Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 357 of 411 (130043)
08-03-2004 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by crashfrog
07-27-2004 5:58 PM


Been away.
BUT the past itself isn't witnessed. Thats my point. The evidence is then only about interpretation. And unless a further act of "Science" takes place then science has not taken place.
Elsewhere I've said forensics and Sherlock Holmes do and did not engage in science. Evidence yes. A standard of evidence very important but not the standard of the endeavor called science.
Regards rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2004 5:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by AdminNosy, posted 08-03-2004 3:47 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 361 by mark24, posted 08-03-2004 7:23 PM Robert Byers has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 358 of 411 (130056)
08-03-2004 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Robert Byers
08-03-2004 3:01 PM


There is a topic for this.
Please take your comments on this to
Applying Science to Past Events

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 3:01 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 359 of 411 (130059)
08-03-2004 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Loudmouth
07-27-2004 7:30 PM


Re: science notes
Been away. We are, indeed, now talking about methodology of science and history.
You said science and history are two different endeavors that use the same methodology.
Thats the rub. I say they are two different endeavors with different methodologies.
How can this be resolved?
You bring up about forensics but I would say that it is not science either though it deals with evidence. But forensics should not be your sides great defence to say the past is as scientifically viable as the present.
You gave yourself as an excellent example. You are indeed as you explained doing science in your cell research. Yet you make a few errors here.
First you have never tested something that happened ten minutes ago. You have rather tested a new reaction based on the same principal/laws that acted ten minutes ago TOO. A past event is gone and untestable. This is another intellectual rub between us.
Second you make the comparison between your dealing with unwitnessable actions in human cells and the dealing with unwitnessable past events. This is just my point (another one).
The ONLY reason one can not witness the doings of cells is because of visual difficulty. Yet they are happening and thus testable right now once the visual difficulty is over. This is not the same as past events which are not testable because they are gone. They are not happening now. The laws yes but not the event in question. this is the error that evolution supporters make in thier line of reasoning.
A standard of evidence has been comprimised.
Loudmouth it is not for me to show how a past event can be testable. I say it can't. Other eveidence can be brought up to convince about a past event but not tests.
Historical inquiry does not deal with tests and falsification. These are terms for the field of science only.
I feel my post you responded too was not quite answered by you on the tthree matters. And I put it best there.
P.S. Your Natural history museum point makes my point. Fossils should be in history museums. They deal with the past. but they shouldn't be in a science museum.
regards Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Loudmouth, posted 07-27-2004 7:30 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Admin, posted 08-03-2004 4:52 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 360 of 411 (130073)
08-03-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Robert Byers
08-03-2004 4:05 PM


Re: science notes
Please take this discussion to Applying Science to Past Events.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 4:05 PM Robert Byers has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 361 of 411 (130118)
08-03-2004 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Robert Byers
08-03-2004 3:01 PM


Robert,
The evidence is then only about interpretation.
Tell me, are electrons, protons & neutrons scientifically valid? I only ask because no one has seen them, either.
Come to think of it, you have rendered all of chemistry, & most of physics as being unscientific.
I put it to you that "interpretation" is a part of science. Any given interpretation is testable & falsifiable. Like most science, it's the sheer amount of evidence in favour of any given interpretation that buoys it up. It matters not a jot as to whether the hypothesis is historical, or not.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 3:01 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 2:22 PM mark24 has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 362 of 411 (130330)
08-04-2004 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by mark24
08-03-2004 7:23 PM


Mark. You show the misunderstanding about science that is common in the public. Indeed it is something that must be learned.
Protons and Neutrons are indeed not seen. There being there however is a study of the here and now. They are existing or happening now. And science can deal with that.
HOWever where science is asked to deal with past events it has ceased to be science with the tool of the scientific method and becomes just another intellectual endeavor drawing conclusions with evidence. BUT no longer the special field or specis of science. It is now a study of history.
Yright when you say the subject of origins usesa sheer amount of evidence. AGAIN however science isn't about evidence, sheer or otherwise. It is a special method. Where that method is not used there is not the prestige of scientific conclusion. (regardles whether its true or not)
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by mark24, posted 08-03-2004 7:23 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by AdminNosy, posted 08-04-2004 2:35 PM Robert Byers has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 363 of 411 (130336)
08-04-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Robert Byers
08-04-2004 2:22 PM


Topics
Take this to the apropriate thread!
Mark, Robert! The next person who carries on this off-topic path will be resting for a day. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 2:22 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 364 of 411 (130633)
08-05-2004 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Robert Byers
08-03-2004 2:44 PM


quote:
Been away.
OK this is a excellent example.
The sedimentation shows the waters/pressure of the fllod fossilising the debris.
Then the continents in movement in the same year did the tilting.
The last thing could be explained by pressure at the end of the continental movement. Of coarse after weathering would take place.
Regards
Robert,
Nonsense! Continents move at around 2cm per year. That photo shows 2 different periods of sedimentation; In order that the vertical layers to get eroded was to be above water, then sink below sea level and then redeposited on, then another uplift above sea.
Where do you get your strange ideas from?
The bible is very clear about the flood, but it does not talk about mountain building events at that time. Also, how did the olive tree survive all that upheaval?
Give me you emial address and I will send you a copy of some interesting reading material from a Christian perspective on all this..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 2:44 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Robert Byers, posted 08-05-2004 5:50 PM Mike_King has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 365 of 411 (130782)
08-05-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Mike_King
08-05-2004 9:58 AM


