Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

I think I understand what PD is stating about what appears to be evidence to the non-scientists, and this is exactly the weakness
Creationist and YEC organizations exploit to the fullest.The main problem I see is that it's relatively simple for a YEC to offer up their evidence in the form of fossils being on mountaintops. To someone completely unfamiliar with geology and tectonics, the idea of water having to cover mountaintops for that to happen, makes perfect sense. How elso could fossils get up there? However, for a scientist to explain the mainstream version, they have to go into excruciating detail of processes of sedimentation, depositional environments, fossil occurrences and why certain ones are found in certain places, eustasy, then tectonics.That is extremely difficult to do in a written forum such as this. Pictures and/or illustrative images are a huge asset in these sorts of discussions, but often not possible. In order to start at the very bottom or easiest rung, scientists would have to basically teach the non-scientists science, possibly the scientific method, and then 100- to 400-level college biology or geology. Most people don't have the time to spend writing long posts, which are often requred to refute even the simplest Creationist/YEC argument.That's why I always feel it's best to keep these sorts of discussions with non-scientists as restricted as possible. Stick to the grass problem, or my favorite, the carbonate problem, and then explain how and why this is important.Fossil occurrence throughout the entire geologic record is just too complex. It's like discussing/debating the geologic history of the Grand Canyon. It can barely fit in a Ph.D. let alone here.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-08-2006 12:24 PM

I do agree that it's important to discuss the basics, and actually, that is something I try to do, but I admit perhaps not often enough. It does get quite time-consuming and many times, it seems like a waste of time because people will just scan over it if it's too technical. See, this is exactly what I was referring to, and where things often get overly technical - for me, at least. The 'why' is in the details and the details often require touching upon more complex scientific concepts, such as tectonics, sedimentology, climate change (YIKES - that's a tough one, but the effects of which are becoming increasingly important to geology, specifically Quaternary geology),and fossilization.When someone asks how the [continental] stratigraphic column can be so complex and mainly comprised of marine rocks and marine fossils, how do you answer that without getting too complex? The flood theory would make perfect sense in this respect to the average non-scientist.The only way to answer or explain this is to discuss eustasy, in other words global sea level change (which is often the result of climate change, as we are seeing today), and how at times of relative sea level highs, large portions of the continents are inundated with marine water. The more sedimentation, the more subsidence and sediment compaction. But we have to also discuss rates of sedimentation, basin subsidence/sinking, the sorts of sediments one would expect to find in the various depositional settings/evironments found in a beach/marine environment, the fossil types, unconformities, etc.It can get really complicated quickly. And honestly, the only way to fully understand and appreciate geology is to see the rocks in their natural setting - pictures just don't cut it. It's pretty hard to ignore the implications of a lithified reef system or paleosols or a lava flow located stratigraphically below a thick marine sequence.For people who have never been Teacher's Assistants or had experience explaining science to non-scientists or neo-scientists, it's not an easy thing to do to sit down to a computer and present complex scientific concepts at the drop of a hat. It's a skill I admit I don't have, but this thread has been very informative so far. It seems using real-world analogies might be helpful.

So it seems that you can't get too technical or too basic, otherwise you run the risk of coming off superior.Or do you take issue with the term "baby steps?"