Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:So, would it be OK to say that the entire globe is a marine platform?

You asked for an example where large layers of sedimentary rock, distinct from those above and below it, could be found. Marine platforms are just one example (I gave several others). By marine platform, I am referring to the area between the coastline and the edge of the continental shelf (where the crust becomes 'oceanic' or basaltic). GoogleEarth (or even GoogleMaps satellite view) is a great tool to see just how large this area is.

It is true that most of the Earth's surface was submerged for at least some time in the past. But this was not at the same time, or necessarily by marine incursion. Sea level changes, so the ocean now covers areas of land that were previously exposed (e.g. the English Channel, Florida Bay, Bering Strait, Black Sea, etc.). Some areas undergo uplift (like the Himalayas) while others subside (the Dead Sea basin) and work with or against sea level. When you put all of these processes together with the global tectonic picture, we begin to see how most of the Earth's surface might contain some kind of marine rock (at least at one point in the geologic column).

For a graphic example of where marine waters once covered the Earth, visit http://scotese.com/earth.htm. Each picture is the result of thousands of paleomagnetic data points and thousands of geologic maps. The fact that these data give even a reasonably coherent picture of the Earth's surface over time tells us that the processes responsible were not chaotic and catastrophic. The transition from each time slice to the next makes sense in terms of what we know about tectonics, sedimentation, erosion, etc.

jlay wrote: It is speculation to say that sedimentary rock we see at elevations of 20k feet were formed by these methods you reference.

Why speculation? At the end of my last response, I described the kind of detail we can ascertain from such rocks, and how they are genetically related to modern marine environments (if you recall the story of my colleague's thesis). The sedimentary structures, chemical makeup of the rock, chemical makeup of the organic matter trapped in the rock, etc. all corroborate the interpretation that sedimentary rocks at 20k feet were once part of a marine environment.

jlay wrote:So, certainly stratified rock is not limited to what we call marine platforms.

No, it is not. And you quoted the examples I gave where other environments produce the same. River valleys, alluvial valleys, lakes, deserts—all of these produce stratified rocks.

jlay wrote:And I would certianly like to see the explanations regarding these modesl of how each layer is not just distinct but that is is unique in its material make up.

Any introductory text on sedimentology and stratigraphy will have illustrations of such models. In short, successive layers represent adjacent environments. Sand is deposited in nearshore (beach) environments, while mud is deposited deeper in the ocean. As the coastline progrades (migrates, if you will) out into the ocean, the result will be a broad mud layer covered by a broad, distinct sand layer. In a floodplain environment (think Mississippi River Valley without all the people and artificial levees), river channels migrate across the surface. When they do, they deposit several feet of sand across their path. When rivers flood, they redistribute mud across the entire floodplain. The result is a thick "layer" of mudstone/siltstone with thinner layers of sandstone throughout the formation. One exciting part of sedimentology is that we can see sandstone "river channels" cutting through mudstone layers all the time. These sandstones commonly contain fossils of fish teeth, turtle shell, etc.—things one would expect to find in an ancient floodplain environment.

These are two examples out of thousands, and since sedimentology and stratigraphy was my primary focus in school, I'd be happy to elucidate further.

jlay wrote:The processes we see today at the current rates would not account for the geological features. You may disagree, but when one takes into account the effects of erosion and sedimenation, this creates a problem for the surface features as we observe them today, if one is holding to gradualism.

I do disagree. There are several methods, for example, by which we can measure the current and ancient uplift rates of mountains. None of these methods give us reason to think modern processes (or near-modern rates) would fail to account for such features. The same goes for Mid-Ocean Ridges. Please cite specifically what you mean by "the effects of erosion and sedimentation".

jlay wrote:Unless you have interviewed all YECers, you are making an arbitrary statement.

My statement is not arbitrary just because I do not have exhaustive knowledge. If I were to say "all YECs misunderstand X, Y, or Z", then I would be guilty of hasty generalization. Rather, I said "commonly" with reference to anecdotal evidence: I have never encountered an accurate representation of uniformitarianism in YEC literature or dialog, but I have encountered numerous documentable cases where they do misrepresent it. How should I rather describe this phenomenon?

Imagine that an ESL teacher gave a presentation at a teacher's conference, and said: "Non-native English speakers commonly misuse the article in speech." Is she also guilty of prejudicial conjecture? Is her statement arbitrary? No, she is relying on her teaching experience to reason inductively to her main point. Moreover, her statement allows for exceptions and is not meant to be exhaustive. I apologize that my statement came across as arbitrary or unfair, but if you think I am guilty of such, please provide an example against my claim.

