Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
55 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 885,056 Year: 2,702/14,102 Month: 367/703 Week: 20/168 Day: 20/21 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4682 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 211 of 303 (233504)
08-15-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
08-15-2005 9:18 AM


Re: How should intellectually dishonest fundamentalists live?.
Jazzns already expressed my own feelings on reposting to you, as well as what you are missing in this whole discussion. I mean the fact that you are asking for reposts when you yourself can go back through the thread and find the links I posted, shows how "real" your intention is to do anything.

If you ever want to think about what I and others have been trying to tell you, and don't feel like combing through the thread, you can start by going to this page. Read the sections on the history and principles of Geology.

You will note that nowhere did the founders of geology assume great age. The principles themselves do not assume anything about actual age. It was the application of the principles that have firm logical reasons (and no presuppositions) to actual physical evidence which resulted in conclusions about age. Thus refuting (once again) one of your prime repeated assertions.

There is no need to respond to this at all as I really don't want to know how ignorant you intend to stay on this topic.

This message has been edited by holmes, 08-15-2005 05:52 PM

This message has been edited by holmes, 08-16-2005 04:21 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 08-15-2005 9:18 AM Faith has not yet responded

bernd
Member (Idle past 2843 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 212 of 303 (233850)
08-16-2005 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Silent H
08-15-2005 5:31 PM


Re: The point of the discussion?
Hello Holmes,

Thank you very much for your kind words. Concerning my first argument, I think you did a great job explaining the point - far better than I did - and I understand your frustration quite well, that this has, as it seems, not been appreciated by Faith. On the other hand, sometimes an argument has to be rephrased differently several times to enhance its chance to sink in - specially when it touches or contradicts deeply rooted personal convictions. Maybe I’m a bit naïve in this respect, but I think one should give it another try. After all, isn’t the declared motto of this forum “knowledge and understanding through discussion“?

- Bernd

This message has been edited by bernd, 17-Aug-2005 02:42 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Silent H, posted 08-15-2005 5:31 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 213 of 303 (233914)
08-17-2005 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by bernd
08-15-2005 3:04 PM


Re: The point of the discussion?
I hope you don't mind, when I join the discussion, I have just some remarks to add.

You are polite, that helps. But you go over my head with your math formula. I did, however, read it all pretty carefully.

I think we can agree that a correct understanding of a structure like the Mississippi Interior Salt Basin helps to decide where to drill for oil.

But how do we get this information about depth, position, composition and hardness of rock? We have only sparse direct observations, for example by drill holes, which give exact but punctual information and by aeromagnetic or seismic data, which are useful for the big picture, but don’t provide much detail.

Yes, so holmes and jazz have said. I get it. But in their examples I saw no *necessity* for the time factor, though it was implicit or assumed. But as holmes says, maybe I didn't give the examples enough consideration.

The mentioned models for basin formation, burial history and thermal history are based on physical processes which require almost always time spans in the order of millions of years. That should be evident after a short look at the plots of BasinMod [2], the program for basin modeling which was used by the authors of the quoted article.

It's evident from your links that millions of years are ASSUMED, but "required" isn't so certain. That the OE time spans are used is apparent in the graphs at the BasinMod site, although I really can't tell what importance those graphs have. IN one graph they show that particular strata or time periods (Jurassic etc) are at a particular depth but that's a physical thing, not a time thing. But I suppose this is just my naivete talking.

The only thing in your post that suggests a real USE for the millions of years is the math, the formula you give for calculating basin depth, but since I can't follow the formula it's as good as meaningless to me.

But that’s probably not enough to convince you, therefore lets have a look at one of the models. ...When we apply the model to the south west block of the basin, which is the site of several major oil fields and therefore geologically well known, we get reasonable good agreement between the measured and the predicted depths of Pleistocene and Miocene layers. (At an age of 10 million years, the model predicts about 2.9 km)

When we assume an age of the earth of 10.000 years, the model would predict a maximum of 94 m for the depth of the LA basin and for all other basins as well. Because in real life most of the basins are deeper than 100 m, the model is not compatible with the assumption of a young earth.

