Real Science Friday: Mathematics: Is God Silent? by James Nickel

[voltaire]

Radiometric testing accurately dated the ruins of pompeii. Why? Because by 2000 years ago, radioactive decay had reached a rate that was either the same as today or very close to it.

 

[The Barbarian]

The change in ionizing radiation would not wipe out all life on earth if it never got close to that life. What makes you think most of the radiation ever reached the life that existed back then?

It came from the soil and rocks, the water, and the air. All those have radioactive elements. So there you are.

Other traces of it? The traces of it are the creation of all the cratons and their collisions to form the supercontinents and then the breaking up of them several times over with the break up of pangea being the last break up.

Except, of course for the Red Sea, and East Africa, which are still underway.

The formation of all that continental crust and disappearance of old oceanic crust and formation of new oceanic crust in the span of less than 500,000 years is a very major trace of that extra ionizing radiation.

Show us.

The excess radiation would be absorbed by the mantle and core and thus provide the energy for the fast plate tectonics.

And the rocks on the surface would kill all living things.

The excess radiation never would have a chance to reach the life that was developing on shallow continental shelves and on the continents themselves.

Sorry. The rocks and soil contain such isotopes, and if the rate was speeded up, all living things would have gotten a lethal dose of radiation. It wasn't just deep underground. It was everywhere.

All of the granite plutons that formed went through most of the accelerated decay of their uranium and other elements while they were still miles below the surface and by the time erosion had removed the sediments above them, all the decaying elements were decaying at a rate that was suitable for life to survive.

How convenient. But granite is what the continents are made of. No way to hide from it.

Radiometric testing accurately dated the ruins of pompeii. Why? Because by 2000 years ago, radioactive decay had reached a rate that was either the same as today or very close to it.

How convenient. But it would have to be a lot earlier than that. The historical record goes back about 5,000 years, and structures a lot earlier than that. And no sign of such a thing in any of those structures.

Why not just admit what it is?

 

[The Barbarian]

It would be helpful if you would admit one simple truth: Science is neither inductive nor deductive.

It's mostly inductive. Science is a method and a process. And that process is mostly inductive.

Is Science Entirely Inductive?

On the previous page, you learned that although mathematics is deductive in nature - that is, logical proof is the only acceptable evidence of truth - the process of mathematics is not entirely deductive. It is also true that although science is inductive by nature - observations are the only acceptable evidence of truth - the process of science can be deductive!

In particular, physicists make extensive use of mathematics as a powerful theoretical tool. Theoretical physicists often construct theories as "mathematical models" deductively, starting with assumptions about the inner workings of stars or atoms, for instance, and then working out the mathematical consequences of their assumptions. An essential difference between a mathematician and a theoretical physicist is that the physicist uses mathematics as a reasoning tool. The success of the mathematical model depends on how well its results agree with observations of nature - if they do not agree the physicist knows that this means that her assumptions - not the observations - need to be adjusted.
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/aboutscience/Inductive.html

You are attributing a concrete, personal characteristic to a conceptional abstraction.

No. There are both inductive and deductive processes. Science is mostly inductive. There's nothing personal whatever in it.

Science does not tell us anything.

It tells us a great deal. The method is better than anything else we can do to learn about the material universe.

But scientists do when they interpret scientific evidence. All evidence is interpreted through one's worldview (set of presuppositions).

Sorry, that Shirley McClainy stuff doesn't persuade anyone with any sense. Reality is not just a matter of opinion. There is an objective truth, and evidence can show you what it is.

Will you at least admit that it is scientists and not science who reason inductively?

Science is an inductive process. Just as most mathematical proofs are deductive, so are most scientific processes inductive. You may use induction to learn about things, but the process is what it is.

And if you have the courage to admit this one simple truth, will you then admit that evidence will be interpreted through one's worldview?

Sorry, try someone who's impressed with your postmodern balderdash. When truth becomes a matter of interpretation, Christianity is just one more story among a thousand equally valid stories.

Not for me, thank you.

 

[voltaire]

What radioactive elements do you think would be in soil and rock on the surface of rodinia or gondwanna? You cannot include the elements we use today for radiometric testing because they would still be deep underground. The first rocks would be tonalites and greenstones and they would be covered by metamorphic rocks that were formed from sediments of the ocean floor. Those sediments would simply be the pulverized ancient preflood crust that had no radioactive elements. what about the water and the air?

 

[chickenman]

James Nickel lives in Shreveport (my hometown). Interesting seeing this topic this morning, after just looking at his book yesterday at a Classical Conversations home school practicum yesterday in Baton Rouge.

