Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 5:27 PM
409 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,743 Year: 10,349/21,208 Month: 3,436/2,674 Week: 852/961 Day: 55/109 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
29Next
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
Faith
Member
Posts: 24484
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 346 of 427 (791560)
09-16-2016 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by herebedragons
09-16-2016 4:17 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
I don't know what characteristics of the rock would be involved in identifying it as Carboniferous, it's just that Geologists are always talking about this or that layer as being formed in a shallow sea or a lake and so on and so forth. The Carboniferous in the Grand Canyon is limestone, but I'm aware that may not be the case elsewhere.

As for fossils, each "time period" has its own identifiable collection, right? No, I don't think of all the different ones in a formation or a "time period" being originally grouped together in the same location, just the "birds of a feather," meaning the same creatures should be found together, and the reason I'm postulating is that they flock together in life and so would end up buried together.

You had said I 'had no right" to make use of standard geology or something like that so I said of course I do; OE theory doesn't own science; whatever is true is true for me as for you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by herebedragons, posted 09-16-2016 4:17 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by jar, posted 09-16-2016 7:38 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 348 by herebedragons, posted 09-16-2016 9:19 PM Faith has responded
 Message 350 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-16-2016 9:43 PM Faith has responded
 Message 362 by Pressie, posted 09-19-2016 5:47 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28692
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 347 of 427 (791561)
09-16-2016 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
09-16-2016 7:35 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Faith writes:

No, I don't think of all the different ones in a formation or a "time period" being grouped together, just the "birds of a feather," meaning the same creatures should be found together, and the reason I'm postulating is that they flock together in life and so would end up buried together.

Unfortunately reality once again says that is just a really really really silly idea.

How does your grouping together idea explain dissimilar critters vertically separated.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 7:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1298
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 348 of 427 (791565)
09-16-2016 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
09-16-2016 7:35 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
I don't know what characteristics of the rock would be involved in identifying it as Carboniferous, it's just that Geologists are always talking about this or that layer as being formed in a shallow sea or a lake and so on and so forth. The Carboniferous in the Grand Canyon is limestone, but I'm aware that may not be the case elsewhere.

Quite right. So if there are Carboniferous limestones, sandstones, mudstones, siltstones and calcareous oozes and there are Permian limestones, sandstones, mudstones, siltstones and calcareous oozes there is nothing in the physical characteristics of the layer that can, by itself, distinguish Permian limestone from Carboniferous limestone.

As for fossils, each "time period" has its own identifiable collection, right?

Sure, but that assemblage is illusionary, remember? Traditional geology claims that those fossils are grouped together because they lived and died and were buried together during the same time period. Flood geology has no reason why those fossils should be grouped together and can therefore make no predictions about what the pattern should be.

For example...

Lets say we have a geological sequence that lies something like this:

---------
fossil D
---------
fossil C
---------
fossil B
---------
fossil A
--------

Now at another location we have a similar sequence, but not all of the sequence is exposed. It looks like this:

--------
fossil D
--------
fossil C
--------
fossil ?
--------
fossil A
--------

Using flood geology, what fossil species would you predict should be found in the unexposed (unknown) layer? I am sure you would predict fossil species B; but WHY? Flood geology has NO reason to predict that fossil species B would come between fossil species A and fossil species C. This is where silly ideas like hydrological sorting, differential flight, and the other supposed explanations that Dr. A mentioned in his recent thread come into play. They supposedly allow one to predict what fossil species should be found in the layer between A and C.

This is the kind of predictions that needs to be made in order to effectively find things like oil and coal.

You had said I 'had no right" to make use of standard geology or something like that so I said of course I do; OE theory doesn't own science; whatever is true is true for me as for you.