If YECs want to attack the principle of uniformitarianism in published works and in public view (I was critiquing a book in the article you cited), they should be expected to accurately represent it. I think you would also agree that if one were accusing the biblical text of containing errors/contradictions, he/she should be expected to accurately represent it (despite the fact that he/she does not hold to its views). Nonetheless, if you follow my argument, I concluded that when YECs misunderstand uniformitarianism, they attack it unnecessarily. The attack is unnecessary, because YECs employ uniformitarianism in their own research. Reconstructing global ocean currents during the Flood is an application of uniformitarianism; reconstructing water depth/velocity during the Flood based on sedimentary structures in the Grand Canyon (cf. Steve Austin) is an application of uniformitarianism!

jlay wrote:Having witnessed presentations by YEC, phd, Geologists, I do know there are such models. However, I would imagine that ones own philosophical presuppostions are going to determine how 'better' one thinks they are.

I've witnessed many of these presentations myself—hence my challenge. YECs have simply not addressed a vast majority of the data. The example I had in mind was the heterogeneity of carbonate platform deposits, which, to my knowledge, has never been touched by YEC geologists. Carbonate chemostratigraphy (the subject of my thesis) is another field that has never been addressed by YEC geologists. The fact that YECs, Ph.D. or not, give presentations with models of how the Flood explains geology does not mean their models actually explain the data. There is a reason, I think, these models only exist in popular-level public arenas and privately published books: most geologists understand the complexity of the data and immediately recognize the flaws in the model. It is not just a matter of philosophical presuppositions, else why do so many Christians (including former YECs) also reject these models out of hand?

I don't mean to sound crass here. I only wish to paint the picture as it really is. Thanks again for the interchange.

Jon

Just out of curiosity, are either of you aware of a YEC or YEC sympathetic response to, or explanation of uniformitarianism in this context in a peer-reviewed publication?

Wasn't the original magnus opus of the YEC modern movement by Henry Morris based in large part upon Geologic interpretation? I seem to recall that Morris' scientific background was as an engineer that tied into geologic disciplines.

In a quick search, I found a couple interesting titles.

"Geoscience meets the four horsemen?: Tracking the rise of neocatastrophism" by Marriner et al., 2010, in Global and Planetary Change provides a discussion on how neocatastrophism has played in to the last century of geological interpretation.

"Theory choice in the historical sciences: Geology as a philosophical case study" by Vanderburgh, 2009, appeared in a Memoir of the Geological Society of America. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full article, but this is from the abstract:

"This paper argues that methodological principles play a crucial role in turning empirical data into evidence for/against theories, and it outlines some of the particular evidential and methodological difficulties faced in the historical sciences..."Scientific" debates are thus sometimes really disputes over philosophical taste and judgment. Moreover, it is often the case that clear judgments about the incorrectness/correctness of a methodological principle used in a specific context can only be made retrospectively...Through arguments and historical examples, I also show that there are limits to the acceptability of the uniformitarian position."

Lastly, Anderson, 2007, wrote "Charles Lyell, Uniformitarianism, and Interpretive Principles", which was published in Zygon Journal of Religion and Science. I'm not familiar with this journal, but it might be closer to what you're looking for?

I do disagree. There are several methods, for example, by which we can measure the current and ancient uplift rates of mountains. None of these methods give us reason to think modern processes (or near-modern rates) would fail to account for such features. The same goes for Mid-Ocean Ridges. Please cite specifically what you mean by "the effects of erosion and sedimentation".

What I specifically mean is that erosion and sedimentation do not pause and wait for these processes to take effect. I can only assume by your answers that you do hold to a more traditional view of uniformitarianism. That the Himilayas, Rocky mountains, and the Mariana trech are all the result of gradual changes at constant rates over long periods of time. (About 60-70 million years or more, re: the Rockies) Yet, the powers of erosion and sedimentation working over those periods of time, seem to pause, or divert.
"No one would say that those forces paused," you might think. But this is a common description used for the history of the Rocky Mountains. If you want to know how common, just google the quote.

The natural history of the Rocky Mountains began over 170 million years ago and has followed a repeating cycle of land upheaval followed by thousands of years of erosion.