Not relevant to this thread. Just thought I'd do some name dropping.

 

[The Barbarian]

What radioactive elements do you think would be in soil and rock on the surface of rodinia or gondwanna?

Uranium, thorium, potassium, carbon, radium, etc. Everything here today.

You cannot include the elements we use today for radiometric testing because they would still be deep underground.

If so, nothing was alive on Earth, until they were brought to the surface, since many heavy elements such as iron are necessary for life. And of course, potassium (for example) would have been a constitutent of the Earth's crust, since it's too light to have sunk into the core.

what about the water and the air?

Air would have radioactive carbon, radon, thoron, and actinon.

Water would contain all sorts of dissolved radioactive materials. Remember, tiny amounts would become significant sources if the rate of decay was increased by the amounts you're suggesting.

 

[voltaire]

Quote:
What radioactive elements do you think would be in soil and rock on the surface of rodinia or gondwanna?
Uranium, thorium, potassium, carbon, radium, etc. Everything here today.

--Barbarian

On what basis do you claim that those elements would be anywhere near the surface?


Quote:
You cannot include the elements we use today for radiometric testing because they would still be deep underground.
If so, nothing was alive on Earth, until they were brought to the surface, since many heavy elements such as iron are necessary for life. And of course, potassium (for example) would have been a constitutent of the Earth's crust, since it's too light to have sunk into the core.

--Barbarian

You are not taking into account that all elements necessary for life where in the preflood crust and that crust was pulverized. There is no basis to claim that God put radioactive elements in the preflood crust. Iron and potassium would already be there they did not have to differentiate and float upward like todays standard models say they did.

 

[Stripe]

Not relevant to this thread.

You're a breath of fresh air, you name dropper, you.

 

[The Barbarian]

What radioactive elements do you think would be in soil and rock on the surface of rodinia or gondwanna?

Barbarian observes:
Uranium, thorium, potassium, carbon, radium, etc. Everything here today.

On what basis do you claim that those elements would be anywhere near the surface?

Some of them are quite light, and accumulated in the Earth's crust because they weren't dense enough to sink into the mantle. Others where brought up by volcanoes and other processes. If they weren't, there would be no life on Earth. Living things depend on them.

You cannot include the elements we use today for radiometric testing because they would still be deep underground.

Barbarian observes:
If so, nothing was alive on Earth, until they were brought to the surface, since many heavy elements such as iron are necessary for life. And of course, potassium (for example) would have been a constitutent of the Earth's crust, since it's too light to have sunk into the core.

You are not taking into account that all elements necessary for life where in the preflood crust and that crust was pulverized.

Sorry, pulling up non-scriptural miracles isn't going to help you. If you want to say "God just poofed it the way I said, because that makes my theory work", then you've lost from the git-go.

There is no basis to claim that God put radioactive elements in the preflood crust.

He'd have to, if there were any living things. Is it now your claim that he sorted out the radioactive isotopes from the rest, and put them deep underground? More new miracles to cover the cracks in your ideas? Why not just admit He did it the way He did it?

Iron and potassium would already be there they did not have to differentiate and float upward like todays standard models say they did.

Potassium would have to be there; it's not dense enough to sink into the mantle.

 

[TeeJay]

Barbarian,

You argue with me that "science is neutral." I argue that science tells us nothing but scientists do and that "scientists are not neutral." Scientific evidence is interpreted through one's set of presuppositions (worldview). So it comes down to which worldview is rational. To maintain your set of presuppositions, you have to believe the impossible--that a fossil will not dry up in 65 million years. In the heat of summer in Texas, any Texan with an eighth grade education would laugh at you. Again, will you admit that "science" tells us nothing but scientists do and that scientists are not neutral?

Two questions:

Is atheism logical? Yes or No.
What carbon dating are you using?

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

You argue with me that "science is neutral."

With regard to the supernatural, it is.

I argue that science tells us nothing but scientists do and that "scientists are not neutral."

Some are. I know a good number of scientists who are agnostics. But most of us are theists of some sort, and a large minority are atheists.

Because science is neutral on such questions, people of all faiths or even no faith at all, can do science.

Scientific evidence is interpreted through one's set of presuppositions (worldview).

Nice try, but I'm not into that "reality is only what you think it is" stuff. You won't get anywhere with that foolishness here.

To maintain your set of presuppositions, you have to believe the impossible--that a fossil will not dry up in 65 million years.

Water lasts a lot longer than that. But the bits of organic material were dried out.

In the heat of summer in Texas, any Texan with an eighth grade education would laugh at you.