You complain about others misrepresenting you and misquoting you, and yet you put 'had no right' in quotes as if I said it (or something like that). But you didn't read what I said apparently. It has nothing to do with your "right" to do it, the point is, it can't work. Flood geology does not have a working model that allows accurate predictions. If you want to go on using "Old Earth" geological models, feel free.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 7:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 9:35 PM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24484
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 349 of 427 (791566)
09-16-2016 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by herebedragons
09-16-2016 9:19 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Look, it's Geology, not I, that says the rocks point to particular environments. If the Carboniferous is marine in one location and terrestrial in another that's their problem, not mine. The fossils remain the same in all cases, and I never said the order itself was an illusion, what's an illusion is the OE interpretation thereof.

It is true that Flood geology has no theory that can predict, but the fact that OE geology can predict isn't because it's right, which is what you are of course saying, it's just because they've assigned their OE meanings to the phenomena. In actual fact they can predict things just because they know from acquaintance with their physical occurrences where they are to be found. YECs can do that too, without a theory.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by herebedragons, posted 09-16-2016 9:19 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by herebedragons, posted 09-16-2016 10:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1351
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.7


(3)
Message 350 of 427 (791567)
09-16-2016 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
09-16-2016 7:35 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
You had said I 'had no right" to make use of standard geology or something like that so I said of course I do; OE theory doesn't own science; whatever is true is true for me as for you.

The point is, it is clearly contradictory to claim that evidence doesn't exist and is an illusion and then to turn around and claim that THAT VERY SAME EVIDENCE supports your argument.

He is saying you can't have it both ways and expect anyone to listen to you.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 7:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 9:47 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24484
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 351 of 427 (791568)
09-16-2016 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Tanypteryx
09-16-2016 9:43 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
The evidence is neutral and I can use it. It doesn't belong to OE geology. I reject OE theory about it, their interpretation or explanation of it. There is no contradiction at all. The evidence is mine, you can have the theory.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-16-2016 9:43 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by edge, posted 09-16-2016 10:26 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 353 by Coyote, posted 09-16-2016 10:28 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 355 by herebedragons, posted 09-16-2016 11:28 PM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3735
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(4)
Message 352 of 427 (791570)
09-16-2016 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Faith
09-16-2016 9:47 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
The evidence is neutral and I can use it. It doesn't belong to OE geology.

Okay, so how do you use radiometric dates?

How do you interpret what we call unconformities in the geological record?

How do you interpret what we call eolian sands in the geological record?

I reject OE theory about it, their interpretation or explanation of it. There is no contradiction at all. The evidence is mine, you can have the theory.

How do you interpret light from distant stars?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 9:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5665
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(4)
Message 353 of 427 (791571)
09-16-2016 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Faith
09-16-2016 9:47 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
The evidence is neutral and I can use it. It doesn't belong to OE geology. I reject OE theory about it, their interpretation or explanation of it. There is no contradiction at all. The evidence is mine, you can have the theory.

In science, theories derive from the evidence, and they explain all relevant evidence.

Repeat: Theories explain all relevant evidence.

Theories (or more usually hypotheses) are continually tested. Many fail and are disproved.

This is the difference between science and apologetics, which is what you are doing.

You simply reject evidence that disproves your hypotheses, and continue on as if they were still valid. They are not.

You rely on belief, and reject any evidence that contradicts your belief. As such, you have no business claiming you are doing science as you are doing the exact opposite.

You should at least be honest about this. That would be most refreshing.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 9:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1298
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(5)
Message 354 of 427 (791572)
09-16-2016 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Faith
09-16-2016 9:35 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Look, it's Geology, not I, that says the rocks point to particular environments.

And I agree with geology, it is you who doesn't. And yet, you are going to examine the contents of the rock to determine that it belongs to the Carboniferous, which has no real meaning to a flood geologist. If the environment and the era have no real meaning to a flood geologist, then there is no point examining the contents of the rock.

If the Carboniferous is marine in one location and terrestrial in another that's their problem, not mine.

The problem is how do YOU identify those two deposits as Carboniferous? Traditional geology doesn't have a problem with that... flood geology does.

