Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 197 of 303 (243085)
09-13-2005 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by PaulK
09-13-2005 5:37 PM


Re: No Catch 22
A YEC would only be suspended for using theological arguments in the science forums- whcih are restricted to scientific arguments.
SO sorry to say, but I've been warned AND suspended for stating my Biblical premises in NON-science forums. And that thread about the Southwest was closed in my face for the same reason, though it was not a science forum. It simply BECAME one because I dared to discuss scientific questions from my Biblical presuppositions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 5:37 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 7:14 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 199 of 303 (243093)
09-13-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by PaulK
09-13-2005 5:37 PM


Re: No Catch 22
A YEC would only be suspended for using theological arguments in the science forums- whcih are restricted to scientific arguments. Sinxe there are no forums where science is forbidden ...
There is a strong opinion that science SHOULD be forbidden on the non-science side of the board and it has resulted in my suspension at least once and a great deal of upbraiding and complaining about it otherwise.
Sinxe there are no forums where science is forbidden your argument amounts to saying that if creationists can be suspended for breaking the rules then other people should be suspended even if they follow the rules.
Please get the point that it is the RULES themselves that stack the deck. I don't know how I can possibly make it much clearer than I have.
If Ben's proposal comes off then you could get your wish - but only on that forum.
I haven't been following Ben's proposal. Too involved in answering you and Jazz and others.
But I do not see the need for another forum. The Theological Creationism and ID forum was created to deal with this very problem. The problem is that I have no interest in using it because the fundamental problem has continued in spite of its existence, which is the neverending complaint by the science side that science must not be allowed on the non-science side as it only gives an unfair license to creationists to pursue unscientific reasoning by their standards. Until this attitude is conclusively dealt with, no amount of new forums is going to address the real problem.
However, perhaps Ben's proposal deals with this in some way.
If YEC presuppositions are up for debate in every debate, but the scientific presupposition is not up for debate, debate is not possible for YECs, and obviously debate is impossible anyway as there is nothing left to debate but whether the Bible is to be subject to science or science subject to the Biblical God.
Of course that isn't the case - it is, however, the mirror image of what you are asking for. You DON'T discuss your presuppositions - you discuss scientific matters and want to introduce your presupposiitosn to THOSE discussions.
I was content to keep them out of those discussions until it dawned on me that it doesn't matter if I refer to them or don't refer to them, they are what guides my thinking, and since that is the case the evolutionist side is not going to leave me alone about it no matter what. Therefore I'm bringing it up front, and I really do believe that because of the insistence that such presuppositions be disqualified from science discussions a priori, fair debate is rendered impossible. So, yes, that IS what I want. I want the freedom to use my own Biblical premises freely in ANY thread with impunity. Otherwise debate is a fraud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 5:37 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2005 10:53 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 200 of 303 (243094)
09-13-2005 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by jar
09-13-2005 7:14 PM


Re: No Catch 22
I'm stating simple facts quite unemotionally. There is no whining or crying involved. My task isn't to make EvC comfy for me only, but to address this perennial problem of why creationists are always getting the boot here.
I'm surprised you would ask me to document something so unambiguous as the reasons for that thread's being closed and for my suspension, which makes it appear that maybe all you are doing is giving me make-work as if I weren't already busy enough. However, I can easily prove the point if I can find the relevant posts, and that will take some time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 7:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 7:28 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 208 of 303 (243343)
09-14-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by PaulK
09-14-2005 10:53 AM


Re: No Catch 22
b) You claim that debate is a fraud unless YEC is presumed to be true.
No, I claim that debate is a fraud because the YEC presupposition is precluded by the science presupposition. I'm aware that you can't allow the YEC presupposition because it precludes the science presupposition as well, that is, it works both ways, the conflict is a genuine conflict. It's merely that at EvC the science rule rules.
That is manipulation worthy of Orwell's Ministry of Truth. You call genuine debate a fraid and demand that it is replaced by a fake "debate" where the rules are so grossly bent in your favour that no YECs need bother turning up. If you want that, go to a YEC board - I'm sure that you can find one that is so disgustingly biased.
No, I am not asking that the YEC presupposition replace the science presupposition as either way is unfair to the other side. What I'm saying is that this is an unresolvable conflict which at the moment is stacked against YECs and that there is no way out of it. Debate is simply impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2005 10:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2005 2:10 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 220 of 303 (243428)
09-14-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by jar
09-13-2005 5:44 PM


