Long Ago – by Kathie Bartholomew
by Kathy Bartholomew
After Jack blogged on the Grand Canyon, Kathie Bartholomew who says she is a long earth creationist, shared her poem with him. We reprint it here with her permission. She records how natural history shows us clues into both the life of a tree and the life of the earth.
Long Ago
by Kathie Bartholomew
said the tree, the mighty tree, look at me, look at me
from my hist’ry you may learn, from my wood you may discern
learn of drought and learn of rain
I did flourish, I had pain
my rings will tell of bygone years, joyous times–and many tears
said the coral in the bay, look at me, and see my way
my layers all the years can tell, my growth rings number days as well
each rotation leaves a mark
I need no wooden rings or bark
my rings while I am still alive, record three hundred sixty-five
said the ancient fossil shell, look at me, my wisdom tell
fossil rings show in a year–400 days! recorded here
faster did the earth spin round,
before friction slowed it down
every day had hours few, slightly less than twenty-two
said the earth just watch me spin, I do move slower now than then
every year I slower go, not that you would ever know
but if you can calculate,
you can estimate the rate
know how many, and just when–days within a year back then
uranium calls us all to see–check a half-life, look at me
from my history discern, from my decay look and learn
three-eighty-million years have passed,
since the fossil breathed its last
that was when–the growth rings show–coral lived, so long ago
half-life, and geology, all invite our inquiry
and their stories all agree, with the coral in the sea
nature records history,
we discern antiquity
lovely coral, mighty tree all say come and look at me
said the canyon great and grand, come and see to understand
ancient wisdom written here, all recorded tier by tier
without voice small creatures talk
silent witness in the rock
eons past, a history book–read my walls, just take a look
look again, just look at me–shouts the distant galaxy
God in wisdom left a trace—light years, red shift, time & space
evidence to see and know
He birthed cosmos long ago
from the canyon to the sky, God’s creation doesn’t lie.
Kathie is right on. Much macro-evolution is basically Poetic License. On the other hand the Psalmist has his say, ” For he spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” (Psalm 33:9)
Just because God was not "indebted to pre-existing matter" during the days of creation doesn't mean that animal, vegetable and mineral dynamics were not in operation for millions of years as a part of God's work of intelligent design. – Hal
Thank you Kathie, for a most beautiful poem filled with knowledge and wisdom.
The poem supports the assumptions for long age (slow) Creationism/Darwinism. It holds to a non-empirical belief largely built on assumptions that invoke the millions of years worldview. Sadly so, this has marred the case for science being recognized as solely empirical and therefore not a belief based compromised entity. The presumptuous confidence expressed in the poem in not unusual for proponents of such belief who reject YEC. It is understandable that many who suffer such indoctrination will often become casualties of the same. Often ridiculed and forced to accede to claims and assumptions in order to fit in, or pass exams, they start believing that all they are told is true. I guess it is the expected price they have to pay for subscribing to a science on steroids curriculum.
Welcome to the Dark Ages of Secularism. This is no poetic exaggeration. It is the Dark Ages indeed – where Science, by using its position in claiming to be non-God in nature, thereby qualifying it as secular, has been granted a credible place in Science. In other words Darwinism became legally a tenet of Science not by any conclusive empirical evidence but by coincidental convenience of it being Atheist or non-God in nature. The poem’s wording wishes to draw attention that long age belief is without a shadow of doubt a conclusive undisputable case of game, set and match. It presupposes the notion claiming that there is overwhelming empirical evidence from numerous scientific disciplines that conclusively prove long age Darwinism, whilst denying all the many non-empirical faith based assumptions laced in its concoction of popular brand kool-aid science. Throwing God into the poem is an attempt to baptize it’s tooth and claw millions of years meaningless cycle of life and death which is falsely attributed to God. The Bible does not teach this.
Theistic Darwinists base their assumptions on the assumptions of Atheists. It is worth noting that none of the verses claiming long age has any real conclusive empirical evidence to prove them true. They are all therefore based on assumptions I assume.
I'm kind of beginning to feel sorry for Mr. Hammond, i.e, Mr. October in his response to this fine poem. I just love Mr. October's arguments since they typically are 180 degrees around from the truth.: For example: Long ages have marred the case of science being based on empircal evidence" Wow! Scientists have presumtous confidence in their emprical evidence and that's bad. Oh my! "Welcome to the Dark Ages of Secularism" That certainly does have a ring to it. Darwinism has a place in Science (I notice he capitalizes Science. Good for him) because Science is Atheist (also capitalized) or "non-God in nature" (Sorry, I don't understand the last phrase). "Theistic Darwinists based their assumptions on the assumptions of Atheists." The misunderstandings go on and on. I hope that he continues to post his views because they illustrate a point of view within Adventism that explains quite a bit of why it is so difficult for our fatih tradition to mature in its understanding of the modern world. .
We should all remember that Charles Darwin was very reluctant to publish his evidence and
thoughts and conclusions, largely because he was concerned about the implications of this
work for Christianity and faith–including the potential impact on members of his own family.
He had been a religious man, himself, although other members of his family had expressed
skepticism of literal interpretations of scripture, especially with regard to origins. He had not
yet articulated the mechanism by which biological change could occur across generations,
when Alfred Russel Wallace wrote to him from what is now eastern Indonesia, suggesting
that selection could occur naturally, just as artificial selection is commonly practiced with
domestic breeding of animals. Darwin recognized this as very similar to his own thinking
at the time, and invited Wallace to coauthor a paper on the subject for presentation at
the Royal Society. So why do people insist on calling evolution by natural selection
"Darwinism?" "Darwinism" (and "neo-Darwinism") has become a straw man device for
ridiculing science and evolutionary biology, and "secularism" and "atheism" have become
similar devices for avoiding dealing with emirical evidence on its own merits.
As a person who was first indoctrinated in fundamental SDA Christianity, before being
exposed to a broad spectrum of empirical evidence and acquiring the tools to evaluate
information, process it, and distinguish between evidence and interpretation (as well as
becoming capable of holding of knowledge/evidence/interpretation "gently"), I marvel
at the claims some people make about "secular" or "Darwinistic" indoctrination.
Well said, Erv. "The misunderstandings go on and on."
Understanding why "the misunderstandings go on and on" keeps me coming back to AT. – Hal
Yes, I marvel as well. It is not few conservative ones, but also some on the otherside of the spectrum that can not accept facts. Joe, really, it is a fact that this thing called 'darwinism' is used for secular indoctrination in the media and academia. I understand the spirit of what you are saying but at the same time darwinism is used for political and anti-religious agendas.
It was not until I attended seminary that I learned that "God and common sense are always on the same side of any issue." I find a lot of common sense revealed in the geological laboratory of life that began many millions of years ago. Records of civilized human life dating back 12,000 years or more reveal a scope of human history beyond the records of the Bible and well beyond the date Usher's chronology sets for creation.
The great "secular indoctrination" conspiracy theory is greatly exagerated, I suspect.
While there are many science teachers in public schools (as well as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Oxford,
Cambridge, etc.) who teach that science is not able to address spiritual causes, would you have them, instead, teach that your version of creationism and/or intelligent design as the way things really are?
It seems to me that science courses should teach about scientific methods of obtaining and evaluating information. Students should learn to distinguish between objective evidence and subjective impressions. Students should learn to discriminate between results/evidence and interpretations, explanations, and speculation about evidence.
Fine enough for students to learn some about the history of science and science "as a body of information," but more than anything else, science students need to learn about science as a set of methods of obtaining and evaluating information.
Hal, there is simply no question that actual, tangible evidence shows that the Usher chronology is not accurate. I probably mean soomething different when I use the term "common sense" than what you mean by it. I guess I use "common sense" for things that are reasonable (and maybe the sort of thing "everybody knows"). Or, maybe you just mean what we used to call "horse sense" as I was growing up on the ranch. That meant, I think, "practical knowledge." The most interesting things I have found in my scientific career have been things that turned out to be the opposite of what "everybody knew."
I continue to think that one who believes in God does well to recognize a definition or concept of God that claims that God can encompass all information and evidence. So, it does not matter that actual tangible evidence disagrees with Usher's chronology. When I left the church more than 40 years ago, I think I was only leaving a group that held steadfastly to a small and brittle concept of God–not really abandoning or rejecting a Magnificent God.
Joe, your comment are well stated, but may I just mention that in the 40 years that have elapsed since you could not longer deal with the anti-intellectual stance of the Adventist Church of that time, as you know, many things have changed. Adventist Today and Spectrum are only two examples. No longer does the establishment church administration have absolute control over the flow of information. We now know that there are large segments of Adventists in the First World who totally reject the fundamentlist orientation of conservative Adventism on many points. Some of them leave the church but many stay and continue to work to foster a pluralistic "Big Tent" Adventism.
I appreciate the efforts to foster the "Big Tent." That must make things easier for cultural adventists with extended families still in the church. I do still have a few relatives in the church–even one on the PUC faculty;
but for the most part others in my family went elsewhere. One branch became baptists and pentacostals. The other branch sort of went anglican and agnostic. There are interesting contrasts in politics and education between the two branches.
Science used to be based on common acknowlegement of experimental facts. Today much speculation by extrapolation outside the domain of data range is PREACHED as unrefutable FACTS of science. There lies endless conflicts and arguments.
As a former editor of carefully reviewed scientific journals, I think readers are well advised to read the RESULTS sections of scientific papers carefully, and distinguish betwee the actual RESULTS of studies (the data, the facts) distinct in their thinking from the DISCUSSION section. It is quite permissible to speculate (even wildly sometimes) about what the results mean or might mean or could mean. Sometimes the ABSTRACT and even the SUMMARY or CONCLUSIONS include speculative or interpretive stuff asserted in the discussion. Further, popular summaries very often emphasize the speculative conclusions and further embellish them. So people need to learn to read the literature carefully, and, as I often say, hold knowledge gently.