It is true that Flood geology has no theory that can predict, but the fact that OE geology can predict isn't because it's right

Despite the common rhetoric around this issue, science doesn't really address what is "right" and what is "wrong." What science seeks to do is find the BEST explanation, ie. the BEST model, that describes a particular phenomenon. Prediction is a measure of the quality of the model; so when comparing two models, the one that is able to predict the most parameters correctly is the better model. So traditional geology can predict say 75% of the given parameters while flood geology can predict none of the given parameters - therefore, traditional geology is the better model. It could be wrong, yes, but the point is the model works better than any flood model, much, much better. When a better model is presented, it will be adopted.

In actual fact they can predict things just because they know from acquaintance with their physical occurrences where they are to be found. YECs can do that too, without a theory.

That's just not true, maybe wishful thinking, but not a factual statement.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 9:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1298
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(10)
Message 355 of 427 (791575)
09-16-2016 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Faith
09-16-2016 9:47 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
The evidence is neutral and I can use it.

This may be a nit-pick, but evidence is not neutral. Evidence is a set of facts presented to support a premise.

quote:
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Notice the definition says "indicating." In order to indicate something, this body of facts needs to be interpreted. This is not neutral, the body of facts indicate something.

Data is neutral. Facts are neutral. By themselves facts and data say nothing about the truth or validity of a premise; it is only when those facts are interpreted that they become evidence.

I reject OE theory about it, their interpretation or explanation of it.

I know the old creationist canard "it's just an interpretation." Every bit of data, every fact must be interpreted before it is useful, so of course, if it's presented as evidence, then it is based on an interpretation.

The thing is, not all interpretations are equal. See, theories are built to enable us to more easily interpret facts and data. Theories give us a framework with which to understand how the data fits together. Without theories, we would be flailing around in the dark, uncertain what direction to go with a particular problem. Not having a working theory requires a tremendous amount of extra work trying to eliminate all possible explanations.

As a simple example: the germ theory of disease allows us to eliminate all other potential sources of disease (look back through history for some of the things people believed caused disease) and skip right to the part where we look for a microorganism. Because of the theory, we assume that disease symptoms are caused by a microorganism and that theory works to fight disease. I think the germ theory of disease is the best known theory that explains the cause of disease (ie. it is "right")

The evidence is mine, you can have the theory.

The evidence is NOT yours, since you have no framework with which to interpret the data and can therefore, not make nor test predictions about your interpretation. Your "interpretations" are just random statements intended to support a general narrative about a particular subject. That is not really interpretation, it's speculation.

An example is the very thing we have been discussing. You interpret the contents of a rock to indicate that the rock belongs to the Carboniferous "group," but you have absolutely no reason for that interpretation. There is nothing you can point to in that rock that indicates 'Carboniferous' without resorting to traditional geological explanations. However, since you don't agree with traditional geological explanations, you have to strip them of their reason for interpreting the rocks the way they do and so, you leave them with no real explanatory power either. SO basically, you have no way of actually interpreting the contents of the rock, you can only make speculations about them.

We could probably do a whole thread or sub-thread on interpretation of data and facts because interpretation is one of the most important aspects of scientific inquiry. But what you are doing is not interpretation, it's speculation.

Before you say that is all "old earthers" have is speculation... No. Traditional geology has developed a framework with which to interpret data and facts. This framework has been developed by making and testing predictions. This is how science builds models and theories and uses them to interpret data and present evidence. Evidence is not created by speculation.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 9:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 09-17-2016 11:22 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24484
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 356 of 427 (791590)
09-17-2016 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by herebedragons
09-16-2016 11:28 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Definitely a nitpick there, a pedantic semantic hot-air rant there.

If you won't let me use the word "evidence" then I'll use the word "data." The data is mine.

The evidence is NOT yours, since you have no framework with which to interpret the data and can therefore, not make nor test predictions about your interpretation.

The problem, however, is that YHOUR interpretations are all an imaginary house of cards. They only "work" because you've matched them up with the data in such a way that you don't have to notice that they actually explain nothing at all. You CAN'T test them, HBD, you are deluding yourself. Your "predictions" are tautologies.