Pushing the continents apart
I've asked this of you before and just as with every other specific question you have simply never responded.
Perhaps this time it will be different.
Please explain the pulling apart mechanism that will produce what we see in the Appalachians.
It's not pulling-apart but pushing-apart as I see it. That is, the movement originates at the sea floor, in the Atlantic from the continental ridge outward to east and west. Magma rises at the ridge, pushing the earlier cooled magma away from the ridge. The whole thing is a pushing action outward, east and west from the north-south ridge. The continents are therefore PUSHED apart by this seafloor movement. I'm picturing some resistance of the continental mass at the beginning of the movement, exerting some counterforce to the spreading seafloor, and this is what would have buckled the mountains along the continental edges on both sides of the Atlantic.
Picture cooking something that forms a skin or crust if it's not stirred, like pudding or gravy. If you don't let it boil fully but let it bubble up here and there, wherever it bubbles up the skin is pushed outward away from the bubbling point, and what happens? -- the skin or crust buckles or ripples at the edge of the bubbling action. It's no perfect analogy of course, but it's in the ballpark of what I'm thinking of.
{Edit: OOPS. Off topic I just realized. Is it worth starting a new thread?}
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-14-2005 05:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 5:44 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by AdminBen, posted 09-14-2005 5:36 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 226 of 303 (243449)
09-14-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Jazzns
09-14-2005 5:47 PM


Fact versus interpretation/theory
I have no interest in what Faith has to say about how those structures form just as long as the facts aren't reversed or ignored. The continents were pulled not pushed apart. This is non-negotiable and her theory that talks about that must explain HOW they were pulled apart.
This is on topic here because it is about Ben's proposal that data and not theory be discussed. He is right. You are wrong that you are only talking about facts. You are talking about theory and don't know it.
See my unfortunately off topic Message 220 above for my reasoning about how the continents were pushed apart from the continental ridge. There is no pulling action happening, except perhaps in the Pacific trenches, but as I understand it, those are the result of the action that originates in the Atlantic ridge, the uprising magma there, and that PUSHES the earlier cooled magma away from the ridge, and that is what PUSHES the continents away from each other as it gets the whole plate system moving away from the continental ridge.
I would say that you are simply insisting on the establishment position, but in this case I've googled the subject quite a bit and have not found ONE mention of a PULLING action on the continents. The source of the movement of all the plates is the uprising magma and that exerts a pushing action.
You don't seem to be clear when you are talking about a fact versus an interpretation of a fact, and that is certainly the case with evolutionism and OE in general. It is just about impossible to find a fact in the morass of Evo and OE interpretations in the description of ANY phenomenon, geological or biological.
Ben is going to need to give a lecture on the difference between fact and theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2005 5:47 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2005 6:33 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 232 of 303 (243900)
09-15-2005 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Jazzns
09-15-2005 4:46 PM


Re: Fact versus interpretation/theory
I'll explain in brief here but you can also go to the other thread to see more. That seems like a good idea until you learn why the magma is coming up. It is not just welling up on its own, it is welling up because the rifting creates cracks in the crust allowing it to rise.
I do not see that WHY it is rising up makes any difference at all. It is still the rising up and spreading out of this magma that is pushing the plates -- basically by creating more sea floor. No matter how you look at it, the action that is moving the continents originates with the spreading magma, and this is a PUSHING action.
Honestly, Jazz, I see nothing in anything you've said to give me a different understanding of this. Much of what you have said is not very clear, but when something is clear it still looks the same to me.
This might be confusing to some who think of the "classical" style of volcanoe like the ones on the ring of fire (e.g. Mt. St. Helens). These volcanoes are created by magma that is rising up because it is hot enough to rise through the crust.
There are two ways to make liquid or air expand right. One is to heat it, the other is to decrease the pressure. The volcanoes at the ridges are due to the latter. Hope that makes sense.
Again, HOW or WHY it is expanding does not change the fact that it is exerting a PUSHING action on the continental mass by the simple fact that it IS expanding and creating new sea floor. It doesn't matter if it exploded out of the ridge or rises up because of the rift itself. As long as it is rising and creating new sea floor and pushing older magma ahead of it, it is this pushing action that is also moving the continents.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-15-2005 05:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Jazzns, posted 09-15-2005 4:46 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Jazzns, posted 09-15-2005 5:56 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 234 of 303 (243917)
09-15-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Jazzns
09-15-2005 5:56 PM


