Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8843 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2018 9:30 AM
282 online now:
kjsimons, MrTim, PaulK, RAZD, Tanypteryx (5 members, 277 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,305 Year: 9,128/29,783 Month: 1,375/1,977 Week: 68/445 Day: 14/54 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
59NextFF
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Faith
Member
Posts: 28587
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1 of 877 (833824)
05-27-2018 2:39 AM


June 1 about 3 pm changing the title from
The Methods of Historical Science to mystify the public: Assertion, no evidence because there's no way that describes it at post 243

-======================================
Kind of as a reaction to jar's thread demanding that believers in the worldwide Flood be able to explain every single geological event that ever happened on the planet or else trash the whole Flood idea, I would like to talk about what evidence geologists have for their Geological Time Scale landscapes which are based on a stack of rocks with dead things in them that are best explained by the Flood.

Oh I know they have evidence, I just want to see it spelled out because the usual presentation to the clueless public makes bald assertions about things they couldn't possibly know about, apparently based on some bits and pieces of this and that found in a flat sedimentary rock or assemblage of such rocks found in a stack of flat rocks, each supposedly pertaining to a landscape in a particular time period, a wonderful gift of the gods of science I assume to help us understand the history of the Earth. They can only get away with this bald assertion of "fact" because in the historical sciences there is no way to confirm or disprove anything they say.

There are plenty of examples of this kind of "science" but here's a typical one from National Geographic:

JURASSIC PERIOD

During this period, Earth's climate changed from hot and dry to humid and subtropical.

So here is one of those typical assertions in the Name of Science written as if someone had actually been there and experienced this supposed climate change, without one mention of what evidence led to this obviously perfect knowledge of the climate on earth 150 to 200 million years ago.

So I'm asking what's the evidence this is based on?

And since we're supposedly having a climate change right now that's occurring over a matter of decades, or make it centuries to be on the conservative side, how does it make any sense to talk about a change over a time span of fifty million years? In fact there are many things that occur much more rapidly in our present time than is imputed to similar events in the supposedly very distant past. But maybe that will come up later in the thread if the topic goes anywhere at all.

Next we have an imaginative illustration of one of those landscapes I've so often referred to, this one of course illustrating the "Jurassic Period," (and since there seems to have been some objection to my use of the term "landscape" allow me to point out that National Geographic uses that term here just as I do).

[caption] JURASSIC LANDSCAPE
The Jurassic period (199.6 million to 145.5 million years ago) was characterized by a warm, wet climate that gave rise to lush vegetation and abundant life. Many new dinosaurs emerged—in great numbers. Among them were stegosaurs, brachiosaurs, allosaurs, and many others.

So this is another example of a flat assertion of what purports to be fact. Nothing tentative here, no consideration of different possible interpretations, just "this is the way it was" and that's it. We don't even have that kind of certainty about what happened a hundred years ago let alone millions.

So at every such assertion I'm going to want to know

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

Perhaps the above is enough for now, but I'll quote the rest of the article and the same questions can be raised about it in their turn.

A SHIFTING CLIMATE AND DEVELOPING OCEANS
At the start of the period, the breakup of the supercontinent Pangaea continued and accelerated. Laurasia, the northern half, broke up into North America and Eurasia. Gondwana, the southern half, began to break up by the mid-Jurassic. The eastern portion—Antarctica, Madagascar, India, and Australia—split from the western half, Africa and South America. New oceans flooded the spaces in between. Mountains rose on the seafloor, pushing sea levels higher and onto the continents.

All this water gave the previously hot and dry climate a humid and drippy subtropical feel. Dry deserts slowly took on a greener hue. Palm tree-like cycads were abundant, as were conifers such as araucaria and pines. Ginkgoes carpeted the mid- to high northern latitudes, and podocarps, a type of conifer, were particularly successful south of the Equator. Tree ferns were also present.