But since the whole model is built around the assumption of millions of years, that's not surprising.

Your conclusion is probably, that for this reason the model has to be wrong.

Yes, that is exactly what I would say.

In this case I would ask two questions:

When the world is only 10000 years old, nearly all the models from standard geology - at least all which have something to do with heat, kinetic energy, friction and so on - would not only be wrong but useless.

Put it this way: If something convinced them that a young earth was the reality after all, you can bet they'd scramble to correct their models wherever they appear to be wrong. Math is only as good as its assumptions/premises/givens anyway.

Why does the oil industry ignore this?

Why don't we see a successful tool for oil exploration based on young earth assumptions?

Maybe because the existing methods do the job well enough, especially in an area of investigation where exactness isn't likely with any model. As I keep saying, the practical work of geology seems to proceed efficiently in spite of the OE assumptions. There are obviously many relevant variables taken into account in the exploration apart from the age factor and I really still can't see the usefulness of the age factor, but perhaps that's because I can't follow the math. I suppose it's only the "argument from incredulity" again but existing volcanoes cool down within human time, creationist sites are always showing that "deep time" isn't needed for many processes etc. etc. Pressure you need for some, heat and cooling you need, and you need to be able to predict these things, but the time factor? Perhaps you can show exactly what that math does to make it clearer?

Edit to remove too much quoted material
================================================
{Edit: From the first link I see that the accumulation rates for various strata are calculated, under Burial History, based I gather on the known thickness of each and its assumed millions of years of age, but I'm unable to understand why this rate is useful although it is said to be crucial.

The following section discusses Thermal History, but in terms that need explanation if you want me to understand them. "Input data included:

bottom-hole temperature [I understand both the importance of this and how it is known],

present-day geothermal gradient [I read the definition but I forget: this is the gradation of temperature from bottom-hole to surface?],

present day heat flow [Not completely sure what "heat flow" describes but if it's present-day I assume it's measurable or easily calculated from knowns],

vitrinite reflectance [By the sound of it nothing I'd have a problem with],

thermal alteration [sounds necessary. To this point nothing has involved millions of years],

Tmax [I did read a LOT, not only your links but various others, including a hydrocarbon glossary, but I don't know what this is; but it doesn't sound like it involves millions of years],

paleogeothermal gradient [OK, this one needs the millions of years to calculate],

paleoheat flow [ditto MOY],

thermal conductivity [Sounds straightforward, no need for the MOY?],

total organic carbon [no need for MOY?], and

kerogen type [MOY?]"

A total of eleven items of input data, only two of which appear to involve anything to do with age/millions of years. But you can correct me -- perhaps others on the list do too.

I'm just trying to get a feeling for how important the age range supposedly is in the model. There's an awful lot that doesn't involve age.

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-17-2005 01:18 PM

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-17-2005 07:32 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by bernd, posted 08-15-2005 3:04 PM bernd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by bernd, posted 08-18-2005 9:13 PM Faith has responded

bernd
Member (Idle past 2843 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 214 of 303 (234679)
08-18-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
08-17-2005 12:14 AM


Re: The point of the discussion?
Hello Faith,

You dismissed my hint that "BasinMod" - a tool used for basin modeling in the oil industry - is based on physical processes which almost always require long time spans, that is millions of years, with the following sentences:

Faith writes:


It's evident from your links that millions of years are ASSUMED, but "required" isn't so certain. That the OE time spans are used is apparent in the graphs at the BasinMod site, although I really can't tell what importance those graphs have. IN one graph they show that particular strata or time periods (Jurassic etc) are at a particular depth but that's a physical thing, not a time thing. But I suppose this is just my naivete talking.
The only thing in your post that suggests a real USE for the millions of years is the math, the formula you give for calculating depth, but since I can't follow the formula it's as good as meaningless to me.

