Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

I just got back from a week on Lake Erie. This looks like you wrote it out correctly. Thanks!!

Hi Robert,Evolution receives no special status as a theory. It is tentative and falsifiable, just like all other theories, such as relativity theory, quantum theory and the theory of gravity. When speaking precisely one says that these theories are strongly supported by the available evidence. One doesn't say they are proven.When speaking casually it is very common to say that a theory has been proven, but this is just a shortcut way of saying that the theory has so much supporting evidence that it has become widely accepted within the scientific community. This is what has happened to relativity, quantum theory, the theory of gravity, and the theory of evolution.--Percy

quote:

---

Truly it is just an attempt of evolutionists to live in a reality in which thier view is accepted as the truth and a contrary view is not true. AND yet when challenged by anyone to prove what they assert they respond "well nothing can be proven"
NOW COME ON.

---

Science has never expected anyone to accept a theory as "true". Science only shows how theories are consistent with the evidence, and inconsistent with none of it. Creationist come in and expect everyone to accept their position as completely true purely on faith, and in the face of falsifying evidence. Creationists are the ones claiming that they have the truth, science has never claimed this. Yet when creationists are asked for supporting evidence all they can do is throw out arguments against evolution. Why is that?

quote:

---

I've thought about this many times about how creationists can once and for all demonstrate that evolution is not proven to where it should be the belief or that it has proven the bible wrong and I think I've figured it out.

---

Evolution proved that certain people's translation of the Bible is incorrect. However, the Bible is as true today as the day it was written even if evolution is accurate. Copernicus proved that a literal reading of the Bible is inaccurate hundreds of years ago, and his supporter Galileo almost died because of the church's persecution. If an interpretation of the Bible conflicts with the evidence in the Creation, perhaps it is man's fallible interpretation that is fault.

quote:

---

Yet in America in serious cases a new method was brought in.Innocent until proven guility. A new way of deciding conclusion.

---

And that new method also through out dunking people to see if they were witches or not. The new method also through out looking at chicken guts to see if the god's had cursed someone. The new method uses objective evidence that can be potentially falsified by new observations, otherwise known as forensic evidence and the scientific method. Otherwise I could claim that God made me do it, so I shouldn't be sent up for murdering someone.

quote:

---

A new method of decideing how to come to truth was introduced with the scietific method.
While we all live in the old method.
And while we all think the old method is still the standard in fact you guys changed the rules. And yet live with the rewards of the old method. GOT THAT!! (me neither)

---

Let's look at the old method, assuming that the supernatural controls nature. I believe they called that period the "Dark Ages" and for good reason. Do you want to go back to that time, when people were bled to rid them of evil spirits, and smallpox was a sign of demon possession? I sure don't. The scientific method is used to find the truth ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD. The scientific method is not used to derive morals, define an afterlife, define the supernatural, nor is it used to decide which diety out of the hundreds worshiped on earth is the real one. Science deals with the physical world while theology deals with the spiritual world.

quote:

---

We live in a world of weighing the evidence and trusting the authority (scientists) with having weighed it accurately and drawing right conclusions. Honest motive is presumed.

---

Another case of creationist projection. To believe in a literal six day creation 6,000 years ago we have to assume supernatural revelation and honesty on the part of creationists, especially since their assertions are falsified by evidence in the real world. Science is the opposite. Science is set up so that any evidence you use, any claim that you make, or any theory that is written can be challenged by the same observations or new objectively measured observations. When someone claims that this rock has a certain ratio of isotopes, someone can go the the same rock and check their results. When someone claims that a fossil has certain characteristics, someone else can go look at the same fossil. Nothing in science is taken on faith, nor is any scientist's findings taken as the final word. In science, anything can be challenged at anytime. The way science works is 180 degrees different than the way creationism works. Only in the pseudoscience of creationism do you have to take things on faith.

quote:

---

Wrong. This is just not have anything to do with how evolution is presented anywhere.
etc is presented to the public and in acedemia as having been proven. As having absolutely replaced previous wrong ideas.

---

Evolution had nothing to do with falsifying creationism. Creationism was falsified by the evidence, not by another theory. Even if evolution was shown to be false, science could not go back to creationism because creationism has already been shown to be wrong. The theory of evolution is the best theory we have right now, and it will remain that way until someone constructs a theory that better fits the evidence. Whining on the part of creationists won't change this fact.

quote:

---

And that is questioning by anyone is not acceptable but a rejection of SCIENCE. A rejection of what has been PROVEN, A rejection of the people who know BEST. SCIENTISTS.

---

Absolute BS. All you have to do is construct theories that are consistent with the evidence and base your theories on testable hypotheses. Unfornately, creationists are not able to do this. Instead, they rely on faith, the unseen, and the untestable. They are not a part of science because they refuse to follow the methodologies of science. Again, whining won't change this fact. Until creationist show that there is falsifying evidence, evidence that doesn't fit into the theory of evolution, they have nothing to complain about.

quote:

---

For you or anyone to attempt to say evolution is just a theory with legs until proven otherwise is sign and poof that evolution can not stand scruntity.