The oceans, especially the newly formed shallow interior seas, teemed with diverse and abundant life. At the top of the food chain were the long-necked and paddle-finned plesiosaurs, giant marine crocodiles, sharks, and rays. Fishlike ichthyosaurs, squidlike cephalopods, and coil-shelled ammonites were abundant. Coral reefs grew in the warm waters, and sponges, snails, and mollusks flourished. Microscopic, free-floating plankton proliferated and may have turned parts of the ocean red.

HUGE DINOSAURS
On land, dinosaurs were making their mark in a big way—literally. The plant-eating sauropod Brachiosaurus stood up to 52 feet (16 meters) tall, stretched some 85 feet (26 meters) long, and weighed more than 80 tons. Diplodocus, another sauropod, was 90 feet (27 meters) long. These dinosaurs' sheer size may have deterred attack from Allosaurus, a bulky, meat-eating dinosaur that walked on two powerful legs. But Allosaurus and other fleet-footed carnivores, such as the coelurosaurs, must have had occasional success. Other prey included the heavily armored stegosaurs.

The earliest known bird, Archaeopteryx, took to the skies in the late Jurassic, most likely evolved from an early coelurosaurian dinosaur. Archaeopteryx had to compete for airspace with pterosaurs, flying reptiles that had been buzzing the skies since the late Triassic. Meanwhile, insects such as leafhoppers and beetles were abundant, and many of Earth's earliest mammals scurried around dinosaur feet—ignorant that their kind would come to dominate Earth once the dinosaurs were wiped out at the end of the Cretaceous.

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 Adminnemooseus, : Typo in topic title.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2018 5:38 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2018 7:19 AM Faith has responded
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 05-27-2018 9:48 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 05-27-2018 10:53 AM Faith has responded
 Message 18 by Tangle, posted 05-27-2018 2:38 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 36 by kbertsche, posted 05-27-2018 8:17 PM Faith has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3863
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 877 (833826)
05-27-2018 4:46 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The Methods of Historical Science to mystify the public: Assertion, no evidence thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14021
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 3 of 877 (833827)
05-27-2018 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
05-27-2018 2:39 AM


The usual innuendo in the title gives little hope of honest discussion. Especially when providing technical details also gives rise to false accusations of dishonesty.

However the conclusions are based on evidence and it can be found.

Just the other day I came across an example reported at
Ars Technica

Scientists investigating the climate following the Chicxulub impact went to Tunisia where there is a good geological record of the period after impact. There they extracted fossil fish bones, which could be chemically analysed. The ratio of oxygen isotopes present in the environment depends on the temperature, and the oxygen incorporated into the bones will represent the environment at the time the fish lived.

They found that there was evidence of warming by about 5 degrees Celsius after the impact, which persisted for a period of about 100,000 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 2:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19510
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 4 of 877 (833830)
05-27-2018 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
05-27-2018 2:39 AM


... I would like to talk about what evidence geologists have for their Geological Time Scale landscapes which are based on a stack of rocks with dead things in them that are best explained by the Flood.

How does the flood explain the temporal-geographical distribution of species?

It doesn't, it fails miserably.

Oh I know they have evidence, I just want to see it spelled out because the usual presentation to the clueless public makes bald assertions about things they couldn't possibly know about, ...

Like you on the age of the earth? If you can't explain the dating methods, cannot show that they don't work then logically you have to accept their results until such time as you can demonstrate with conclusive evidence that they are wrong.

... clueless public makes bald assertions about things ...

You're mixed up -- that's how YEC pseudoscientist fakirs work, this is well documented.

There are plenty of examples of this kind of "science" but here's a typical one from National Geographic:

A magazine, one that caters to the scientifically literate, using generally accepted science as given.

So this is another example of a flat assertion of what purports to be fact. Nothing tentative here, no consideration of different possible interpretations. ...

Again, this is generally accepted science for scientifically literate people and the background does not need to be regurgitated, because it is understood.

