Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 226 of 303 (236476)
08-24-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
08-20-2005 7:48 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
Faith writes:
It is the premise (young earth) from which I argue everything I argue about science, as does any YEC.
And therein lies the crux of the problem.
If it is going to be science, the premise has to be based on science as well. For example a scientist will never propose a hypothesis just because he has a "hunch" or a "feeling" about something. He will propose a hypothesis based on: (1) direct observation (2)How that observation is related to his own research and (3)his understanding of the scientific liturature. The premise is not the hypothesis, the premise is that he is interpreting (1), (2) and (3) correctly. So the scientist is well aware that the premise itself could be flawed and he will seek out peer review of his interpretation before he even embarks on the study (this is what a research proposal does). You and other YECs short circuit this part of the scientific process because you allow no room for the possibility that the premise itself will be wrong. Thus you can never have a testable hypothesis, thus you can never do science (or imo argue about science in a meaningful way) this way.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 08-24-2005 2:42 PM deerbreh has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 227 of 303 (236484)
08-24-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by deerbreh
08-24-2005 2:20 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
And therein lies the crux of the problem.
If it is going to be science, the premise has to be based on science as well. For example a scientist will never propose a hypothesis just because he has a "hunch" or a "feeling" about something.
Well, that's the dogma for sure, but in fact a hunch is EXACTLY how the interpretation of the fossil record was arrived at, by nothing more than a mere impression of how it appears, as a sequence of life forms from primitive to complex. The impression was compelling to many minds, although there are many things about the actual fossil sequence that should have given them pause and still should -- the association of particular fossils with particular sediments for instance being a big clue that something's amiss with the time interpretation. Despite an utter lack of corroborating evidence, the interpretation of genetic relatedness/evolution from one to another up the geo column has remained nothing but an interpretation with absolutely NO scientific support for the interpretation. It LOOKS LIKE a sequence, and that's IT for the entire "scientific" interpretation of the fossil record. All subsequent scientific corroboration has been nothing but the assumption of the sequence and the cramming of data into the interpretation.
He will propose a hypothesis based on: (1) direct observation (2)How that observation is related to his own research and (3)his understanding of the scientific liturature. The premise is not the hypothesis, the premise is that he is interpreting (1), (2) and (3) correctly. So the scientist is well aware that the premise itself could be flawed and he will seek out peer review of his interpretation before he even embarks on the study (this is what a research proposal does).
A fine romantic tale that in the case of evolution and the geo timescale is not borne out in reality for the simple reason that these are nothing but interpretations that in themselves are not subject to proof or falsification. As long as you can keep cramming data into them they are not questioned. They ARE nevertheless questioned by some who do see the absurdities and the ill fit with the data, and eventually the whole thing may come tumbling down from such whistleblowing, but since no actual test/proof/falsification is possible they'll stand until more and more recognize the absurdities.
You and other YECs short circuit this part of the scientific process because you allow no room for the possibility that the premise itself will be wrong. Thus you can never have a testable hypothesis, thus you can never do science (or imo argue about science in a meaningful way) this way.
Pot kettle black. Neither the ToE nor OE is a "testable hypothesis."
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-24-2005 02:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by deerbreh, posted 08-24-2005 2:20 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by deerbreh, posted 08-24-2005 3:41 PM Faith has replied
 Message 234 by jar, posted 08-24-2005 5:34 PM Faith has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 228 of 303 (236507)
08-24-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
08-24-2005 2:42 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
Neither the ToE nor OE is a "testable hypothesis."
The ToE is not a hypothesis at all. But it is a theory that does a better job of explaining the available data than anything else. And it allows the formation of a multitude of hypotheses that ARE testable. As for OE you are simply wrong about that. It is testable and we have way more evidence for OE than we do for the historical reality of Jesus Christ (which I believe, by the way).
As for your other responses - same old same old. There is simply no scientific dispute about the geological column and the fossils and geological ages associated with it. You can dispute that but realize that you are doing it based on your YEC premise, NOT on the scientific merits of your argument, of which there are none.
...They (evolution and geo timescale) ARE nevertheless questioned by some who do see the absurdities and the ill fit with the data, and eventually the whole thing may come tumbling down from such whistleblowing, but since no actual test/proof/falsification is possible they'll stand until more and more recognize the absurdities...