First a clarification. It's not the "math", it's the underlying physical process which leads to a geological time span. In our case we observe a certain pattern - the shape of a basin which leads to a hypothesis that it is has been formed by conductive cooling. This hypothesis can be tested by measurements of heat flow, lithosphere thickness and basin depth. When we have established that conductive cooling is in fact the main process responsible for basin formation basic arithmetic tells us the age of the basin floor, a prediction which can be tested by radiometric or paleomagnetic measurements. A competing model has to obey the same restrictions: it has to present a plausible physical process and to show that its predictions are reasonable matched by the known observations.
When we for example compare the standard and the creationist model for the development of an oceanic basin through seafloor spreading, plate tectonic and catastrophic plate tectonic, we can dismiss the latter easily by two criteria: first, the proposed physical process - rapid convective cooling near the ridge by superheated steam - is not plausible, because there is not enough water in present day oceans to cool the lithosphere and second, the rapid cooling would lead to a different shape of the basin.(see [1], [2]) And not to forget, radiometric and paleomagnetic dating indicate that seafloor is much older than YEC assumptions would allow.

Speaking of radiometric dating, BasinMod is relying on it - see [3] - its modeling of thermal history uses Apatite Fission Track Analysis, short AFTA, which is described in [4]:


AFTA thermal history reconstructions provide direct determination of the timing (as well as the magnitude) of maximum paleotemperatures. When combined with conventional maturity indicators, particularly vitrinite reflectance (VR), this approach allows identification and characterisation of the major episodes of heating and cooling which have affected a sedimentary sequence. Specifically, the Geotrack methodology of Thermal History Reconstruction provides the following information:

  • magnitude of maximum paleotemperatures in individual samples
  • timing of cooling from maximum paleotemperatures
  • the style of cooling from maximum paleotemperatures (fast; slow)
  • characterisation of mechanisms of heating and cooling
  • measurement of paleogeothermal gradients and determination of paleo-heat flow
  • determination of section removed by uplift and erosion (where appropriate)
  • reconstructed thermal and burial/uplift histories based on these parameters

Using this information the thermal history of likely hydrocarbon source rocks can be reconstructed with confidence, on the basis of measured parameters, rather than relying on modelled results which often have little rigorous basis. The resulting improvements in assessment of hydrocarbon prospectivity is clearly beneficial in reducing exploration risk.

The technical background is explained here [5]:


AFTA® (Apatite Fission Track Analysis) and ZFTA (Zircon Fission Track Analysis) rely on analysis of radiation damage features ("fission tracks") in detrital apatite and zircon grains, respectively, within sedimentary rocks. Fission tracks are produced continuously through geological time, as a result of the spontaneous fission of 238U atoms. Once formed, tracks are shortened (annealed) at a rate which depends on temperature, and the final length of each individual track is determined by the maximum temperature which that track has experienced. Therefore as the temperature to which an apatite or zircon grain has been subjected increases, all existing tracks shorten to a length determined by the prevailing temperature, regardless of when they were formed. After the temperature has subsequently decreased, all tracks formed prior to the thermal maximum are "frozen" at the degree of length reduction they attained at that time.

As you may have noticed, that's not a scientific description, that‘s the text of a company - Geotrack - which offers tools for the analysis of thermal history for the oil industry. Which leads me to another question:

Why is radiometric dating used - with some success as it seems - in the oil industry? If YEC assumptions are correct, all radiometric methods should be useless.

-Bernd

P.S.

I‘m not sure what you mean with your remark that volcanoes „cool down in human time“.
Please explain. In each case have a look at this table which provide some data for lava cooling[6]. Consider that oceanic crust is 6km, oceanic lithosphere up to 100 km thick.

References

[1] Message 150
[2] Message 155
[3] http://www.platte.com/ps_suite/bmod/
[4] http://www.geotrack.com.au/aftad.htm
[5] http://www.geotrack.com.au/afta-why.htm
[6] http://www.volcanolive.com/lava3.html


Here are some links and definitions. I hope you'll find them useful.