There are no scientific "different possible interpretations" -- just delusions of a few people living in fantasy worlds.

A scientific "different possible interpretation" would be based on actual objective empirical evidence and presented in a scientific journal, not a magazine like the National Geographic. There are no such papers.

Enjoy


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 1 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 2:39 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-27-2018 12:26 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:53 PM RAZD has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(3)
Message 5 of 877 (833834)
05-27-2018 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
05-27-2018 2:39 AM


Oh I know they have evidence, I just want to see it spelled out because the usual presentation to the clueless public makes bald assertions about things they couldn't possibly know about, apparently based on some bits and pieces of this and that found in a flat sedimentary rock or assemblage of such rocks found in a stack of flat rocks, each supposedly pertaining to a landscape in a particular time period, a wonderful gift of the gods of science I assume to help us understand the history of the Earth.

Science communication is always a difficult prospect. Too much information and the presentation becomes dry and the 'clueless public' stops listening. Too little information and people are unsatisfied.

During this period, Earth's climate changed from hot and dry to humid and subtropical.

So here is one of those typical assertions in the Name of Science written as if someone had actually been there and experienced this supposed climate change, without one mention of what evidence led to this obviously perfect knowledge of the climate on earth 150 to 200 million years ago.

So I'm asking what's the evidence this is based on?

Early Jurassic climate change and the radiation of organic-
walled phytoplankton in the Tethys Ocean
-Bas van de Schootbrugge et al

Isotopic evidence for Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous climate change - Darren R Gröcke et al

Late Jurassic climate and its impact on carbon cycling - H.Weissert et al

Vegetation history, diversity patterns, and climate change across the Triassic/Jurassic boundary - Nina R. Bonis. Wolfram M. Kürschner

etc etc etc

And since we're supposedly having a climate change right now that's occurring over a matter of decades, or make it centuries to be on the conservative side, how does it make any sense to talk about a change over a time span of fifty million years? In fact there are many things that occur much more rapidly in our present time than is imputed to similar events in the supposedly very distant past. But maybe that will come up later in the thread if the topic goes anywhere at all.

There wasn't anybody deliberately digging up billions of tonnes of carbon and pumping it into the atmosphere.

So this is another example of a flat assertion of what purports to be fact. Nothing tentative here, no consideration of different possible interpretations, just "this is the way it was" and that's it. We don't even have that kind of certainty about what happened a hundred years ago let alone millions.

If you read a similarly basic article on World War I you'll find that there is more detail than the general climate and animals present.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

Assuming reading science papers is too far, and the Nat Geo article is too little you could always go looking for a middle ground. A 400 word summary is hardly going to satiate those curious for a discussion of the evidence.

Here is an article that goes into a little bit more detail

quote:
From a geologic perspective, a large amount of climatic evidence for the Jurassic period comes from evaporites. Evaporites are mineral deposits, such as gypsum and halites, that are left behind after a body of water evaporates. Deposits of mineral salts indicate deserts that were once covered by lakes or seas. These regions would likely have had a dry climate. Coals also offer insight into prehistoric climates. The presence of coals indicates a humid climate where land was covered by swamps or other wetlands. The location of bands of halite and coal deposits suggests that the climate close to the equator was arid and higher latitudes had a wetter climate. The lack of glaciation during the Jurassic period also indicates that Earth's average temperature was warmer than present day temperatures.

quote:
Fossil evidence of ferns and cone-producing plants at the poles suggests that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the Jurassic period than in present day. The wide distribution of certain species of prehistoric ferns across many degrees of latitude supports claims that there was not as great a disparity of temperature between the equator and the polar regions as there is today. The diversity of ferns, palms, and needle-bearing trees in the Jurassic period shows that the climate must have been warm and humid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 2:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17361
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(3)
Message 6 of 877 (833835)
05-27-2018 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
05-27-2018 2:39 AM


Faith writes:

Kind of as a reaction to jar's thread demanding that believers in the worldwide Flood be able to explain every single geological event that ever happened on the planet or else trash the whole Flood idea,...