Again, same old same old. Who are the "some"? - not 99% of geologists and biologists. The whole idea of evolution and the geo timescale "tumbling down" has been a pipe dream of YECs ever since Darwin wrote the "Origin of Species". The Henry Morrises and Duane Gishes embarrassed themselves with their perennial pronouncements of the "collapse" of the ToE. Today it is the IDers, and IRers of the Discovery Institute and its pathetic little band of scientists with Ph.D.s in just about everything except evolutionary biology who have taken up the cause of holding out hope of the "demise" of the ToE. It has all been futile. Instead, each scientific advance has only cemented the ToE and OE more firmly - fossil discoveries, new dating techniques, genetic discoveries, DNA and molecular biology - all of them have added to the preponderance of the evidence in favor of ToE and OE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 08-24-2005 2:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 08-24-2005 4:14 PM deerbreh has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 229 of 303 (236517)
08-24-2005 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by deerbreh
08-24-2005 3:41 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
Neither the ToE nor OE is a "testable hypothesis."
The ToE is not a hypothesis at all. But it is a theory that does a better job of explaining the available data than anything else.
That is an illusion. Design actually explains the available data at LEAST as well as the ToE.
And it allows the formation of a multitude of hypotheses that ARE testable.
Unsupported assertion. Name one that directly corroborates the ToE.
As for OE you are simply wrong about that. It is testable and we have way more evidence for OE than we do for the historical reality of Jesus Christ (which I believe, by the way).
You have what I said you have, data that is crammed to an ill fit. The OE is untestable in itself, as is the ToE. They are both merely imaginative constructs that cannot be tested at all. One simply interprets until one finds a plausible fit, or more commonly every new piece of data is simply described from the getgo with all the ToE assumptions piled on thick. SO thick that trying to find out what the new data IS as raw phenomenon takes herculean efforts to remove the language accretions and track down possible earlier reports, which usually don't exist because ALL such finds are immediately buried in ToE terminology.
As for your other responses - same old same old. There is simply no scientific dispute about the geological column and the fossils and geological ages associated with it. You can dispute that but realize that you are doing it based on your YEC premise, NOT on the scientific merits of your argument, of which there are none.
Not basing anything on my YEC premise at the moment. I'm challenging the scientific merits of YOUR argument, of which there are none. So where are YOUR scientific examples pray tell?
Instead, each scientific advance has only cemented the ToE and OE more firmly - fossil discoveries, new dating techniques, genetic discoveries, DNA and molecular biology - all of them have added to the preponderance of the evidence in favor of ToE and OE.
Only by assumption and interpretation do they make this evidence support the ToE. Discussions about these things at EvC as well as in just about every report that can be found show how the terminology carries the assumption of the ToE along with it. It is a semantic nightmare, but there is very little ACTUAL evidence that supports the ToE and OE better than the design and flood explanations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by deerbreh, posted 08-24-2005 3:41 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 4:27 PM Faith has replied
 Message 232 by deerbreh, posted 08-24-2005 5:10 PM Faith has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 230 of 303 (236521)
08-24-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
08-24-2005 4:14 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
SO thick that trying to find out what the new data IS as raw phenomenon takes herculean efforts to remove the language accretions and track down possible earlier reports, which usually don't exist because ALL such finds are immediately buried in ToE terminology.
Very good point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 08-24-2005 4:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 08-24-2005 4:39 PM randman has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 231 of 303 (236527)
08-24-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by randman
08-24-2005 4:27 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
Very good point.
Thank you. I've many times thought of starting a thread for accumulating such examples, but that takes so much work I haven't gotten around to it. Still have it in mind. There are tons of them but it's a job demonstrating the ToE terminology first of all, then going on to give a purely objective description of the phenomenon in question to demonstrate the spin effect of the ToE terminology and the bare facts of the naked data, and then offering other equally plausible explanations, as well as having to deal with the pile-on of evolutionist opponents who misunderstand every word you say before it's even out of your mouth, and start slinging sophisticated science that's beyond my range instead of dealing with the facts I've offered, and I just haven't been up to it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-24-2005 04:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 4:27 PM randman has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 232 of 303 (236545)
08-24-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
08-24-2005 4:14 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
deerbreh writes:
And it allows the formation of a multitude of hypotheses that ARE testable.
Faith writes:
Unsupported assertion. Name one that directly corroborates the ToE.
Ok. Hypothesis: If humans and great apes have a common ancestor there should be chromosomal homologies which would be consistent with the ToE but not with a common designer.
This hypothesis is confirmed here:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Faith writes:
Not basing anything on my YEC premise at the moment. I'm challenging the scientific merits of YOUR argument, of which there are none. So where are YOUR scientific examples pray tell?
You seem to question the accuracy of geological dating methods. As I alluded to before, new dating methods allow us to "cross check" a date with several different methods. Younger dates can be confirmed with tree ring technology and sedimentation layer records. We know how long it takes radioisotopes to decay. We can directly measure this. There is no known mechanism to explain how it could have been different in the past. All of the dating methods agree within experimental error with each other.
Another link for your edification:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
Again, you can of course choose to reject this evidence but realize that you are rejecting it based on your premise of YEC and not on the scientific merits. By the way, is there ANY scientific evidence that would cause you to reject YEC? If so, what would it be?
Fair is fair - if there were undisputed fossil evidence of modern man and T. rex living at the same time (not Carl Baugh's fraudulent claims) I would accept a young earth and probably creationism as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 08-24-2005 4:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 08-24-2005 5:19 PM deerbreh has replied
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 12:04 AM deerbreh has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 233 of 303 (236550)
08-24-2005 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by deerbreh
08-24-2005 5:10 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
Ok. Hypothesis: If humans and great apes have a common ancestor there should be chromosomal homologies which would be consistent with the ToE but not with a common designer.
I don't have time to get into this now, but why should chromosomes not show the same design consistencies that the creature itself shows? Why should genotypes not have similar design patterns just as phenotypes do? That is, if humans and great apes DO NOT have a common ancestor we could just as well expect genetic homologies based on the observable similarities in body design -- and those homologies don't go anywhere near as far as you imply anyway, just as the similarity in body design begs a multitude of dissimilarities. There is NO reason whatever to suppose genetic relatedness based on similarity of design at ANY level. That is an unwarranted extrapolation, a consistent error committed in defense of the ToE.
More later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by deerbreh, posted 08-24-2005 5:10 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by deerbreh, posted 08-24-2005 11:38 PM Faith has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 234 of 303 (236560)
08-24-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
08-24-2005 2:42 PM


Testable?
Bot the TOE and OE are testable. They are tested constantly.
Young Earth is also testable. If we find something older than 6000 years, then Young Earth is falsified.
Would you agree to that statement?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 08-24-2005 2:42 PM Faith has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 235 of 303 (236645)
08-24-2005 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
08-24-2005 5:19 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
You asked for an example of a testable hypothesis which is consistent with the ToE - I provided one and a link explaining it. It is not too much to ask that you at least read the link before offering your reasons why you can't accept it. If you don't want this information, don't ask for it. It is hard to accept you as a serious debater when you do this. It is just like geology, you can't expect to understand it without a little background reading. The subject is a bit more complex than what you are making it out to be. It is quite unreasonable to expect other posters to answer all of your questions(which reflect some fundamental misunderstandings about chromosomes and chromosome homologies and what they mean) when you don't even take the time to read the link provided. By the way, I am talking about chromosomes - not genes per se. The term "genotype" refers to the individual genes, not how they are arranged on the chromosomes. This is just one of the basic errors you made because you "jumped in" without reading the link. To address one of your points - there are ways to tell in the chromosome structures themselves whether the observed homologies could only have resulted from shared ancestry - that is, there is no way to explain the observations with an intelligent design model unless you believe that the designer was either very sloppy or not all that intelligent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 08-24-2005 5:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 12:23 AM deerbreh has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 236 of 303 (236648)
08-25-2005 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by deerbreh
08-24-2005 5:10 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
Ok. Hypothesis: If humans and great apes have a common ancestor there should be chromosomal homologies which would be consistent with the ToE but not with a common designer.
This hypothesis is confirmed here:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
It is ALL interpretation. Don't you see that? Creationists are just as good at coming up with contrary interpretations of any of it given enough experience with the material. There is no PROOF, don't you see? No evidence, no testability, no falsifiability, it's all INTERPRETATION, all PLAUSIBILITIES against PLAUSIBILITIES. Find all the similarities you want they are JUST AS WELL explained in terms of design factors, or, in the case of apparent shared genetic anomalities or mistakes, by the effects of the Fall on all life. Our genes are broken because of the Fall. There is NO COMPELLING REASON to explain any of it in terms of descent.
Faith writes:
Not basing anything on my YEC premise at the moment. I'm challenging the scientific merits of YOUR argument, of which there are none. So where are YOUR scientific examples pray tell?
You seem to question the accuracy of geological dating methods. As I alluded to before, new dating methods allow us to "cross check" a date with several different methods. Younger dates can be confirmed with tree ring technology and sedimentation layer records. We know how long it takes radioisotopes to decay. We can directly measure this. There is no known mechanism to explain how it could have been different in the past. All of the dating methods agree within experimental error with each other.
I avoid discussing radiometric dating techniques, because if the whole edifice is shown to be a fantasy they'll be properly falsified in their time; but the general answer is that you CAN'T KNOW about the past with such certainty, no matter what your techniques, especially considering the kinds of circumstances YECs postulate of catastrophic circumstances, occurring both at the Fall and again at the Flood, affecting the entire physical creation in unknowable but no doubt drastic ways. Evolution rests on ASSUMPTIONS and interpretations, not on evidence. You ASSUME that the fossil sequence shows genetic descent, you cannot prove that, you simply extrapolate it from the appearance that there is a sequence, and yes I agree it's interesting that it TO SOME EXTENT mirrors the taxonomic sequence of living things classified by morphology and genes as well, but ALL WE ARE EVER TOLD is those bits of data that support the theory, we have to hunt for those that falsify it.
But if you want to get specific, EXPLAIN those sedimentation layer records" please. This is not a science thread and it would be nice of you to make your points clear, not expect me to know what you are talking about.
Another link for your edification:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
Again, you can of course choose to reject this evidence but realize that you are rejecting it based on your premise of YEC and not on the scientific merits. By the way, is there ANY scientific evidence that would cause you to reject YEC? If so, what would it be?
What you have are NOT "scientific merits." This whole discussion is based on nothing but assumptions as I just discussed above.
Typical flat evo assertions:
Fossils provide a record of the history of life.
Only if you believe the assumption that the sequence implies genetic descent.
Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs.
Only if you believe the assumption that the strata represent vast periods of time.
Fair is fair - if there were undisputed fossil evidence of modern man and T. rex living at the same time (not Carl Baugh's fraudulent claims) I would accept a young earth and probably creationism as well.
There could yet be such evidence found, but the earth is huge and exposed surfaces and digs are few and far between, and it does appear that fossils were sorted according to some principle -- not yet known --so that humans ended up in different layers than the dinosaurs. There are many reasons to think that all the fossils were killed at one time, and had all lived on the earth together until overtaken by catastrophe. The apparent sequence is deceptive. There are many things against it, such as
1) The layers are such distinctly different sediments abruptly separated from one another, not gradually blended or merged, not jumbled or mixed, just one kind laid down flat on top of another completely different kind. {Edit: Why should a particular period of time, millions of years yet, be defined by a particular kind of sediment deposition? Does that make sense?
2) And then there's the regular horizontality of the sediments instead of the appearance of disturbance, although they supposedly were built up over millions of years;
3) The disturbances that ARE seen are on the SURFACE of each layer. Why? Erosion even then is quite minimal but it only cuts into the top of the layer. That makes no sense if we're talking about periods of millions of years. Why would erosion occur ONLY at the surface and not the interior, and all through the interior for that matter so that horizontality and homogeneity couldn't even be said to describe them? That suggests rapid deposition of one thick layer of sediment followed by a period of time in which animals and running water and other forces acted on its surface before the next thick layer was laid down. How long? Could have been hours or days or weeks I suppose. Perhaps enormous tidal waves rushing across whole continents? Sucking back to an enormous distance out to sea to gather a new wave laden with new sediments? Maybe more than one process involved? Who knows? But the data fit with something along these lines a lot better than with the geo timescale.
4) And not just erosion but animal tracks also show up on the surface of these strata. Again, why not all through the layer, considering that supposedly during the multiplied millions of years it supposedly took to form bazillions of creatures lived and died and supposedly evolved from one thing into another. They left their footprints -- but only on the surface? No, that suggests sudden deposition. That suggests a wet mass of sediment being laid down and animals scrambling across it before the next one comes, so fast in fact that it PRESERVED their footprints, which COULD NOT happen in slow deposition. I know that in many places the sediments are said to have been laid down in water, but that requires that periodically they are exposed to air and eroded and then returned under water and that at that point an entirely different kind of sediment and fossil content begins the slow process of homogeneous regular deposition over millions of years, and that just plain makes no sense.
5) Also, that types of fossils are associated with such distinctly different sediments makes no sense. Why should one age or era be so different from another as to mere sediment deposition over enormous swaths of geography for one thing, but odder than that, why are the fossils so strictly tied to their own peculiar layer and no other and their supposedly evolved versions only appear in subsequent layers? That is, why in a layer that represents 20 million years or so don't we see an evolved difference between the fossils on the bottom from those close to the top of the layer if they were supposedly evolving all that time and in fact a "later" evolved type shows up in a higher layer? The fact is that the fossils of one type are all found scattered throughout the thickness of the layer willynilly, isn't that so? They OBVIOUSLY don't represent a gradual accumulation of fossils of creatures that lived in different periods, they represent a one-time disaster that took bazillions of them to a muddy grave all at once, so suddenly that it was able to preserve them intact and permit their fossilization.
6) Why the order? Well, I suspect that complexity isn't the sorting factor. I'm certain age isn't, or descent from one kind to another over time. The main observation is that all the supposed "oldest" layers are marine, while the supposedly more "recent" layers are of land animals. That's obviously one sorting factor. I don't know how a worldwide flood would do that but it's a better explanation than the bazillion year evolution notion. It makes sense that land animals would be on the top though and marine on the bottom, as they'd have gone to the highest ground before they were overtaken in the flood. They'd have grouped themselves with their own kind and have been taken with their own kind.
There's more but I didn't even start out intending to give you this much of an answer.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 12:06 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 12:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by deerbreh, posted 08-24-2005 5:10 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by deerbreh, posted 08-25-2005 1:53 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 237 of 303 (236650)
08-25-2005 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by deerbreh
08-24-2005 11:38 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
You asked for an example of a testable hypothesis which is consistent with the ToE - I provided one and a link explaining it. It is not too much to ask that you at least read the link before offering your reasons why you can't accept it.
It takes forever to read through a link and it involves multiple points that take a long time to answer. Why don't you just make your point in your own words and use the link for backup and stick to one point at a time. I did read through it and just answered it as a matter of fact. So what it anticipates what I said? I've heard it all before and it's just the usual evo way of interpreting the data, and obviously any contradictory data is not going to be presented. This kind of debate asks WAY too much of your opponent.
If you don't want this information, don't ask for it.
I don't want to be buried in it. I'd like a nice brief abstract of it if you don't mind in your own words.
It is hard to accept you as a serious debater when you do this. It is just like geology, you can't expect to understand it without a little background reading.
I do a LOT of background reading, but I'm looking for something DIFFERENT than you are and it takes longer and it takes more work than just reading.
The subject is a bit more complex than what you are making it out to be. It is quite unreasonable to expect other posters to answer all of your questions(which reflect some fundamental misunderstandings about chromosomes and chromosome homologies and what they mean) when you don't even take the time to read the link provided. By the way, I am talking about chromosomes - not genes per se. The term "genotype" refers to the individual genes, not how they are arranged on the chromosomes. This is just one of the basic errors you made because you "jumped in" without reading the link.
You are right that I do that, but when I see a wall of evolutionist propaganda coming at me I just lose interest. If you can't boil it down I don't want to deal with it. And why shouldn't any apparent similarities exist on the design principle at ANY level, whether genes or chromosomes or whatnot?
To address one of your points - there are ways to tell in the chromosome structures themselves whether the observed homologies could only have resulted from shared ancestry - that is, there is no way to explain the observations with an intelligent design model unless you believe that the designer was either very sloppy or not all that intelligent.
Do you expect me to take your word for that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by deerbreh, posted 08-24-2005 11:38 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by deerbreh, posted 08-25-2005 2:24 AM Faith has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 238 of 303 (236663)
08-25-2005 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
08-25-2005 12:04 AM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
But if you want to get specific, EXPLAIN those sedimentation layer records" please. This is not a science thread and it would be nice of you to make your points clear, not expect me to know what you are talking about.
I meant loess deposits and varves - both of these provide accurate dating methods that correspond with radiological data as well as with tree ring data.
I am not going to address anything labeled "typical flat evo assertions" or its equivalent.
There are many reasons to think that all the fossils were killed at one time
Then it should be quite easy for you to come up with one that actually matches the geological data.
The layers are such distinctly different sediments abruptly separated from one another, not gradually blended or merged, not jumbled or mixed, just one kind laid down flat on top of another completely different kind.
This is consistent with deposition over a long period of time. It is NOT consistent with deposition within one year from a global flood.
And then there's the regular horizontality of the sediments instead of the appearance of disturbance, although they supposedly were built up over millions of years;
This is not true everywhere. There are numerous examples of layers that are not horizontal - check out the road cut through the Allegheny mountains in Western Maryland on I 68, for one.
The disturbances that ARE seen are on the SURFACE of each layer. Why? Erosion even then is quite minimal but it only cuts into the top of the layer.
This is not true in many cases. Google geological disconformaties and unconformaties.
And not just erosion but animal tracks also show up on the surface of these strata. Again, why not...
Again, because this is false. Animal tracks, leaf prints, etc. occur throughout layers of strata, not just on the surface. Where are you getting this information?
I know that in many places the sediments are said to have been laid down in water, but that requires that periodically they are exposed to air and eroded and then returned under water and that at that point an entirely different kind of sediment and fossil content begins the slow process of homogeneous regular deposition over millions of years, and that just plain makes no sense.
It only makes no sense if you are YEC. All of what you said here is quite plausible in geological time.
Also, that types of fossils are associated with such distinctly different sediments makes no sense. Why should one age or era be so different from another as to mere sediment deposition over enormous swaths of geography for one thing, but odder than that, why are the fossils so strictly tied to their own peculiar layer and no other and their supposedly evolved versions only appear in subsequent
layers?
Are you sure you meant to ask this? This is over simplified but pretty much what the ToE and OE would predict except you have exaggerated the degree of stratification of particular fossils into unique layers. Again, where did you get this information?
The fact is that the fossils of one type are all found scattered throughout the thickness of the layer willynilly, isn't that so?
It depends. Sometimes there may not be a great deal of change in 20 million years that would show up in fossils. You would have to be more specific about what kind of fossils you are talking about. I don't have a lot of trust in your broad generalizations in light of some of your other assertions here.
Why the order? Well, I suspect that complexity isn't the sorting factor. I'm certain age isn't, or descent from one kind to another over time. The main observation is that all the supposed "oldest" layers are marine, while the supposedly more "recent" layers are of land animals. That's obviously one sorting factor. I don't know how a worldwide flood would do that but it's a better explanation than the bazillion year evolution notion.
This is just rank speculation with no scientific basis. No response is called for other than to say that marine layers are not always the lowest strata. Sometimes they are in the top layer - for example on top of the Appalachian mountains in central Pennsylvania - right where one might expect to find all of those drowned land animals from the flood - but they are not there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 12:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 2:48 AM deerbreh has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 239 of 303 (236666)
08-25-2005 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
08-25-2005 12:23 AM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
Do you expect me to take your word for that?
No - that is why I provided the link. On the one hand, you ask me to put things into my own words. Then when I do that you snidely ask if I expect you to take my word for that?
I am sorry to say this Faith but you are really not equipped to discuss evolution and geology and you don't appear to be willing to do what it takes to get so equipped. You complain about having to read evolutionary literature but how in the world are you going to understand it if you don't read it? I have been reading the Bible since I was a kid yet I would not think of refusing to read a passage to brush up on some details if it helped me understand someone's argument. Evolution and geology are complex topics. This is not as simple as saying "God did it." To understand evolution and geology you are going to have to dig a little deeper than that. It is frustrating for me when you ask me to explain what I meant by using sedimentary layers as a geological dating mechanism. I am sorry Faith, but if you were at all as knowledgeable as you claim to be about geological dating you would have known that loess layers and varves are an important component. I don't mind explaining things when someone is genuinely seeking information but I do mind when I get the feeling that someone is not willing to do their homework.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 12:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 3:02 AM deerbreh has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 240 of 303 (236669)
08-25-2005 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by deerbreh
08-25-2005 1:53 AM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
I meant loess deposits and varves - both of these provide accurate dating methods that correspond with radiological data as well as with tree ring data.
I have to assume you aren't interested in communicating if you just like to sprinkle terms around.
I am not going to address anything labeled "typical flat evo assertions" or its equivalent.
No need to address it. It speaks for itself.
There are many reasons to think that all the fossils were killed at one time
======
Then it should be quite easy for you to come up with one that actually matches the geological data.
And I came up with something like six I believe, all descriptive of the geological facts. Just off the top of my head.
The layers are such distinctly different sediments abruptly separated from one another, not gradually blended or merged, not jumbled or mixed, just one kind laid down flat on top of another completely different kind.
=====
This is consistent with deposition over a long period of time. It is NOT consistent with deposition within one year from a global flood.
I guess you can assert anything even if it's utterly illogical. It is NOT consistent with deposition over a long period of time, it's absurd to think that one sediment would deposit exclusively for twenty million years and then abruptly with no transition whatever but a knife-edge thin demarcation between the two, be covered by an entirely different sediment that proceeds to deposit exclusively for another umpteen million years. You can just go right ahead and flatly assert that it can, but that's because there's no way to test it, prove it, falsify it etc. so there's no way to answer you with any finality. I answer you by pointing out the outrageous absurdity of it. It is absurd to the max, but you can always deny it anyway, DeNial not being a river in Egypt under the circumstances. Everything I pointed out in my list shows the absurdity of the assumptions of the geo timescale to explain the strata of the geological column and the far more likely explanation of rapid deposition given the actual geological facts. Beginning with the abrupt change from one sediment to another. Really absurd. Dinosaurs roamed when there was just this one kind of sediment for those millions of years that they got buried in, supposedly one after another individually over huge spans of time, but when something else roamed there was this completely other kind of sediment. That makes sense to you?
And then there's the regular horizontality of the sediments instead of the appearance of disturbance, although they supposedly were built up over millions of years;
This is not true everywhere. There are numerous examples of layers that are not horizontal - check out the road cut through the Allegheny mountains in Western Maryland on I 68, for one.
I'm supposed to look that up I guess? Yes it's not true everywhere. There were tectonic upheavals after the strata were laid down (obviously not during the bazillion years of their laying down as there they all are, just uptilted but still parallel. (Yeah I disagree that the un(non?)conformity at the bottom of the GrandCanyon came first. I think it's obvious that it occurred after the whole column was laid down, as evidenced by the fact that on a cross section of the area you can see that the north side of the canyon is at the upper part of a mound formation obviously pushed up from beneath, and the strata remain parallel even though they cover this enormous territory all the way from the Grand Canyon into Utah, and follow the contour created by the upthrust from below.) And the upheavals turned some of them on their sides and every which way, but even then you see the parallel formation of the strata which implies original horizontality. You see it also in the mountain ranges, so many neatly parallel stratifications upthrust at angles to the horizon. And in some places they didn't deposit so neatly either, so that's another exception to the rule. But the rule exists, and it is that the strata occur all over the world and geology texts themselves point out their horizontality as a major feature.
The disturbances that ARE seen are on the SURFACE of each layer. Why? Erosion even then is quite minimal but it only cuts into the top of the layer.
This is not true in many cases. Google geological disconformaties and unconformaties.
No need. I can't remember the distinctions between un, dis and non conformities, but I'm aware of the basic idea and it's your job to explain what you mean instead of rudely sending me to google. Again it is irrelevant that it is not true in "many cases." The principle holds for the cases in which it IS true.
And not just erosion but animal tracks also show up on the surface of these strata. Again, why not...
=======
Again, because this is false. Animal tracks, leaf prints, etc. occur throughout layers of strata, not just on the surface. Where are you getting this information?
From arguments at EvC. Leaf prints etc I'd expect within the strata, they are just a form of buried fossil, but tracks imply a surface that was walked on. However even the uniform sediments were deposited in multiple layers so that could occur too. But overall the discussion of these things has the evolutionist side always pointing to the surface of strata, for instance the erosion at the top of the Muav formation in the Grand Canyon and the tracks at the top of I think the Coconino, I forget.
I know that in many places the sediments are said to have been laid down in water, but that requires that periodically they are exposed to air and eroded and then returned under water and that at that point an entirely different kind of sediment and fossil content begins the slow process of homogeneous regular deposition over millions of years, and that just plain makes no sense.
It only makes no sense if you are YEC. All of what you said here is quite plausible in geological time.
Only to someone who assumes geological time and has to make it work somehow or other. There are always plausible scenarios, not all that plausible really, quite jerryrigged really. So these fossils are marine so this had to be underwater but that one is sand so it had to be above water so we'll figure there were many risings and fallings of the sea to account for this, and besides we can see the evidence of periodic shorelines... so this bit and that bit and you've got yourself convinced, but on the face of it as I've described it, the idea is just plain absurd.
Also, that types of fossils are associated with such distinctly different sediments makes no sense. Why should one age or era be so different from another as to mere sediment deposition over enormous swaths of geography for one thing, but odder than that, why are the fossils so strictly tied to their own peculiar layer and no other and their supposedly evolved versions only appear in subsequent
layers?
Are you sure you meant to ask this? This is over simplified but pretty much what the ToE and OE would predict except you have exaggerated the degree of stratification of particular fossils into unique layers. Again, where did you get this information?
The problem is that it's just about impossible to FIND a clear description of the simple phenomena of the strata and their fossil contents. One has to make do with evolutionized schematic diagrams and predigested explanations and try to figure out what the actual physical scene looks like from that useless information. I've looked in vain for hours for simple descriptions of actual physical facts. No, I get endless references to "Cretaceous" this and "Permian" that and "this evolved from that" instead of "such and such was found at such and such a place" etc.
One source of such information, however, is information on how the Grand Canyon strata are defined -- in multiple web sites, with its clearly demarcated layers and their particular fossil contents clearly identified with the time period assigned to the clearly demarcated sedeiment layers. And how on earth would the ToE and OE predict changing sediments with unique fossil contents? They should predict no such thing as changing discrete sediments for starters, let alone the association of them with particular fossil contents.
The fact is that the fossils of one type are all found scattered throughout the thickness of the layer willynilly, isn't that so?
It depends. Sometimes there may not be a great deal of change in 20 million years that would show up in fossils. You would have to be more specific about what kind of fossils you are talking about. I don't have a lot of trust in your broad generalizations in light of some of your other assertions here.
I'm talking generally. I've run across general descriptions of how a certain fossil is a primitive form of another fossil in a higher layer and the fact that they are separated by different kinds of sediments that are named for time periods hits me as ridiculous. I don't have any motivation to get more specific information. You can easily extrapolate after the fact that there wasn't a great deal of change of course, just because your assumptions demand that conclusion. That's just another case of the kind of plausibility that is derived from the assumption itself that is then used to justify the assumption, that the whole ToE is woven together with.
{Edit: Meaning, how would you KNOW that "Sometimes there may not be a great deal of change in 20 million years that would show up in fossils?" YOu "know" it only by the fact that in the geo column these fossils have the same form throughout a depth of strata that has been called 20 million years, right? THEREFORE "there just wasn't a great deal of change in those 20 million years." Classical circular reasoning, the stuff that glues together the ToE and the Geo timescale.
But depending on the fossil -- you fill in the blank, I know this occurs, I don't care where -- in the layer above there are fossils that are of the same basic species but different, and you conclude that they are an evolved form of the earlier one. WHY? Because they are in this upper layer, that's why. There is no other reason. And you "know" their age by their position in the strata. I shouldn't need to be specific should I? The concept ought to be recognizable. It's the kind of thing we laypeople get fed all the time.
Why the order? Well, I suspect that complexity isn't the sorting factor. I'm certain age isn't, or descent from one kind to another over time. The main observation is that all the supposed "oldest" layers are marine, while the supposedly more "recent" layers are of land animals. That's obviously one sorting factor. I don't know how a worldwide flood would do that but it's a better explanation than the bazillion year evolution notion.
This is just rank speculation with no scientific basis. No response is called for other than to say that marine layers are not always the lowest strata. Sometimes they are in the top layer - for example on top of the Appalachian mountains in central Pennsylvania - right where one might expect to find all of those drowned land animals from the flood - but they are not there.
That's funny, just rank speculation, as what I'm doing is pointing out that that's all the ToE has is rank speculation of greater or lesser plausibility, no real evidence of any sort, and I'm offering a different set of explanations that I consider to have better plausibility.
Yes, you can always point out the exceptions, but it is a fact that the land animals do not appear in the lower layers but only in the upper. And sometimes layers are inverted and rearranged. And marine creatures were dispersed throughout the entire flood after all, so that explains their appearance at the heights of mountains and mounds of them in the deserts too.
I apologize for my seeming rudeness but I AM making sense and I get SO tired of this insistence that I understand YOUR vocabulary and YOUR evolutionist assumptions when I'm trying to COUNTER those assumptions. Yes I know you sincerely think I need to know these specific things. I know more than you think I know but I also know I don't need to know them for what I'm trying to say.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 03:41 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 03:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by deerbreh, posted 08-25-2005 1:53 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by deerbreh, posted 08-25-2005 10:08 AM Faith has replied
 Message 258 by Nuggin, posted 08-25-2005 3:40 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024