Re: Fact versus interpretation/theory
Jazz, I already said those links were too much to ask me to read. YOu need to to do a better job of explaining in your own words.
I do NOT see that WHY makes any difference and nothing you are saying convinces me otherwise.
So what's causing the rift that the magma is filling? WHat's causing the movement of the plates? The illustrations do NOT show a rift being filled. They show magma rising up and pushing cooler magma away from the ridge. That's what they SHOW.
There is no need to repeat the distinction from volcanic action. That was never the point and it makes NO difference.
Empty spaces are being created, rift valleys are dropping out, and normal faults are forming.
I have NO idea what this means. You are not being clear. WHAT "empty spaces?" What is creating the empty spaces? What is a "rift valley" and what does it mean that they are "dropping out?"
Are you saying that the plates are moving and as they move the previously extruded magma moves with them and that leaves space that is filled by new magma? How odd that the new magma doesn't just pile up on top of the old. How come the rate of movement is precisely right for creating this apparently continuous new sea floor?
It matters where the movement originates. If not the continental ridge, then where? Clearly it doesn't originate in the Pacific trenches. Those are explained as collisions of plates in which one dives under the other -- a movement toward one another. It is at the Atlantic ridge that there is this divergent action, and this has to be the driving force that moves the continents.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-15-2005 06:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Jazzns, posted 09-15-2005 5:56 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Jazzns, posted 09-15-2005 7:37 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 235 of 303 (243919)
09-15-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Jazzns
09-15-2005 5:56 PM


Re: Fact versus interpretation/theory
The observation at a divergent boundary is that magma rises due to rifting not the other way around. That is the observation.
When have I ever suggested that it rises from any particular cause? I never said anything about the magma's erupting like a volcano; that is an issue of your creation, not mine. The rift through which it rises is quite clear on the diagrams; how it got there is not so clear, but that has not been a consideration of mine. You seem to be talking about something else, though.
So you are picturing something like what happens when too much soap is put in the washing machine or too much leavening in the batter? It will overflow its container given the chance. But that IS a force and it CAN push.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-15-2005 06:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Jazzns, posted 09-15-2005 5:56 PM Jazzns has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 237 of 303 (243955)
09-15-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Jazzns
09-15-2005 7:37 PM