Geothermal gradient: The rate of increase in temperature per unit depth in the Earth. Although the geothermal gradient varies from place to place, it averages 25 to 30 oC/km
see: http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=geothermal%20gradient

Heat flow: Heat transfer or heat flow is the process whereby heat flows from regions of higher to regions of lower temperature. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy between two bodies which are at different temperatures.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flow

Vitrinite reflectance: the study of vitrinite reflectance is a key method for identifying the temperature history of sediments in sedimentary basins. The reflectance of vitrinite was first studied by coal explorationists attempting to diagnose the thermal maturity, or rank, of coal beds. More recently, its utility as a tool for the study of sedimentary organic matter metamorphism from kerogens to hydrocarbons has been increasingly exploited. The key attraction of vitrinite reflectance in this context is its sensitivity to temperature ranges that largely correspond to those of hydrocarbon generation (i.e. 60 to 120°C). This means that, with a suitable calibration, vitrinite reflectance can be used as an indicator of maturity in hydrocarbon source rocks. Generally, the onset of oil generation is correlated with a reflectance of 0.5-0.6% and the termination of oil generation with reflectance of 0.85-1.1%.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrinite

Tmax: the maximum temperature of a probe

Paleogeothermal gradient: the temperature gradient at the measured age of the probe

Paleoheat flow: the heat flow at the measured age of the probe

Thermal conductivity: the ability of a material to conduct heat
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity

Total organic carbon: The amount of carbon which is bound in organic compounds in a water sample
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Organic_Carbon

Kerogen type
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerogen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 08-17-2005 12:14 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 08-20-2005 9:13 AM bernd has not yet responded
 Message 216 by AdminNosy, posted 08-20-2005 11:32 AM bernd has responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 215 of 303 (234985)
08-20-2005 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by bernd
08-18-2005 9:13 PM


Re: The point of the discussion?
I won't get to all of your post here, but I think the conversation is about over anyway. For one thing I always opt out of discussions of radiometric dating, saying only that creationists dispute its accuracy. For another, nothing really describes what the procedures are so that I could think them through, as in the AFTA section (except for establishing maximum temperature by the fission tracks)-- merely sketches out the objectives. Also, this isn't a science thread and you are getting pretty deep into science. TrueCreation could discuss all this but his views got dismissed anyway, so far be it from me to attempt it beyond the most general statements.

Yes I know you had said that the physical processes themselves demand deep time interpretation, but as a YEC I am sure that is not so, and in any case it appears to me from the sites linked that MOST of the processes that are discussed are straightforward measurements that don't involve age calculations, which I understand to mean that MOST of the study that goes into predicting the best risks for finding oil or anything else doesn't involve deep time. As for the parts of the study that do, it is hard to get a clear idea of how it is used. You want to understand things like the highest temperature certain strata have been subjected to, and for this purpose deep time assumptions enter into the calculations in some way, but since the point is to get the physical history and deep time is speculative in any case, I keep thinking the time factor gets cancelled out somewhere in the process. YEC posits many conditions that would drastically speed up processes OE uniformitarianism lengthens out, but the sequences would be the same.

Just some notes:
======================

Paleogeothermal gradient: the temperature gradient at the measured age of the probe
Paleoheat flow: the heat flow at the measured age of the probe

What does "measured age of the probe" mean? The probe goes to a DEPTH, not an AGE. The age is an additional supposition. What's of use in the exploration is the physical conditions at that depth. How exactly does supposed age help you determine those conditions above and beyond what the physical measurements tell you? I really can't tell. I can tell that in some facets of the investigation that it is used but exactly how I can't tell.

First a clarification. It's not the "math", it's the underlying physical process which leads to a geological time span.

Yes I got that that was your point, but 1) there appears to be not a great deal of actual use of the time factor, as I said -- I noted the very few measurements performed on OE time assumptions -- and 2) the math supposedly expresses these processes and I would like to see how it works. But not if I have to get a degree in geology for the purpose.

In our case we observe a certain pattern - the shape of a basin which leads to a hypothesis that it is has been formed by conductive cooling. This hypothesis can be tested by measurements of heat flow, lithosphere thickness and basin depth. When we have established that conductive cooling is in fact the main process responsible for basin formation basic arithmetic tells us the age of the basin floor, a prediction which can be tested by radiometric or paleomagnetic measurements. A competing model has to obey the same restrictions: it has to present a plausible physical process and to show that its predictions are reasonable matched by the known observations.

