Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Searching for Ancient Truth
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 1 of 84 (293001)
03-07-2006 2:00 PM


In message 226 of the Global Flood Evidence topic
roxrkool writes:
Geologists didn't just blindly think up these divisions one day at the lab and then head out to the field to prove themselves right.
In reply, Faith writes:
No, they didn't, but they have been working under the handicap of the ASSUMPTIONS already laid down in the field and cannot think outside that box, which means that all their thinking has gone into finding an explanation that fits those preconceptions. And it seems to me that as a matter of sheer empirical fact the fit is just some kind of theoretical exercise that ignores the main problem I'm talking about.
{abe: AND HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE given that these are smart people? BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TESTABLE ABOUT ANY OF THIS. IT IS NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, BUT AN EXERCISE IN IMAGINATION.}
(my emphasis)
I have seen the statement about the lack of ability to test past events before and not just from her. Although, it sounds semi-logical on the surface, there are some things done now that would not be allowed if this statement were wholly true.
What is it about these events that make them untestable?
What does "Testable" mean to creationists with respect to this statement? Is it the same meaning as that of scientists who study ancient events?
I would like to dissect this statement on testability from the creationists point of view, and understand the reasoning that is used to come up with this position.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 03-08-2006 8:27 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 5 by roxrkool, posted 03-08-2006 10:41 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 03-09-2006 10:10 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 84 (293006)
03-07-2006 2:06 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 3 of 84 (293432)
03-08-2006 6:22 PM


Page 2
The problem with being on page 2 is that the majority of people here don't look at the topic. I kinda feel like I'm stuffing the ballot box by writing another input.
However, I feel that there is a disconnect here and was hoping that someone could provide an insight into the meaning of the statement about testability.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by truthlover, posted 03-09-2006 9:55 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 4 of 84 (293466)
03-08-2006 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LinearAq
03-07-2006 2:00 PM


Testable in the field of geology is to be able to take samples back to the lab, and properly date them for one. They can analyse how the various strata is put togather and put togather statistical analsysi of it. They can also use geospatial data analysis to provide information.
Not all 'testing' can be, or needs to be done in a lab.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LinearAq, posted 03-07-2006 2:00 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 5 of 84 (293513)
03-08-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LinearAq
03-07-2006 2:00 PM


Faith writes:
No, they didn't, but they have been working under the handicap of the ASSUMPTIONS already laid down in the field and cannot think outside that box, which means that all their thinking has gone into finding an explanation that fits those preconceptions.
This appears to be a contradictory statement.
First she admits that geologists did field work before assigning names to the geologic column and that all subsequent work is based on assumptions drawn from that field work. In fact, this is essentially true.
Humans are very good at recognizing patterns and so when naturalists first started taking note of the fossils, they were seen to have a very specific pattern to them. Scientists also noted that the same fossils also occurred in the same or similar rock types, and rock types you can follow for miles and miles. Wherever they followed the rock units, the fossils occurred in the same order. Some fossils may have been missing or new ones found, or the geology was complicated by local tectonics, but the order of appearance did not change.
Geologists from Europe met and discussed geology with those from the Americas and they found the same patterns. So the geologic column was created and established - and it is still being refined today.
In the second half of the statement above, Faith accuses geologists of finding explanations to fit their 'preconceptions.' However, a preconception is an opinion or idea formed about something prior to having knowledge or experience about that something.
And if that's what Faith means, then that does not seem to be the case with geology. There was a huge amount of knowledge gathered prior to construction of the geologic column and it was tested not only in Europe, but in the Americas, and then in other countries and continents. We're still testing it every single day and the reason it's still around is because it works. We can make predictions about the various aged rocks and the fossils found in them.
For example, we know which ore deposits and hydrocarbons are more often and most likely found in which aged rocks, that black carbon- and base-metal-rich shales are often found in Cretaceous rocks, that banded iron formations are more common in Precambrian rocks, etc.
These sorts of relationships have been recognized for many years and new ones are being recognized every year. So our assumptions are justified in our eyes, but I don't see how they can be called 'preconceptions' based on the amount of work that has gone into geology in the last 300+ years.
That would be like telling people it's wrong to assume the sun will rise every morning even though it's been doing so for 10,000 to 4.5 billion years.
I don't have a clue what Creationists consider testable, but I have a feeling it requires someone physically being there and seeing it (geology, etc.) happen with their own eyes.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-08-2006 10:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LinearAq, posted 03-07-2006 2:00 PM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 4:47 PM roxrkool has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 6 of 84 (293564)
03-09-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by LinearAq
03-08-2006 6:22 PM


Bumping
The problem with being on page 2 is that the majority of people here don't look at the topic. I kinda feel like I'm stuffing the ballot box by writing another input.
Putting in a post with just the word "bump" in it for the purpose of bumping the thread back to the top of the list is perfectly acceptable around here as long as you only do it a couple of times. After that, then you have to assume no one wants to talk about it and let it die.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2006 6:22 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 7 of 84 (293572)
03-09-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LinearAq
03-07-2006 2:00 PM