You mean the An attempt to let Flood supporters explain how things were created thread? The one you abandoned after two messages:

Faith in Jar's thread writes:

Changed my mind. I don't want to participate on this thread.

The one that asked how the Flood explained a few interesting geological structures:

So having no answers you instead open this thread so you can ask the same questions that have been answered in other threads, answers that you ignored or misunderstood. Questions like this one have been answered many times:

I would like to talk about what evidence geologists have for their Geological Time Scale landscapes which are based on a stack of rocks with dead things in them that are best explained by the Flood.

Why do you think the geological strata and fossils are best explained by the Flood? Just so you have something to focus on, here is a list of questions still unanswered:

  1. In stratigraphic columns, why does radiometric age increase with increasing depth?
  2. Why does radiometric age also change laterally across a strata?
  3. Why are radiometric isotopes older than 80 million years completely missing, something that could only happen if they'd had at least 4 billions years to decay?
  4. What causes magnetic sea floor striping, and why is it consistent with radiometric ages?
  5. In stratigraphic columns, why do fossils appear increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth?
  6. In stratigraphic columns, with increasing depth why are there first no mammals, then no dinosaurs, then no reptiles, then no amphibians, then no fish, then no multicellular life?
  7. Why do you think the Grand Staircase region's geology to be representative of all geology worldwide?
  8. If the Paleozoic layers were already present when the Supergroup layers tilted, why do the faults associated with the Supergroup extend down into the Vishnu Schist but not up into the Paleozoic layers?
  9. If the Supergroup layers actually tilted, where did all the missing cubic miles of rock go?
  10. If the Grand Canyon had been cut suddenly then the canyon walls would be vertical. How do you explain the sloping walls of the Grand Canyon?
  11. Why is the rate of slope retreat at the Grand Canyon consistent with an age of millions of years?
  12. What is your evidence that all tectonic activity worldwide occurred after deposition of sediments?
  13. Given the randomness of floods, why has no fossil ever been found in the wrong strata evolutionarily?
  14. How did the flood leave behind cross bedded sand dunes with animal tracks in the Coconino?
  15. How did the flood transport and deposit sediments that include burrows, termite nests, worm holes, etc.?
  16. What is the definition of kind?
  17. How can you argue about kind without a definition?
  18. Why, if you believe the Bible is God's inerrant word, do you think there are exceptions to God's claim to have "destroyed all living creatures" in Genesis 8:21?
  19. How did the ocean keep all the sedimentary types separate?
  20. Since floods only sort continuously by size/density of sediment and do not create sharp contacts, what is it about strata that says "flood" to you?
  21. How did the deposition of sediments by a series of waves leave no evidence of that process behind?
  22. If the flood rains washed all the land sediment into the sea, how was life left behind on the denuded landscape to leave tracks when waves deposited new sediments?
  23. Why do you think Bertault's views relevant since his experiments deposited sediments at an angle of 45° and required a flume?
  24. Since 3/4 of the globe is currently covered by water, how is a truly global flood that covers the remaining quarter much different?
  25. Why did no fishermen survive the flood?
  26. How was the original salinity of the ocean restored after the Flood?
  27. If the fountains of the deep were undersea volcanos, where is the evidence that many undersea volcanos erupted 4500 years ago?