There's no YEC dispute with the observation of the pattern and the determination of cooling as its cause, as far as I know, as there rarely is with any of the measurements and observations of science, just with the time factor, and since I can't do the math to get a sense of how this is arrived at, and I always concede radiometric measurement anyway, I guess the conversation is pretty much over.

When we for example compare the standard and the creationist model for the development of an oceanic basin through seafloor spreading, plate tectonic and catastrophic plate tectonic, we can dismiss the latter easily by two criteria: first, the proposed physical process - rapid convective cooling near the ridge by superheated steam - is not plausible, because there is not enough water in present day oceans to cool the lithosphere and second, the rapid cooling would lead to a different shape of the basin.(see [1], [2]) And not to forget, radiometric and paleomagnetic dating indicate that seafloor is much older than YEC assumptions would allow.

1) Seems to me there isn't just one creationist theory about these things, so I wonder what creationist model you are comparing, and 2) again, I pass on radiometric and other forms of dating, noting only that creationists dispute their accuracy.

======================

I didn't answer your entire post but at this point I get that deep time is used to some extent in these investigations though exactly how and how much isn't clear; and of course as a YEC I have to conclude that that's not a good thing. While most of the everyday science is perfectly good, deep age isn't testable or provable in any way, and in any case I know that the earth is not millions of years old because God's word says it's not, and I don't know how this affects your calculations but it looks like maybe not drastically as age doesn't seem to be REALLY all that huge a part of them, BUT to the extent that it is I would expect them to be in error at those points.

======================
Not really in answer to bernd, just a musing to myself on the creationist position: It's a copout for any Christian to accept deep age and that includes all the ID stuff. All the rationalizations of how great age can be fit into Genesis just don't wash. Scientists are mere fallible human beings and calculations can be wrong for many reasons but God can't be wrong. Perhaps in the end I simply have to fall back on jar's formula and say my faith in God's word trumps all of it, and in fact sometimes that's all that traditional Bible-believing Christians can do.

All the claimed contradictions with science are speculative when it comes down to it. We know there were once dinosaurs, we see their bones. But we have no idea how old any of it was, that's all speculative, even with radiometric dating. Creationist ideas can be wrong too, as all science can be. We know there was a worldwide Flood but we don't know exactly how it played out geologically despite many interesting hypotheses, and despite recognizing the patent absurdity of the geo timescale. We know that human beings started with one couple with no precursors and that death did not exist before the Fall. Yes we KNOW this, this is a rockbottom indisputable Premise. Faith has to be in God's word, not in any particular explanation science comes up with, and however long we have to go without proof, the waiting is necessary and worth it, knowing that eventually it will all be made clear. The futility of arguing these things with people who don't share this faith is already becoming only too clear, however.

Edit to add commas and separate paragraphs

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-21-2005 04:47 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by bernd, posted 08-18-2005 9:13 PM bernd has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Jazzns, posted 08-20-2005 11:40 AM Faith has responded
 Message 261 by Nuggin, posted 08-25-2005 4:12 PM Faith has responded

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


Message 216 of 303 (234993)
08-20-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by bernd
08-18-2005 9:13 PM


Topic please...
A good post but one that doesn't belong with this topic.

Discussions move along better and are easier to follow if the topics are kept rather focussed.

In addition, this is not on the science side of EvC and this is not a place to be discussing the science of the matter. Faith has already admitted that she agrees with the main thrust of the site; that is, creationism is not a science and doesn't belong in the science classroom. What she wishes to base on faith alone most of us don't have any trouble with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by bernd, posted 08-18-2005 9:13 PM bernd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by bernd, posted 08-20-2005 9:03 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2774 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 217 of 303 (234995)
08-20-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
08-20-2005 9:13 AM


Re: The point of the discussion?
Message 15


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 08-20-2005 9:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 08-20-2005 4:12 PM Jazzns has responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 218 of 303 (235025)
08-20-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Jazzns
08-20-2005 11:40 AM


Never was any intellectual dishonesty
Faith finally just comes out and says it. Age must not be a factor in looking for oil because the earth is young because the Bible says so. Even though she continues with her bare assertion in ignorance of geology, she has a well written post that finally get to the point.