AND if you really really thought carefully about it all you'd have to realize that the whole OE framework, and the ToE as well, are utterly scientifically useless, unusable, of no value to what science must do, at best window dressing. When that is finally recognized, unfortunately there will also be great errors that will need to be corrected, not so much in geology as in biology, where destruction by mutation is going to have to be faced as the official optimism about its usefulness collapses.

You interpret the contents of a rock to indicate that the rock belongs to the Carboniferous "group," but you have absolutely no reason for that interpretation.

Sure I do. That's what rocks with those contents are officially called. I know you want to deprive YECs of any right to say anything at all about scientific questions, but fortunately you aren't the fuhrer yet.

There is nothing you can point to in that rock that indicates 'Carboniferous' without resorting to traditional geological explanations.

Traditional explanations are science. I don't have to agree with it for it to be science. Science has given certain data that name. I can use the name for that data too. There are lots of words in the English language that have changed meaning over time because of new perspectives on the phenomena they originally described. I run into them from time to time but of course am drawing a blank now.

However, since you don't agree with traditional geological explanations, you have to strip them of their reason for interpreting the rocks the way they do and so, you leave them with no real explanatory power either. SO basically, you have no way of actually interpreting the contents of the rock, you can only make speculations about them.

See above. And So what? You'd scream even more if YECs made up their own nomenclature for every bit of geological data and came on here trying to debate with you. Or maybe not, eh? Just an excuse to be King.

Hey I understand you are Offended to the max at us uppity YECs, and adamantly and unrelentingly think you're Right but that doesn't give you the right to prevent other points of view from even existing. When you eventually find out you aren't right, when it turns out that the whole Geo Timescale is an imaginary house of cards, what then?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 355 by herebedragons, posted 09-16-2016 11:28 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by jar, posted 09-17-2016 11:56 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 358 by herebedragons, posted 09-17-2016 3:22 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 359 by Admin, posted 09-17-2016 5:12 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 360 by Admin, posted 09-18-2016 10:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28692
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 357 of 427 (791592)
09-17-2016 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
09-17-2016 11:22 AM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Faith writes:

Traditional explanations are science. I don't have to agree with it for it to be science. Science has given certain data that name. I can use the name for that data too. There are lots of words in the English language that have changed meaning over time because of new perspectives on the phenomena they originally described.

But you actually need to do science to call it science and there is no such thing as Creation Science or Biblical Flood Science or Biblical Science.

Unless you can provide an explanation that is at least as convincing as the conventional theory and as supported by ALL of the data you cannot call it science.

Faith writes:

Hey I understand you are Offended to the max at us uppity YECs, and adamantly and unrelentingly think you're Right but that doesn't give you the right to prevent other points of view from even existing.

That's simply more falsehoods Faith. No one could possible be offended by YECS, amused perhaps but not offended. You certainly have the right to hold a different point of view just as everyone else has the right to point out how wrong, worthless and silly that point of view is.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 09-17-2016 11:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1298
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(6)
Message 358 of 427 (791597)
09-17-2016 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
09-17-2016 11:22 AM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Definitely a nitpick there, a pedantic semantic hot-air rant there.

Not a rant at all.. what gives?

If you won't let me use the word "evidence" then I'll use the word "data." The data is mine.

My argument was not about terminology... did you actually even read it?

I know you want to deprive YECs of any right to say anything at all about scientific questions, but fortunately you aren't the fuhrer yet.

No, Faith... you didn't even read my argument did you?

Traditional explanations are science. I don't have to agree with it for it to be science. Science has given certain data that name. I can use the name for that data too. There are lots of words in the English language that have changed meaning over time because of new perspectives on the phenomena they originally described.

It's not an argument about WORDS!

See above. And So what? You'd scream even more if YECs made up their own nomenclature for every bit of geological data and came on here trying to debate with you. Or maybe not, eh? Just an excuse to be King.

Hey I understand you are Offended to the max at us uppity YECs, and adamantly and unrelentingly think you're Right but that doesn't give you the right to prevent other points of view from even existing. When you eventually find out you aren't right, when it turns out that the whole Geo Timescale is an imaginary house of cards, what then?

Who's ranting???