If he hadn't been paying attention during science class, maybe. But ancient water is quite common. Has nothing to do with the bits of heme found in those bones, though.

Again, will you admit that "science" tells us nothing but scientists do and that scientists are not neutral?

As you learned the method tells us a great deal. No point in trying that one again.

Is atheism logical? Yes or No.

It is unreasonable, seeing as God exists. "Logical" is a mathematical question. I'd be pleased to see your proof, however.

What carbon dating are you using?

Um, Tom? Carbon dating isn't used for fossils normally. Half-life is too short.

 

[voltaire]

Uranium, thorium, potassium, carbon, radium, etc. Everything here today.



If so, nothing was alive on Earth, until they were brought to the surface, since many heavy elements such as iron are necessary for life. And of course, potassium (for example) would have been a constitutent of the Earth's crust, since it's too light to have sunk into the core.



Air would have radioactive carbon, radon, thoron, and actinon.

Water would contain all sorts of dissolved radioactive materials. Remember, tiny amounts would become significant sources if the rate of decay was increased by the amounts you're suggesting.

The potassium that people and life in general uses is not radioactive right? I know that some potassium is radioactive and it's daughter product is argon but surely you are not telling me all potassium is radioactive? I'm not sure about radon, thoron or actinon because i do not know why they are present in today atmosphere but i am aware of carbon 14. It is derived from nitrogen bombarded by cosmic rays. There was very little cosmic ray bombardment before the flood because of the protection of the water above the firmament. This would produce very little carbon 14 as a result. Now, just tell me why those other radioactive elements in the atmosphere would be there and i can further investigate that.

Water would have dissolved radioactive minerals if there where sources were water could get at them and dissolve them. Most radioactive minerals were deep in the mantle and would some time before tectonic processes brought them to the surface and even more time before erosion could expose them to erosion itself and thus out into the ocean.

 

[The Barbarian]

The potassium that people and life in general uses is not radioactive right?

Yeah. You have some in your body right now. But because the half-life is so long, the rate of decay isn't a significant problem for you. Because the isotopes are chemically so alike, they are mixed together, and it takes a great deal of physical trickery to separate them.

I know that some potassium is radioactive and it's daughter product is argon but surely you are not telling me all potassium is radioactive? I'm not sure about radon, thoron or actinon because i do not know why they are present in today atmosphere but i am aware of carbon 14.

Those gases are derived from other radioactive isotopes like radium, which would also have been in the rocks on the surface of the Earth.

It is derived from nitrogen bombarded by cosmic rays.

Or other forms of radioactive decay, such as that of thorium or uranium, both of which would have been in those rocks.

There was very little cosmic ray bombardment before the flood because of the protection of the water above the firmament.

Nope. That wouldn't work, either. The amount of water needed to stop cosmic rays would have blocked visible light as well. Leaving aside the question of how you would keep so much water in the sky. Physically impossible.

Water would have dissolved radioactive minerals if there where sources were water could get at them and dissolve them.

Depends on the compound. Most are in the form of rocks, which slowly erode, adding to the load of radioactivity in the water.

Most radioactive minerals were deep in the mantle

Nope. In fact, Potassium would be mostly in the crust. Too light to sink into the mantle.

 

[Squishes]

Exactly! Your brain is a physical organ of your body. But reasoning is not physical. If reasoning is simply the motion of chemicals, then the brain would not necessarily give you a true computation each time the chemicals reacted. And even if the chemical action accidentally gave you a correct computation, you couldn't know that the computation was True.

This confuses the physical substrate of a belief with the justification of a belief.

"Hard-wired" is physical. Laws of logic are not physical. An inductive argument is one in which it is claimed that the conclusion is likely to be true if the premises are true. Chemicals in motion will not tell you if the premises are true, let alone if the conclusion is true. But when we use our minds (not physical) to reason, we can KNOW FOR SURE that 2 + 2 = 4.

Chemicals don't "tell" anything; mouths do. Mouths utter sentences, and sentences can be true or false. That we are made of molecules is a separate question.

If thinking is simply the motion of chemicals in your brain, how do you know that the chemicals will react in the future as they have in the past?

I don't know. I assume it.

Me thinks you are over reacting. I simply used morality as an example to show that atheism avoids absolutes. An atheist can't justify absolute morality within his worldview. Admitting that there is absolute morality is getting dangerously close to admitting that there must be a God.

No, it doesn't. Atheism is belief that the proposition "God exists" is false. That has no entailments for morality.

But getting back to laws of logic. Question: Is atheistism logical?