Philip, I'm not so sure about science having "used to be based on common acknowledgement of experimental facts." First of all, the literature, maybe especially the older literature, is full of non-experimental descriptive accounts of observed phenomena. Not that there was anything wrong with that. In fact, since observation (or measurement or at least description) of phenomena is the first step in the scientific method, that was a very appropriate place to start. But in support of your point, those descriptions did not necessarily follow from "theoretical" ideology. Today, in a era of "hypothesis-driven" science, many of the hypotheses that are ostensibly tested are generated by "theories" that are not necessarily sufficiently mature or based on a substantial enough observational basis to warrant being called "theory." Further, all too often, results that are "consistent with" a hypothesis are claimed as being more supportive than they are, as if one could use these results as a basis for rejecting a "null hypothesis."
The endless conflicts and arguments in science are nothing new, but most of them have to do with either what the results mean or whether the research design produced reliable or valid results. So, people need to understand research design and statistical analysis and reasoning, and the need to focus on the actual results. Then, they need to be equipped to evaluate the various arguments over what the results mean. Just because some people spout off with exaggerated claims about what something means does not mean one has to fall for that. We always need to be vigilant about the information presented to us.
"Sometimes the ABSTRACT and even the SUMMARY or CONCLUSIONS include speculative or interpretive stuff asserted in the discussion. Further, popular summaries very often emphasize the speculative conclusions and further embellish them."
Serious sciences do not speculative. They can refer to future directions of research. Most dissertations point to further area of research. Serious journal articles do not speculate.
So I decided to call Evolutionists, Darwinists. I do not use it in a pejorative sense of course but merely to tie down Darwinism with Evolutionism as inseparable bedfellows since both these ‘isms’ share the same fundamental belief that “all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.” Natural Selection is non-God or Atheist at its core and although it is riddled with non-empirical assumptions its proponents claim it to be a scientific argument in favour of Evolution Theory. Naturalism, (including its close relative Materialism), is Atheistic by default and shares the same core tenets of Darwinism. All major bedfellows indeed. And all of course invoke the long age millions of years Worldview which ironically now has a new kid on the block which I would like to call – Theistic Darwinists.
All of these Atheist belief systems deny God as the Designer and Creator. All have no reasonable explanation for our origins and existence nor even a basis for a moral code determining right and wrong. If the vast majority of scientists today support Natural Selection and Evolution then they could rightfully be called Darwinists in my opinion. Why try so hard to disassociate themselves from being recognised as followers of Darwin, unless of course they don’t want to be perceived as a faith based community? Hmm…of course these are just my assumptions. I suppose they have a right to their assumptions too!
Children are forced to learn faith based Darwinist teachings in schools which is being passed off as Empirical Science. Forcing children to learn faith based non-empirical assumptions as Science is indoctrination of the lowest kind indeed. Teaching them that millions of years ago life evolved from nothing and to just blatantly pass this off as Science yet having absolutely no concrete empirical evidence whatsoever, is surely intentionally lying to them. I'd say that's forced indoctrination by the way. Brain washing perhaps…and that's how they got to brag the majority of believers I would say. I suppose they would say this is also a misunderstanding too.
Trevor, there is no gentle way of saying this. You do not know what you are talking about. Your rant is a paranoid distortion based on misinformation and misunderstanding of what science is and what science does. Scientists do not typically claim to follow Darwin in the sense that Christians claim to follow Jesus or Marxists claim to follow Marx. I would not say that you are intentionally lying, because I suspect that you really do believe what you are saying. More's the pity.
Sir, I speak generally my opinion and views on how I see things. I would like to refer to Evolutionists as Darwinists as it more accurately portrays their beliefs for me. They are believers. The term evolution has been hijacked just like the homosexuals have done to gay. If so-called Scientists accept this then – whatever; but I don't need to. They have made Darwinism the core basis of Science and I know what I'm talking about – But as usual you seem bent on ad hominem. I suppose ad hominem has also become a part of Science too since many Darwinists are experts at it. Athiesm has become the God of Science. How's that for a rant sir? There is no real empirical scientific evidence that life evolved millions of years ago from nothing. That can only be a lie to call this assumption Science. It would be better to call it faith. That- is-what-I'm-saying.
Trevor,
You seem to equate any notion of natural selection with a Darwinian theory of origins.
This is incorrect. There is ample evidence that life is designed to adapt to changing circumstances. Living creatures that adapt more successfully tend to produce more surviving offspring. Once could cite many current examples. One example from Oregon is the Spotted Owl which is going away because its primary prey (flying squirrels) is in decline and it does not readily hunt for alternative prey. Its territory is being taken-over by Barred Owls that will eat a wider variety of prey.
Specialization and adaptation are a demonstrable feature of many life forms. Consider antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Consider also the many varieties of finches in the Galapagos Islands. When Darwin studied them their specialization was a competitive advantage. Now some of these Galapagos finches are threatened due to local environmental changes.
There is good evidence that new species of beetles are evolving in some rain forests faster than they are being identified and catalogued. You might not like this but that does not change the evidence.
However it does not necessarily follow that natural selection is the primary or even a contributing factor in development of new life forms (the owls are still owls, the finches are still finches, the beetles are still beetles). That is a different question with a lot of additional issues to be considered.
You can choose to describe the world around you however you wish. But when you choose to deny or denigrate what is readily and commonly observed you diminish your credibility.
Does anyone who believes that there are “records of civilized human life dating back 12,000 years or more” have a (different) meaning or understanding of the word ‘prehistoric’?
The dates for the various Paleolithic and Mesolithic timelines are based on speculation or conjectures from a cross section of ‘disciplines.’ The methods used for dating in these various disciplines have been subject to change.
Consensus takes on a life of its own and can be self-sustaining and self-fulfilling.
Does anyone doubt that the logical conclusion of prehistoric consensus (I can’t get past the literal meaning of the pre-historical concept) has to be that man created God?
"The dates for the various Plaeolihtic and Mesolithic timelines are based on speculation or conjectures . . ." is not correct. They are based primarily on literally hundreds of radiocarbon dates. Does Mr. Foster think that radiocarbon dating is based on "speculation or conjectures?"
Sorry for the typo–Paleolithic.
That modern humans (that is, Homo sapiens sapiens) existed in many places more than 50,000 years ago is an undeniable fact–and yet, there are those who continue to deny that fact. I understand that does not fit with the world view that they cling to. But really, the evidence is compelling. There is not even any need to argue about what the term consensus means to various people. Go and examine the actual, tangible evidence for yourself. Am I wrong, Erv?
From 'the evidence is compelling' to 'undeniable fact' — that is what macro-evolution is mainly about. Some 'sciences' I have to concede cannot stand without speculation.
OK. Let's go with "the [scientific] evidence is compelling" that "modern humans existed in many places more than 50,000 years ago." Can we all agree that the "scientific evidence is compelling." If so, we have a real breakthrough–Adventist wise.
Compelling to someone with admitted Persuasion Bias is not compelling to all — Adventist wise or otherwise.
Philip, what do you suggest? Ignoring the tangible fossils completely? Attempting to explain them away? Are you claiming to be free of "confirmation bias?" Much about scientific method is designed (by humans) to counter various kinds of bias, including "confirmation bias."
So, we could go down a very long list of hominin fossils that indicate that anatomically modern humans have existed for around 200,000 years–with the earliest specimens from East Africa, and other specimens from South Africa, Israel, other parts of Asia, Australia, and even in western Europe about 40,000 years. There is plenty of tangible physical evidence. Time estimates are based on the fossils themselves and detailed studies of many of the sites where they were found. It is not hard to find cases where a fossil's age was initially estimated at about 36,000 years before the present, but subsequent analyses led to estimates that the age was more likely between 45,000 and 40,000 YBP. One could, of course, by using a confirmation bias, accept only dating methods that yield results that fall within one's preferred age range (say, less than 10,000 YBP). Is that what you recommend, Philip?
You must be a mind reader Philip:-) (Thanks for conceding the all but self-evident.)
My question about the logical conclusion of the prehistoric consensus is a serious one. I would be interested in an answer.
Another question to Joe is this, are “undeniable facts” held “gently” or held firmly? “Compelling” information is compelling if you ‘buy’ the underlying/undergirding assumptions, as with the Bible.
As for Erv (or Dr. Taylor), I will gladly offer him a fair deal. I will happily engage him and his question(s) if he will agree to reciprocate. It has been my experience that Erv (Dr. Taylor) doesn’t generally ‘give and take.’
This is the same deal I’ve offered Jehovah’s Witnesses who’ve knocked on my door. I know they can’t/won’t accept any literature; but they want you to take theirs. So I always say that I’ll take theirs on condition that they take mine.
If Mr. Law and Mr. Foster would be so kind as to ask a specific question about a specific dating method (preferably radiocarbon dating which I know in most detail) and provide some specific reference in the literature which provides the basis of their specific and detailed question, I would be happy to respond. I have been doing this for university students for 30 years.
Erv,
I am posting this again since I did not get any response from you before.
The Neanderthal Lives on in Many Humans
By JOHN BERMAN (@johnsberman) and MICHAEL MURRAY
May 7, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/neanderthals-humans-share-dna-study-reveals/story?id=10587532#.UU0JIFfz59s
1999 ABC News Internet Ventures
http://media.isnet.org/iptek/Evolution/Neanderthals.html
“Radiocarbon dating on pill-size samples from two skulls put their age at 28,000 years old. The Neanderthal specimens had earlier been dated at 45,000 years using a less accurate method.”
Tuesday, 27 April 1999
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/04/27/23000.htm
Portuguese and American scientists claim they have found definite proof that Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) were in fact not separate species.
Neanderthals and Early Humans May Not Have Mingled Much
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: May 9, 2011
“But researchers report that tests using an improved method of radiocarbon dating, based on a new way to exclude contaminants, show that most, and maybe all, Neanderthal bones in Europe are or will be found to be at least 39,000 years old.”
Radioactive dating is not rocket science. The physics, chemistry, and math involved are covered in high school. Failure analysis is a good way of learning and gain insight into a subject. Ervin would do all a favor by explaining the large discrepancy in his area of expertise.
The best methods available for establishing the ages of various fossils and the matrices in which they are found are expected to yield a range of results. Using improved methods should yield more precise results that require revision of the best guess of the approximate age. It is a really good idea to test and retest specimens using a variety of techniques to evaluate the reliability of the methods and to obtain best estimates.
Now, it appears that some interbreeding of anatomically modern humans and neanderthals (and Denisovans) occurred. To some people, this means that these were not distinct species–but they are usually not claimed to be more than "subspecific" differences anyway. Homo heidelbergensis is often suggested as the common ancestor of modern humans and neanderthals and Densovans.