Followed by thoudands of years of erosion? Now I'm sorry but that implies that forces of erosion were not at work during the 170 million years. I would 'speculate' that 170 million years of erosion would leave the Rocky Mtns a little different than what we see today, than say just a few thousand.

It is true that most of the Earth's surface was submerged for at least some time in the past. But this was not at the same time,

Interesting, as you would find yourself in opposition to nearly every creationists, YEC and OEC alike.
2 Peter 3:3-7

Each picture is the result of thousands of paleomagnetic data points and thousands of geologic maps.

Not to sound snarky, but you do realize these are illustrations, not pictures. (Not to get into a debate about definitions.) I don't dispute that the drawings are the results of research and data. But they are also the result of interpreting the data with presuppositions. As is all data interpreted.

The fact that these data give even a reasonably coherent picture of the Earth's surface over time tells us that the processes responsible were not chaotic and catastrophic.

According to your philosophical interpretations of the data. Data does not give anything. It certainly doesn't paint pictures. That would be some magical data. People do that. I would say that the data can only provide the info to form a true picture of the Earth's surface today. The other is quite speculative.

Why speculation?

I'm not trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But, these pictures, models, etc. are speculative. That is simply a humble reality of the kind of science you chose to study. That doens't mean there aren't valid arguments for, against, etc. But it is still speculative in the end. Regardless of what maps, data, etc. they all still exist today. You can't observe anything that happened 1000 years ago, much less 1 million.

I do appreciate your feedback, but it has only confirmed to me that I can't get a grasp on your uniformitarianism. At one point I thought you have a much more modern position, but then your recent answers tend to lend themselves to the traditional view.

These sandstones commonly contain fossils of fish teeth, turtle shell, etc.—things one would expect to find in an ancient floodplain environment.

Again, only if you have those philosophical presuppositions. Your inclusion of the word 'ancient' tells me all I need to know about that. Wouldn't we expect those in any floodplain environment?

jlay,

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the terminology, as most of your responses relate to the use of specific words. I can only ask for your patience and that you be careful not to read more than is present in my words or those of other geologists. Here is what I mean:

jlay wrote:you do hold to a more traditional view of uniformitarianism. That the Himilayas, Rocky mountains, and the Mariana trech are all the result of gradual changes at constant rates over long periods of time.

This has nothing to do with 'which view of uniformitarianism' one holds to. As long as one holds to the uniformity of natural law (so yes, I grant that I am excluding miraculous undoing of natural law in my interpretation), the most parsimonious interpretation is that all these features formed slowly over long periods of time. I do not say this to be dogmatic or overbearing. I say this because there is no viable counter-perspective (i.e. one that can even come close to explaining the range of data). Moreover, the present models are highly corroborated and internally consistent. As a Christian, I am bound to the truth, and an honest interpretation of the evidence leads one to the conclusion I gave.

But notice that I never said anything about constant rates. In fact, I specifically denied that anyone simply assumed constant rates and gave examples of how we might measure those rates in the past. Please be careful on this point. I feel the misunderstanding is partially responsible for your claim that I hold to some sort of outdated philosophical commitment when looking at rocks.

jlay wrote:"No one would say that those forces paused," you might think.

That's correct. They don't. And nobody would say that they do. Even in the quote you provided (which I did follow), this is neither asserted nor assumed. To say that cycles of "land upheaval" were followed by thousands of years of erosion does *not* suggest that erosion was not taking place before that point. It means that uplift was no longer sufficient to offset the force of erosion. Does that make sense? Imagine that you have a bucket, where water is pouring in and leaking out simultaneously. If the water pouring >> water leaking out, then we can describe the bucket as "filling". Conversely, in the opposite case, we can say it's "emptying". The descriptor refers to the net process, and does not assume that either contributing process stopped. Likewise, sedimentation and erosion are always occurring. But the rates are not constant over time, and sometimes the effects are localized. The same goes for tectonic uplift and subsidence. Finally, there are feedbacks to consider: namely, that the higher mountains become, the faster they erode. The composition of the atmosphere provides another feedback: higher O2 speeds up weathering, and higher weathering rates use up CO2, etc.

With regard to 2 Pet. 3, we should be careful not to replace the word 'kosmos' with 'Planet Earth'. I know that YECs will disagree with me, but I don't think I'm at odds with the text. Peter's use of the text is theologically exegetical, and the physical/geographic extent of the flood matters not to his argument or citation. I do find it strange, however, that you perceive me to be "in opposition to...OEC alike". Which OECs specifically? But more importantly, since you disagree, I should ask whether you think there is any geological reason to believe all of the Earth's surface was covered with water simultaneously? Or is that solely based on your understanding of 2 Pet. and its referents?

