Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 8:47 PM
413 online now:
DrJones*, frako, jar, ThinAirDesigns (4 members, 409 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,992 Year: 6,598/21,208 Month: 2,359/2,634 Week: 22/525 Day: 22/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Author Topic:   Cosmos with Neil DeGrass Tyson
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9324
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 166 of 206 (725586)
04-28-2014 10:00 PM


Episode 8 is as good as any episode with the possible exception of the Newton episode. I don't want to spoil any of it, but the content is primarily astrophysics with no gratuitous pokes at Creationism, although YEC proponents still won't like it.

Definitely family friendly. Invite a tweener to watch with you!

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9324
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 167 of 206 (725587)
04-28-2014 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
04-27-2014 9:58 AM


Re: science versus mental conjuring
Let me add something.

The primary difference between geology and chemistry is that we cannot always control all of the variables we would like. But hypothesis testing in the two disciplines is more alike than different. Geology is not just making up stories the way astrologist make up myths to match constellations. There is also working out the consequences of those hypothesis and looking for evidence that the worked out consequences are correct, and then verifying that things that the hypothesis denies are also absent. Those endeavors separate science from story telling. And there is no question that geologist do those activities.

It is quite easy to invalidate hydraulic Flood sorting using those methods because that guess cannot explain fossils of animals that have similar hydraulic properties are not being together. And of course you cannot gather more evidence or look under new rocks from your armchair.

And of course we can test whether heat and pressure can have effect Z on rock in a laboratory.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 04-27-2014 9:58 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


(1)
Message 168 of 206 (725588)
04-28-2014 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
04-27-2014 9:58 AM


Re: science versus mental conjuring
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah, you've "explained" and that's supposed to just bowl me over. All it does is make me roll my eyes. I've explained and explained too and see that onifre and omni down the thread a few posts are repeating the same stuff about forensics I've answered a million times. So, in your immortal words, we're even.

You CANNOT do any experiment or analysis of experiment that would prove that the fossils represent the only living things in a particular time period, and if your radiometric methods ARE contaminated or otherwise untrustworthy you'd have no way of knowing that all the strata were laid down in a relatively short period of time, which is patently the case. Your exams are going to be corrupted by the fact that all you have is your own present reference points so that if things AREN'T the way in the past that they are in the present you will never figure that out.

Yes, we're fully aware that your only weapon against the repeated detailed explanations of how these layers accumulated in the past in the same way they're accumulating today (see, for example, my Message 18 that I posted yesterday) is to call them names and remain ignorant.

Some things are just something you have to SEE. The idea that the strata represent time periods during which nothing lived but the peculiar fossil forms present in the rock IS just plain bonkers, but you have to open your eyes and SEE it. You have to be WILLING to see it. It's a matter of judgment about the size and shape of the strata themselves, so nicely horizontally deposited by water, so many different kinds of sediments too as if particular time periods produced one and just one kind of sediment; and the fact that the fossils are a bunch of dead things in the bazillions, which is exactly what we'd expect of a worldwide Flood It's not a matter of some OTHER evidence. Your "detailed explanations" are RIDICULOUS, truly like a fairy tale.

You see a fossil flower in the rock and it moves you to rapturous fantasies about how it came to be there, how it met the fossil fern or fossil trilobite or whatever, and they go off in search of adventures, and they find rivers and lakes and all KINDS of wonderful things buried in this Rock which is Really A Time Period.

And now on another thread we have a model of deposition by rising sea level, which is somehow supposed to accord with this ridiculous fantasy of time periods? YES, this is something you have to SEE, it's ABSURD!

Obviously you'd rather call ME names than be honest about the terms of the argument.

ABE: What you see on the sea floor today is NOT the Geologic Column, has nothing whatever to do with your fantasy of a Geologic Timetable. All that was over and done with in the Flood, and of COURSE you don't see it, you're looking in the wrong place, you have the wrong assumptions, you have the wrong THEORY.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 04-27-2014 9:58 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-28-2014 11:45 PM Faith has responded
 Message 172 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2014 1:20 AM Faith has responded
 Message 173 by edge, posted 04-29-2014 9:57 AM Faith has responded
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 05-03-2014 8:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15474
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 169 of 206 (725591)
04-28-2014 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
04-28-2014 10:58 PM


If you took the time you spent reciting fatuous nonsense about science, and used it to study science instead, then you'd know something about science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 10:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 04-29-2014 12:08 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


(1)
Message 170 of 206 (725592)
04-29-2014 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dr Adequate
04-28-2014 11:45 PM


Yeah and if the 98% of your posts that are nothing but clever putdowns were treated by Admin as they should be according to the Rules, we'd see very very little of you at EvC, but unfortunately we have to learn to skip over your trash.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-28-2014 11:45 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3740
Joined: 09-26-2002


(1)
Message 171 of 206 (725594)
04-29-2014 1:14 AM


Suspension flag for messages 169 and 170
12 hours for each of them.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that.

