I thought from the way you guys were talking that I must have used the term "witness" in some sense that included inanimate objects, which would have been a mistake although I could see I might have done it. But if this is what you meant it turns out I did not do that at all:
There are plenty of witnesses of all kinds to help the forensic investigator decipher the clues of a case. There are legal documents, case histories, and yes even scientific documents that may help in a particular case and are in the sense I'm using the word "witnesses.
OK, so now you are acknowledging the traces left by past events are "witnesses" and can be relied on. It's a start. Now try applying it.
What I listed are all HUMAN witnesses, documents written by human beings. I did not use the term in the sense you are saying I did, to refer to rocks as witnesses. I thought I must have made that error since you claim I did, but in fact I did not. Written documents that can be used in any way to establish the truth about a crime or ancient rocks, are the sort of witnesses I had in mind, all HUMAN witnesses.
Historical Geology studies things that exist in a time frame where there are no witnesses of any sort whatever.
By your definition, the rocks are witnesses.
This is completely false. I referred only to written documents as witnesses,. Rocks don't write documents.
Yes, RAZD, I was explaining what I meant by the "unwitnessed" past and what I meant refers to human witnesses, not to rocks though that kept getting falsely imputed to me. Rocks are the subject matter that needs the human witness, at least written information. Rocks don't write documents. The sense in which they are "witnesses" is not the sense I meant. I hope what I meant is now clear to you. When I say the "unwitnessed past" I mean the prehistoric past where you have no way of having your interpretation corrected. That is not the case with criminal forensics where you always have lots of possibilities through human witnesses both in person and in documents, to help you out. I do hope that what I mean by that constant concern about the danger of unstoppable false interpretation of the unwitnessed / prehistoric past, is clearer.
There are plenty of witnesses of all kinds to help the forensic investigator decipher the clues of a case. There are legal documents, case histories, and yes even scientific documents that may help in a particular case and are in the sense I'm using the word "witnesses."
If, in Faithspeak, scientific documents count as "witnesses", then in what sense is the prehistoric past unwitnessed? There are lots of scientific documents telling us about it ...
Agreed, there's actual science and there is "creation science" ...
Actual science and atheist science is more what I had in mind.
But let the process begin -- be careful of what you wish for ... there will be a lot of replies: would you like to propose some "rules of engagement" to minimize your load?
I don't care, I'll respond to whom and what I want, and I'll take all the time I need. I'll try not to be absent for more than a couple of days at a time. I can't forsee it going on too long. If there's a lot of anger and rudeness, I'll include my response to that in my closing summary - it will help make my points.
Yep. What you mean is that if you ignore everything that is known about rocks and what they can tell you about the past, and ignore all the evidence of similar processes today, and if you close your eyes and plug your ears and stuff cotton up your nose and shout loudly in all caps, you can tell yourself that there is no way to know about rocks and the past.
But you are only fooling yourself.
The only way to stop science is to invalidate it -- and that means playing on the level field without handicapping yourself by lack of knowledge.
quote:Leonardo knew well the rocks and fossils (mostly Cenozoic mollusks) found in his native north Italy. No doubt he had ample opportunity to observe them during his service as an engineer and artist at the court of Lodovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, from 1482 to 1499: Vasari wrote that "Leonardo was frequently occupied in the preparation of plans to remove mountains or to pierce them with tunnels from plain to plain." He made many observations on mountains and rivers, and he grasped the principle that rocks can be formed by deposition of sediments by water, while at the same time the rivers erode rocks and carry their sediments to the sea, in a continuous grand cycle. He wrote: "The stratified stones of the mountains are all layers of clay, deposited one above the other by the various floods of the rivers. . . In every concavity at the summit of the mountains we shall always find the divisions of strata in the rocks." Leonardo appear to have grasped the law of superposition, which would later be articulated fully by the Danish scientist Nicolaus Steno in 1669: in any sequence of sedimentary rocks, the oldest rocks are those at the base. He also appears to have noticed that distinct layers of rocks and fossils could be traced over long distances, and that these layers were formed at different times: ". . . the shells in Lombardy are at four levels, and thus it is everywhere, having been made at various times." Nearly three hundred years later, the rediscovery and elaboration of these principles would make possible modern stratigraphy and geological mapping.
... As Leonardo himself wrote:
Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.
The facts, Faith, the facts show that there was no flood.