I recognize that it is difficult for those of us who learned early in life that there was a single very precise and correct truth to let go of that concept and appreciate that many things are not so precisely known, or, perhaps, even that precisely knowable–at least from available evidence. I also would be glad to read what Ervin has to say about scientific precision and flexibility.
Joe,
The posted information are not about progressive refinement of estimates. It fliped and it floped. The dating involved is most likely carbon dating which has a effective range of about ten times its half life. Erv is an expert on this and I hope he would answer this time.
Stephen, the facts are the actual and tangible existence of fossils and DNA. You can see and touch the fossils, so the actual, real existence of the fossils is factual–rock-solid actual fact. That is about as firm as one can get. The dates and measures can be done using fairly reliable techniques, so one can have substantial confidence in those data. Even so, I would hold those facts somewhat more gently than the actual existence of fossils themselves. There is some variance in the measures. Still, something of an estimated age of 130,000 to 120,000 years before the present is very unlikely indeed to be less than 12,000 years old.
Perhaps you do not trust measures of DNA, even if independent laboratories using DNA from different representatives of the same species yield highly reliable results.
Then we come to what the fossil evidence and the DNA evidence seem to mean. I suggest that interpretation of evidence and guesses about what evidence means should, indeed, be held quite gently.
I don't quite know where one can begin if the existence of real tangible objects is denied. Then, if claims are made that the best methods of dating artifacts are totally bogus, where does that leave us? Can these be off by more than an order of magnitude or much more? Can something that dates at between 190,000 years before present and 170,000 years before present actually be only 6,000 years before present? That is the sort of thing SDAs have been claiming for a long time.
Without attempting to ridicule Dr. Taylor, how about recognizing that these questions led him to become an expert in techniques of dating specimens? He understands better than anyone here the strengths and weaknesses of various methods of estimating the ages of artifacts. And one need not accept any crazy assumptions at all to look at the range of estimated ages of fossils of anatomically modern humans from East Africa, South Africa, Asia, Israel, Australia, and Europe–all of which turn out to be tens of thousands of years old.
We can continue to tell our young people they should accept that all this as a conspiracy of secular science, or we can try to assure them that the Awesome and Almighty God is big enough to accommodate any physical facts that exist in the universe. If you can't do the latter, my friends, God help you.
Two opposing philosophical opinions, one held primarily by creationists, the other primarily by the evolutionary-minded, is that the opposing position (in both cases) leads to ethical breakdowns and ultimately to terrible incidents of genocidal conflict. I have sensed here, on this Web site, an overarching theme by strong creationists that anything akin to Darwinism and natural selection erodes the values of our culture and can only lead to developments akin to those of the Reign of Terror in France, 250 or so years ago, or more recent Soviet Gulags and Chinese cultural purges.
On the other side there is the allegation that the primary cause of war on earth is the presence of religiously based genocidal bias against other faiths, nationalities, and ethnic groups. Do we actually possess verification of one or both of these assumptions? It appears to me, in general, that some religions seem at various times to wax hot and cold in terms of going to war against others; atheistic nations, likewise may (but do not always) lash out at their neighbors with killing zeal.
Is there any real data that can help us understand to what extent being religious, or being non-religious, can help cause or contain outbreaks of war? From my perspective the availability or absence of scarce food or water seems to have more to do with outbreaks of war than the faith or agnosticism of the parties….
Edwin,
I think the integrity of science or intellectual honesty is a greater concern. Speculation based on 'compelling evidence' of the confirmation biased being preached as 'undeniable facts' of science is a traversity that some find intolerable.
Giving a gift on Christmas to a kid is a concrete example for him that Santa exits. It is tangible but the reference to Santa is telling a story of a tangible item. The validity of the story is in question not the Christmas gift.
I acknowledge that this is Erv’s field of study and expertise—not mine. That being the case, Dr. Taylor, you are perhaps the ideal person to edit or correct the Wikipedia disclaimer (for lack of a better noun) under the ‘Timeline’ section of the ‘Prehistory’ entry, wherein the Lower, Middle, and Upper Paleolithic, the Mesolithic, and the Neolithic, and Chalcolithic periods are identified; where it says “All dates are approximate and conjectural, obtained through research in the fields of anthropology, archeology, genetics, geology, or linguistics. They are all subject to revision due to new discoveries or improved calculations.”
Of course I know nothing about what your parents told you, Philip, about Santa Claus or what you told you children, but I do not remember ever being told (or thinking) that Santa Claus was anything other than imaginary, or that gifts came from him. We exchanged gifts at Christmastime, and there was some sort of implication that this was in rememberance of the Magi who came from afar to worship the Christ child. As a child I was concerned about whether stories were true or false or were just "true to life," or were just imaginary. So your Santa story does not have much meaning to me. I do not see how it relates to actual fossil evidence or estimates of their age or guesses about other details, and I'm a little curious as to why you would think such an example has any relevance at all.
Stephen, of course all dates are estimates and are subject to revision due to new discoveries, improved methods, or more precise measures or calculations. That is how science works. Keep reading. There is always something more to learn.
Joe, you just might want to go back and read what it was I wrote with which (you and?) Erv disagreed:
“The dates for the various Paleolithic and Mesolithic timelines are based on speculation or conjectures from a cross section of ‘disciplines.’ The methods used for dating in these various disciplines have been subject to change.”
If indeed “that is how science works,” do you disagree with Wikipedia or me? (Or should I just say “heaven help us;” since this is how science works?)
Stephen, I have no interest or reason to argue on-and-on with you. When obtaining information from the internet it is a good practice to consult a variety of sources and hold all the information you find gently, very gently. The notion of "confirmation bias" applies to all of us, and is something we all must be quite careful about. Philip seems to think confirmation bias is only a problem for those who disagree with him (and make a "traversity" of science). Bob could read a lot about tectonic plates and subduction zones, but he is inclined to reject all that. Wikipedia, as you know, is made up of entries submitted by people with varying amounts of expertise and varying motives. What the entries say can appropriately be regarded with some suspicion and should seldom be accepted without some independent verification.
The entry you have provided has a few problems. The use of the words "speculation" and "conjecture" seem a little bit loaded, but, to the extent that they mean "approximations" or "educated guesses," I'm not terribly offended by their use. Methods of dating artifacts have been improved and refined and better validated, so, of course, that means that some estimates have changed–one would think, mainly for the better. Yes, what I consider ideal is for whatever the evidence is to be evaluated by the best methods of a variety of scientific fields (or disciplines, although I see no reason to put "disciplines" in quotations as if one means "so-called disciplines"). But I do agree that the dates in the timelines are estimates based on a range of measures and methods from many fields. When evidence or methods indicate that the time estimates should change, we should be open to changing the estimates. And yes, I do think that is how science works as a method of obtaining and evaluating evidence–whether one is dealing with experimental evidence or physical artifacts like rocks or fossils. I'm wondering how you think science works, if you think it does not, or should not, work as it does. Anyone out there who works as a scientist should feel free to enter this discussion.
Joe,
I respect you and generally admire the way that you deal with fellow participants. We’re not arguing back and forth. You have a point of view that you are encouraging readers here to consider. Needless to say, we have different perspectives.
We have the same agenda in that we’re both trying to influence and/or persuade. We just believe different things; that’s all.
As I said, I would think that Erv is perhaps an ideal person to edit or correct the statement on Wikipedia that the dates are not only “approximate but “conjectural;” and are “subject to revision due to new discoveries or improved calculations.”
Actually Joe, the entry I provided did not use the word ‘speculation,’ I did. But I think what Philip Law may have been saying had to do with whether one ‘buys’ the Santa Claus story (the reliability and accuracy of dating methods) as determing whether one would then accepts that the gifts (artifacts, rocks, fossils, or whatever) actually did come from Santa Claus.
Now Joe, I’m aware that you are thoroughly convinced about the dates and all that because you’ve termed these “undeniable facts.” That’s why I’ve asked you how gently (or not) you hold these “undeniable facts.”
So that may be your confirmation bias. Mine may be that I don’t believe it is possible to know what happened here millions or billions of years ago. I am quite probably the mirror image of an atheist on stuff like that.
To me the fact that these dates, and science generally, are “subject to revision due to new discoveries or improved calculations” confirms that science hasn’t caught up to what actually happened or when it happened.” But then I admit to confirmation bias.
I don’t have an issue with science. Science can work any way at all. I have a challenge with man thinking that he can know what isn’t knowable, especially when such ‘knowledge’ contradicts divine revelation. I also admit to having some difficulties with man thinking that he invented God; but recognize that this is the inevitable consequence of forgetting who The Creator Is.
Thanks, Stephen, for your thoughtful comment. Let me clarify that what I believe to be "undeniable fact" is the actual, literal, tangible existence of fossils–not the estimates of their age. The fossils exist in reality whether we like it or not, and regardless of what sorts of estimated ages are assigned to them.
There is no need for anyone to expect scientific methods to do something they cannot do. More precise age estimates might become possible in the future, but what we can have now as our "best guess" estimates are whatever is yielded by available testing techniques. So it is possible to make age estimates as "not more than" some value and "not less than" some value–in other words, within a certain range and at some estimated probability and with some fairly specific level of confidence. These estimates are not what I am calling "facts." They are guesses based on reliable methods, with some of the methods more reliable than others and some guesses better than others. So, I'm suggesting that the best methods be used and the results need to be considered on their merits. Such results should not be rejected just because they do not confirm our biases.
It really has nothing at all to do with whether God is the creator or the created. What I keep saying is that God should not be subordinated to our ideas about what He did or when or how he did it. Surely the Almighty and Awesome God is big enough to encompass any reality that nature reveals. We should not be forced to choose between a Majestic and Omnipotent God and a limited God that can only have done things the way we claim He did (or no God at all).
At one time I believe serious theologians suggested that the fossils were not fossils at all, but creations of the devil to sow doubt in the minds of the faithful. Was this point of view ever held by Adventist Church leaders?
This was about the same time, it seems, when some Adventist preachers predicted that God would not allow man to carry sin to the lunar surface. Do others remember those days, or am I dreaming of dialogue that never actually took place?
