I think this needs to be emphasized more. I apologize if you feel like you’re being “attacked in some way” … Truly, it is not my intention…

I applaud you for keeping what’s important as the focus. And like I said earlier, if I’m coming off as antagonistic, then feel free to say so … Sometimes in the heat of conversation, we forget to put down our throwing-stones.

As Jesus stated, “Be therefore wise as serpents and as harmless as doves” … Sometimes there’s venom in what we say, and other times there’s a lack of knowledge in what we say.

It’s a balancing act.

-Tim

41

Tim, I enjoy vibrant discussion. As with my past experience you have been an adult in the room expressing yourself with respect for others. I should have known better than to engage joao.

1 Like
42

The use of “denialist” is at the outset antagonistic. If that’s your intent then fine, but if not you may want to rethink your presentation.

I’m not offering a position on young or old, but I do see questions raised by both sides which are not answered well. Simply stating that “serious geologists don’t have a problem with polystrate fossils” does nothing but insult the one inquiring. Again, if you’re going for insulting you’re right on track. Oddly, when questions are answered with insults it’s a good sign that the answer is not nearly so clear and easy as claimed.

Said another way, your dismissive non-answer gives life to the question.

Perhaps it should inspire righteous indignation and anger. But aren’t we admonished to be slow to anger? Quick to compassion and forgiveness? Wouldn’t it be better to take that angry student and teach them not only another way of understanding origins and the Gospel, but compassion for those who at least told them of Jesus? What an opportunity to live the Gospel, not just teach it. How much better a lesson is love then evolution? How much better a solution is forgiveness than resentment?

Perhaps it’s ok to be angry, but I hope you remember to temper that with compassion and understanding. Did Jesus let his disciples forbid others to cast out demons in his name? (Mark 9:38) Why would you forbid a YECist to preach the Gospel of Christ?

As a father and youth group leader, I learn all I can on this subject. I don’t offer my kids absolute understanding on this or any subject, I try to teach them how to learn and question. I can tell them of my savior but until He’s their savior they can’t understand it really. I can tell them the arguments for both young and old earth. Most important, they know it’s not the most important issue.

43

Jon Doe, the problem is that Neutral YECs like yourself are a rarity. Most YECs I know wouldn’t just casually say things like, “Yeah the earth could be old, but I don’t think it is.” … Usually it’s more like, “If the earth is old that means the Bible is wrong and the entirety of the gospel has been compromised.”

I think you’re right in teaching your kids to ask questions, and think for themselves in that sense. But judging from the YEC seminars that I’ve seen, many of the head-hancho types actively discourage their audience from looking at Old Earth organizations to see if their scientific or biblical arguments are actually valid. Some I’ve noticed even resort to outright mockery of bible scholars when it comes to more trivial matters such as the description of Behemoth in Job 40.

It’s THAT kind of YECism that I would describe as unhealthy … And it seems like you might agree with me, but I’m not sure. And if YECs are making bold claims like the gospel is compromised by an old earth then that can have devastating impacts later in life. They get introduced to Old Earth evidence and then their Christian Faith goes down with the ship so to speak … Because they’ve been given the impression that the young earth doctrine and the Gospel are super-glued to each other,

Again … I’m not saying that ALL YECs are like that. But that is general impression that I get from them … And it’s a rarity to find someone like you not pinning the Gospel message to the Young Earth message, and can actually deal with them as separate issues.

I think that Christians should be encouraged to be free-thinkers in the sense that they can actively pursue other viewpoints from diverse Christian perspectives. Rather than just being taught that they should “take it on faith that their pastor is infallible”… Or be discouraged from even investigating the matter on their own … As if you’re playing with fire.

You can still do this while simultaneously taking the Bible seriously. You can investigate the scientific literature with a balanced mind, without the constant thought in your head that the scientists are actively trying to destroy Christianity. You can also investigate the evidence for yourself and know that if God really did write Two Books (the Book of Creation and the Book of Scripture) then He would not expect one book to be contrary to the other … And that both can be investigated, and both are subject to human error.

These are things to think about.

-Tim

44

They don’t have to. But almost everyone does. And it’s ridiculous to think that in an ideal world, everyone would do meticulous primary research on everything they wonder about instead of consulting a pre-digested version somewhere. We would end up dumber with that strategy.

Most people have spouses, kids, jobs, hobbies, Facebook, netflix queues, and any number of things that take precedence over reading primary sources for themselves because they were slightly curious about something they know nothing about.

2 Likes
45

[quote=“Christy, post:44, topic:386”]
They don’t have to. But almost everyone does. And it’s ridiculous to think that in an ideal world, everyone would do meticulous primary research on everything they wonder about instead of consulting a pre-digested version somewhere. We would end up dumber with that strategy.[/quote]
Christy, I’m not saying one has to examine ALL the evidence! A sample will do. But if one is going to claim that the experts are wrong, hearsay just doesn’t cut it.
It’s important to note that the scientific method does not require that the empirical data from tests of one’s hypothesis be unknown to everyone, merely unknown to you.

[quote]Most people have spouses, kids, jobs, hobbies, Facebook, netflix queues, and any number of things that take precedence over reading primary sources for themselves because they were slightly curious about something they know nothing about.
[/quote]But if one of those people is going to write pages about polystrate fossils without ever advancing a hypothesis that makes empirical predictions, none of those apply.

As I told Tim, there is a simple shortcut. Identify the side that produces all or nearly all of the new data. That’s not hard at all. This idea that “both sides are looking at the same data” and present their “arguments” to allow laypeople to decide between them is silly. Moreover, anyone who makes claims about who is interpreting which data must necessarily be familiar with a huge body of data to be credible.

46

It is if you’re not bothering to do the first two, which are really the same thing. You’re not looking for truth.

Why are the conclusions so important? Can’t you advance a testable hypothesis from your examination of the data?

47

@Joao
I understand your point. But there are lots of places on the information continuum between hearsay and primary data. Almost no one is actually going to sit down and wade through journal articles outside their field in order to meet this silly standard that says unless you have personally examined the relevant evidence you are not entitled to open your mouth and have an opinion or claim to know something. Are you allowed to roll your eyes and immediately dismiss someone else’s opinion or assertion as ignorant and uninformed? Of course. But the whole inquisition-style dissection of another person’s post which seems designed to make it perfectly clear that they have been weighed, measured, and found wanting and should now repent of the audacity of speaking in your presence gets obnoxious. Maybe that is not an effect you are intentionally aiming for, but it comes across that way.

To everyone else: Contrary to the vibe you may get from some threads, it is not necessary to read the collected works of Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin before voicing a theological thought, it is not necessary to have mastered Plato and the Enlightenment canon to say something about philosophy, you don’t have to have read everything ever written by an “ID leader” to have an opinion about ID, and you don’t have to cite a relevant Nature article or have your own personal lab results in hand to say something about science on an informal discussion board.

It would be helpful, for the sake of discussion, when you are referring to specific debatable claims, to cite where you got your information so other people can judge for themselves whether they think it is credible. But let’s keep in mind that people rarely change their minds because someone insults their intelligence or casts aspersions on their character. And if the reason you are here is not to explore ideas or help other people explore ideas, if you are here to feel big by making other people feel small, or to feel righteous by judging other people as unrighteous, you are here for the wrong reasons. (And perhaps someone can suggest a helpful ABC After-School Special to help us work through our community issues. :cry:)