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 172 of 206 (725595)
04-29-2014 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
04-28-2014 10:58 PM


Re: science versus mental conjuring
quote:

You CANNOT do any experiment or analysis of experiment that would prove that the fossils represent the only living things in a particular time period,

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:

and if your radiometric methods ARE contaminated or otherwise untrustworthy you'd have no way of knowing that all the strata were laid down in a relatively short period of time, which is patently the case

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:

Some things are just something you have to SEE. The idea that the strata represent time periods during which nothing lived but the peculiar fossil forms present in the rock IS just plain bonkers, but you have to open your eyes and SEE it.

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:

It's a matter of judgment about the size and shape of the strata themselves, so nicely horizontally deposited by water, so many different kinds of sediments too as if particular time periods produced one and just one kind of sediment; and the fact that the fossils are a bunch of dead things in the bazillions, which is exactly what we'd expect of a worldwide Flood It's not a matter of some OTHER evidence. Your "detailed explanations" are RIDICULOUS, truly like a fairy tale.

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:

And now on another thread we have a model of deposition by rising sea level, which is somehow supposed to accord with this ridiculous fantasy of time periods? YES, this is something you have to SEE, it's ABSURD!

In fact it is entirely reasonable, and good science too. And i can SEE that.

quote:

Obviously you'd rather call ME names than be honest about the terms of the argument

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 10:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 04-30-2014 12:18 AM PaulK has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


(3)
Message 173 of 206 (725603)
04-29-2014 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
04-28-2014 10:58 PM


Re: science versus mental conjuring
ABE: What you see on the sea floor today is NOT the Geologic Column, ...

Actually, it is the geological column for that location.

quote:
... has nothing whatever to do with your fantasy of a Geologic Timetable.

Actually, it does represent the geological time scale at that location. It is just a very short period compared to some others.

quote:
All that was over and done with in the Flood, ...

Except that sediments are being deposited today, continuing the billions of years' record.

quote:
... and of COURSE you don't see it, you're looking in the wrong place, you have the wrong assumptions, you have the wrong THEORY.

I'm not sure where else there is to look other than at the geology for a geological column.

You complaints aside, the theory works. The concept of a single catastrophic transgression is at odds with the coordinated, general geological column.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 10:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2014 12:59 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 04-29-2014 2:11 PM edge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 174 of 206 (725611)
04-29-2014 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by edge
04-29-2014 9:57 AM


matrix vs column
... The concept of a single catastrophic transgression is at odds with the coordinated, general geological column.

Perhaps matrix would be a better term than column. As discussed in the Deposition thread (Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law) there is both a vertical and a horizontal component to formation of the geological record, and a "column" section taken in one place doesn't necessarily match the column in another ... but it does fit into a geological matrix of horizontal and vertical elements.

Cross-sectional views also fail to record the full detail of the geological record, so the matrix is 4D (including time)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by edge, posted 04-29-2014 9:57 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 175 of 206 (725613)
04-29-2014 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by edge
04-29-2014 9:57 AM


Re: science versus mental conjuring
ABE: What you see on the sea floor today is NOT the Geologic Column, ...

Actually, it is the geological column for that location.

Yes of course that fits your theory, but how odd that the whole idea was formed from strata either clearly seen on land to be stacked very deep, such as in the GC-GS area, or easily enough cobbled together from various different locations on land, all the way from the Precambrian to the Quaternary. But now assumed to be continuing on the sea bottom. Well, I'm not going to be able to talk you out of it but it hits me as absurd. But I understand, it HAS to be that way because that's what the theory requires.


... has nothing whatever to do with your fantasy of a Geologic Timetable.

Actually, it does represent the geological time scale at that location. It is just a very short period compared to some others.

Again apparently it doesn't strike you as odd as it does me that this very short period at the bottom of the sea is considered to be continuing the timetable from Precambrian to Quaternary that was bult completely on land, covering I believe a couple billion years. But again what the general presuppositions of geology require is that anywhere time is continuing and strata are forming suffices for the Geo Time scale AND the Geo Column, therefore that is what must be happening.

All that was over and done with in the Flood, ...

Except that sediments are being deposited today, continuing the billions of years' record.

On nowhere near the scale (on land anyway), either breadth or depth or even sequence of sediments (?). If it's forming underwater I would suppose it won't be forming according to Walther's Law (?).

... and of COURSE you don't see it, you're looking in the wrong place, you have the wrong assumptions, you have the wrong THEORY.

I'm not sure where else there is to look other than at the geology for a geological column.