I felt after that post that there was finally some honesty coming from Faith.

That's a backhanded nomination for "finally some honesty" Jazz. A YEC's scientific arguments are not dishonest just because they are based on a premise that today's science doesn't recognize. When strictly arguing scientific questions I haven't committed the error of appealing to the Bible anywhere as part of the argument, but now you are calling that dishonest of me. I brought it up in that post simply because this is not a science thread and I'm essentially ending the discussion. (Although I would still like bernd to explain if he can exactly HOW deep time is used in these investigations, because really, despite the references to deep time, its use is not explained, except in the one place where the upper limit of temperature experienced at a given location is determined by fission lines -- and that's useful information regardless of the assumed time factor.)

The constant refrain at EvC about how holding onto the Bible against science is intellectual dishonesty is exactly what Bible-believing Christians need to learn to live with patiently without compromising our faith. It is fine to learn science and I hope more young Bible-believing Christians will go that direction -- and learn it better than everybody else too, because they are going to have to learn both evolutionism and creationism and doublethink everything they encounter in order to do it right, besides having a profound spiritual life to sustain them through it.

So what I wanted to affirm in that post is that Bible believers have to learn to accept -- and EXPECT -- being called dishonest and stupid and every other rotten thing for holding on to their faith above anything science or the world has to say. I certainly did not intend it to be a capitulation to the idea that there is a fundamental discontinuity between science and faith that is held by so many at EvC, which is how you seem to be taking it. I expect science eventually to verify the Bible's revelations. If a young earth is what the Bible presents, then a young earth is *scientific* fact that will some day be verified *scientifically.*

In other words, while I'm glad there are creationists out there working to answer the claims of the evolutionists, and I believe they've done great work in exposing the fallacies of evolutionism, nevertheless I suspect we are at a point where our faith is being tested and we simply have to hold onto it in the face of all kinds of ridicule and seemingly rational objections.

It's fine for Christian children to learn all the work of the creationists in other words, but I worry that kids who grow up learning that exclusively are not being prepared for the assault against those very creationist premises they will encounter at college. They need to be getting a way better inoculation than that. They need to be establishing the kind of faith that can withstand the most plausible assault on it, the ridicule, the accusations of intellectual dishonesty, in order not to become the kind of casualty that is so frequently attested on this very site.

I am declaring that NO compromise is acceptable. You can't give up part of your faith simply because somebody is going to call you names for holding on to it, or call your thinking unscientific when you know you haven't brought in any nonscientific points, or simply because you are incapable of answering all the doubts and questions that evolutionism raises, or for any other reason. If God spoke, then God spoke. Getting along with the world's views is NOT our calling as Christians. Being unable to disprove a scientific claim is no cause for compromising your faith. And Christian faith is not something that floats nebulously in thin air twenty feet above solid ground, just because we like this or that idea or think it makes sense on some basis apart from the Bible, it's faith in the living God who has given us His revelation. If we think we love Him then how can we deny ANYTHING He has told us?

What YECs are doing here, at least the clued-in ones -- the few who venture here or stick it out for any length of time -- is playing with the opportunity to try to make a case for the young earth scientifically, without reference to the Bible, because ultimately that case WILL in fact be made scientifically and without reference to the Bible. I deny that the evolutionists have honestly defeated as much of the case as they claim to have done -- as I've said many times it really comes down to a war between plausibilities and speculations or untestables and unfalsifiables -- while at the same time I acknowledge that the case hasn't yet been made and I don't know what it would take to make it. No, creationism doesn't have all the scientific answers yet but they do have many that the establishment simply will not recognize because of their own prejudices.

So, my post came out of the recognition of the tremendous temptation to compromise the faith in favor of what science is saying, and my sadness at the fact that so many have made that very compromise, and even go on to criticize the very few who refuse to give in, expressing even the most denigrating attitude toward the "fundies." The hardest thing for Christians to survive in all this is the criticism of other Christians, and not just the nominal Christians who are far from true belief, but the real Christians who have allowed themselves to compromise for the sake of supposed rationality and make all kinds of cases for how God didn't REALLY say this or that.