Of course it's logical. Is it possibly true, and thus contradicts no law of logic. So atheism is logical.

 

[TeeJay]

=Frayed Knot;2723844]Arithmetic is not physical either, but my computer, a physical object, does it quite handily. You're mixing up the object itself (the brain) with our term for what the object does (thinking).

Frayed,

May I point out that yes your computer can do math. But it does not know that it is doing math. And it does not KNOW if its computations are true. Truth can only be reached by the reasoning of a rational mind.

C.S. Lewis wrote in his book "Miracles":

"It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound--a proof that there are no such things as proofs--which is nonsense.

"Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.'" ("Possible Worlds," p. 209). ("Miracles," pg. 21-22)

Without your ability to reason, no truth can be known. Your ability to reason and know truth does not come from reasonless atoms. Lewis tries to make this more clear by writing:

"If our argument has been sound, acts of reasoning are not interlocked with the total interlocking system of Nature as all its other items are interlocked with one another. They are connected with it in a different way; as the understanding of a machine is certainly connected with the machine but not in the way the parts of the machine are connected with each other. The knowledge of a thing is not one of the thing's parts. In this sense, something beyond Nature [our mind] operates when we reason." ("Miracles," pg. 37-38)

The mind is what the brain does.

Rational thought is not part of the system of nature or the material world. The brain is part of the material world. Now while rational thought is independent of nature, it does not exist absolutely on its own. My ability to reason came from my parents. Their ability to reason came from their parents and so on. It matters not how far back you go, as long as you find Reason coming from Reason at each stage. It is only when you are asked to believe in Reason coming from non-reason that you must resist and say stop. Our ability to reason can't come from reasonless atoms. As a Christian, I argue that our ability to reason can be traced back to the first two humans Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve got their physical bodies (which inclues the brain) from the "dust of the earth," but our ability to reason comes from the ULtimate Reasoner who is God.

I heard someone say that the brain can be looked at like the interface between our spirits and bodies.

By the way, I used to drive through Mabank all the time, until they built Hwy 175 over on the north side of it. My relatives all live around Jacksonville, where I was born, and I live around Dallas. Mabank is right between them.

Good! A fellow Texan. I live near Praireville, population about 25. The Prairieville Store is a Texas landmark. It dates back to the 1870's (I think?). The original store is still there and on the inside it has not changed much since it was first built. On the outside, they've put some metal on it to hold it together. It's been a while since I ate there but I recall getting a good greasy hamburger with a Texas size place of fries. Legend has it (and I don't know if this is true) that at one time the Texas legislature was considering Prairieville as the capital of Texas as it was crossroads for the stagecoaches traversing Texas. Austin won out and Prairieville is still a quaint little village--the way I like it.

I live on a 100 plus acre ranch. I used to be in the cattle business but I got too old and sold my cattle. I now lease out the land to a cattle rancher and I still get the agriculture write-off.

This year the grasshoppers have envaded by land with a vengeance. By the tens of thousands they have eaten more grass than the cows and all the leaves on my wife's plants and fruit trees. I have a coyote on my land that has become more or less a pet. I have to get off my tractor and chase him. I've watched him eat grasshoppers by the mouthful until his stomach looks like it will burst. I just wish I had a thousand more coyotes like him to eat these dang grasshoppers.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

Barbarian,

You keep accusing me of post-modernism. By this term do you mean that I don't believe in objective truth? If you do, where in the world did you get the idea that I am arguing against objective truth?

Then you accuse me of "Shirley McClainy stuff." What in the world are you talking about?

When I pointed out that science really does not tell us anything, but scientist do, why did you argue with this self-evident truth. I'm not asking you to give up you foolish belief in millions of years. But one can't have a serious dialogue with someone like you. If you had presented this argument to me, I like to think that I would have replied, "Barbarian, that's a good point. Scientists using science tell us things."

But I know the reason you can't admit this one simple truth. If you do admit that it is scientists and not science that tell us things, then you would have to admit that scientists are not neutral. I'm not asking you to take a giant step; I just asking you to take a baby step towards truth.

Just to prove my point: Do you think that Ken Ham and Jack Horner would interpret scientific evidence and come to the same conclusion? I'm not asking who would come to the correct conclusion; I'm just asking if they would come to the SAME conclusion?

And if they would not, then scientists are not neutral. Ken Ham would conclude that dinosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago. And Jack Horner would conclude that they did die out 65 million years ago. Jack Horner's worldview will not allow him to conclude otherwise.

Will you agree with this one simple truth?