---

At least evolution puts forth something that creationist's refuse to put forth: a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. The weakness of any scientific theory is that it could be falsified tomorrow for all we know. Creationism is an utter failure because it can't even be tested nor can it have falsifying evidence since the infallibility of a literal Bible is held as being the most important thing. Creationists are the peddlers of dishonesty, expecting objective evidence from their detractors while expecting nothing of the kind from their own camp. How about that positive evidence for concentrated mammal populations that you keep talking about? Or are we supposed to take that on faith and expect you to be honest?

quote:

---

The Bible uses the word star for anthing in the universe unless otherwise stated. Even Mars would be a star.

---

God is ignorant of stars, planets and comets, then?

quote:

---

The stars coming to earth need not of hit in thier full size but just fragments of them.

---

Ah, because you say so? I am always astonished about the creationists' willingness to invent and assume stuff that never have even remotely been documented, just so their "true in every detail of every word" story of creation is to be believed to be absolutely correct in every detail.What you are saying here is that the Bible is wrong, and that God is ignorant. Yet, creationists insist that every word in the Bible is absolutely true. So Mars is a star, even if it is not. Yup, sure, whatever.

quote:

---

And explains the choas in the universe at present because of a comic war.

---

Really ? (I presume you mean "cosmic"?) Funny how that really isn't much emphasized, this physical chaos resulting from a "cosmic war"

Short cut? Scientific community?
Either evolution etc is presented in society by the establishment as true and proven and having disproved previous ideas or I've been asleep all my life.Evolution is presented as true as the holocaust. Why do you want to back down from this? Perhaps because when someone says something is proven others can say NO it isn't. And its beholden on you to present evidence. But evolutionists don't. They just say they have a new kind of evidence and gathering of evidence.Evolution is not testable or falsifiable. Thats our point. Show your top thre examples of when tests hav taken place please.
Regards

quote:

---

Either evolution etc is presented in society by the establishment as true and proven and having disproved previous ideas or I've been asleep all my life.

---

You have been listening to the popularizaton of the theory. From scientists, it has always been tentative and will never be proven 100%. However, it seems that a literal translation of Genesis is held as 100% true by a few christians. Mind showing me the evidence behind that one?

quote:

---

And its beholden on you to present evidence. But evolutionists don't. They just say they have a new kind of evidence and gathering of evidence.

---

Maybe you really have been asleep your whole life, I take that back. The only thing evolutionists do is present evidence. Look at this entire thread. All we have done is present you with evidence, but instead you prefer theories without evidence (mammals were concentrated). But you are right, there is a new kind of evidence gathering as compared to years past. Now, science relies on objective evidence and natural mechanisms as compared to the Dark Ages when supernatural mechanisms were used.

quote:

---

Evolution is not testable or falsifiable.

---

BS. If evolution did not occur then there shouldn't be a sorted fossil record. The very fact that the fossil record fits into evolutionary theories is evidence that it is testable and falsifiable. You are refuted once again.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-22-2004 01:38 PM

Are you perhaps confusing Evolution and the Theory of Evolution?Evolution is simply an account of what happened. It is the sum body of all the evidence. It happened. The evidence is there.The Theory of Evolution though is an attempt to explain the steps, forces and reasons that Evolution happened. So far, over the last 150 years, the TOE has not only withstood every challenge, it has provided a way to make predictions that have later shown to be true.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You misunderstood my analysis. It was a new idea.
I wasn't taliking about the scientific method and the faith/bible method.
I meant the scientific method about truth on origins was ,carefully, brought in to change mankinds usual method of finding truth.
Usually we weigh the evidence and with that consider the authority behind it.
But in evolution/origins SUDDENLY mankind is to except a new process of truth finding. That is the hypothesis method.
This is find for science but not society.
I'm,with difficulty, trying to say the rules were changed ,without the public knowing, on the study of origins.
The public believes experts. The experts present to the public they are sure of what they say by methods of fact finding and testing.
Yet in evolution this was changed.
Evolutionists said they proved wrong something and proved right something else based on thier expertism.
But actually they changed the rules (the scientific method) about how truth was to be found on these matters.The people are told and understand in the usual way that evolution has been proven. When in fact it is just a theory that has never been proven. Its not testable or falsifiable.

This is a good example. Not as you say the theory came then the fossil sequence but the opposite. The sorted fossils were seen and then the theory for it came. Just read Darwins book to confirm that.
The same with creationists. We have a legitamate witness, the Bible,(even if not true still until proven not true a legitamate witness)and then we have evidence, sorted fossils, and we theorize that it is evidence of a sudden event that turned them to stone and they are not sorted but rather different creatures living in different places on a hill. As it is today.
We both are dealing with stuff in the field. But we weight the evidence as in a civil court. Evolutionists as in a criminal court have different rules for evidence and drawing conclusions.
And not informing society about this switcharoo. But takingt advantage of the publics trust.

quote:

---

This is a good example. Not as you say the theory came then the fossil sequence but the opposite. The sorted fossils were seen and then the theory for it came. Just read Darwins book to confirm that.