===============
None of this is cause to keep a YEC off the science fora, as it is quite possible to argue scientific points without reference to any of this. AND the use of deep time in exploring for oil still appears to be simply one among dozens of considerations, most quite reasonably simple physical measurements, and some of the OE use also appears to come down to establishing physical principles that don't really depend on the OE assumption in any case -- and whatever really does depend on it is going to be wrong because the earth is not millions of years old.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Jazzns, posted 08-20-2005 11:40 AM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Jazzns, posted 08-20-2005 6:31 PM Faith has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2774 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 219 of 303 (235053)
08-20-2005 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
08-20-2005 4:12 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
The dishonesty stemmed from the denial of the principles being presented to you based on repeated assertion. This is without any true knowledge of what you are discussing and despite repeated attempts to inform you of this you continued to repeat your assertions.

The honesty was when you finally came out and said that you simply cannot even entertain the idea of an old earth in practice because of your beliefs. Now it comes full circle. As much as I still completely disagree with willfull ignorance you at least gave a good reason for it. Your particular brand of Christianty makes it such that the priciples being discussed must be wrong. Although still rediculous, this position is at least stable.

Just because you fail to see your own dishonesty does not mean it does/did not exist. I gave you the POTM with no malice intended. There was no backhandedness. I truly though you had a good post despite the continued ignorant tirade. Your last paragraph in particular was very good.

Take it how you want. You misinterpret and dismiss nearly everything else I say so I don't know why I would expect any different from a compliment.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 08-20-2005 4:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 08-20-2005 7:48 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 220 of 303 (235072)
08-20-2005 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Jazzns
08-20-2005 6:31 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
The honesty was when you finally came out and said that you simply cannot even entertain the idea of an old earth in practice because of your beliefs.

It was never denied, it has been implicit in everything I post and more than once explicitly acknowledged. It is the premise from which I argue everything I argue about science, as does any YEC.

Sorry I don't appreciate compliments accompanied by an accusation of dishonesty, and I could do without a POTM nomination too, as no post *I* would consider deserving would ever be nominated.

Also, you should look up the word "tirade." There is only one post on this thread that deserves the description and it wasn't one of mine.

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-20-2005 07:53 PM

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-20-2005 11:47 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Jazzns, posted 08-20-2005 6:31 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Silent H, posted 08-21-2005 5:27 AM Faith has responded
 Message 226 by deerbreh, posted 08-24-2005 2:20 PM Faith has responded

bernd
Member (Idle past 2843 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 221 of 303 (235097)
08-20-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by AdminNosy
08-20-2005 11:32 AM


Re: Topic please...
Hello AdminNosy,

AdminNosy writes:


A good post but one that doesn't belong with this topic

First of all, thank you for the compliment. Whether my post was off topic I'm not so sure, I was under the impression, that the real topic of this thread has been first mentioned in this paragraph [1]


The ToE and the Geo Time Scale are imaginative constructs, interpretations, science only in the most general and tenuous sense. This is the contention and the limit of the dispute with "science." They aren't science, merely frameworks within which science works, unfortunately, as they only mislead. Nobody has any problem with the actual science at all, the geology, the biology, the lab work, the field work, the genetics, and certainly not engineering. That's real science. Good stuff. Get rid of the ToE and the GeoTime stuff and real science can proceed with more with more freedom and less waste

and has found a concise formulation in the following claim [2]:


My perfectly valid point is that age is irrelevant to the task of finding oil by stratigraphic means. It's a fact.

which I think was the focus for the rest of the debate. Given that as starting point, to discus how oil exploration is supported by basin modeling, which is based on processes that require geological time spans, seemed not too far fetched to me.

But I understand, that from your point of view it's a discussion which is poorly connected to the OP and hold in the wrong forum. Therefore I will not continue this debate in the current thread. On the other hand I think it's fair to address the remaining questions of Faith somehow. Would it be acceptable to reuse the second half of my post 214 as OP in a new thread - for example of the "Dates and Dating" forum?