Tom

 

[Flipper]

Well only one of those people is actually a scientist.

Barbarian is right - you are a postmodernist.

 

[The Barbarian]

You keep accusing me of post-modernism. By this term do you mean that I don't believe in objective truth?

That's the strong post-modernist position. The weak post-modernist position is that one's preconceptions determine one's judgements. You seem about halfway in between.

When I pointed out that science really does not tell us anything, but scientist do, why did you argue with this self-evident truth.

Because it's false.

I'm not asking you to give up you foolish belief in millions of years. But one can't have a serious dialogue with someone like you.

If you can't have a dialogue without insisting the other person accept your views, then there's something wrong.

If you had presented this argument to me, I like to think that I would have replied, "Barbarian, that's a good point. Scientists using science tell us things."

It's the method that tells us those things. If we didn't use that method, we'd be lost.

But I know the reason you can't admit this one simple truth. If you do admit that it is scientists and not science that tell us things, then you would have to admit that scientists are not neutral.

I, for example, am not neutral. I have lots of opinions. I'm just pointing out to you that this does not mean one cannot be objective.

I'm not asking you to take a giant step; I just asking you to take a baby step towards truth.

You're asking me to accept something that is demonstrably wrong, because without it, your argument falls apart.

Just to prove my point: Do you think that Ken Ham and Jack Horner would interpret scientific evidence and come to the same conclusion?

Actually, Ham has done that. He only objects to science when it conflicts with his view of the world. But he's not a scientist. So he sees nothing wrong with that. It's not his preconceptions, it's his decision to put his unorthodox understanding above the evidence.

And BTW, there are plenty of YE creationists who are quite open about that, and clearly understand why they have a conflict with science. Harold Coffin and Kurt Wise (both PhD scientists and YE creationists) acknowledge this.

I'm not asking who would come to the correct conclusion; I'm just asking if they would come to the SAME conclusion?

Many real scientists have come to different conclusions than Horner, on various things.

That's not the same thing as rejecting evidence because it conflicts with one's religious ideas.

And if they would not, then scientists are not neutral. Ken Ham would conclude that dinosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago. And Jack Horner would conclude that they did die out 65 million years ago.

No. Horner thinks they are still around.

Jack Horner's worldview will not allow him to conclude otherwise.

Evidence. Alan Feduccia disagrees with him, citing other evidence. But they don't disagree on what the evidence is.

Will you agree with this one simple truth?

Sorry. No postmodernism for me. You'll have to depend on something logical.

 

[Tyrathca]

May I point out that yes your computer can do math. But it does not know that it is doing math. And it does not KNOW if its computations are true. Truth can only be reached by the reasoning of a rational mind.

Ahhh the sound of moving goal posts.....

Is computation and arithmetic physical or not? If it isn't physical but we can agree is based purely on the very physical computers construction then you're argument collapses. If it is physical then aren't these things part of what thinking entails or at least similar in such a sense that it undermines your assumption that thinking is non-physical?

Also on what basis do you conclude that a computer doesn't "know" it is doing maths? Not saying you are wrong but knowing how you conclude such a thing would be interesting insight into your thinking.

Also on what basis do you assume that "truth" (and what you mean here is surprisingly vague) is something that can only be obtained by a rational mind?

"Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.'" ("Possible Worlds," p. 209). ("Miracles," pg. 21-22)

I'm not quite sure why the supernatural is much different other than it hides it inside a black box which we can't analyse.

machine are connected with each other. The knowledge of a thing is not one of the thing's parts. In this sense, something beyond Nature [our mind] operates when we reason." ("Miracles," pg. 37-38)

Given that animals other than just humans appear to be able to reason would you then agree that this "something" is possessed by such animals too?

I heard someone say that the brain can be looked at like the interface between our spirits and bodies.

And I've heard someone say the brain can be looked at like a computer, the computer on which the software of our mind runs.

 

[Frayed Knot]

May I point out that yes your computer can do math. But it does not know that it is doing math.

Here you've moved the goalposts (I see Tyrathca had the same thought). You had said that "your brain is a physical organ. Thinking is not physical." Your clear implication is that something non-physical cannot come from something physical.

My point about my physical computer doing arithmetic showed that what you said is false. It's a separate question about whether the computer "knows" it's doing arithmetic. It's an interesting question, but not relevant here.

C.S. Lewis wrote in his book "Miracles":

I've read some C.S. Lewis, and I've been amazed that anyone would admire his writings. From what I've read (Mere Christianity), Lewis was apparently an idiot. That book was chock-full of non-sequiturs and unjustified assertions.