Everything else you've said focuses on the semantics of my arguments and not on the arguments themselves. When I used words like "picture", what I had in mind was "an image comprised of pixels", like the ones to which I linked. When I said "these data give even a reasonably coherent picture", it is understood that I am referring to the interpretation of those data within that framework. If you'd prefer, I will strive for more clarity, but please don't insult me by pretending that I don't know how to process data.

Besides, correcting the supposed semantic mistakes does nothing to change the substance of my response, which focused on how to explain these geological features in a traditional framework. Moreover, I claimed that these data are inconsistent with other models (like those purported like AiG) and supported that claim the best I could in a small amount of space. One of the reasons I began writing the blog was so that I could expand on those arguments to the length I saw fit. So if you think I am mistaken in my explanation of geological data, or in how they are inconsistent with YEC interpretations, then please expand on that.

Lastly, what are the implications in deciding that all historical inquiry is speculative? Does that mean it's wrong? It means it *could* be wrong, but, to be philosophically consistent, so could things that we actively observe. I'm curious as to what your intentions are here. Do you just want to cast doubt on all historical science? I wouldn't use the word speculative, because something that is speculative cannot be demonstrated. Hypotheses about Earth history can generate falsifiable predictions. They can be, scientifically speaking, demonstrated by the evidence existing today. The conclusions reached are still *contingent* on the assumptions, but the process is hardly "speculative".

In any case, this is a dangerous path to follow. Keep in mind that the text of the Bible (that we have *today*) is the result of historical inquiry. Our understanding of the Hebrew/Greek languages is the result of historical inquiry. Would it be fair for someone to respond that the words of Genesis are just "speculative", along with their translations? Or perhaps the entire manuscript? On the contrary, historical inquiry establishes the reliability of the text and our interpretation.

I hope that helps.

Jon

Thanks Jon. Interesting answers and good observations from my perspective. The problem, as you note, with casting doubt upon historicity is that it's a double-edged sword and it's possible to want to have one's cake and eat it too. I'm going to work to digest a lot of what you've said here so far (Hope you don't stop) and try to understand better some of these elements. Most of my approaches tie to astronomy, some to biology and then on the theological side, and I've never spent a lot of time on the geological issues. It's good to hear from some one with that expertise.

Thanks again for being a part.

bart

Jon,

Again, I'm really enjoying your posts. Can I ask you how much of a role proxy measures play in your line of work? Could you just briefly outline the type of proxies used and the significance you place upon these measures individually.

Thanks, Jon.

Danny

If you'd prefer, I will strive for more clarity, but please don't insult me by pretending that I don't know how to process data.

Sorry for the delay. I don't consider that insulting. I think I am pointing out a common fallacy of reification. Implying the data 'does' something, or says something apart from interpretation. I see this as believing that the data supports one position over the other. When in fact both interpretations have the same data. But it is the lens the data is viewed through that is at issue. Your framework seems to assume that your lens is inherently correct, and that the data somehow favors this position. (Maybe not as obviously as I am pointing it out.) I don't question whether you know how to process data, only through what lens you process it through.
Since you see my position as nothing more than arguing semantics, then there really isn't much need for further feedback.

As long as one holds to the uniformity of natural law (so yes, I grant that I am excluding miraculous undoing of natural law in my interpretation), the most parsimonious interpretation is that all these features formed slowly over long periods of time.

I beg to differ. I hold to the uniformity of natural law, as does every YEC creationists I have encountered.

jlay,

Just to clarify then, I am aware of how starting assumptions affect the interpretation of data. Since I did not actually imply that "the data 'does something, or says something apart from the interpretation", I am not guilty of reification, as you assert.

It is true that "both interpretations have the same data", but the difference is not as simple as "you have your lens, I have mine; same data, different conclusions". Rather, we have multiple competing hypotheses—mutually exclusive methods of interpreting the same data. To say that either is supported by the data, one must show that the respective model is internally consistent with regard to existing data and predictive of new data. One of the main goals of my blog is to demonstrate that the YEC models of a wide range of phenomena (from mountains to sediments to fossils, etc.) do not meet either of these criteria, while conventional models commonly do (see individual posts).