So if Ellen was off by a factor of 2 on the time from Abraham to Christ, and Carbon dating of the same fossils has yielded different results varying by approximately a factor of 2, then maybe on both sides people should be a bit more humble about their claims?
When I studied the physical sciences we were taught to quantify the range of error in our measurements and estimates – a very good practice. It seems that toady in the rush for attention and research grants too many people have lost sight of best practices.
Jim, I think rigorous best practices are still in place for scientific studies and research grants. The rush for attention, however, has fueled some exageration of speculation in magazines like Science News and New Scientist. Just remember, these are not science journals. They rather often get things very wrong. Now standard deviations and standard error of the mean, and such calculations, pretty much require multiple measures. One of the problems faced in description and evaluation of individual fossils is that one is dealing with an N=1 (a specific artifact from a specific location). But, yes, I think we can all use a healthy dose of humility. But, you know, every scientific article in paleobiology just is not intended to be a direct challenge to YEC folks. Some real results are provided and some effort is made to make sense of the results within the context of other ideas and existing scientific literature.
Edwin, yes, exactly. I do remember such assertions in the early 1960s at PUC. You are not dreaming.
BTW, has anyone seen the recent paper in Science reporting finding the remains of a girl in Yucatan dated at 13,000 to 12,000 years before present? What do you make of that?
“These estimates are not what I am calling "facts." They are guesses based on reliable methods, with some of the methods more reliable than others and some guesses better than others. So, I'm suggesting that the best methods be used and the results need to be considered on their merits.”
Actually you’re suggesting that we adopt your confirmation biases as ours as well. There are a minority of scientists who do not agree with the majority opinion. They would not agree with you as to what the best guesses are because they do not agree with your (majority) assessment as to best methods and practices. This is the point that you miss; that everyone has a confirmation bias, Joe.
“Such results should not be rejected just because they do not confirm our biases.”
Such results should never have been accepted just because they conformed to confirmation bias.
“It really has nothing at all to do with whether God is the creator or the created.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Your doubts represent an inexorable, inevitable conclusion. (Perhaps even ‘better’ examples are Chris’s doubts.) Reasons for your/his doubts will make perfect sense to Jack; whereas reasons for Jack’s faith will make little sense to you/Chris.
“What I keep saying is that God should not be subordinated to our ideas about what He did or when or how he did it.”
But that is precisely what you or certainly Jack is trying to do, Joe—subordinate/limit God to man’s ideas about what He did or when He did it rather than subordinating your ideas about what He did or when He did it to what He said He did and how.
“Surely the Almighty and Awesome God is big enough to encompass any reality that nature reveals.”
Here is that confirmation bias thing again Joe. You have a confirmation bias as to what you believe nature reveals (especially as regards humans made in God’s image).
I understand that you find "confirmation bias" to be an important concept that appeals to you as a means of challenging what others say. I agree with you that it is important and is sometimes applicable. It is of concern often enough that we all need to watch out that we are not selecting only the information to accept that aligns with what we already believe. We need to watch out for confirmation bias in ourselves, as well as others.
So, imagine ten specimens in Smithsonian collections that need to be placed in temporal context. The best available means of estimating the age of each specimen is applied to come up with an age estimate. The resulting values are the following: 1200, 3200, 5600, 9400, 12000, 22000, 38000, 63000, 120000, and 240000.
Suppose I think, for whatever reason, that none of the specimens could possibly be more than 10000 years old. I would reject the dates assigned to six of the specimens.
Suppose I think, for whatever reason, that none of the specimens could be younger than 10000 years old. I would reject the dates assigned to four of the specimens.
Both of those results would be reasonable examples of confirmation bias.
Now, suppose I just accept that the methods are the best currently available for estimating the ages of the specimens, and I tentatively accept those estimates as approximately valid, but subject to revision when additional information becomes available. I hold these dates in mind very gently, knowing full well that they are estimates and approximations, and that there is a possibility (however remote) that they might be completely wrong, that the methods could be totally bogus, or that the specimens might all be fakes.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the later case reflects confirmation bias because I do not accept the premise that none of the objects could possibly be older than 10000 years. Am I misunderstanding you?
I thank Mr. Foster for providing us with the quotation from the Wikipedia entry on “Prehistory.” I must admit that I had never read it. The statement is: “All dates are approximate and conjectural, obtained through research in the fields of anthropology, archeology, genetics, geology, or linguistics. They are all subject to revision due to new discoveries or improved calculations.”
As I assume everyone knows, Wikipedia is an open entry information source in that anyone can post texts and revise texts. It’s an interesting experiment in “intellectual democracy.” In many cases, this results in less than totally accurate wording in postings. Thus the factual status of every topic is variable, but I understand that there are editors who attempt to correct the most serious errors if others do not do it.
The article reads like an encyclopedia entry which, of course, it is–only online. It is written for a general reader, something that would be appropriate for someone as young as a junior or senior in high school to read. The references are to standard works by well-known people. (By the way, in this article, the opening definition of “prehistory” is interesting. It says that it means “before history” or “before knowledge acquired by investigation.” The second definition might sound a little odd and taken literally is in error, but apparently who ever wrote it knows the meaning of the Greek word that is the source of the term “history.” The 5th Century Greek historian, Herodotus, used a Greek word meaning “investigation” in the opening sentence of his work on the Greek-Persian Wars. The typical translation is “These are the investigations (historia) of Herodotus of Halicarnassus.” Thus prehistory would be literally “before investigations.” Wrong, but understandable.
The sentence at issue is the one which starts with “All dates are approximate . . .”. The “all” word might be considered a little too strong until you actually read the entry and see what that sentence is talking about. It is the time line in the article. That time line lists only approximate ages ranging from “c. [i.e., “about”] 2.5 million BP” (before present) to “c. 3,000 years BCE.”(before the common era, i.e., BC)
Perhaps Mr. Foster might not have been confused if the sentence would have read: “All of the dates listed in the time line of this article are approximate . . .” Of course, one might ask how precise must a date be to not be called “approximate.” With the exception of tree-ring dating, which under ideal conditions can provide dates on a year by year basis, all other scientific dating methods (radiocarbon, argon-argon, etc.) all express their age values in a format which includes a numerical term that expresses the precision, (i.e., expressed usually as plus or minor so many years) of the measurements on which the age values are based.
I assume that another word that Mr. Foster noticed was “conjectural.” There are certainly prehistoric periods where archaeologists and others must make assumptions about the relationship between, for example, certain artifact types and geological contexts. This is especially true for the period before c. 100,000 years BP. If one wishes to use the term “conjectural” for this, fine. As we come closer to the present and especially in the radiocarbon dating range, which is after about 50,000 years BP, these “conjectural” situations typically diminish in their magnitude.
I hope these extended comments are helpful to Mr. Foster and any interested reader.
The word “approximate” was not an attention-getter. As Sarah Palin would say, “you bet’cha,” it was the word “conjectural” that got my attention; there’s no doubt about that. That was an excellent assumption Dr. Taylor.
No offense intended at all, but in stating (as regards “conjectural”) that “this is especially true for the period before c. 100,000 years BP,” you demonstrate a stranglehold on the obvious. On the other hand, it is indeed helpful to read from you that before about 50,000 years BP is apparently out of the radiocarbon range.
“…all other scientific dating methods (radiocarbon, argon-argon, etc.) all express their age values in a format which includes a numerical term that expresses the precision, (i.e., expressed usually as plus or minor so many years) of the measurements on which the age values are based.”
“…these “conjectural” situations typically diminish in their magnitude.”
Scientific dating must be similar to politics (hence ‘political science’?)! That last one takes the cake, Doc. Seriously though, should we conclude then that, for all practical purposes, tens, and hundreds of millions of years BP is speculative conjecture? It sure would seem that way.
Then again, I admit to confirmation bias.
(I would venture to add that we all have a fairly good idea by now as to what Wikipedia is Erv. That’s why I said that you were perhaps an ideal person to correct or edit the entry relative to the disclaimer. It was precisely because that was possible. But why bother? It is apparently correct…that is to say, the disclaimer is anyway.)
"As I assume everyone knows, Wikipedia is an open entry information source in that anyone can post texts and revise texts. It’s an interesting experiment in “intellectual democracy.” In many cases, this results in less than totally accurate wording in postings. Thus the factual status of every topic is variable, but I understand that there are editors who attempt to correct the most serious errors if others do not do it. "
Ervin,
When I was young the estimated reliability of Carbon isotope dating extended back 20,000 to 30,000 years, and nobody knew with much certainty. I am quite willing to believe that with better measurement techniques we can reach back another half-life. But would you agree that the error band on that farthest half-life is likely to be much larger than for more recent events?
For my part I am not surprised that different measurements reaching back to that farthest half-life might indeed range from 28,000 to 39,00 to 45,000 years. Given the logarithmic scale of the calculation that is not a huge difference in the underlying mesured isotope ratios.
The point made by Dr. Taylor about the reliable range for some methods of dating is a good concept to keep in mind. I think it can be fairly stated that every method of assigning age has some strengths and some weaknesses. The concept that the further back one goes, the greater the margin of error is likely to be is also a good point.
Being 200,000 years off on an estimate of approximately one million years, provides a range from 800,000 to 1,200,000. Being 4 million years off in either direction of 20 million years is a range from 16 million to 24 million. Yet, both those ranges are very, very far from being within the last ten thousand years, or even the last 50,000 years.
One must go into all sorts of mental contortions and bizarre rationalizations to absolutely dismiss the tangible fossil evidence (and the age estimates of these specimens) that humans and human-like beings existed hundreds of thousands of years ago. One need not reject belief in the creative role of God to recognize the reality of hominin fossils and entertain the possibility that the ranges of age estimates are roughly accurate.
The "speculative conjecture" regarding dating has to do with such things as whether 6 million or 5 million or 7 million years is a more accurate date–not whether something is 6000, 60000, 600000, or 6 million years old. Well-informed experts can disagree about whether a particular specimen should be classified as early Homo sapiens or late Homo heidelbergensis, or something else. Maybe you have unrealistic expectations of what science is and what science and scientists can do….
When radio active dating cannot even get the relatively short Neanderthal times straight how much credence do you expect anyone to have on even longer datings? Confirmation bias and faith are important elements to keep those undeniable facts propagating.
