"Polystrate" Fossils

Faith & Science Conversation
21

[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:16, topic:386”]
…non-experts that we are we peruse the writings of various sides and evaluate as best we can who is engaging the data (and counter-arguments) most comprehensively.[/quote]
Mervin, I disagree strongly. Non-experts do not have to limit themselves to hearsay. Anyone can, and should, directly examine the evidence for themselves.

[quote]…I think tentative dismissal/acceptance ought to rest more on the patient assessment of both the arguments/counter arguments.
[/quote]It should rest on evidence, not arguments.

22

[quote=“jon_doe, post:19, topic:386”]
I hold that preconceptions will invariably influence conclusions and the preconception that polystrate fossils are not a problem is highly evident in the articles you cited.[/quote]
Jon, do you not understand how science works? That it is prospective, not just retrospective (as pseudoscientists of all stripes try to misrepresent it)?

Do you not see that science is about using mechanistic hypotheses to make predictions? And that initially, those predictions are NOT subject to interpretation, but to be scientific, have to be predictions of what one directly observes BEFORE one observes it?

Do you have such a hypothesis to offer?

[quote]And how much science of long ago has been updated, altered, debunked, found just plain wrong?
[/quote]A lot, although not nearly as much as you’re claiming.

More importantly, how much of YEC propaganda has been updated?

So which “worldview” is taking new evidence into account?

23

Joao … Earlier you told me that I don’t need to take the opinions of trained professionals / scientists, on say, things like biology (I believe the topic had to do with what a ribosome was, and Stephen Meyer’s book).

Directly examining evidence for oneself is, I agree, the best way to come to a more concrete conclusion. The problem is that a lot of the evidence in question not everyone is very familiar with. Take for example, morphology and paleontology. The Piltdown Man, for instance, which many YECs bring up, turned out to be a hoax, and was a pig’s tooth. To be more technical it was actually a tooth of a different animal (I forget the name) … But it was the geologists and paleontologists that discovered the fraud when it came to be peer-reviewed. Not the YECs that keep on bringing up the hoax … But experts that examined the evidence, because that was their field of study; even admitting that the differences in the structure of the tooth were slight, and would be hard to distinguish if you didn’t spend all your time staring at fossils.

I think a person should give it their best go when examining the evidence for themselves. But I don’t think one can be expected to come to the same conclusions as, say, the experts, simply because it’s not something that you spent your career / life studying. It would be similar to an linguist trying to solve a complex algebra problem, or a professional carpenter studying the history of art and how it changed. Sure, you can be multitalented, or quite ambitious … But it can be hard to force interest on a topic where none exists.

I’m not sure how exactly to begin studying about ribosomes. Human anatomy, when it comes to proteins, nuclei, enzymes, ribosomes, RNA, etc., etc., just goes in one ear and out the other. Not because I consider myself dumb, but because of a lack of interest, it thwarts your learning about it.

-Tim

2 Likes
24

OK, here’s a far easier shortcut: which side is producing new data? IOW, which side is actively looking to get closer to the truth?

25

Again you jump to the offensive and attack rather than dialogue. but you attack straw men. I suggested there is confirmation bias and you rebutt with prospective vs retrospective. I point to a specific question and you question my right to question. I point to a specific example and you make an unsubstantiated claim regarding what I’m saying. (I never made a specific claim to volume of corrections though I did give a specific example, your conclusions are your own)

Why should it matter if I have a hypothesis? Am I disqualified from questioning the validity of a conclusion simply because I don’t have one to offer? How is that anything but arrogant and divisive?

Joao, you write with contempt for any perceived YEC argument. The question by johnZ wasn’t framed in a YEC doctrine, it was a simple question really.

Is this question threatening? I don’t find it challenging to OEC or TE or whatever doctrine of origins you like. Yet it was met with reason upon reason why the non-scientists should shut-up and just accept the conclusions of scientists. What’s the point of a forum if not to present these questions and responses?

I read forums like these because I want no sacred cows in my life. I teach my kids to critically examine every doctrine and that includes what scientists say. Yes, it includes YEC scientists also. In the end, science is limited to available information. God transcends that, making pretty much anything possible if not likely so YEC isn’t an imperative for me.

The theory of evolution is used to propagate atheism in the world. Perhaps not why it was postulated, but that has been the effect, e.g. Dawkins. Christians are hammered by many in academia, not for believing in a young earth, but for believing in God at all.

So when there is an apparent inconsistency, such as dating strata and polystrate fossils, is it really unreasonable that questions be asked? When the answers to those questions are “shut up, you just don’t get science” is it any wonder one would think there’s a degree of ideological protectionism happening rather than actual scientific integrity?

In short Joao, I believe your answers propagate the very questions your answers lament.

2 Likes
26

Let’s put it closer to reality. You attacked with confirmation bias and I asked if you understand whether science is prospective. The predictive, prospective nature of real science is how we greatly reduce confirmation bias.

So my question to you is, why do you portray science as retrospective when real science is prospective?

[quote=“jon_doe, post:25, topic:386”]
I teach my kids to critically examine every doctrine and that includes what scientists say.[/quote]
Science is based on evidence, not what anyone says.

[quote]Yes, it includes YEC scientists also. In the end, science is limited to available information.
[/quote]But it’s about the evidence, not the rhetoric.

[quote=“jon_doe, post:25, topic:386”]
Christians are hammered by many in academia, not for believing in a young earth, but for believing in God at all.[/quote]
Do you believe in a young earth, or are you just arguing for it?

What’s unreasonable is portraying science as retrospective instead of prospective.

I didn’t write anything of the sort. I asked if you understand science. Why do you portray science as retrospective when real science is prospective?

[quote] is it any wonder one would think there’s a degree of ideological protectionism happening rather than actual scientific integrity?
[/quote]Scientific integrity is about formulating hypotheses that make empirical predictions. Do you have any?

27

Your statement is correct but worded to produce a misconception that I represented it differently. Are you suggesting that confirmation bias doesn’t exist in science because it’s both prospective and retrospective? You built up an argument that I never made and used it to question my comprehension of the subject.

whatever

what does that even mean? it’s gibberish. Evidence doesn’t speak, it’s always left to interpretation. 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. You can deny that but to what end? question is, can you show me wrong?

Again, what are you even trying to argue?

How do you get here from there? didn’t you start with science is not just retrospective? are you now saying it’s only prospective? How is this argument even an answer to the question posited? Who cares? The question was simple. were strata intersected by a polystrate fossils dated to represent large expanses of time? If so, were these dates corrected to reflect the necessarily rapid deposits of the material?

by the way, science can be retrospective.

meander all you like. The question remains unanswered and the question was valid. I don’t care what the answer is, but it is strange how hard you work to turn the question into an argument over whether I am even qualified to ask a question.

Joao, when you begin a response with “do you not understand…” it conveys a tone. That tone conveys an attitude. It says “don’t you get why you’re wrong?”. If this isn’t your intended tone perhaps you could slow down and reconsider your verbiage. Either way, you shouldn’t be surprised when I respond accordingly.

Still, the question goes unanswered.

I predict the question will remain unanswered.

1 Like
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