Look Faith, the point is you have no way to interpret data effectively because you have no framework based on flood geology. Flood geology is a random set of explanations that are invented to bolster a particular narrative. Not a framework based on reality.

The only time I am "offended" is when you make yourself MY judge (Mien Fuhrer) and declare that I (and others who accept that the earth is old) cannot be true Christians. That is offensive. That you believe the earth is young is not offensive at all. We are discussing / debating the issues regarding the differences between creation and traditional geology and you are the one offended because you don't have a suitable rebuttal to my arguments.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 09-17-2016 11:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12437
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 359 of 427 (791600)
09-17-2016 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
09-17-2016 11:22 AM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Faith writes:

Definitely a nitpick there, a pedantic semantic hot-air rant there.

I asked you not to pick fights with people. See you tomorrow.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 09-17-2016 11:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12437
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 360 of 427 (791607)
09-18-2016 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
09-17-2016 11:22 AM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Hi Faith,

From your Message 342:

Faith in Message 342 writes:

The Carboniferous would be related to the Carboniferous by its physical characteristics and fossil contents. There is no "time period" you can point to in any case, that's purely hypothetical.

If you can point to a thread where you've successfully argued that geological time is hypothetical then I'll allow this, otherwise drop this argument from this thread. You can't keep repeating positions whose defense you abandoned in earlier discussions. Argue a position to completion if you want to you use it again.

You continue:

Faith in Message 342 writes:

AS I said, the fact is that there IS an order to them, and why is irrelevant. To identify a particular layer only requires knowing its physical characteristics.

You and HereBeDragons have exchanged a series of posts about this, and I'd like to make sure his main point is discussed and understood. Using HBD's example, he argues that geology tells us to where to look for Carboniferous layers, the type of layer containing the highest quality coal. Geology does not have us drilling randomly looking for the "physical characteristics" of the Carboniferous. Geology knows where Carboniferous layers are likely to be found, which is below the Permian and above the Devonian. The question never arises, "Well, we've drilled down through the Permian and still haven't found the Carboniferous - should we keep drilling or give up?" Geologists never wonder, "The topmost layer in this region is Devonian - should we drill through the Devonian layers to see if any Carboniferous layers lie beneath?"

HBD argues that successes like these of standard geology grant legitimacy and validity to its interpretations. It isn't just that, as you argue here, they've merely noted the correlation between Carboniferous layers and coal. It's that they know where Carboniferous layers will be found. They don't have to drill here and drill there checking "physical characteristics" to see if they've located a Carboniferous layer, as Flood geology would require. Geological principles *tell* them where to find the Carboniferous.

At heart HBD is pointing out the contradiction between simultaneously accepting and rejecting geological principles, e.g., accepting them for where to find coal while rejecting them for having validity in any other way. It's certainly your right to take this position, but you must still keep your arguments well founded in fact rather than sarcastically referring to fellow participants as "Führer" and "King" while dismissing arguments without touching on a single fact at all.

So when you say things like this from Message 351:

Faith in Message 351 writes:

The evidence is neutral and I can use it. It doesn't belong to OE geology.

You are absolutely correct. But at some point you *must* begin actually talking about the evidence, and at over 350 messages in this thread we are well past that point. For instance, when you say the standard geological interpretation of fossil order is an illusion Message 349, you must explain why using evidence. When you say that YECs can make accurate predictions just like mainstream geologists by taking advantage of what standard geology has learned you can't just leave the central conflict of both accepting and rejecting standard geology unexplained, especially since such conflicts are the centerpiece of Glenn Morton's struggles with Flood geology.

I don't expect you to give up all of your personality. Include all the accusations of illusion and guesses and speculations you like, but they must be accompanied by fact-based argument, and with no name calling, threats to leave, declarations of ignoring people and their arguments, etc. There's already a moderator on duty here, and it isn't you. I know you feel you're greatly offended against, but I have chosen to deal with what I see as the biggest problem first.

AbE: Please, no replies to this message.

Edited by Admin, : AbE.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 09-17-2016 11:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
29Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017