A Serious Question: Pangea

Originally posted by Halitose
Yet another logical fallacy, sonhouse.

Here's how I understand your reasoning to go:

1. Current observable scientific data fit reasonably into the old earth model.
2. This follows reasonably from (1) that these observations cannot therefore reasonably fit into any other model.
3. This follows reasonably from (1) and (2) that the old earth model ...[text shortened]...

argumentum ad hominem

The rest is speculation with no hard science to back it up...

OK for the second or third time I will post this about radiometric testing :

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So far, none of the creationists (literal or otherwise) have - except BdN who's conducting a "college rag experiment".

I have illustrious antecedents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Henry_Gosse

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I have illustrious antecedents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Henry_Gosse

Omphalos

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I have illustrious antecedents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Henry_Gosse

From what I understand of the article, Gosse argued that fossils etc. were needed to maintain the natural cycle of events in the biosphere. However, I see no evidence of him arguing that fossils are there to "test" man's faith.

Originally posted by frogstomp
OK for the second or third time I will post this about radiometric testing :

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Thanks for the link, froggy. The first time I see you post it though. Will rebut later...

Originally posted by Halitose
Thanks for the link, froggy. The first time I see you post it though. Will rebut later...

yeah I thought I hadn't given it to you.. The age of the earth part is pretty strong.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I see no evidence of Gosse arguing that fossils are there to "test" man's faith.

Read between the lines, LH.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Read between the lines, LH.

And find what?

I have yet to see any evidence of actual literal creationists arguing that fossils etc. were put there by God to test our faith. As I said before, I could be wrong (and I'd invite all readers to show me wrong). But it is increasingly looking like the whole "test our faith" view is just a carricature of literal creationists and is a view held by very few (if any) of them. Even if Scribs argument about this view being the simplest is true, it becomes a straw man to argue against if literal creationists do not actually hold to it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
And find what?

Gosse Assertion, The
(np) 1. The belief that a creator created the universe and life by fiat, but with the "appearance of age". Rightly rejected by most theologically astute persons as libelous or blasphemous. Gosse was the author of "Omphalos" (navel), where this assertion was given its fullest treatment.
Gosse Hypothesis, The
(np) see Gosse Assertion.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/jargon/jargonfile_g.html#gosse_assertion

"Young Earth Creationists usually distinguish their own hypotheses from the Omphalos hypothesis put forth by the science writer Philip Henry Gosse (omphalos is Greek for navel). Gosse's hypothesis was an unsuccessful mid-19th century attempt to reconcile creationism with geology. He proposed that just as Adam had a navel, evidence of a gestation he never experienced, so also the Earth was created ex nihilo complete with evidence of a prehistoric past that never actually occurred. Gosse's hypothesis allows for a young Earth without giving rise to any predictions that would contradict scientific findings of an old Earth. This was rejected at the time by scientists and religionists alike, on the grounds that it was completely unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific, as well as implying a deceitful God, which was theologically unacceptable.

Most YECs today argue that Adam did not have a navel [7] (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/bellybutton.asp). Also, most YECs, in contrast with Gosse, posit that not only is the Earth young but the scientific data supports that view."

http://www.answers.com/topic/young-earth-creationism

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Gosse Assertion, The
(np) 1. The belief that a creator created the universe and life by fiat, but with the "appearance of age". Rightly rejected by most theologically astute persons as libelous or blasphemous. Gosse was the author of "Omphalos" (navel), where this assertion was given its fullest treatment.
Gosse Hypothesis, The
(np) see Gosse A ...[text shortened]... he scientific data supports that view."

http://www.answers.com/topic/young-earth-creationism

I thought the falsifiablilty issue was 20th century from Karl Popper.
How could they have brought up that issue in the mid 19th?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Gosse Assertion, The
(np) 1. The belief that a creator created the universe and life by fiat, but with the "appearance of age". Rightly rejected by most theologically astute persons as libelous or blasphemous. Gosse was the author of "Omphalos" (navel), where this assertion was given its fullest treatment.
Gosse Hypothesis, The
(np) see Gosse A ...[text shortened]... he scientific data supports that view."

http://www.answers.com/topic/young-earth-creationism

Let's backtrack a moment here. Scribs' fourth option was:

4) No, although like the fossils, God has put evidence of Pangea in the earth, to either confound man or test his faith.