And here are a list of things Faith still has doesn't understand or has misconceptions about:

  1. Constructive discussion.
  2. How to anchor views in facts.
  3. Subordinating everything to the Bible is not science.
  4. Math.
  5. Physics.
  6. Walther's Law.
  7. That the strata of the Grand Canyon formed through Walther's Law, except the Coconino.
  8. The claim that no terrestrial landscape is as straight and flat as strata is false.
  9. Strata are not as flat and straight as Faith thinks, even at the Grand Canyon.
  10. Strata are rarely uniform with regard to sediment type.
  11. Life in the past lived and died and sometimes became entombed just as it does today, above, atop and beneath surfaces of terrestrial, marine or lacustrine sediment, not on flat slabs of rock.
  12. Most strata are marine. While terrestrial landscapes can become strata, they usually don't.
  13. Lithified soil is called a paleosol.
  14. Rocks do not form by drying but by diagenesis.
  15. There are no underground rivers and streams eroding buried strata (karst structures are a different matter).
  16. Buried strata cannot tilt without affecting surrounding strata.
  17. Angular unconformities happen when sediment is deposited atop tilted strata, such as at Welcombe Mouth Beach.
  18. Accelerated continental drift with the attendant accelerated creation of sea floor at mid-oceanic ridges would release enough heat to boil the oceans. This is even without taking into account the heat from friction and subduction.
  19. In the oceans, sea floor sediment depth increases with increasing distance from mid-oceanic ridges where the sea floor forms. Sea floor near mid-oceanic ridges is young and has little time to accumulate sediments, while that far from mid-oceanic ridges is much older and has had much time to accumulate sediments.
  20. The sediments comprising strata were always deposited during a particular time period, whether the millions of years of geology or the year of the Flood.
  21. Stratigraphic columns continue to grow today, mostly at low points such as lake and sea bottom.
  22. Fossil abundance varies widely among strata.
  23. Life buried today could eventually become fossils.
  24. Speciation does not take millions of years.
  25. Old evidence is still evidence. Evidence has no expiration date.
  26. Vegetation and trees did not keep buried sediments loose so that the 40 days and nights of rain could wash them into the ocean.
  27. The dog does not have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today. It can be no more genetically diverse than the gray wolf from which it is descended.
  28. A definition of kind that is different for each kind is not a definition.

Naturally these lists are not exhaustive.

There are plenty of examples of this kind of "science" but here's a typical one from National Geographic:

Popular press magazines are unlikely to include that kind of information. Use Google Scholar. For instance, I was able to turn up the reference The Jurassic Climate which states at the beginning of the section titled Climatic Criteria on page 159:

quote:
By far the best climatic indicators among sedimentary rocks found in the Jurassic are evaporites and coals (Frakes, 1979). Substantial deposits of evaporites (notably gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) indicate conditions of both warmth and aridity, whereas coals indicate swampy conditions in generally humid regimes, though there is no particular temperature connotation.

Just read on, there's plenty of detail, though keep in mind that this reference is 35 years old and much has been learned since then. For example, if you start reading from the top of page 162 you'll note that it equivocates considerably on the humidity-aridity issue, while today the Jurassic is viewed as a more humid period. What you'll gain by reading this relatively short chapter is a bit of an understanding of how the types and prevalence of different deposit types can tell us about climate.

So I'm asking what's the evidence this is based on?

Since you rarely pay much attention to evidence, why shouldn't this request for evidence be viewed askance as just another invitation for people to waste their time?

So at every such assertion I'm going to want to know

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

Before putting any time into detailed descriptions of how we know what we know, I'd want some assurance that you're going to make an effort to understand and discuss them instead of inventing reasons to ignore them. The lists above are a testament to your efforts at ignoring information and explanations, and this type of behavior has to stop if this thread is to be any different from your past threads. You still don't think contemporary sedimentary deposits are adding to stratigraphic columns, which represents an incredible degree of ignorance, irrational thinking and blocking out of information.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 2:39 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by edge, posted 05-27-2018 11:20 AM Percy has responded
 Message 10 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-27-2018 12:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:47 PM Percy has responded
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 11:19 PM Percy has responded
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 11:58 AM Percy has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4392
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 7 of 877 (833839)
05-27-2018 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
05-27-2018 10:53 AM


Popular press magazines are unlikely to include that kind of information. Use Google Scholar.