I'd of course look to the continents where it has formed in the past, but it doesn't seem to be forming there in any sense that could be said to be continuing the pattern.

You complaints aside, the theory works. The concept of a single catastrophic transgression is at odds with the coordinated, general geological column.

That's for sure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by edge, posted 04-29-2014 9:57 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2014 3:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 176 of 206 (725619)
04-29-2014 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
04-29-2014 2:11 PM


not the topic, not this thread
and another thread gets hijacked.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 04-29-2014 2:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2014 5:35 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 177 of 206 (725627)
04-29-2014 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by RAZD
04-29-2014 3:07 PM


Inner Fish Monkeyshines: NCSE Science League of America
http://ncse.com/blog/2014/04/your-inner-monkeyshines-0015558

quote:
Your Inner Monkeyshines

In Your Inner Monkey, the third episode of PBSs Your Inner Fish, Neil Shubin did his usual globe-trotting to meet interesting scientists and fossils. We learned about how our ancestors gained traits that humans now possessopposable thumbs, finger and toe nails, bipedalism, large brains, and bad backs. Its a pretty short list (mammary glands were not mentioned) but Shubin gave extensive airtime to visiting two researchers on NCSEs Advisory Council, Donald Johanson and Tim White.


Again very well done and I am sad that this will be ending.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2014 3:07 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Omnivorous, posted 04-29-2014 5:52 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(1)
Message 178 of 206 (725629)
04-29-2014 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by RAZD
04-29-2014 5:35 PM


Re: Inner Fish Monkeyshines: NCSE Science League of America
RAZD writes:

Again very well done and I am sad that this will be ending.

I did watch Inner Monkey and thought it was the best yet. I especially enjoyed "meeting" Johanson and White, whose work I've long admired.

I suspect we'll see more of Shubin.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2014 5:35 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 179 of 206 (725643)
04-30-2014 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by PaulK
04-29-2014 1:20 AM


Re: science versus mental conjuring
If this thread is being hijacked it's not by me. If someone wants to move this discussion then move it.

You CANNOT do any experiment or analysis of experiment that would prove that the fossils represent the only living things in a particular time period,

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.

Experimental science and observational science are basiclaly the same thing. Astronomy IS an observational science, but historical geology is not. The planets and stars move in relation to each other and in relation to Earth, observations over time can tell you all kinds of things about them. In the case of historical geology you have a stack of inert sediments that just lie there, and their fossil contents are dead and motionless. Everything you come up with in this case is just a lot of wild guesswork that can't be validated by independent tests or independent observations. You can all built on each other's notions but if they happen to be illusions all you will be doing is expanding the illusion. It's not like watching the stars where the stars themselves are doing things that can change your mind.

My statement remains true: You CANNOT do any experiment or analysis of experiment that would prove that the fossils represent the only living things in a particular time period. But let me add: there is nothing observable about these fossils that could prove this either.

and if your radiometric methods ARE contaminated or otherwise untrustworthy you'd have no way of knowing that all the strata were laid down in a relatively short period of time, which is patently the case

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.

Yes they do and if the way it is deposited today in fact is really not the same as the way it was deposited in the geologic column they're going to get the whole thing wrong, which of course they do.

And the idea that the "structure of the rocks" tells you about the time taken for their deposition is some kind of fantasy. Layer after layer of sediment tells you NOTHING about how long it took. It could have taken anything from a few days to a few billion years for all you really know.

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).

The physics of decay is not in dispute. It's the circumstances of the rocks that are being tested, and the many assumptions and unknowns about their condition at the time of their deposition. If that deposition occurred 4300 years ago you'd be off by millions of years. Which you are.

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.

The problem at root is that you have no way of testing your test. All you can do is make assumptions about it in relation to a horde of unknowns. That is how this is NOT an observational OR an experimental science. You can ONLY impose your assumptions on the natural phenomena, you cannot test them in relation to that phenomena.

Some things are just something you have to SEE. The idea that the strata represent time periods during which nothing lived but the peculiar fossil forms present in the rock IS just plain bonkers, but you have to open your eyes and SEE it.

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.

Unfortunately for you your sampling is done WITHIN the boundaries of your assumptions that these ARE time periods. And you DO make assumptions about how a particular time period introduced such and such a creature, which simply happens to be present in this rock but not the rocks below, and about how a particular creature went extinct because it isn't in this rock though it was in the rocks below. Your samplings are meaningless because they are part of your whole wrongheaded theory.

Again, all you need to do is LOOK at the form of the strata and the weirdly limited collection of fossils from layer to layer to see that the whole thing is bonkers. This is the TRUE observational science.