---

Yes, Darwin started with observations, the opposite of creationists who start with the conclusion. If it was found that the fossil record is not sorted, but only appears so, then it would falsify evolution. However, DNA similarities/dissimilarities match up with the fossil record when the theory of evolution is applied. These are two independent measures (fossil record and DNA) that point to the same thing: evolution. If kangaroos were more like humans than chimps with respect to DNA, then the theory of evolution would be thrown out because the DNA does not match up with the fossil record. This makes evolution inherently testable and falsifiable, because the observations that comprise the theory can always be tested for validity.

quote:

---

The same with creationists. We have a legitamate witness, the Bible,(even if not true still until proven not true a legitamate witness)

---

First, you have to support a positive claim with positive evidence. The Bible is only taken as a legitamate witness if it matches up with what we find in nature. If things don't match up, then it isn't legitamate. A literal interpretation of the Bible has be shown time after to time to be wrong with respect to the natural world. Hence, a literal interpretation of the Bible has been shown to be illigitamate with respect to the natural world.For instance, a world wide deluge would mix the fossils up in a random order. We find a non-random order. A world wide deluge would create on monotonous layer in the fossil record. We find sorted sediment, metamorphic, and igneous layers. A six day creation would have dinosaurs and grass in the same geologic layers, they are not. A literal translation of the Bible is falsified by the evidence, not by the theory of evolution. Even if evolution were to be shown to be false, creationism would still be falsified.

quote:

---

and then we have evidence, sorted fossils, and we theorize that it is evidence of a sudden event that turned them to stone and they are not sorted but rather different creatures living in different places on a hill. As it is today.

---

Which falls apart because flowering plants are found ABOVE pine trees, the exact opposite of what we find today. Ferns are below grasses, the exact opposite of what we find today. Zonal deposition makes no sense in a lot of other cases because aquatic species can be found above terrestrial species in the fossil record. Are you saying that whales are above lizards right now? The theory fails utterly in every way possible. All you have left is to declare that God is a trickster and everything is a miracle.

quote:

---

We both are dealing with stuff in the field. But we weight the evidence as in a civil court.

---

Well, in that case I declare that a literal translation of the Bible is wrong. Prove me wrong, because I am innocent until proven guilty. Or, there are invisible fairies floating above my head. Prove me wrong. Sorry, but that is not how it works. To make a positive claim you have to have positive evidence and no falsifying evidence. Just as in civil court, I as the prosecution have made case against a literal translation of Genesis (fossil sorting and DNA). You have yet to show evidence that counters that claim (claims without evidence don't count). I win.

It sounds like you're claiming that the "hypothesis method" (better known as the hypothetico-deductive method) was invented solely to justify evolution and abiogenesis. Since evolution predates formalization of the hypothetico-deductive method, and since it is actually used across all branches of science, what leads you say this?--Percy

No I'm not saying it was brought in just to justify evolution.
I'm saying that we all live together in one society.
We have ways of coming to conclusions.
We had and have the practice of assesing the evidence and drawing conclusions.
Yet on the matter of origins suddenly it is insisted there will be a new way of finding conclusions. And this way is not just for the field of science but all society is to accept this new way on the issue of origins.Another way to put it.
We have a four criminal cases brought before the same jury.
Innocent until proven guilty we tell them is to control thier conclusion.
But on the fourth one we say this one is to be judge on weighing the evidence (as in a civil case) no presumed innocence.
BUT ALL four verdicts are read out to the world as having been the product of a criminal proceadure. More sure.This is what i'm saying has taken place in the origins problem.
We are dealing with a debate where truth/conclusion on origins has been changed by evolutionists from the usual way for manknid.
In short any other way to truth about origins has not been proven wrong but rather disqualified from the race at the start.
This is why intellectually evolution can not say it should be the presumed truth that it tries to claim now.Regards

I'm sorry - but your posts don't make any sense to me.Is english your second language?

So once again, when you are confronted with the error in your posts, your response is to change what you said and pretend it never happened?Originally you said: and once you were shown that Authority was not a valid way of ariving at conclusions you try to reword it to: Then you go on and compound your error by saying: You continue to make the assertion, even after you have been told numerous times that it is simply false, that Evolution deals with more than just the origin of species.One last time.Evolution does not deal with the Origin of Life.Evolution is the body of evidence, nothing more. Just the evidence.The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation yet to explain the body of Evidence.Now, how about your trying to get back on the topic which is:

Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

To deal with this, please point to where the evidence of the Great Flood lies in the Geologic Column.Next, please explain the fossil sorting that is seen in all of the layers of the GC, beginning with the pre-Cambrian and working your way upwards.If you can not do that, layer by layer, species by species, then your theory will have been falsified.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion