Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Fact versus Interpretation
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1 of 144 (295481)
03-15-2006 9:51 AM


On the thread about the Grand Canyon there appeared to be enough information for me to try to point out what bugs me the most about how scientists present their views, confusing their facts with their interpretations of the facts.
If necessary I could try to move all the posts on this side issue over here in order to continue the discussion where it is not off topic. They start at #26 and go through #36 or so.
ABE: I DID MOVE MY POSTS #26 through #30, to Message 4
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. -->http://EvC Forum: Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. -->EvC Forum: Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.< !--UE-->
This thread could cover both how geology presents its Old Earth interpretations as if they were fact, and how biological science presents ToE interpretations as if they were fact.
Irish Rockhound can bring his recent complaints to this thread too. Well-linked I hope.
Unfortunately I'm not going to have time to get to this until later.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 10:38 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 03-15-2006 10:06 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 10:24 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2006 10:51 AM Faith has replied
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 03-15-2006 10:58 AM Faith has replied
 Message 83 by purpledawn, posted 03-16-2006 8:10 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 1:48 PM Faith has replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 144 (295483)
03-15-2006 9:52 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
AbE - Thank you Faith, this discussion was very much off topic in the other thread, but it does deserve a thread of its own.
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-15-2006 08:53 AM

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 3 of 144 (295487)
03-15-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-15-2006 9:51 AM


What is a fact; what is truth?
This thread could cover both how geology presents its Old Earth interpretations as if they were fact, and how biological science presents ToE interpretations as if they were fact.
Fact: squiggly marks on paper
Interpretation: Bible, Adam and Eve, Jesus
You cannot make an arbitrary and capricious distinction between fact and interpretation in science, yet hold that your own religious views are fact.
If you want to get into the fact vs. interpretation question, you have to start by examining our concept of "fact". And, with that, you will have to also examine our concept of "truth".
So what is fact? What is truth? Are these part of the topic, or will you consider them off-topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 9:51 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 4 of 144 (295494)
03-15-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-15-2006 9:51 AM


Posts moved from Grand Canyon thread
My post #26 from the Grand Canyon thread, followed by others. This one starts by responding to jar's OP:
===============================================================
jar writes:
I'd like to see explanations for each layer, it's composition, the environment when it was created,
Its composition is physical fact, but "the environment when it was created" is all interpretation, explanatory conjecture.
Then roxrkool on the Grand Canyon thread, message #6
The simple.
This layer averages about 1,700 to 2,000 million years old and consists of mica schist. These were originally sediments of sandstone, limestone and shale that were metamorphosed and combined with metamorphosed lava flows to form the schist. This layer along with the Zoroaster Granite were once the roots of an ancient mountain range that could have been as high as todays Rocky Mountains. The mountains were eroded away over a long period of time and new sediments were they deposited over them by advancing and retreating seas. The color of this layer is dark grey or black.
This is a typical description of the sort one gets both about ancient geological events and ancient biological events (the ToE). It is a mixture of factural description with interpretive conjecture presented as fact.
Conjecture presented as absolute fact: This layer averages about 1,700 to 2,000 million years old
Physical fact (actual science): and consists of mica schist. These were originally sediments of sandstone, limestone and shale that were metamorphosed and combined with metamorphosed lava flows to form the schist. (since this also includes some speculation about how it was formed it's not pure fact)
Conjecture presented as absolute fact: This layer along with the Zoroaster Granite were once the roots of an ancient mountain range that could have been as high as todays Rocky Mountains. The mountains were eroded away over a long period of time and new sediments were they deposited over them by advancing and retreating seas.