Sometimes it seems like nature gave you a chest of drawers and you find socks in one and say Oh, this is the Era of the Socks, and another is the Era of the Underwear and another the Era of the shirts or the sweat pants, as if the contents of the whole chest of drawers all existed in separate different eras.

But they are SLABS OF FLAT ROCK THAT EXTEND FOR MILES IN ALL DIRECTIONS. Really, it's like you haven't noticed the obvious.


It's a matter of judgment about the size and shape of the strata themselves, so nicely horizontally deposited by water, so many different kinds of sediments too as if particular time periods produced one and just one kind of sediment; and the fact that the fossils are a bunch of dead things in the bazillions, which is exactly what we'd expect of a worldwide Flood It's not a matter of some OTHER evidence. Your "detailed explanations" are RIDICULOUS, truly like a fairy tale.

Except for the strata that weren't deposited by water, the strata that include rock eroded from earlier formations, the strata formed by evaporation.

This all looks very different once you realize they were all the product of the Flood and that all you have done is impose your wrong theory on them so you are getting wrong ideas about how they were deposited. You're missing the forest for the trees at the very least.

Except for the order in the fossil record, except for the many transitional fossils.

The order is at least partly also an artifact of the theory. Fossils of the same Species found at different levels are interpreted in terms of those in the higher levels having evolved from those in the lower levels, but all it really shows is the normal sorting of normal microevolution and that the different races of the same Species simply got buried at different levels. Trilobites for instance occur in a great variety of races and are found in many levels. You ASSUME the higher evolved from the lower, but in actual reality it may be the parent species that happened to get buried in the highest layer. The idea that there is a progression from one Species to another is also assumed, it's a matter of judgment, not a matter of knowledge. You focus on particular features of a Species that look like they might be genetically related to another Species and ignore features that are unique because well, those "evolved." It's all a mental game, you have no evidence, it's all theory, all invention, all hot air.

And there are NO transitional fossils in the abundance Darwin knew they would have to be found to prove his theory. They do not exist. And what you CALL transitional fossils are simply Species unto themselves, or naturally occurring races of a given Species.

I could go on. Misrepresenting or even suppressing evidence that contradicts your views or strongly supports opposing views isn't "real science".

Eh? You must be talking about how the "science" of evolution works, and it's certainly true of that; otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

And now on another thread we have a model of deposition by rising sea level, which is somehow supposed to accord with this ridiculous fantasy of time periods? YES, this is something you have to SEE, it's ABSURD!

In fact it is entirely reasonable, and good science too. And i can SEE that.

Oh I like that model too, I think it's truer than many other things that have been said about the deposition of the strata. It shows how the strata formed mechanically by water. Associating time periods with those strata is something you impose on that simple model.

Obviously you'd rather call ME names than be honest about the terms of the argument

Sure let's REALLY be honest about the terms of the argument, On our side we have evidence and reason,

Here we go again, the Recitation of the Creed, though the actual facts, the real evidence, and Reason itself totally belie this comforting pledge of allegiance you all recite from time to time.

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.

Only because it's in reality a Pernicious Lie that applies better to you than to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2014 1:20 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-30-2014 1:23 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 181 by NoNukes, posted 04-30-2014 1:29 AM Faith has responded
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2014 2:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15474
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 180 of 206 (725646)
04-30-2014 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Faith
04-30-2014 12:18 AM


Experimental science and observational science are basiclaly the same thing. Astronomy IS an observational science, but historical geology is not. The planets and stars move in relation to each other and in relation to Earth, observations over time can tell you all kinds of things about them. In the case of historical geology you have a stack of inert sediments that just lie there, and their fossil contents are dead and motionless.

Things that stay still are actually easier to observe. If all fossils moved at Mach 4, they'd be kinda ... blurry. As each one shot by with a sonic boom, paleontologists would be asking "that grey blur that just passed us at four times the speed of sound, did that look like a trilobite to you?" It would not improve the quality of the observations, is the point I'm trying to get across.

Everything you come up with in this case is just a lot of wild guesswork that can't be validated by independent tests or independent observations.

The independent tests and observations would be looking at other fossils in other rocks. Since, you know, the properties of one fossil are entirely independent of the properties of another.

Perhaps you could explain to us --- what are the independent tests and observations proving that Saturn's rings exist? Since astronomy is apparently OK by you.

My statement remains true: You CANNOT do any experiment or analysis of experiment that would prove that the fossils represent the only living things in a particular time period. But let me add: there is nothing observable about these fossils that could prove this either.

I guess that that would be why no-one claims this except possibly the voices in your head. Don't listen to the voices, Faith. They are bad voices.

Ah, the rest of your post is also shit you've made up in your head, and I'm tired. I may mock your ignorance some more tomorrow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 04-30-2014 12:18 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017