So, brother Philip, what do you propose? If radiocarbon dating using somewhat different methods and somewhat different specimens yields estimates ranging from 46,000 down to 28,000 years ago, and other specimens from other locations have estimated ages that range back more than 200,000 years, is your solution to simply ignore all this? I guess you can just make up the answers to fit whatever you want to believe, or something, but what does this accomplish? If you would apply as rigorous a standard to the manuscript fragments that became what we now call scripture, I wonder if you would accept them as the literal revelation of God. My guess is that you would simply do whatever you pleased–as you seem to propose doing regarding actual, tangible, really physical, fossils. But, there is a sense in which I am quite comfortable for you to believe whatever you can. Warm wishes to you, my brother and friend.
Joe,
It is not prudent to second guess others attitude or motive. I was faced with an opposite 'problem' of a biologist measuring so many specimens of a particular species of fish for length estimation which confidence limit went below the measuring precison limit of half a mm. I asked him to relax on the sample sizes and save time for other endeavours.
The large confident limit is only one issue in long time dating. The assumptions underlying many radio active age datings are not without controversy. Even the relatively short carbon dating has to assume constant solar radiation rate and atmospheric conditions or other factors. Collaborating evidences are abundant especially with the help of confirmation bias. Faith based evidences are not conducive to scientific advancement. It is prudent to be discrete in science. No matter how small the alpha level is of a test statistics one would only say there is insufficent evidence to support the null hypothesis upon its rejection. It is not an undeniable fact of a wrong hypothesis. One would be wise not to assume the position of an evangelist or priest in the matters of science.
Philip,
I think you meant "corroborating" where you wrote "collaborating"?
I would agree with you regarding the background assumptions over long periods of time. The assumptions regarding background conditions become more suspect the farther from the present you wander. And the corroboration for those background assumptions is very much a matter of circular reasoning.
None of this however obviates the measured relative ages for samples where the background conditions do indeed appear to be the same. The man who has two clocks may never know what time it is, but he still has a better estimate than the man with no clock.
Jim,
Evidences are inanimate objects so corroborating is a more appropriate word than collaborating. Thank you for the correction. My concern is indeed about circular reasoning. In one of the sermon our pastor told a story about a canon was fired at noon according to a clock in the city square and the person in charge calibrated the clock by the sound of the canon. If two clocks were made with the same defective mechanism their similarity in time is a classical case of confirmation bias. Two may be worst than one.
I meant two may be worst than none.
Clock synchronization is a major problem that one encounters working in communications technology. There is no such thing as absolute clock precision or absolute time.
Nevertheless some clocks are far better than others, and even a bad clock (eg knots on a burning wick) can give you a useful relative estimate of time. Likewise even the bad forms of radio-isotope dating can give you a relative estimate of time as long as you have some way to measure how fast the "wick" can be expected to burn. But to turn that into absolute time you need a lot more assumptions like how long was the wick when it started burning, has someone or something changed the fuel supply or the oxygen supply to modify the rate of burning, etc? And for an extinguished wick, when and how was it extinguished?
Stephen, my brother, I apologize for pressing excessively on this issue. I love you just as you are. There is no need for you to change anything about what you think or believe. Take care.
Joe
Joe,
Your confirmation bias is that the dating methods are somewhat reliable at least; because you believe/want them to be reliable.
You probably believe or want them to be reliable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that there is so much scholarship from so many others upon which you and others have based your scholarship, which also depends on these dating methods to be reliable. In other words, there is a veritable mountain of confirmation bias upon confirmation bias.
My confirmation bias is that the dating methods are not reliable at all, because I don’t believe/want them to be reliable.
I believe or want them to be unreliable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that there is so much scriptural investment from so many others upon which their and my religious belief is based that depends on these methods and dates to be unreliable. In other words, there is a veritable mountain of confirmation bias upon confirmation bias.
But I can admit my confirmation bias whereas you cannot admit your confirmation bias.
(The only caveat is that I don’t know and do not believe it is knowable how long the earth existed “without form and void” before Creation. But perhaps that is a confirmation bias as well.)
To the extent that peer pressure is real, your confirmation bias is quite compelling. How can so many Ph.D.’s be wrong? That is the question that compels bias.
As I say, I respect you Joe. But your ‘case’ isn’t compelling to me. (I’m sure you and others are thankful that most people are not like me.) Clearly and sadly, it is compelling to many Christians like Dr. Hoehn among others. That is one reason why I’m here. It is one reason you are here. We both have the same type agenda.
I simply maintain that your path is the inevitable path on which they travel. I will ask again, does anyone doubt that the logical conclusion of prehistoric consensus has to be that man created God?
Stephen, it seems to me that my initial confirmation bias was similar to yours. At the same time, I did not wish to deceive myself, or be deceived by others, into believing something false.
Joe,
You missed my point, but that is my fault; because I am lazy.
You did not invent or have anything to do with generally accepted dating methods. Those methods are only demonstrably reliable in your view because you have been taught by others that they are demonstrably reliable.
Because something is demonstrably repeatable does not make it reliable for any given/particular purpose. If these methods were reliable for dating they would not be subject to improvement. If they were reliable they would not be subject to error. (For example the tree rings for years are, well, reliable.) If they were reliable…they would be reliable.
(For you/anyone to believe they’re reliable for prehistoric dating, certain assumptions must be believed.)
For rubes like me, Wikipedia is useful. You’ve undoubtedly read or heard of this, and someone has undoubtedly explained it away:
“The usual presentation of a radiocarbon date, as a specific date plus or minus an error term, obscures the fact that the true age of the object being measured may lie outside the range of dates quoted. In 1970, the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory ran weekly measurements on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of over 4,500 years.”
Oh yeah, now I'm convinced.
Some people believe Jesus and Christianity represent a grand deception built on confirmation biases. That’s what I believe about prehistoric dating.
You believe these are the best methods available—even if/though they aren’t good. You believe they're good because you want to. That is a confirmation bias, my friend.
(You may not be subject to much peer pressure now, but clearly you were shall we say, influenced by this stuff at some point in your academic life.)
I will ask again, does anyone doubt that the logical conclusion of prehistoric consensus has to be that man created God?
So, Stephen, reliability is not an all-or-none concept. A coefficient of reliability ranges from
0 (not reliable at all) to 1.00 (perfectly reliable–that is, all measures provide the same answer).
For most purposes, scientists expect at least a .80 reliability coefficient, or even a .90. In
terms of variability accounted for, .80 only accounts for 64% of the variability and .90 only
accounts for 81% of the variability (according the formulas used for these things). A reliability
coefficient of less than .50 is usually considered to low to be helpful, although under some
circumstances such a value can be statistically significant. It is not unusual for correlation
coefficients of less than .20 to be found statistically significant and be reported in the epidemiological
literature. So, anyway, a measurement method can be good (and useful), without being great or
perfect. Maybe Erv should advise on this, but I suggest that methods of estimating ages of
artifacts can be considered, at least "good."
No, I do not think at all that the logical conclusion of what you are calling the "prehistoric
consensus" has to be that man created God. The problem is, though, denial of prehistoric
evidence/reality really forces sensible people to reject YEC as a possibility.
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENT : a measure of the accuracy of a test or measuring instrument obtained by measuring the same individuals twice and computing the correlation of the two sets of measures. [It does not guarantee the correctness of the measuring process.]
Coefficient of determination, a measure of the proportion of variability in a data set that is accounted for by a statistical model; often called R2; equal in a single-variable linear regression to the square of Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient.
If one measures an object a certain way a thousand times and obtained very precise measurements it may indicate the ruler was rigid and did not change much during the measurement process. It does not necessarily indicate that the measurement process is correct. Also beware that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Coefficient of correlation is a measure of linear relation. Two variables with a perfect parabolic relation have zero correlation. Statistical significance test of a correlation coefficient generally is the test of the null hypothesis of zero correlation hence no matter how small the correlation coefficient is, given a large enough sample it could be highly significant statistically.
(If I recall correctly Brother Law is a statistician, so I’ll defer to him.) You cannot admit your confirmation bias Joe; but don’t kid yourself into thinking that you—unlike everyone else—don’t have one.
I’m probably too late with that advice. I see you couldn’t help but say that “denial of prehistoric evidence/reality forces sensible people to reject YEC as a possibility.”
There’s no confirmation bias there of course. Who would like to be considered “sensible”?
I think you’ve just made my case.
Dear Brother Stephen. We do all have our biases. I wrote that quite awhile back. A major point of scientific methods and statistical analyses is to be able to minimize bias. Well, I taught research design and statistical analysis in a university and designed and conducted scientific studies for many years.
My initial bias was essentially the same as the one you admit to now. I claim to be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and I think I do that pretty carefully and well, while you have staked out a position from which you reject anything that does not confirm your biased position. Not that there is anything wrong with that, if that is who you are and who you want to be.
I think we should probably talk about something else now. Wishing you well, my friend.
Joe,
Stating that we all have biases is different than owning up to yours. I readily admit mine; whereas you cannot.
Think about why you can’t do so. (I’ll beat a dead horse all day. It’s already dead, so what’s the harm? That’s a joke for all animal lovers.)
Beating a dead horse is an exercise in futility, but it is preferable, in my opinion, to beating a live horse.
My bias is to not automatically reject anything that does not fit with what I already believe. I have a bias
toward changing my mind when I see evidence that requires me to revise what I thought was true.
When I left adventism, my bias was to not merely substitute one collection of dogmatic beliefs for
another. Instead, I chose to attempt to be open to evidence and to revising my views as evidence
warranted. I have found this to be quite satisfying.
I am biased toward accepting tangible physical material objects as real. I am willing to consider speculation about what they are and what they mean, but I am inclined to weigh objective and reasonably reliable measures above mere opinions.
I am biased against seeing people's reports of special revelation or of hearing voices as authentic spiritual experiences. I tend to regard such things as more likely to be mental health issues or consequences of indoctrination.
Oh yes. I do have lots of biases that I am aware of and admit to.
So now, your biases are virtues; but my biases are things that you’ve overcome. Like I said, you’ve made my case.
You are starting to sound like the interviewee who when requested to, “Tell us about your weaknesses,” responds, “Well, I tend to work too hard, and perhaps tend to be a somewhat of a perfectionist.”