Then she goes on to The technical description:
This appears to be physical fact : "The Vishnu Schist consists of pelitic schist and quartz + biotite +muscovite schists interpreted as meta-lithic-arenites, metagraywackes,and calc-silicate lenses and pods. Meta-lithic-arenite and metagraywacke sequences show thick sections (kilometre-scale) of rhythmically banded (centimetre- to metre-scale) coarser and finer layers, with locally well-preserved bedding and graded bedding (Walcott, 1894; Clark, 1976; Fig. 4c). Locally, the Vishnu Schist contains pelitic and semipelitic schists that variably contain andalusite, sillimanite, staurolite, chloritoid, cordierite, and garnet. Original grain size in the Vishnu Schist metasedimentary rocks probably ranged from medium-grained sand to silt and clay.Conglomerates are conspicuously absent in the Vishnu metasedimentary rocks (Campbell and Maxson, 1933). "
This, however, is conjecture : Relict graded bedding (Fig. 4c), association with metavolcanic rocks containing pillow structures (Fig. 4b), lack of coarse sediments, and geochemical data (Babcock, 1990) indicate that the metasedimentary units accumulated in an oceanic island-arc environment, as suggested for the Yavapai Supergroup rocks of central Arizona (Anderson and Silver, 1976; Bowring and Karlstrom, 1990).
Back to scientific fact : "The contact between the Vishnu Schist and the Brahma Schist is generally concordant, and the rocks are interlayered as in Clear Creek,1 km from the Colorado River. A reference section for the Vishnu Schist is in Vishnu Canyon. Other easily accessible exposures of Vishnu Schist metasedimentary rocks occur (1), for highest-grade Vishnu rocks, along the river between mile 78 and Hance Canyon; (2), for lowest-grade Vishnu rocks, between Vishnu Canyon and Clear Creek, near 91-Mile Canyon, from Monument Canyon to 96-Mile Canyon, and from 96-Mile Canyon to Crystal Creek; and (3), in isolated septa, from Crystal Creek to mile 102.6 and from Lower Bass Camp to Waltenberg Canyon (Fig. 1). In the latter area, metasedimentary rocks with graded bedding clearly overlie metavolcanic rocks. As with the metavolcanic rocks, we expect that the Vishnu Schist may be further divisible in the future into different units and/or originally disparate tectonic packages juxtaposed across shear zones. However, present understanding of the stratigraphy and structure does not suggest obvious further subdivision.SOURCE (PDF document)The link above has a nice picture of the relict bedding on page 1153, which clearly indicates a sedimentary origin for the Vishnu."
=============================================================
I hope the above will help make it clear what I mean about interpretation as opposed to scientific fact, which I'm always referring to. There is a lot that geologists can know about the sheer physical presentation of the rocks, but when they go on with their interpretation of how it was formed in such and such an environment in such and such a time period they have stepped outside science into sheer speculation, yet they often don't make that distinction.
In the above "technical" quote, the interpretation is at least referenced and not stated dogmatically, but in the "simple" quote above that, it IS stated dogmatically: "once the roots of an ancient mountain range that could have been as high as todays Rocky Mountains. The mountains were eroded away over a long period of time and new sediments were they deposited over them by advancing and retreating seas."
This cannot be known, and yet it was presented with just as much certainty as the physical facts were.
This is what one runs into all the time in discussions of both the geo timetable and the ToE, the treatment of what is nothing but fanciful notions about what happened in the ancient past as if they were fact.
I understand that these interpretations are based on some facts, but often the particular facts they are based on don't even get described.
============================================
{The following is in answer to roxrkool on the Grand Canyon thread, message #8
I am simply continuing my discussion of how interpretation tends to get interwoven with and confused with fact:
All of the following is pure interpretation :
quote:
Later, the Vishnu protolith (original rock) was folded and metamorphosed during a mountain building event into schist (i.e., the Vishnu Schist). After the main phase of mountain building, the Vishnu was intruded by at least two generations of magma - mafic and granitic phases. The mountain range was then eroded (and we know this because the Zoroaster Granite does not intrude any of the overlying sedimentary rocks) down to small rolling hills (I think), and soon after covered by a transgressing sea which deposited limestone, shale, sandstone, and even volcanic lava (somewhat hard to explain during a flood).
Anyway later, the sea eventually retreated and exposed the Precambrian sediments to erosion. ...Later another series of marine transgressions and regressions during the Paleozoic occurs and these we see clearly in the GC.