Exactly. If the reference gets to be too technical, people like Faith start to complain about details and jargon.

For instance, I was able to turn up the reference The Jurassic Climate which states at the beginning of the section titled Climatic Criteria on page 159:

quote:
By far the best climatic indicators among sedimentary rocks found in the Jurassic are evaporites and coals (Frakes, 1979). Substantial deposits of evaporites (notably gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) indicate conditions of both warmth and aridity, whereas coals indicate swampy conditions in generally humid regimes, though there is no particular temperature connotation.

Just read on, there's plenty of detail, though keep in mind that this reference is 35 years old and much has been learned since then. For example, if you start reading from the top of page 162 you'll note that it equivocates considerably on the humidity-aridity issue, while today the Jurassic is viewed as a more humid period.


Frankly, I have a problem with characterizing the climate of the Jurassic in simplistic terms. After all, this is a fairly large planet with land, oceans, weather and tectonism. We clearly had deserts in what was western North America at the time. Really, there is no need to generalize. After all, why couldn't climates have been similarly variable as they are today?

And remember, the Jurassic Period lasted for 50 million years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 05-27-2018 10:53 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-27-2018 12:43 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-27-2018 1:52 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1681
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 8 of 877 (833845)
05-27-2018 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
05-27-2018 7:19 AM


There are plenty of examples of this kind of "science" but here's a typical one from National Geographic:

A magazine, one that caters to the scientifically literate, using generally accepted science as given.

National Geographic is known more for their photography and popular general stories about exotic people and places; exotic being different than at home. Original research is not reported because it would bore their audience.

Interestingly, NG does fund scientific research. I was part of a team that applied for and received a research grant from NG. We received funding from several other sources also. The papers reporting the research that were subsequently printed were not published in National Geographic and all that appeared there was a short paragraph in their news section on one aspect of our observations.

Our primary paper was published in the journal Biogeography and included paleo-biogeography, fossil distribution, modern species geographic distribution and molecular analysis (of all the species of one dragonfly family), and plate tectonics.

So this is another example of a flat assertion of what purports to be fact. Nothing tentative here, no consideration of different possible interpretations. ...

Again, this is generally accepted science for scientifically literate people and the background does not need to be regurgitated, because it is understood.

The documentation of the scientific research that supports the assertions fills libraries at universities around the world. Stories in National Geographic are written to appeal to general readers and are not meant to be speculative but rather based on "generally accepted science" that doesn't need to be explained in every story.

I remember some stories in the 1960's about medieval Europe and the growth of Christianity that really fascinated me when I was in high school. They inspired me to dig deeper into archaeology. That is what normal people do; they follow up to understand accepted science. If you haven't done the research you don't have a sound basis to criticize the scientific conclusions.


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

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2018 7:19 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1681
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 9 of 877 (833847)
05-27-2018 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by edge
05-27-2018 11:20 AM


Frankly, I have a problem with characterizing the climate of the Jurassic in simplistic terms. After all, this is a fairly large planet with land, oceans, weather and tectonism. We clearly had deserts in what was western North America at the time. Really, there is no need to generalize. After all, why couldn't climates have been similarly variable as they are today?

And remember, the Jurassic Period lasted for 50 million years.

This is exactly right. My dad used to say that "the climate millions of years ago was mild and tropical." I had to keep reminding him that weather is local and global climate cannot be judged from local observations. Individual storms seldom if ever, leave evidence in the geological record and evidence of a warm (mild) climate does not imply that the weather was any less a chaotic system in the past than it is today.


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

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by edge, posted 05-27-2018 11:20 AM edge has not yet responded

    
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 324
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 10 of 877 (833849)
05-27-2018 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
05-27-2018 10:53 AM


Chief among the things Faith doesn't understand when she says things like...

...demanding that believers in the worldwide Flood be able to explain every single geological event that ever happened on the planet or else trash the whole Flood idea...