Joe my friend, you are quite funny. But don’t worry, I take you seriously.
Hmmm. a few words from another view. i am an observer of the human creature, and history. What motivates a professional once qualified in their profession, 1. money. 2. more money. 3. competition/prestige. 4. love of profession. Over the years i've had as close friends, 4 Med. Drs. and two Lawyers, and several Ph.d's & Academics. The competition in each of these disciplines is vicious, mean, and expected by those involved. In medicine the "Cutter" rules the roost, and takes home most of the moola, the GP is lowest on the totem pole, and is treated as such, by the specialists. Medical specialists are held in strict control by the AMA, who are controlled by the Pharma industry.The Law profession is the dirtiest business in the world (morally). By the general publics admission, the saying is "have you ever known an honest lawyer". They are involved in the highest calling, the Supreme Court, Politics, Corporate, Business, and Civil Law, and the lowly Criminal law.some specializing in Divorce, Ambulance chasing, etc etc. The USA has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined, as well as Paralegals and other hangers on who couldn't pass the Bar. Having sat behind our company lawyer a few times observing the nasty give and take at trial, and then sitting at lunch, at the hotel reserved tables, as these same combatants sat next to each other communicating as best friends. i think it was Hitler who said when he overcame America, he would line up every lawyer for execution, and then let every forth one go free. The Science people have carved out a certain meal ticket, for life, because their interests are ever open ended, always seeking the unknown, particularly the geologists, anthropologists, astrophysics, general science, etc. It seems every one of their findings or discoveries is always subject to revision. Wow, glad my area was engineering and management. Hmmm. ::))
Unlike some here, i lean toward a much longer time on Earth for homo sapiens, maybe up to 100 thousand or more Earth years. The mankind fossils are easily destructible, so we don't expect to find
specimens much beyond four thousand years.
You know, the unknown is just that, unknown, and man can speculate yea or nay YEC, and if God is a real being, he won't hold it against us for not knowing the unknown. i believe that Deists and Atheists would be wise to live and let live with their individual and different faiths. We here at Atoday, will never know for a certainty, whether God made man , or man made God, while personally i am, without a doubt, with my my dying breath, a believer in my Lord Jesus Christ.
Thank you for your wisdom, alphameg. "…he won't hold it against us for not knowing the unknown." That makes sense to me. Also, I certainly urge anyone who can believe in Jesus and Almighty God to do so. I'm not campaigning against Him.
Stephen, yes, as you point out, it is sort of comical when people list their strengths as weaknesses. I repent of that. I certainly have plenty of weaknesses. Laziness, for sure. Pride, more than enough. I might be sort of greedy, but if I were any good at it, I'd probably have more material wealth. Obstinate, certainly. Oppositional, for sure, and somewhat defiant, on occasion. Argumentative, yes. I tend to over-react. Although I'm pretty honest, I don't always reveal everything I think I know–but then again, I sometimes see things as more certain than they might be. I don't like to admit I'm wrong if I don't think I am (but maybe that is true of both of us and may not be a fault as much as just being honest). Yes, Stephen, I have plenty of faults. It would be pretty depressing to dwell excessively on those.
I hereby declare Stephen the winner and champion of this line of discussion. I'm too lazy to continue it.
That’s not exactly sporting, Joe. I’m trying to locate or uncover a particular leaf; and you go and turn over a bucket full of leaves where I’m searching.
That’s OK though, since you’re so magnanimous. Besides, if we started contending who among us has a larger inventory of faults/weaknesses, I would win that discussion as well.
Even in losing, you win.
To program a Belief System Bias re. a 24/7 creation scenario, a two track information system needs to be pursued. First is the Law Track and a fourth commandment interpretation that views the 6 days of creation as literal 24 hour days. Wikipedia commentary on the history of the 7 day week is helpful in establishing a Judeo / Christian practice of worship on the 7th day of a weekly cycle of 7 days.
The Testimony Track (Spirit of Prophecy / EGW) is dependent on one's view of prophecy. Is all prophecy conditional except prophesies relating to salvation? Were the OT writers without error in their views of the physical universe? Is the purpose of the Spirit of Prophecy (EGW) spiritual or scientific?
In the EGW book, Education, teachers are urged to teach their students "to be thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men's thoughts." For students exposed to Belief System Bias re. a 24 / 7 day creation scenario, "fair and balanced" presentations of other more scientific views are readily available on the internet. The religious scientists of the dark ages believed (based on the creation story) that men had one less rib than women. This belief was rejected after counting the ribs of men and women and finding the number to be equal.
I have been identifying the blind spot to the reality that a deep age Belief System Bias has (also?) been developed.
Those who believe that we can know what happened a million years ago are reflecting other men’s thoughts, over and over. Anything taught as fact about deep age is a product of Belief System Bias.
Stephen,
While we share many beliefs, I must take exception to this particular generalization.
One must distinguish between singular events in the past that are not amenable to replication in the present, vs mechanistic processes in the past that are amenable to replication in the present.
If we can replicate past processes in today's laboratory then we have a stronger basis to believe things worked the same way in the past, absent countervening evidence. This does not deny the existence of singular events or supernatural events, which prevent absolute certainty even about fairly recent events.
For example, even though I know what is the date recorded on my birth certificate, I have from my own research examples where public records recorded the wrong name, the wrong date or the wrong place. But absent countervening evidence I will trust my mother's account of when and where and under what circumstances I was born since though she is now old, she was there. Not to mention that nobody is making supernatural claims about my birth.
But once we get past the point where we can interview eyewitnesses and compare their memories with the evidence we rapidly descend into deeper levels of uncertainty. Writing and video and other methods of taking records were invented to reduce this uncertainty but do not absolutely eliminate it.
So one must be very careful in ascribing absolute certainty to events or phenomena that one cannot replicate. Granted that there can be no absolute proof, one can still make reasonable inferences about some things that happened in the past. For example, if through a telescope I can see light from an ancient supernova that by triangulation appears to come from a source that is a million light-years away, then absent countervening evidence I would believe that a supernova did indeed occur in that general vicinity a very long time ago. Though I cannot assert this with absolute certainty, nevertheless I can have a fairly high degree of confidence in my conclusion, especially if repeated observations from different places show the same evidence.
I definitely agree with you that much of what is popularly reported about events said to have occurred a million years ago, does not meet a very high standard of proof.
“While we share many beliefs, I must take exception to this particular generalization.”
To what “particular generalization” are you referring? In the absence of certainty beliefs are beliefs.
“One must distinguish between singular events in the past that are not amenable to replication in the present, vs mechanistic processes in the past that are amenable to replication in the present.”
Correct me if I misunderstand, but “mechanistic processes in the past that are amenable to replication” in this context assumes knowledge of what happened. How is that assumption—or necessity for that assumption—not confirmation bias by definition?
“If we can replicate past processes in today's laboratory then we have a stronger basis to believe things worked the same way in the past, absent countervening evidence.”
I understand your reasoning to some extent, but you’re using assumptions about the past to conclude that because what is assumed can be replicated it proves the assumption.
As for the "ancient supernova," again I say that the Bible never specifies or identifies how long the earth had existed in a “without form and void” state. The scriptural Creation narrative does not preclude the possibility that it is describing this solar system’s creation or this galaxy’s creation.
It’s not ‘us’ who are limiting God.
To what “particular generalization” are you referring?
"Those who believe that we can know what happened a million years ago are reflecting other men’s thoughts, over and over. Anything taught as fact about deep age is a product of Belief System Bias."
I understand your reasoning to some extent, but you’re using assumptions about the past to conclude that because what is assumed can be replicated it proves the assumption.
Absent contravening evidence, it seems reasonable that processes we observe working in the present also worked in the past. That is not the same as saying that conditions in the past were the same as the present. But it does say that I do not assume God re-invented physics or chemistry or biology at some time in the past. If His original creation was very good, then why would He mess it up? This also does not deny that God could intervene to clean up a mess created by someone else. Most of the stories in the Bible are about God intervening to clean-up human messes. But absent evidence of miracles, I think God doesn't continually tamper with how He made things work. In other words, natural laws also come from God.
As for the "ancient supernova," again I say that the Bible never specifies or identifies how long the earth had existed in a “without form and void” state. The scriptural Creation narrative does not preclude the possibility that it is describing this solar system’s creation or this galaxy’s creation.
So you admit that some things taught by science about the distant past might be accurate? Just not things believed to happen too close to earth?
This is my point about your generalization that we cannot believe anything taught by man about a million years ago. If not, then what about 100,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago or 1,000 yers ago? At what threshold can we begin to believe what we are told? Is the threshold defined in time or in locale or some combination of both?
For myself I do not believe we can know very much at all with absolute certainty, even about the present. But I see the degree of certainty on a continuum, rather than being abruptly suspended at some threshold.
It’s not ‘us’ who are limiting God.
You totally lost me.
One could claim that anything taught is a product of Belief System Bias. Isn't the teacher trying to inculcate his/her belief system (including its biases) into the student?
Why limit this problem to the distant past?
“One could claim that anything taught is a product of Belief System Bias. Isn't the teacher trying to inculcate his/her belief system (including its biases) into the student?
Why limit this problem to the distant past?”
That is precisely my point Jim! Belief System Bias is admitted from my standpoint; and exists with the “distant past.” Of course anything taught by teachers trying to inculcate, indoctrinate, or inform regarding his/her belief system (including its biases) represents this. I admit it with my (religious) beliefs. Some can’t admit with regard to theirs.
“But absent evidence of miracles, I think God doesn't continually tamper with how He made things work. In other words, natural laws also come from God.”
I agree with this. Our difference is that I believe that His creative acts and powers were of the miraculous variety, that’s all. I believe that “His original creation was very good,” and that the rebellion of His crowning creative act “[messed] it up.”
“So you admit that some things taught by science about the distant past might be accurate? Just not things believed to happen too close to earth?”
I don’t have a problem with science to the extent that it does not contradict scripture. If/when science observes, discovers, teaches anything that is not precluded by scripture I can accept it for what it is worth.
“This is my point about your generalization that we cannot believe anything taught by man about a million years ago. If not, then what about 100,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago or 1,000 yers ago? At what threshold can we begin to believe what we are told? Is the threshold defined in time or in locale or some combination of both?”
