Fossils and the Flood II

[juliod]

OK. The first thread has wandered off in every direction except the one I was asking about.

This isn't a question about strata, or whether the flood actually happened, etc.

The question is: Why have the creation "scientists" not demonstrated the rapid fossilization mechanisms that must exist if the flood story is true?

Real science says that minerlization processes happen generally over a long period of time. By creation theory (if there was one) all the mechanism of fossil formation must take place over short periods of time.

The flood lasted only a year, and thereafter the land masses were no longer submerged. In high areas the sediment layer would have been very thin. Whatever process there was, it would have had to take effect over the year of the flood.

So why has it not been demonstrated?

The demonstration would be a) easy, and b) convincing.

Place a dead animal in a tank with some sediment. Let it settle out and apply whatever pressure, temperature, or whatever else the nonexistant creation "model" demands. Open the tank in 12-18 months and show that your recover a perfect fossile. Easy.

It's so easy that we can assume that the reason it has not been done is that it doesn't work. I.e. Creationism is already known to be false.

DanZ

[QED]

QED's picture would seem to me to show a piece of data harder for a YEC to explain.

I apologise for posting another image of my local cliff face, but these sorts of discussions tend to be conducted in a sort of 'reality-vacuum' that allows nonsense to run riot. Considering that any of these strata are just as likely to contain fossil remains, are we expected to entertain the thought that the this entire structure was created by a single event in time?

[Jose]

What a wonderful discussion. I'll see if I can offer anything worthy of inclusion:

How does falsifying a proposed mechanism automatically make the other true? If this is the least enlightened statement then I am really missing something? Your logic doesn't work. You must assume your model of creation is correct (which would require more explanation) to even begin to make the statement you are making. You are saying "fossilization takes a long time, prove me wrong" sound kind of mythic to me. Looks like you have a creation model of your own.

Your first sentence here is True Wisdom. Falsifying a proposed mechanism does nothing more than falsify that mechanism. No mechanism wins by default. That is one of the goofy things about this debate--creationists often put forth some argument, and say "see, this disproves evolution, therefore creation wins by default," and evolutionists often say "see, this disproves creation, therefore evolution wins by default." Ick.

In one sense, however, there is some logic to it. If we consider the issue to be distinguishing between two alternatives, then if we disprove one, the other wins. I suspect that many people use this logic, whether they recognize it or not. Having said this, I see that I will need to be more careful myself in responding to claims that if something disproves evolution, then creation wins by default.

Someone asked why there isn't any science? Well, with the exception of Baylor University, the only place you can get a PhD in Geology and do research is a secular university. You're not likely to find a professor or school that is going to support YEC research. I wish it were not true. But it is true that scientific academia is by and large not willing to consider that their presuppositions might be wrong, even though they use terms like "it's not well understood" or "as yet undiscovered". It's very sad to me, because that is not how science should be. So your choice is to sell out for 20 years until you have a sound scientific reputation and then do YEC research and probably get laughed at and probably never published anyhow. Seems kind of pointless.

This is one of those issues that seems on the surface to be just as you have described it. Mainstream science doesn't consider supernatural explanations, even for things that are "not well understood" or "as yet undiscovered." In general, however, the reason is not because of exclusion of YEC-type explanations as a matter of principle. It is not that academia refuses to accept the idea that their ideas may be wrong (we prove ourselves wrong over and over!). Rather, YEC-type explanations don't fare well because the data don't support them. The logic of science is to obtain data, and infer causation from the data. A YEC-type explanation may be able to explain the data, and so may a zillion other things, but science restrains its explanations to those for which there is the greatest empirical support.

Remember, geological uniformitarianism and evolution were radical ideas when they were first proposed. They were fought vigorously. Often, new ideas meet this same reception. Why, then, did they win out over YEC-type explanations that were solidly believed at that time? Because the data supported them better. As more and more data accumulated, people found it more and more difficult not to accept the conclusions.

The moral here is that anyone who wants their particular explanation to be accepted as a part of mainstream science needs to obtain the data to convince everyone that this explanation is superior to the explanations currently in vogue. This applies to YECism no more than it applies to any other explanation. There is no conspiracy against YECism; it's just that its proponents have yet to provide convincing data.

"Convincing data" goes beyond merely saying "ha! you're wrong, so I win" (see youngborean's statement above). "Convincing data" means data that are consistent with all of the data that we currently have (and, therefore, not immediately disproven by existing observations). There's a lot of data out there. With respect to geology, look at John S's posts, which give us enough to keep us busy for quite some time.

I apologise for posting another image of my local cliff face, but these sorts of discussions tend to be conducted in a sort of 'reality-vacuum' that allows nonsense to run riot. Considering that any of these strata are just as likely to contain fossil remains, are we expected to entertain the thought that the this entire structure was created by a single event in time?

We like your local cliff face. But, in answer to your question, apparently we are expected to consider that this was all one series of sediments from a single flood. Look at the thread, The Flood As Science to see the explanation: lots of "stirring" as the water welled up from "the depths of the earth." Whether we think this explanation is reasonable or not, it is, indeed, the Flood Hypothesis. I would think (and I imagine you would too) that this kind of stirring would give a few different layers, but tens, or hundreds, or thousands of layers of interleaved limestone and shale seems unlikely, given what we know about hydrodynamics and sedimentation. (That is, there are probably things we don't know, which might make it more plausible).

What I find more difficult to explain is the shale/limestone zones, with fossils of aquatic organisms, above and below eolian deposits or volcanic ash or zones with fossils of land plants and animals. Sediments that don't form in water are hard to account for by a flood. If there are flood-like sediments above and below them, how can we support the idea of a single flood?

[micatala]

gabbro wrote:

Someone asked why there isn't any science? Well, with the exception of Baylor University, the only place you can get a PhD in Geology and do research is a secular university. You're not likely to find a professor or school that is going to support YEC research. I wish it were not true. But it is true that scientific academia is by and large not willing to consider that their presuppositions might be wrong, even though they use terms like "it's not well understood" or "as yet undiscovered". It's very sad to me, because that is not how science should be. So your choice is to sell out for 20 years until you have a sound scientific reputation and then do YEC research and probably get laughed at and probably never published anyhow. Seems kind of pointless.

Jose Wrote:
This is one of those issues that seems on the surface to be just as you have described it. Mainstream science doesn't consider supernatural explanations, even for things that are "not well understood" or "as yet undiscovered." In general, however, the reason is not because of exclusion of YEC-type explanations as a matter of principle. It is not that academia refuses to accept the idea that their ideas may be wrong (we prove ourselves wrong over and over!). Rather, YEC-type explanations don't fare well because the data don't support them.

Very well put by Jose.

The YEC community, and lately the Intelligent Design, community have tried to sell the idea that their veiws are not accepted because of prejudice on the part of the mainstream scientific community.

The fallacy is, even if there is prejudice, which I would allow there is to some extent, this does not validate the idea that ID and YEC should get equal time. As Jose says, there needs to be data, and moreover, there needs to be a reasonable explanation that takes into account ALL the known data.