Slandering scientists
faith writes:
No, they didn't, but they have been working under the handicap of the ASSUMPTIONS already laid down in the field and cannot think outside that box, which means that all their thinking has gone into finding an explanation that fits those preconceptions.
Personally, I wish everyone who felt free to accuse all scientists who accept evolution as biased would be required to read the first few chapters of Darwin's Origin of Species as a minimum (and probably a few chapters from Lyell, too), so they could get a feel for these guys.
I suppose it probably wouldn't do any good for most people, because they're so busy defending their beliefs that the willy-nilly and ignorant slandering of men like Darwin and his successors is perfectly acceptable to them. However, surely some of the Christian faithful have enough honesty in them to recognize the incredible honesty and humility that exudes from every page of Origin of Species and that those would have enough regard for Christ to cease the bearing of false witness against some incredibly brilliant, brave, and honest men.
I fell in love with Charles Darwin when I read Origin and I found a kindred heart in him that I believe that God has great regard for.
Shammah
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
(I don't normally sign my name or add our web site, but I wanted to put the greatest possible emphasis on my endorsement of Charles Darwin, because over a century after his death, he still managed to earn great respect from me.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LinearAq, posted 03-07-2006 2:00 PM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:52 AM truthlover has replied

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


Message 8 of 84 (293597)
03-09-2006 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by truthlover
03-09-2006 10:10 AM


Re: Slandering scientists
I read Darwin years ago and at the time had the same reaction you have. I now believe that natural selection does not shape anything more than variation within a Kind.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 10:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 03-09-2006 10:10 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by LinearAq, posted 03-09-2006 12:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 10 by truthlover, posted 03-09-2006 5:33 PM Faith has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 9 of 84 (293644)
03-09-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
03-09-2006 10:52 AM


Missing the topic
Faith writes:
I read Darwin years ago...
I think I may have been unclear about the Topic. This thread was brought about by your statement that the things of the past (The Flood, in particular) were not testable.
Now, I realize that you are not the only one saying this so the onus is not just on you to explain or defend the statement. But you are here so....
What do you mean by "not testable" in regards to the events of the past?
What information are you privy to that brings you to this conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 6:27 PM LinearAq has replied
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 4:26 PM LinearAq has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 10 of 84 (293745)
03-09-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
03-09-2006 10:52 AM


Re: Slandering scientists
I read Darwin years ago and at the time had the same reaction you have. I now believe that natural selection does not shape anything more than variation within a Kind.
Ok, that's fine. However, this doesn't address the issue I had, which is your statement that "they have been working under the handicap of the ASSUMPTIONS already laid down in the field and cannot think outside that box, which means that all their thinking has gone into finding an explanation that fits those preconceptions."
Darwin is very clear about what shaped his thinking, and it certainly wasn't assumptions already laid down in the field. He had a real problem, trying to pigeon-hole species and subspecies into holes they didn't fit in. That shaped his thinking, not assumptions.
The accusation that scientists, especially the early ones like Lyell and Darwin were just proving their own preconceptions is so far from the truth that it's simply slander to suggest it.
The reason you had the same reaction that I did when you read Darwin is because, right or wrong, Darwin was clearly an honest and humble man trying to see what's true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 6:03 PM truthlover has replied

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


Message 11 of 84 (293747)
03-09-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by truthlover
03-09-2006 5:33 PM


Re: Slandering scientists
My comment about scientists was not about Darwin but about present company. This is the way they appear to think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by truthlover, posted 03-09-2006 5:33 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by roxrkool, posted 03-09-2006 6:23 PM Faith has replied
 Message 19 by truthlover, posted 03-10-2006 9:01 AM Faith has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 12 of 84 (293748)
03-09-2006 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
03-09-2006 6:03 PM


Re: Slandering scientists
In the OP, I was specifically referring to the early scientists who constructed the geologic timescale, not scientists today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 6:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 6:31 PM roxrkool has replied
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 4:54 PM roxrkool has replied

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


Message 13 of 84 (293749)
03-09-2006 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by LinearAq
03-09-2006 12:13 PM


Re: Missing the topic
What do you mean by "not testable" in regards to the events of the past?
I thought I'd explained it pretty well on the other thread. Nothing about the ToE is replicable the way tests for a theory in physics or chemistry can be. You can "predict" you'll find such and such but even if you do you can't be certain there isn't some other explanation for it, especially since your predictions are based on observations that are already interpreted in ToE terms.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 06:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by LinearAq, posted 03-09-2006 12:13 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 03-09-2006 6:34 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 16 by jar, posted 03-09-2006 6:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 17 by LinearAq, posted 03-09-2006 6:53 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 14 of 84 (293751)
03-09-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by roxrkool
03-09-2006 6:23 PM


Re: Slandering scientists
To be honest, I don't read anything you write any more unless it's something short like this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by roxrkool, posted 03-09-2006 6:23 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by roxrkool, posted 03-09-2006 7:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 84 (293753)
03-09-2006 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
03-09-2006 6:27 PM


Re: Missing the topic
You can "predict" you'll find such and such but even if you do you can't be certain there isn't some other explanation for it
That's true in physics and chemistry as well, though. This phenomenon of false positives is present in every science, but it doesn't cause you to dismiss physics and chemistry (which, BTW, are the sciences that developed the underpinnings of geology and radiometric dating.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 6:27 PM 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