This is actually a conjunction of three premises:

A) No, Pangea did not exist.
B) God has put evidence of Pangea in the earth.
C) God did (B) to either confound man or test his faith.

Now, the Omphalist is only constrained to accept (A) as true - he does not have to accept (B) or (C).

For instance, he could argue against (B) in pretty much the same way as the creation scientists do. Gosse's assertion dealt mainly with evidence of ageing in living creatures - oak tree rings, human hair and nails, elephant tusks etc.

Or, he could accept (B), but still reject (C). For instance, he could argue that God put evidence of Pangea (and fossils and oak tree rings) so that man would not be confused. Imagine Adam, with no hair or nails, living in a world where elephants had no tusks and oak trees had no rings. A few decades later, he would be living in a very weird world where things are changing rapidly.

Another option - he could argue that God put evidence of Pangea to allow scientists to continue their research. Perhaps some day, someone will develop a model of plate tectonics that accurately meets the Pangean evidence and can also predict future earthquakes (say). So, although God did technically put evidence of events that never took place, it was not to confuse man or test his faith - He had some other purpose.

Further, the Omphalist could argue that Adam knew he had just been created and, as long as he let his descendants know about his true origins, they would not really be confused; they would understand that God has a good reason for leaving the evidence in there and would use it (perhaps for the earthquake technology described above - as one example).

My point being - the Gosse Assertion in no way logically leads to the conclusion that God's intentions were to deceive, confuse or "test the faith" of people. And, while critics of the Omphalos Hypothesis may argue that such a God is not being entirely truthful, I have yet to see evidence of any arguing that "testing people's faith" is a natural conclusion of such a hypothesis. Nor have I seen creationists actually cleave to that reason.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Let's backtrack a moment here. Scribs' fourth option was:

4) No, although like the fossils, God has put evidence of Pangea in the earth, to either confound man or test his faith.

This is actually a conjunction of three premises:

A) No, Pangea did not exist.
B) God has put evidence of Pangea in the earth.
C) God did (B) to either co ...[text shortened]... al conclusion of such a hypothesis. Nor have I seen creationists actually cleave to that reason.

yeah he could argue all he wants. He'd still be wrong if he said Pangea never existed.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This charge interests me as well. I will research it and make it the subject of my next Serious Question.

I have looked into this matter and I have not found enough compelling evidence of plagiarism to warrant a Serious Question. Sure, it's a creation story, and sure, it explains the creations of the same sorts of things that Genesis does. But what creation story wouldn't? If I started from scratch today without having read any previous ones and without any scientific knowledge, the creation story I would write would probably contain many of the same elements and have a similar form to either of Genesis or the Enuma Elish. I'd need to account for the heavens, the earth, the plants and the animals, and man.

If there is a Serious Question lurking here, it would not be "Is Genesis a plagiarized account?" It would be, "If Genesis is a divinely inspired creation account, is it uniquely so, or could there be several that God gave to a variety of races inhabiting different regions of the world?"

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I have looked into this matter and I have not found enough compelling evidence of plagiarism to warrant a Serious Question. Sure, it's a creation story, and sure, it explains the creations of the same sorts of things that Genesis does. But what creation story wouldn't? If I started from scratch today without having read any previous ones and wit ...[text shortened]... here be several that God gave to a variety of races inhabiting different regions of the world?"

Why "gave"? And wouuld you have the flood story too?

Originally posted by frogstomp
yeah I thought I hadn't given it to you.. The age of the earth part is pretty strong.

Hiya FS, your link had a lot more "science" than the previous "proof" I had to deal with. Not too easy to dimiss as a bunch of logical fallicies, 🙂

Concession1: I admit the case for an old earth is an almost overwhelmingly strong one...
Concession2: Good link...

Although he didn't quite counter all the assumptions conclusively, it seems quite solid from first read...

The assumptions I think might need more conclusive countering:
1. Radiometric dating assumes rocks are closed systems
2. Radiometric dating assumes no isotopes added or removed
3. Radiometric dating assumes there was no daughter isotope to start with

Anyways, here's an interesting link making argument for a change in the half-life of radioactive decay over time:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=200