Re: Fact versus interpretation/theory
What we do know is that, in the example of the mid atlantic ridge, is that the two plates are moving apart, splitting the crust, creating rifts. That is it. That is the observation. The cause of the movement of the plates is unknown except via theory.
Please SHOW ME THIS RIFT OR RIFTS. The only one I see is the center opening where the magma rises up. I think you mean something else, but ONLY this center split is shown on the diagrams. When the crust splits, what's beneath it? The diagrams clearly show magma rising up through a rather narrow rift and spilling out to right and left. That's all.
The illustrations do NOT show a rift being filled. They show magma rising up and pushing cooler magma away from the ridge. That's what they SHOW.
I can see where there is some confusion. You are coming from the perspective of wanting it to be that way and thus the animations certainly look like the magma that is coming up is pushing the rocks aside.
That is absolutely not the case. That's simply how it looks to me and it is where I GOT the idea. I didn't get it from any other source.
But think about this critically for a moment. If magma, being a liquid, is rising up to the surface and it has the choice to displace a rock laterally or displacing nothing by moving vertically what do yout think is going to happen? Because it is a liquid it will take the path of least resistance and go up into the empty space above it rather than the filled space to the sides.
I guess, but don't seem to be dealing with the ACTUAL ILLUSTRATION of the action. WHAT "empty space above it?" WHAT "filled space to the sides?" Those descriptions don't fit what is actually in the illustration.
If you want to focus your case on a gif animation then first of all realize that it is just a darned gif.
I assume it was made with the intention and best information for being accurate, but also there are MANY diagrams online that show EXACTLY the same thing -- a block of seafloor with a narrow funnel shown in cross section up through the center, through which magma rises and spills out to right and left, falling in behind the cooled magma ahead of it in a way that looks like pushing. The gif is a particularly nice illustration, but I already anticipated the same movement from the diagrams I'd seen before. I told you I had done a lot of research already. It merely confirmed it if confirmation was even needed.
Second, think of it in the context of the other information that you know. Magma is prevented from coming to the surface by the crust. When you remove crust the magma will come up. Now look at that animation as if the plates are moving first and THEN the magma fills up into the space. Supplement your knowledge not just based on this one picture but also the text of the sources that explain that picture just how I am explaining it to you here.
I said I did a lot of reading already. It is your job to make these things clear, not mine at this point to do all this extra work just because you are having trouble explaining it. Again, WHAT space? You mean the space that WOULD be there if the cooled magma had done the moving and the hot magma had not immediately filled it? The only space that is actually VISIBLE is the narrow slit through which the magma rises.
There is no need to repeat the distinction from volcanic action. That was never the point and it makes NO difference.
It is very pertinent to the discussion or I would not have said it. One of the primary observations that makes a divergent boundary different from a convergent boundary is the type of volcanism that happens there. IT is one of the observations. We don't want to ignore facts now do we?
Facts are very nice things if they are pertinent to the discussion.
I have NO idea what this means. You are not being clear. WHAT "empty spaces?"
A rift is a hole. A hole is an empty space. Before the hole is made there is no way for the magma underneath the crust to come up like it wants to. When a rift is made there is now an empty space. Now the magma can come up and fill that empty space. That is the point I am trying to show you. The magma comes up not because it is pushing on the crust. The magma comes up because the crust moved out of its way. It works the opposite way at a convergent boundary.
The magma is coming up continuously through one narrow rift that is clearly visible on ALL the diagrams and shows no sign of being continuously created by moving crust. What you are describing does not make sense. I simply cannot visualize what you are talking about.
What is creating the empty spaces?
Take a cloth and pull on it from two opposite sides. If you pull hard enough you will make it rip at some point in the middle. You have just created an empty space in the cloth. The empty spaces in the crust are created by one plate moving in on direction, another plate moving in the opposite direction. At some point something has to give. What gives is called a rift.
Jazz, don't you get that I can SEE the rift on the diagrams? It is NOT being formed and re-formed over and over again, it is simply there and magma keeps coming up out of it. There is no hint of a SPACE other than that.
What is a "rift valley" and what does it mean that they are "dropping out?"
Think of a normal valley but instead of a river carving it or something it is created by the land falling at a fault. This should be one of the key points for you because you already know that if it were being compressed that it would be pushing things up like those hills we are trying to describe. This is the opposite of that and is the opposite action that creates it. Pushing makes hills, pulling and rifting makes valleys.
Arrgh. I'm going to have to give up. I have NO idea what you are referring to. This all sounds perfectly obvious about something or other but not about this, absolutely irrelevant to this. I can't understand this degree of miscommunication but it is very frustrating.
Are you saying that the plates are moving and as they move the previously extruded magma moves with them and that leaves space that is filled by new magma?
Yea. The magma comes up to fill the empty spaces. Then it hardens joining the two plates again. The plates rift more spliting that newly formed rock and more magma comes up to fill the gap.
Oh. So it is not continuous, it comes up and hardens, then the plates pull it apart again, and this goes on over and over and over again? It SURE looks continuous on all the diagrams.
How odd that the new magma doesn't just pile up on top of the old.
How can it? It won't get past old magma unless the plates cause another rift. Remember, the only reason it is rising is because room was made for it to rise. Once that room is take up again it stops until more room is made by another rift.
You know, if this really is the case, it would not be difficult to illustrate it, on any series of diagrams. The gif could very easily show that action. --> Arrows show pulling/tearing action from right and left, causing rift. Magma comes up and spills over to right and left and also plugs up the rift it came from. Arrows show pulling action again, opening a new rift. Magma wells up through new rift, spills to right and left, plugs up the rift. Etc. If this is what is happening, the illustrators have failed utterly to convey it. The illustrations show a continuous flow of magma, no open-close start-stop action at all, no closing of the rift, and no new tearing of a new rift.
How come the rate of movement is precisely right for creating this apparently continuous new sea floor?
It has nothing to do with any rates. The magma wants to come up but the crust stops it. Make a hole in the crust and the magma will come up. You can do this at any pace.
Jazz. If this is what is happening, I cannot imagine how it would produce this very smooth-looking process of sea floor creation. Your description is of something absolutely different from what is actually depicted -- and described in what I've read as well, but if the only way I'm going to find out if you're right -- or even what on earth you are talking about -- is to read all those links, it isn't going to happen very fast.
It matters where the movement originates. If not the continental ridge, then where?
Unknown. How the plates move is currently explained by convection cell theory. We cannot see into the mantle AFAIK.
Clearly it doesn't originate in the Pacific trenches. Those are explained as collisions of plates in which one dives under the other -- a movement toward one another.
We cannot say clearly because we do not know. The plate is moving due to some mechanism. The leading theory it is moving due to convection in the mantle meaning that it isn't being pulled or pushed on either "end" of the plate.
It is at the Atlantic ridge that there is this divergent action, and this has to be the driving force that moves the continents.
No it dosen't have to be the driving force. Certainly not just because you say so. IN fact we specifically know it is not the driving force which is the point of this whole discussion.
You appear to be awfully certain that it isn't, but you have completely failed to prove it to me, and what you ARE saying is VERY vague.
The best way to simplify this I think is simply that what is happening at a divergent boundary is a weakening of the crust. That is why normal faults occur. That is why the land sinks. That is why the land break apart (rifts). The crust is letting its guard down which is why the magma CAN rise to the surface. It is a passive reaction. These are the things we observe. Period.
Well, thanks I guess. I guess there's no reason for you to answer this as I don't suppose it will make anything any clearer. I will continue my researches as I have the time/inclination.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-15-2005 09:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Jazzns, posted 09-15-2005 7:37 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-16-2005 3:52 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 239 of 303 (244103)
09-16-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by DominionSeraph
09-16-2005 3:52 AM


Atlantic ridge and continental drift etc.
If you shake up an open bottle of champagne, do the sides explode? Seems to me that the pressure takes the path of least resistance -- it comes out the top.
The problem is that various online illustrations and descriptions of the action at the ridge don't fit that model at first glance and Jazz's explanations aren't clarifying it for me. His model, your model, don't seem to be the same as the official models. I'm sure I'm wrong somehow, but I don't see how yet.
If the magma was under enough pressure to move continents, it would rocket out the top, as that's the weak spot.
Maybe it did in the beginning -- at the time of the Flood when the continents were still together. I'm trying to account for the Appalachians, and the occurrence of something abrupt and pushing at the very start of the action seems a good guess -- as unless there was a backlash/rebound -- that's possible I suppose -- it does seem, as Jazz says, that a pulling force wouldn't have made those mountains. But then really they shouldn't exist at all according to his explanation.
The idea that the continents have drifted to and fro for millions of years also doesn't seem very explanatory -- seems to me the re-collision and repeated collisions along the Atlantic ridge would cause more than the little ripple of the Appalachians.
Seems that on the western or Pacific side much more force was encountered that built the more extensive and higher mountains there, and for pulling to be the action that brought all this about just doesn't compute. The pulling would have to be against that resistance in the Pacific but coming from the same direction as that resistance at the same time.
Pushing makes much more sense -- force encounters resistance head-on that way. That puts the origin of the movement at the Atlantic ridge. How the ridge generates such force is the question then. As a Floodist I tend to think in terms of the origin of the action being most violent, as the continents broke apart, smoothing out once the drift was underway. Initially greater force of the release of the magma? The movement according to a Floodist would also have been a lot faster at the beginning, slowing down gradually to its present rate. The main violence was then on the Pacific side of the Americas as resistance was encountered -- the collision and subduction of the plates there. That resistance would also account for the slowing of the drift.
{Edit: Tying this in to the theme of the thread, this is an example of how my YEC presuppositions lead me. I don't have a problem at all with the vast majority of scientific work -- such as the overall theory of tectonic movement. I do have a problem with constantly encountering such unprovable statements as, "Eighty million years ago..." etc. I have to read around those statements. I translate them in to relative time -- this happened before that -- and ignore the actual numbers.
Things had to have happened a lot faster given Biblical suppositions, and that of course leads to all the objections that occur to the opposition -- such as how certain events -- intense meteor activity, the release of enormous quantities of water at the seafloor etc -- would have boiled the oceans away and that sort of thing. Well, those things I can't answer and they are just too speculative in any case -- all conceivable variables simply aren't available for the calculations.
I don't think Irish Rock Hound's thread is useful for a YEC who isn't a scientist. I think possibly the idea that creationism should be producing hypotheses from scratch is wrong anyway. Creationists don't object to the data itself, or even to the majority of scientific conclusions about the data. The objections are predominantly in terms of the time factor, so creationist thinking goes into accounting for events in a shorter time frame that OE theory says had to take millions of years.)
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-16-2005 09:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-16-2005 3:52 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-16-2005 10:06 AM Faith has replied
 Message 241 by Ben!, posted 09-16-2005 10:27 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 303 (244122)
09-16-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by PurpleYouko
09-16-2005 10:06 AM


Re: Atlantic ridge and continental drift etc.
Thank you, that is MUCH clearer. Now I have something to work on. I had already seen the first diagram but the second is what illustrates best what Jazz has been trying to explain.
But I have to leave for a while so may have more to say later.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-16-2005 10:35 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-16-2005 10:06 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 244 of 303 (244129)
09-16-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Ben!
09-16-2005 10:27 AM


I think possibly the idea that creationism should be producing hypotheses from scratch is wrong anyway. Creationists don't object to the data itself, or even to the majority of scientific conclusions about the data. The objections are predominantly in terms of the time factor, so creationist thinking goes into accounting for events in a shorter time frame that OE theory says had to take millions of years.)
I think IRH's point is that DISAGREEING about the timeframe isn't good enough. You have to build an alternative theory, consistent with known empirical evidence, that supports your position.
My first thought here is that my first post on IRH's thread should have answered this. Disagreeing about the timeframe is the inevitable position of being a creationist, and it is based on God's authority. God's authority is sufficient, nothing else is required. I hadn't taken this position before that thread. It simply finally became obvious that there is no way to participate in debate if that isn't made the foundational assumption on the creationist side. If it's based on God's word itself, disagreeing very definitely IS enough. The empirical discussion begins at that point, not before it. Naturally atheists and nonfundamentalist Christians and others are going to disagree, but it doesn't work to try to skirt around this fundamental YEC position. The argument goes nowhere. At least if you know the argument originates with God from the creationist point of view, that ought to make it easier to understand why creationists go about it the way they do and why they may seem to be arrogant when it isn't about them at all -- it's about God. God has the right to declare how things are. From the creationist point of view science begins at that point.
In any case, building an alternative theory is what I thought even I on my limited level am doing. The alternate theory is the Flood anyway, and to some extent the Fall as well, and with any piece of data the idea is to see how the Flood/Fall might account for it differently than OE theory accounts for it. Creationists have put a lot of reasoning into the Flood theory. They simply keep butting up against the presuppositions of the current paradigm, and in my observation that paradigm wins the argument more by force and custom than reason.
Building a new theory wouldn't start with rethinking data from the ground up anyway, as most of it is accepted, as I've said. A nonscientist YEC can't really make use of IRH's proposition as far as I can see, and I'm not sure a geologist YEC could either, but at least in that case knowing where to start would not be the problem it is for me.
I think the reason IRH says "start from scratch" is because the theories that YECs have proposed so far have questioned and contradicted very basic theories in the physical sciences, that you're forced to go back to scratch. It's definitely to your advantage NOT to start from scratch, and to work with existing theories. It's hard to "see far" without "standing on the shoulders of giants."
I don't understand this point. I don't see that "very basic theories" have been questioned perhaps, except the old earth framework itself. Anything that can be seen, tested, measured isn't questioned and that's the vast majority of geological (and biological) data. But again, creationists HAVE a theory they are working on -- the Flood. A new one isn't needed. What the Flood did and how it did it are the continuing focus. The data already accumulated are accepted. There's no need to start back at square one accumulating data.
However, if there were thousands of YEC geologists out there doing the kind of work IRH does, it might happen that new angles on the problem would be discovered. That would be very nice. But not being a geologist, I'm not going to be doing that myself. I just like to ponder alternative YE explanations in the place of old earth explanations, and circumscribed design-limited genetics against genetic descent explanations, on a very broad scale. So I'm not the one to be assigned IRH's task. A geologist is needed there.
But I think it's really unfair to contradict scientists, who have done the work to come up with a theory that accounts for the existing data, by an assertion and not by evidence. Contradiction of purely empirical claims require empirical arguments. But THIS part is heading into another topic...
One tries to avoid this as much as possible, and I may not do the best job of it, but the direct collisions occur because a Biblical creationist has to put God's authority above scientists where there is a demonstrable conflict. This is exactly what I finally recognized and spelled out so explicitly at the beginning of IRH's thread. Science cannot contradict God. If that makes dialogue impossible, it would be better to recognize it sooner rather than later.
Wow, speaking of tectonics, 8:10 AM in the Sierras we just got a LONG jerky and then rolling sort of earthquake. I hope San Francisco is OK.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-16-2005 11:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Ben!, posted 09-16-2005 10:27 AM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 09-16-2005 11:21 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 246 of 303 (244132)
09-16-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by jar
09-16-2005 11:21 AM


Re: OT re:earthquakes
Do you watch the earthquake reports? I sometimes look them up when one hits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 09-16-2005 11:21 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 09-16-2005 11:23 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 248 of 303 (244135)
09-16-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by jar
09-16-2005 11:23 AM


Re: OT re:earthquakes
The local ones don't matter, but we felt the last big one in San Francisco, and that's the main concern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 09-16-2005 11:23 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by jar, posted 09-16-2005 11:35 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024