I admit to some confusion about this question. You used a pretty good analogy about trusting your mother’s account regarding the time, circumstances and details of your birth because she was right there on the scene. The further back you go, the less reliable are the details about anything, right? So maybe you have answered your question.
I am not limiting God’s creative power. I believe that He actually did what He said that He did (and how). Scripture does not preclude some scientific conclusions. In this way I’m not limiting God.
I am not limiting God’s creative power.
Nor do I.
Our difference is that I believe that His creative acts and powers were of the miraculous variety, that’s all.
So if you do not limit God's creative power, why do you assume that He would not make any use of natural processes? After all, He would only be using His own tools, wouldn't He?
I am still trying to figure-out whether or why or how we disagree on this?
Where in the Bible does it say that everything God does is a miracle?
Consider the recorded life of Christ on earth. My understanding is that He only used His miraculous powers in situations where use of natural laws would not suffice to achieve the necessary. For the most part He operated within the laws of nature. When He had a boat He rode in it – when He didn't then He walked on water.
“So if you do not limit God's creative power, why do you assume that He would not make any use of natural processes? After all, He would only be using His own tools, wouldn't He?”
Actually, I never said, nor do I assume, that God “would not make any use of natural processes.” To begin with, everything was “natural” with God. It is ex nihilo creation that appears supernatural; and at that, only from our perspective. Does anyone really think that God considers anything ‘supernatural’?
“Where in the Bible does it say that everything God does is a miracle?”
Again, it is God’s creative and sustaining power, not to mention His saving power, which is miraculous and supernatural to us. Even nature and its observable laws are in a seemingly perpetual process of discovery. The Bible is replete with references to the mighty hand of the Creator God; but doesn’t “say that everything God does is a miracle”—and neither did I.
“Consider the recorded life of Christ on earth. My understanding is that He only used His miraculous powers in situations where use of natural laws would not suffice to achieve the necessary.”
The life of Christ is literally a microcosmic example of exactly what we’re discussing now. His incarnation was a (humanly) supernatural event; much like His ex nihilo creation was. Though He was born, lived, moved, breathed, suffered, and died as a human being; His mother was impregnated without human sperm. That was an example of 'natural' processes resulting, emanating and continuing from ‘supernatural’ beginnings.
The common denominator is that it undoubtedly takes faith to believe that God did what He said He did—and can/will do what He says He can/will do. Since He raised the dead and walked on water then He could just as easily have created us in His divine image—and can recreate us in His image.
So then we seem to agree at least on what we have written to this point 8-). I am not surprised becasue on previous topics we seem to come from similar theological perspectives.
But I being an engineer and you being a pastor, we probably look at the natural (to humans) world rather differently 8-). My epistemology admits of knowledge from God's first book (Creation – all of it that I can study) and also His second (Bible). Which source I turn to first tends to depend on what kind of question I am trying to understand.
But a person who only has a good understanding of one of these sources (your typical scientist and your typical theologian) will try to look there first for answers to important questions. To the man who only wields a hammer everything tends to look like a nail. I prefer to carry more than one epistemological tool in my bag.
Jim,
I am not a pastor, brother; that is if you’re talking to me. I was responsible for advertising sales professionally. (Frankly, I probably know more about professional basketball than I do about anything else.)
I look to the Bible first for answers because the font of all wisdom and knowledge inspired it in its entirety. I mean, dude, if the Creator of the universe and/or the Intelligence in the universe inspired the chronicling of events somewhere, that is where we should first look. That should be the primary tool (bag?).
Nature is only the first book chronologically. (We know it was so via inspiration.) Let’s put it this way, I’ll bet Adam didn’t look around and conclude evolution. In other words, ‘nature’ didn’t tell him something about origins that contradicted His Maker.
I apologize for mis-identifying you. My bad!
I do not subscribe to evolution as an explanation for the origins of life or the development of the major life forms of the present or of the fossil record.
I think advances in microbiology will deal a death blow to current evolutionary teachings in this regard. Probably it will be a slow and painful death, and not in my lifetime.
I do not apologize for studying the natural wold as it functions today. I would not want to go back to the time before the telescope and the microscope and trigonometry and astronomy. I prefer not to live in the stone age.
I probably know more about professional basketball than I do about anything else.
Does LeBron get a three-peat?
I ‘prophesize’ the trivial: Spurs in seven. (I called the NFL playoff games correctly and this year’s Best Picture Oscar winner.)
Regarding that ancient supernova whose light we now see, or the neighboring Andromeda galaxy that we are closing with at amzing speed, but is still estimated to be 2.5 million light-years away, I know many Biblica literalists who claim there were no stars anywhere in the cosmos before Day 4.
What criteria do you use to localize some parts of Genesis 1 but not other parts? Could these same criteria apply to Noah's flood? To dinosaurs? How do you choose what to contextualize once you admit that you have to contextualize at least parts of the story?
“What criteria do you use to localize some parts of Genesis 1 but not other parts?”
"How do you choose what to contextualize once you admit that you have to contextualize at least parts of the story?
I haven’t localized some parts of Genesis 1, Jim; I’ve read it. The criterion I use is literalism (gasp!). Genesis 1 is describing what man could see (which may have included nearby galaxies). Obviously others may have a different opinion; but we’ve been talking to each other.
If you “contextualize” based only on what is actually written; there is no problem. In other words, if what is written is self-contextualized or is not precluded by what is written (or not written) elsewhere, there simply is then no contextualization problem.
Well then – what telescopes reveal to be a nearby galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud is certainly visible with the naked eye in the Southern Hemisphere. At a measured (by triangulation – the same way your surveyor finds the corners of your land) distance of 163,000 light-years away, it is closer than the Small Magellanic Cloud which is 200,000 light-years away and also visible with the naked eye. A Persian astronomer wrote about these clouds hundreds of years before the invention of the telescope. In 1987 we witnessed a supernova that occurred in the LMC approximately 168,000 years ago. This supernova was visible to the naked eye and wa first seen by astronomer Ian Shelton while he was walking outside and looking at the sky with only his eyes (possibly he wore eyeglasses – that I do not know).
If these distant objects were created on Day 4 then how long ago was Day 4? Alternatively you might conclude that these objects first became visible on the surface of the earth on Day 4. In that case the sun and moon might also have existed before Day 4, or even millions or billions of years before Day 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Clouds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Magellanic_Cloud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A
I haven’t localized some parts of Genesis 1, Jim; I’ve read it. . . . Genesis 1 is describing what man could see (which may have included nearby galaxies).
So you propose localizing Genesis 1 to what could be seen by a human (presumably on the surface of earth), had a human been present before the latter part of Day 6. I assume that this human has neither a telescope nor a microscope?
In that case, much closer than the distant celestial objects now visible with the unaided eye, your human observer could not have seen any subsurface pre-Cambrian rocks buried beneath the waters of the Deep, nor small simple life forms either in the Deep itself or in the rocks beneath. So a lot of limestone precipitation and a lot of subterranean volcanism could have been going down for a very long time without your human observer having a clue that it was happening.
Nowhere does Genesis 1 say when the watery Deep was formed, what was hidden in the darkness that conceled it, when the first microscopic life forms were created, etc. Until the dry land appeared above the waters on Day 3 your observer would not know there was any such thing as rocks or dirt. The first life your human observer would see would be plants that appeared on the dry land on Day 3. And unless he had a very powerful shovel, he could not see what was buried very far beneath the surface of that dry land.
So your human observer really did not see a lot of what many Biblical literalists confidently ascribe to the Genesis narrative.
I myself try very hard not to restrict the Bible from saying less than it actually says. But I also try very hard not to make it say more than it actually says. True Biblical literalism (as opposed to verbal inspiration or inerrancy) cuts both ways.
Genesis 1 is describing what man could see when Genesis 1 was written too (as well as perhaps—as you interpreted it—what Adam and Eve could see). But in neither case would humans have had either a telescope or a microscope.
I agree with you (and have repeatedly stated) that the Bible does not indicate how long the earth had been existent “without form and void” prior to ‘Creation.’
I agree with the principle of not “[restricting] the Bible from saying less than it actually says… [and trying…] hard not to make it say more than it actually says.” That’s a “very good” principle.
The teaching as fact of an EGW endorsed belief of a 24/7 creation "not indebted to pre-existing matter" denies the prophet the lattitude of symbolic and allegorical interpretation of statements made by Biblical prophets, thus elevating her opinions above other interpretations of the creation story. If her writings were not the result of direct verbal inspiration, (as an abundance of plagiarism would seem to indicate), then some approach that accepts the abundance of evidence for civilized human life 12,000 or more years ago should be considered. The book of Genesis is a collection of oral traditions that may have first been "put in writing" at the time of Moses many thousands of years after the origination of human life on this planet. The Sabbath commandment to remember is a tribute to the one God who is the originator of life. The 7 day weekly cycle is linked to the worship of the true God on the 7th day as contrasted with the worship of pagan gods on Sunday and other days of the week. Age of the earth and issues of animal, vegetable and mineral origins are of scientific interest and usually understood best as being theoretical and not factual. Belief System Bias teaches as fact 24 / 7 theoretical assumptions for which little evidence exists. Belief System Bias also teaches a doctrine of verbal inspiration for the Bible "in the original manuscripts." Unfortunately none of the original manuscripts is in existence. The earliest manuscripts for Genesis date from about 900 a.d. (Some bible scholars may help me with the approximate dating here.) In any event the earliest manuscripts we have for the creation story are removed many thousands (millions ?) of years from the actual event. Manuscripts for the EGW creation story are original and recent. A person holding a view of verbal inspiration for EGW (From the mind of God to the pen of EGW) places the writings of EGW above the Bible in scope and authority. When I was at EMC (now Andrews University) the statements of EGW vs. eggs were brought to bear against the breakfast menu at the cafeteria. Then EGW statements recommending the use of eggs and grape juice as a tonic were discovered, bringing the controversy to an end.
Creation story controversies will continue. The poetic treatment of this subject is a refreshing way to stimulate discussion.
In terms of assessing the meaning of Genesis 1, the question that feels more compelling than what is actually described in Genesis, is the following.