I think this is about fossil sorting so I'm legit (For sure I do get off topic for I forget the thread I'm onetc)
Mike it is over here by Creationists accepted that the continents moved. It is well attested by evidence and does not reject the Bible.
So we have adapted it.
The slow drift today (if it is) is not the original action.
Not continental drift but continental redeye.
The crashing of the continents was a sudeen event and perhaps the source of so much fossilization due to such pressure being created.
Also Mike to it is often suggested that the creatures of the sea also as on the land were destroyed. Only God took care of the remnant. In order to kill the creatures in the sea,who swim, another method was needed. This was the redeye.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Mike_King, posted 08-05-2004 9:58 AM Mike_King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by NosyNed, posted 08-05-2004 6:32 PM Robert Byers has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 366 of 411 (130798)
08-05-2004 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Robert Byers
08-05-2004 5:50 PM


Drift rates
The slow drift today (if it is) is not the original action.
No, that is not the case. At least some parts of the drift have been directly measured for considerable times into the past. These rates match up with current rates and, for part of the time, current directions. This is simple wrong.
see
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/plate2.htm
pay particular attention to:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/volc_age.gif
Now then, that is off topic. (sorry)
Let's get back to sorting shall we?
In what way could hyper rapid galloping plates help you with the sorting problem? It seems the more chaos the less chance for things to be so orderly.
Meanwhile, Robert, another suggestion that you stop making assertions when you keep on being so very, very wrong. You are embarrassing the educational system of our shared country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Robert Byers, posted 08-05-2004 5:50 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Robert Byers, posted 08-06-2004 5:02 PM NosyNed has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 367 of 411 (131058)
08-06-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by NosyNed
08-05-2004 6:32 PM


Re: Drift rates
The fast breakup and separation of land would create tremendous water pressure,I repeat tremendous,that would instantly squish life and even the evirorment of that life.
The power of water is being accepted now in science as a source for great change. For example in Southern Ontario the old idea of how the topagraphy came about by slow glacial weight and movement is being replaced by the idea of subglacial flood outbursts lasting a short period as having done all the work. Also in the NW States.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by NosyNed, posted 08-05-2004 6:32 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Loudmouth, posted 08-06-2004 5:06 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 369 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2004 6:27 PM Robert Byers has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 368 of 411 (131059)
08-06-2004 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Robert Byers
08-06-2004 5:02 PM


Re: Drift rates
quote:
The fast breakup and separation of land would create tremendous water pressure,I repeat tremendous,that would instantly squish life and even the evirorment of that life.
So why don't we find dinosaurs with grass and grass pollen? If the entire environment was squished then these two things should be found together. Also, why don't we find aquatic mammals and ancient aquatic reptiles in the same layers? How does this "power of water" create such ordered fossil layers consistently world wide?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Robert Byers, posted 08-06-2004 5:02 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Robert Byers, posted 08-07-2004 3:59 PM Loudmouth has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 369 of 411 (131079)
08-06-2004 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Robert Byers
08-06-2004 5:02 PM


Re: Drift rates
And where in your post did you answer the point of my post that you replied to?
It would appear that you didn't read what you were shown. Could you correct me if I'm wrong about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Robert Byers, posted 08-06-2004 5:02 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Robert Byers, posted 08-07-2004 3:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 370 of 411 (131367)
08-07-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by NosyNed
08-06-2004 6:27 PM


Re: Drift rates
The first part you said was off topic. So i presume you don't mean that.
I guess you mean about order out of the chaos of crashing/splitting continents!?
When I replied about water pressure it was on the premise that it is understood that it would freeze anything at any point it came in contact with. And that the "sorted" life was frozen where it was.
Again as has been said before creationists do not accept that there is any sorting. This is an interpretation of fossils in the field.
tHE "SORTING" was just another side of a hill of similiar creatures.
All fossils are a photagraph of a momment in a day. The day they were fossilized. Not fossilization event after fossization event after fossilization event over millions of years.
It is not demonstrated to be so. And its unreasonable and unnessesary.
NN the small group of people who put thier minds to these things have simply never imagined the great upheavel creationists suggest.
Therefore thier ideas are restricked by uniforitarium processes.
This problem themselves admit is what brought opposition to the ideas of drift and meltwater explosians in the NW states as origins for topagraphy. It is thier premises that stand in the way and not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2004 6:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by MarkAustin, posted 08-13-2004 9:12 AM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 371 of 411 (131372)
08-07-2004 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Loudmouth
08-06-2004 5:06 PM


Re: Drift rates
The grass business is back.
The fact that there is no grass with dinosaurs is explained easily by saying that grass was a minor plant in nooks and cranies of the world the and took off only after the flood. It is very common for different plants to change in dominance and even happens today.
For example there is a famous tree,I think redwood, that used to dominate the nothern hemispere but today is resticked to small areas in China.
As to aquatic mammals/reptiles not together in the fossil record. Simple mammals did not take to the sea until after the flood. Before the ancesters of whales/seals were on the land. But as on the land there was a dominance shift and so the sea was free for invasion.
Finally it must be said again that creationists don't accept that there has been sorting of fossils. They are simplly the fossilized momment in time. The seeming sorting is a error of interpretation of data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Loudmouth, posted 08-06-2004 5:06 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by RAZD, posted 08-07-2004 5:05 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 373 by Percy, posted 08-07-2004 7:23 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 374 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 12:39 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 375 by jar, posted 08-09-2004 12:50 PM Robert Byers has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024