|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cosmos with Neil DeGrass Tyson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: We can't do experiments or controlled experiments to find extra-solar planets. Instead we rely on observation. Observational science has been around for a long time. More, nobody claims that the fossils that we do find are the only things that were living at the time. The actual claims about which life forms were present at any time are, moreover, testable by collecting more observations (in this case, by looking for more fossils), just as we would expect of valid observational science.
quote: Apart from the structure of the rocks themselves. Which, in fact, is the major reason for concluding the time taken for deposition. Geologists DO study how sediment is deposited in the present day, and extrapolate that backward. Even worse for you, radiometric dating methods have been extensively tested, by checking both the assumptions under which they operate and cross-correlating with other dating methods (mainly including other radiometric methods, admittedly, but the physics of decay makes an undetectable systematic error extremely unlikely). Even worse, the errors that are detected tend to indicate dates that are YOUNGER than the real date, or rely on the presence of older material. Both of these problems count against your position.
quote: And the idea that you could get away with such an obvious strawman is equally bonkers. But still you try it. Nobody says that the fossil record is exhaustive, everyone with any sense says that the fossil record is a limited sampling of the lifeforms living at any one time. But sampling - including the sampling produced by the processes of fossilisation - is quite well understood. We can make justified conclusions on the classes of lifeforms present from what we find - and do not find. Not at the level of species, certainly, but the higher up the taxonomic tree we go, the more certain we can be.
quote: Except for the strata that weren't deposited by water, the strata that include rock eroded from earlier formations, the strata formed by evaporation. Except for the order in the fossil record, except for the many transitional fossils. I could go on. Misrepresenting or even suppressing evidence that contradicts your views or strongly supports opposing views isn't "real science".
quote: In fact it is entirely reasonable, and good science too. And i can SEE that.
quote: Sure let's REALLY be honest about the terms of the argument, On our side we have evidence and reason, while you have misrepresentation, extreme prejudice and a hatred for any truth which contradicts your sacred commentaries. That's the reality of the situation. And of course you hate that truth, too. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I think that the absence of experiments is a pretty big difference. In fact it's a bigger difference than the one that distinguishes "historical science"
quote: Of course geology is not JUST a historical science, there are plenty of observations of present-day processes too.
quote: We KNOW that that isn't true of dating to start with. So how can it be true of "everything" ?
quote: And my answer remains true. Nobody claims that the fossils found represent the only things alive at that time period. However, Fossils comprise a sample of the things living at the time, From a sufficiently large sample we can make justified inferences about what sorts of life existed at that time.
quote: Of course this is only true if the "different" means of deposition mimic present processes sufficiently well for geologists to be unable to tell the difference. And there is no "of course" about that.
quote: That is also false, the structure of the rock will tell you the materials it is made of. Chemical composition, grain size and the like. This tells us things like the energy needed to transport the particles and the settling rate. Sometimes we can find the source. Sometimes we can estimate the rate of supply. All from actual evidence. I'm sure that the geologists here can tell you more.
quote: If you wish to claim accelerated radioactive decay - as many YECs do - the physics of decay is very much relevant. The rest of your claims are just fantasy. You need an actual physical model which would account for the real results. One which explains why all the precautions taken by working geologists and all the tests performed still produce vastly - and consistently - wrong dates, with all the different methods. Geologists DO care about getting it right, because they are doing REAL science. Which is why they deal with evidence and you concoct fantasies instead.
quote: Of course this is false, there are many tests which can be done and have been done. Are the results consistent with the relative dating dictated by the geometric relations of the strata ? Are the dates consistent across different dating methods ? What dates do we get for rocks of known age (by which I mean the rock produced by recorded volcanic eruptions) ?
quote: But these aren't assumptions, they are conclusions derived from evidence. YOU have assumptions that contradict them.
quote: That is prejudice and ignorance.
quote: The strata are more than that. But anyway geology is all about understanding how the strata originated. You just reject their explanations because you prefer the falsehoods taught by your cult.
quote: In other words once you go off into fantasyland you delude yourself into imagining that the evidence can't contradict your fantasies. Which of course is exactly what you are going here. It is perfectly obvious to any unbiased observer that you try to force-fit the evidence into your fantasy - and willfully ignore major items of evidence that don't fit.
quote: The order was discovered well before Darwin.
quote: Well that's an obvious fantasy. If the strata were all produced in a single year - and a lot of life died in the early stages anyway - then there isn't a lot of time for microevolution.
quote: It seems to me that you are the one making assumptions here.
quote: Of course this is just bluster. The analysis doesn't even produce parent-child relations except in cases where there is other evidence. And how is identifying unique features as having evolved "ignoring" them ?
quote: This is just the usual creationist misunderstanding. Darwin dealt with that objection himself.
quote: Which of course is just more assumption. Can you explain why we find so many intermediates ? Why the evidence comports so well with evolutionary theory ? Why do we find fossils like tiktaalik or morganucodon or the many others ? This is evidence that you are neglecting because it doesn't fit with your assumptions.
quote: Then you must be extremely lacking in self-awareness. What, for instance, is your whole idea that fossils are just "dead things" but an intentional attempt to cover up the other features of the fossil record that you can't reasonably explain ?
quote: Yet you call it "ABSURD". But if you like real geology, why not spend time researching that rather than attacking strawmen ?
quote: And yet these posts prove it. Come on Faith, you're denying the possibility of testing methods which, in reality, have been quite thoroughly tested, just because your mind - blinded by prejudice - can't even imagine the tests which have been done. There's no reason or evidence there, just denial. Edited by Admin, : Fix next to last close quote dBCode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: That's an amazingly silly thing to say. Of course geology uses lots of observation. Both the present day state of rocks - even the measurements used in radiometric dating are observations - to the behaviour of sediments as they are being deposited. The supposed difference is between direct observation and inference of past events from present day evidence. But looking at a photograph of cloud chamber facts to identify particle interactions is a clear example of the latter. It's certainly within the bounds of real science.
quote: We're aware of the limits on the evidence available from fossils. But that doesn't change the fact that we can tell far more from fossils than that they are merely the remains of dead things as you would have it. We can tell quite a lot about the sorts of things that they were, when alive. And that's where things start to go wrong for you. Of course if you really meant that it was impossible to make observations of fossils you'd have to claim that they were invisible and undetectable, too. But I'm sure that even you can see that that is silly.
quote: I think that we can reasonably assume that its physical properties would not suddenly change. Nor that it would develop an intelligence of sorts that delighted in sorting the remains of dead animals and plants into pleasing patterns, as opposed to those that would follow from ordinary hydrodynamics. Tides and currents simply won't help you (and you really ought to know that).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024