What purpose of God is advanced by God expecting humanity to restrict our understanding of the unvierse to a few sentences in what today is a long-dead language and originally written by a person living 3,000 years ago?
In terms of assessing the meaning of Genesis 1, the question that feels at least as compelling at to what is actually described in Genesis, is the following.
What purpose of God is advanced by God expecting humanity to restrict our understanding of the unvierse to a few sentences in what today is a long-dead language and originally written by a person living 3,000 years ago?
An outstanding, thought provoking question. Thank you, Bill
Who said that “God is expecting humanity to restrict our understanding of the universe”? On the other hand God’s purpose in inspiring a particular version or description of His Creative activity and power was at least to inform us ‘Who did it.’
What is the basis of the belief that He in fact inspired the description of His Creative activity and power in “a few sentences in what today is a long-dead language and originally written by a person living 3,000 years ago” anyway? In other words, if what is written isn’t (or can’t be) believed; then can what is written about Jesus be believed? I fail to perceive your logic Bill.
May I suggest another possibility that neither side will embrace?
Is it possible that God did indeed show amazing things about the origins of the earth to Moses, and then He left Moses to figure-out how to explain it to a bunch of ex-slaves using then existing knowledge about cosmology and geology and biology?
Yes I believe there was actually a Moses, despite a paucity of archaeological evidence regarding the Exodus – and that after half a century of diligent searching by Adventist professional archaeologists.
But I also suspect that were Moses writing here and now for Atoday, he might describe some things rather differently. I wish I could tell you what he would say.
For those who believe as I do that the Godhead created humans in their image, I would like to challenge your thinking a bit.
First, I find it hard to envision that one day after the hominids climbed out of the trees and walked upright, God came to them and said I have two announcements for you. First the good news – you now have a soul. I will remember and preserve your soul as long as you play by My rules. Which brings Me to the second announcement. You cannot use coercion or violence to get what you want. You must choose one mate for life (hopefully forever depending on how things work-out). You can no longer copulate early and often with whomever greets your fancy, as has become the custom among your cousins the Bonobos. And you can no longer eat fruit from whateve tree you fancy – especially from one particular tree that you have previously enjoyed. (I will accept brief applause now from Biblical literalists 😎
On the other hand Adam and Eve may well have been the hominid variant that Joe and his tribe call Heidelberg man. Neanderthals may have been closer to the original image of God in humans, than our own familiar H Sapiens Sapiens. I wonder how they used their extra 20% cranial capacity? Were their memories so good that they did not need to invent writing? (I expect no further applause from the Biblical literalists as they leave the room in protest 😎
There is a lot we do not know about the history of life on this earth. Both sides need to seriously reconsider some of their cherished opinions. Those who delight in reminding their opponents of the serious gaps in their knowledge about the distant past, must also remind themselves. And I would remind all parties to beware reductionist fallacies. Just because there is lot that we do know about the distant past dow not mean we can know nothing about the subject. There may be alot we do not know about natural science. There is at least as much that we do not know about God.
From my reading of Revelation we who in this life know the most about God will spend a thosuand years (literal or figurative as you choose to take it) grieving over the demise of our cherished opinions (formerly called facts or truths). I would not be surprised if many Advantists will be among the stragglers dragging-out the millennium into prophetic time.
Lord help me to always be right because it is so hard to change my mind when I am wrong.
Some commenters seem predisposed to label anything as "evolution" that explains aspects of the present natural world to natural (as opposed to supernatural) processes.
By this definition any scientific study of how a previous condition became the present condition (without miraculous intervention) is evolution. By this definition I am an evolutionist.
I do believe in God and I do believe in creation and I do believe in miracles. And I believe that one of the truly great miracles is the human mind that can study natural processes and phenomena (science), and manipulate them to our own benefit or detriment (technology).
With all due respect to Joe, I am still waiting for the explanation regarding how and why a modest increase in cranial capacity 6,000 or 600,000 years ago, launched in humans a major and ongoing cultural and technological revolution. Meanwhile the cultures of other large apes seems not to have changed dramatically over that same time span, though we ourselves may be changing their culture now that we are learning how to communicate with them.
Studying how nature works or “how a previous condition became the present condition (without intervention)” is not a problem for ‘creationists.’ Creationists just believe and understand that God created everything as He said He did. What has occurred since invites scientific study.
Hi Jim,
You need not rely on me to interpret the evidence regarding cranial capacities of hominins and
the relationships to tool use and evidence of cultural transmission of traditions. Just go and have
a careful and critical look at the abundantly available evidence and make up your own mind
about what to believe and what not to believe.
Along the way, you might want to have a look at some of Richard Wrangham's work on
differential cultural transmission of tool use in chimpanzees. The rough estimate of the age
of divergence of chimpanzees and humans is 6 million years and of chimpanzees and gorillas
and humans is about 9-10 million years. Gorillas have had about 9 million years to change,
just as humans and chimpanzees have. Chimpanzees have had about 6 million years to
change from their common ancestor with humans. So, with changes occurring along both
lines over six million years, humans and chimpanzees are actually separated by 12 million
years of potential change.
And even though chimpanzees are very clever and inventive, and can learn to communicate
using human sign language, their natural signing communication is minimal by comparison
with the sign language invented by humans. The apes all seem capable of learning to understand
spoken human language, but they do not have the ability to control utterances. Penny Patternson
claims that Koko gorilla can read written English. But even though she autographs her paintings,
Koko does not write legibly (but, then, neither does Penny). Also, have a look at Kanzi bonobo
and Sue Savage-Rumbaugh. More food for thought.
It looks to me like the invention of language was the watershed event for the becoming real of
anatomically modern humans. While it could be seen as speculative fantasy to most of us, one
could make a case for "In the beginning was The Word" and the "speaking into existence" of
humans, as a basis for the creation story. That some of our early relatives had somewhat
larger cranial capacities than current humans also provides some food for thought and speculation.
Joe,
I totally agree with you regarding evidence of cultural transmission in other large primates. And I totally agree with you regarding spoken language being a watershed event.
Birds and cetaceans and wolves all speak to each other. Yet none of them appear from what we know now, to have developed the extensive vocabulary of humans, by orders of magnitude.
Was this watershed development in humans only about cranial capacity and a chance mutation of the structures surrounding the vocal cords?
After so many years of typing, my handwriting is not very legible either. For that matter it never was really good, considering he number of D grades I got in penmanship. Maybe I should have been an ape or a doctor?
Joe,
I am quite happy to pick the brains of anyone who knows more than I about some topic of interest to me. Please do not be offended by my questions. Whether or not in the end we agree on everything, I will try to learn from you what I can. Communications technology is one of my core competences. Understanding how it works in other species is of considerable interest to me.
Is there yet any evidence that chimpanzees are passing along their newly acquired human language skills to their offspring?
Jim, I would be speculating wildly if I made any guess about the relative contributions or origins of vocal control and cranial capacity. But I imagine there might have been important morphological changes in the shape of the head and adjacent features as cranial capacity increased. While this may not have been a smooth transition (maybe step-wise and sort of jerky as in "punctuated"), there may well have been some point at which vocal control was much accentuated, so that the vocal control and modulation meshed with some increased cognitive ability to perceive/detect meaning in the modulated vocalizations. Probably at first some sense of emotion or pain or threat (as is present in pretty much all primates). The elaborate duetting of the gibbons and siamangs, tarsiers, and indris are all examples of quite remarkable vocal control–and in some ways seem remarkably like some cetacean calls (which, BTW, do show changes across time and space, such that something like cultural "dialects" can be found in some whales).
I do not know as much as I would like to about ape vocalizations. When I sat with wild mountain gorillas in Rwanda, I was sort of shocked to hear them sort of mumbling or singing–something I had never heard from western gorillas in zoos.
The cultural transmission of sign language in apes is still to some degree an open question, although there is some positive evidence of transfer from mother to infant in chimpanzees and bonobos. Again, it is worth reading about Kanzi bonobo and his mother Panbanisha. Also, Washoe chimpanzee and others (Fouts and the Gardners). There are several books available that can be found by search on line.
No, no, Jim. I am not at all offended by your questions, but I know others here will be offended if I provide too much detail. I might be leading you into a "confirmation bias" of some sort. So, as far as I'm concerned, anyone is free to look at any literature they wish to look at and make of it what they will. While I do remember a lot of references by author and year of publication, and use that when I am writing scientific papers for publication, I try to avoid doing too much of that here, because it can be taken as a little too authoritarian–like quoting Sister White or chapter and verse of scripture (which I also used to be pretty good at).
Feel free to email me for private discussion. I think my presence on AToday wears a little thin for those who consider me an infidel.
Philip Law, above, has commented regarding the concept of reliability and its measurement.
I agree with his comments.
He is correct that correlation does not demonstrate causality–a point of common confusion, especially in popular accounts by journalists of scientific results; but also a problem that is really common in medical epidemiology studies.
"R2" does not help to clarify the matter very much because r-squared (r being the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient) is a way of expressing the amount of variance that is accounted for by a correlation. It is a mathematical abstraction, but it really helps to humble assertions about the magnitude of a relationship as shown by a correlation coefficient. When r-squared is called a "coefficient of determination" (as it is and Philip correctly points this out), there is a suggestion of more of a cause-and-effect relationship than is really the case. But, suppose one has a statistically significant r= .20 (either positive or negative, direct or inverse) then r-squared is .04. Thus, even though the relationship is statistically significant, one variable only "accounts for" 4% of the variance in the other. That may or may not be biologically (or otherwise) important even if the number of measures renders it "statistically significant."
Critically, though, and Philip also is making this point, I think, reliability does not demonstrate validity. All reliability does is show that the measures are consistent. They can be consistently inaccurate. There often is systematic error in measurement due to some flaw in instruments or flawed assumptions about what is being measured.
Validity (accuracy, authentic-ness, reality) does, however, require reliability. The same thing, measured in the same way, at the same time, should yield the same result–regardless of who does the measuring. This is an important aspect of objectivity. And this is the basis of checking "interobserver reliability." If you do not have high interobserver reliability, the validity of the observation or measurement system is suspect. Of course, most of the error could be accounted for by one of two observers, but interobserver reliability does not tell you which one is making more errors–it just alerts you to the problem.