-Bernd


References

[1] Message 10
[2] Message 31

This message has been edited by bernd, 21-Aug-2005 03:06 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by AdminNosy, posted 08-20-2005 11:32 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 08-20-2005 11:33 PM bernd has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 222 of 303 (235151)
08-20-2005 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by bernd
08-20-2005 9:03 PM


The topic is fundamentalist dishonesty
Hello bernd:

Just a few points:

I am not permitted to post in science forums, which includes Dates and Dating -- which is a forum I would never post in even if I could -- and since this is a science topic there may not be any way to have the discussion you want to have. But the one I want to have I will continue here for the time being, since it seems to me that the accusation of fundamentalist rejection of science and intellectual dishonesty puts it enough on topic to continue now that it has gone this far.

You have shown that the OE time factor is used in some procedures involved in finding oil. But showing that it is used, that is, that the concept is described on a list of factors that are measured or tested in the exploratory process, is not the same thing as demonstrating that it is truly useful.

For one thing as I've said a number of times, it appears to be only one of many factors that are used, and by my count on one list only two out of eleven factors require any reference to time at all. I would think it would be hard to show the particular usefulness of this factor simply because so many others that are independent of time appear to be at least equally important.

You could easily answer this by showing exactly HOW the time factor is in fact useful, which so far hasn't been shown, merely asserted -- with the exception of the one example of establishing maximum historical heat as measured by fission tracks and I'm not completely sure the age factor even REALLY matters there.

Even with the most sophisticated model and techniques, predictive success is far from a sure thing, though higher than earlier or less sophisticated techniques, isn't that so?

Assuming some percentage of failure, can you demonstrate that the deep time calculations either improve predictability or at least do not contribute to the percentage of failure? That is, can you separate out the time factor from the other factors in order to distinguish the success rate of factors that involve deep time from those that don't, and discuss its usefulness only in relation to its own predictive success? Is that possible?

Simply continuing to insist that deep time is important and is used in this or that calculation really doesn't prove its usefulness. {Edit: All it really proves is evolutionist belief in its reality and in its efficacy as a predictive factor, but where's the evidence of that efficacy?} Truly, if it is useful, it ought to be possible to describe in *plain English* exactly *how* it is used and *how* it is useful, as well as showing that results based on it are reliable.

I'm willing to be wrong about this, but so far there has only been evidence that deep age is USED, though not to any great extent, and otherwise only assertions about its USEFULNESS, without any real evidence of its actual usefulness.

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-20-2005 11:42 PM

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-20-2005 11:51 PM

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-20-2005 11:53 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by bernd, posted 08-20-2005 9:03 PM bernd has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4682 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 223 of 303 (235197)
08-21-2005 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
08-20-2005 7:48 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
as no post *I* would consider deserving would ever be nominated.

How soon you forget. You were nominated for a POTM by buz, and I seconded it. It was a post that was very much your position and I believe you ended up acknowledging the support at that time.

You appear to desire a messiah-like persona, put upon by everyone unjustly, dismissed at every turn, crucified by those that no not what they do.

In reality, there are those that can and have respected what and how you write. Despite my avid disagreement and frustration with your willfull ignorance on this topic, I still am impressed with the quality of your writing... just wishing logic and evidence would start getting an upper hand somewhere.

Jazz correctly identified your post's conclusion as showing some solid logic, even if it ultimately banishes evidence to hellfire. That may be a bit backhanded to scientists in that it shows in a practical sense you are willfully ignorant and antiscience, but that isn't his fault and it seems you ought to be proud of your post if it is your actual position.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 08-20-2005 7:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2005 9:21 AM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 08-21-2005 7:39 PM Silent H has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 329 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 224 of 303 (235219)
08-21-2005 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Silent H
08-21-2005 5:27 AM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
I still am impressed with the quality of your writing

Seconded. Mark me down with Holmes. Even those unfortunate ad-hominem tyrades are pretty well-written. Seriously!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Silent H, posted 08-21-2005 5:27 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 225 of 303 (235304)
08-21-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Silent H
08-21-2005 5:27 AM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
Yes, sorry, I do forget, and thanks for the appreciation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Silent H, posted 08-21-2005 5:27 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021