...is the concept that it only takes one exception to falsify an hypothesis. No one expects creationists to explain every event in history, just to address the observations that falsify their claims. It would be helpful if creationists, like real scientists, outlined in advance the findings that they agree would falsify those claims.

Edited by Capt Stormfield, : syntax


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 05-27-2018 10:53 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 28587
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 11 of 877 (833850)
05-27-2018 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
05-27-2018 7:19 AM


Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
...this is generally accepted science for scientifically literate people and the background does not need to be regurgitated, because it is understood.

But others on the thread are saying the opposite, that my information is from a popular source where we shouldn't necessarily expect to find scientifically literate readers, so I'm directed to more scholarly sources where the background information is available.

But my objection is that the public is being presented with a flat out assertion on the level of known fact without even a smidgen of tentativity, factual knowledge that nobody could possibly have about a time millions of years ago. And that shouldn't be the case with scientifically literate readers either if science is what it is claimed to be.

The NG writeup is TYPICAL, that's my point. There are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of this flat out assertive way of presenting both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution, which has been driving me crazy since before I became a Christian or knew anything about creationism. I hope to get to providing some examples of this. I don't buy the explanation that you can't treat the public with the respect of giving some explanation instead of acting like you know it all and they just have to submit.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2018 7:19 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-27-2018 1:01 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-27-2018 1:12 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 05-27-2018 2:01 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 05-27-2018 2:38 PM Faith has responded
 Message 20 by jar, posted 05-27-2018 3:30 PM Faith has responded
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2018 3:56 PM Faith has responded
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 05-28-2018 9:12 AM Faith has responded

    
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 324
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 12 of 877 (833851)
05-27-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
05-27-2018 12:53 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
And there are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of this flat out assertive way of presenting both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution, which has been driving me crazy since before I became a Christian or knew anything about creationism. I hope to get to providing some examples of this. I don't buy the explanation that you can't treat the public with the respect of giving some explanation instead of acting like you know it all and they just have to submit.

It is reassuring to know that your resentment of science antedates your belief in religion. It really does explain a great deal about your refusal to learn and your apparent antagonism toward those who have..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 324
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(4)
Message 13 of 877 (833853)
05-27-2018 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
05-27-2018 12:53 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
...this flat out assertive way of presenting both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution...

Would it be impolite to inquire why, of all the sciences, you picked these two as examples? In my experience, the discourse around all of science is roughly equivalent in terms of presenting nuanced discussion in some rough proportion to the sophistication of the audience.

If you make an inquiry of a software engineer regarding how to get the recycle bin off your desktop, would you expect a complex discussion of interface design and end-user behavior, or just an "assertive" answer that reflects the endpoint of a long conceptual journey? And if you did demand a complex answer, would it not be a bit, oh, let's call it assholeish, to then complain about the fact that you don't understand the answer?

Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by edge, posted 05-27-2018 1:39 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4392
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 14 of 877 (833856)
05-27-2018 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Capt Stormfield
05-27-2018 1:12 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Would it be impolite to inquire why, of all the sciences, you picked these two as examples? In my experience, the discourse around all of science is roughly equivalent in terms of presenting nuanced discussion in some rough proportion to the sophistication of the audience.

It would seem to me that the solution is simple.

Faith should abandon the popular literature for information on geology and evolution and go straight to the scientific literature.

Problem solved!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-27-2018 1:12 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 1:45 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 28587
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 15 of 877 (833857)
05-27-2018 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by edge
05-27-2018 1:39 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith should abandon the popular literature for information on geology and evolution and go straight to the scientific literature.

That's fine as long as it's not extremely technical. Perhaps you could recommend the best sources for someone like me.

But I'm hoping we'll get more information about the evidence I asked for. Percy provided some so I'll go there next.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by edge, posted 05-27-2018 1:39 PM edge has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
59NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018