I don't mean to oversimplify the situation. Every subdiscipline of geology contains debate over the interpretation of data, but that is the nature of science: producing multiple hypotheses and testing them by new data. I've spent a lot of time investigating YEC explanations of geologic phenomenon, but I have yet to see a model that is able to predict new data to any comparable degree (compare, for example, the ability of biozones in sedimentary rocks to predict chemostratigraphic trends and/or radiometric dates from the same interval).

I noted that many of your comments were directed toward my use of specific words, rather than disputes on the data or explanations thereof. I still look forward, however, to any comments you might have on understanding specific geologic phenomena within a conventional framework (or YEC interpretations of, say, mountain building that are consistent with the data).

Jon

Danny,

Thanks again. My research deals primarily with stable isotope proxies for various processes. Currently, I'm working on understanding (and documenting) C and O isotope trends in stalagmites in response to rainfall. In short, isotope ratios in both elements change predictably in response to the amount and source (i.e. Pacific vs. Atlantic) of rainfall, so we can use stalagmites to reconstruct the climate history of any region with fresh caves.

There are hundreds of proxies for various geologic processes though. For my M.S., I measured C isotope ratios in carbonate rocks (both in mineral and organic matter) along several 350-meter sections (~2.4 m.y. duration, based on trilobite zones). Changes in C isotopes are typically a proxy for organic carbon burial in marine sediments, atmospheric CO2, marine productivity, etc. Because of the many variables, it is important to couple those records with Sr isotopes (proxy for continental weathering), O isotopes if possible (proxy for temperature), and S isotopes (another proxy for organic burial).

Isotopes of nearly every element can be used as tracers in geochemical cycles. Assuming that the seawater composition can be recovered from rock records (an assumption that is tested in laboratory settings and modern environments), we can trace the chemical evolution of the ocean over time, as well as environmental factors: temperature, salinity, circulation, atmospheric composition.

Since various methods provide independent proxies for the same processes, their significance/credibility is collectively assigned. In other words, the agreement of multiple independent methods is a necessary characteristic in historic scientific modeling, and is used to evaluate the significance of each proxy. Carbon isotopes in marine carbonates, for example, are extremely robust, while oxygen isotopes are more susceptible to alteration (diagenetic) processes. Carbon isotope records (as well as strontium and sulfur) match up almost perfectly for the Phanerozoic, for example, regardless of locality, rock type, tectonic environment, etc. Oxygen isotope records, on the other hand, do not match up unless the most resistant constituents of carbonate rocks (such as shells) are sampled, rather than the whole rock.

I hope that makes sense?

Other proxies for mountain building might include oxygen isotopes in mammal teeth (which ultimately reflect the altitude) and deuterium in the same. Although it is not my expertise, a wide range of proxies are used to interpret the depth and temperature at which magmas formed. Coupling these data with multiple radiometric dating methods (or using the same method on various minerals) helps one to interpret cooling and exhumation histories of rocks.

I'll stop there for now, because I'm not entirely sure whether I'm answering the question as you had hoped. Let me know whether I need to elucidate on any of those points.

Jon

Jon,

That's just what I was looking for! Thank you.

chemostrat1646 wrote:Since various methods provide independent proxies for the same processes, their significance/credibility is collectively assigned. In other words, the agreement of multiple independent methods is a necessary characteristic in historic scientific modeling, and is used to evaluate the significance of each proxy. Carbon isotopes in marine carbonates, for example, are extremely robust, while oxygen isotopes are more susceptible to alteration (diagenetic) processes. Carbon isotope records (as well as strontium and sulfur) match up almost perfectly for the Phanerozoic, for example, regardless of locality, rock type, tectonic environment, etc. Oxygen isotope records, on the other hand, do not match up unless the most resistant constituents of carbonate rocks (such as shells) are sampled, rather than the whole rock.

Other proxies for mountain building might include oxygen isotopes in mammal teeth (which ultimately reflect the altitude) and deuterium in the same. Although it is not my expertise, a wide range of proxies are used to interpret the depth and temperature at which magmas formed. Coupling these data with multiple radiometric dating methods (or using the same method on various minerals) helps one to interpret cooling and exhumation histories of rocks.

Lol - lots of geological technical-speak here, but I appreciate the point. Accuracy here is supported by the fact that there is such a breadth of independent proxy measures taking place in this field.

You need not expand on this, Jon, for you have answered my query.

Thanks again.

Danny