Just in the Precambrian rocks do we see lithologic relationships that point to deep time.
At least some of the physical facts involved are appealed to, but basically all the above is nothing but imaginative speculation presented as if it were fact.
==================================================
{The following is in answer to roxrkool on the Grand Canyon thread, message #11
The following statements are about physical facts (whether correct or not is another issue)
quote:
The mica group is comprised of several minerals of which biotite and muscovite are probably the most commonly known and recognized varieties. Biotite is dark brown and muscovite is clear to yellowish in color and the color is pretty much as result of their elemental composition. Biotite is a ferromagnesian (or mafic) mineral which means it contains appreciable amount of iron and magnesium. When an igneous rock is composed primarily of these Fe- and Mg-rich minerals, it is called 'mafic.' Muscovite is a felsic mineral and light colored because it generally contains very little if any Fe or Mg in it's mineral structure.
They are part of a group of minerals called sheet silicates because the atomic structure (composed of linked (Si,Al)O4 tetrahedra with a hydroxyl ion) resembles a sheet. These sheets are stacked one upon the other, but the bond between sheets is somewhat weak so they part (or 'cleave') perfectly between the sheets, forming what is called perfect basal cleavage. And of course that is one of the most fascinating things about mica, how they can be separated into thin elastic sheets. This and other properties (such as their high melting temperature and some good electrical properties) is exploited by various industries such as the electrical, lighting (in lamp shades), ovens (the glass window), etc.
Mica can range in size from minute particles impossible to see with the unaided eye to large massive sheets sometimes several meters in diamter. The finer stuff is found in all three rock types, but the massive stuff I believe is restricted to pegmatites where they are the result of primary (as opposed to secondary in metamorphic/diagenetic settings) mineralization if a residual fluid rich in volatiles.
In my own experience, hotter rocks, such as ultramafics don't typically have much mica (in the form of biotite) because the high temperatures tend to drive off the water, which is required to form the hydroxyl ion. However, is many rocks, particularly layered intrusives, we do find biotite in pegmatitic lenses or horizons, which tells us (or maybe just me lol) that even in the hottest magmas, water is either able to be retained in 'pockets' of residual fluids, or it is introduced from elsewhere (perhaps the country rock - which is the rock being intruded).
All the above is free of interpretive fancy. Whether the facts are correct or not is for the scientists to determine, but it is all in the category of scientific fact.
=======================================================
{The following is in answer to roxrkool on the Grand Canyon thread, message #18
I've bolded the interpretive parts:
quote:
From reading the technical paper I linked to earlier, it seems the lack of a coarser grained component (i.e., the conglomeratic sequence), points to a marine depositional setting rather than a terrestrial setting for the original proto-sediments; which is consistent with previous theories regarding the geologic history of that particular terrane.
In another thread, I briefly touched on how the U.S. grew via island arc accretion south from about the Wyoming/Montana area. Wyoming is located on the Archean Wyoming craton and everything south and basically west are progressively younger accreted terranes - generally considered to be island arc terranes (volcanic island chains similar to Japan and Indonesia that develop along subduction zones).
According to the linked paper (Ilg et al., 1996), the protosediments which later became the Vishnu Schist, are remants of one of those island arc terranes that collided with the continent back in the Precambrian (early Proterozoic time?). Evidence for this is in the relict (i.e., original unmetamorphosed rock with primary texture) volcanic and fine-grained sedimentary textures/rocks still visible in some portions of the entire Vishnu schist sequence, which Ilg et al. (1996) renames to Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite.
Evidence is given, but still the interpretations have that aura of fact. No contrary interpretations are suggested. There is no way to verify or falsify such an interpretation. This is what I find so frustrating about both OE and TOE discussions.
=====================================================
{The following is in answer to roxrkool on the Grand Canyon thread, message #21
The general sequence of events as I understand them from reading around the internet:
1. Formation of island arc at subduction zone located off the coast of the U.S. (in Utah or Arizona at the time??) which is slowly migrating toward the continent;
2. Deposition of volcanic and marine sedimentary rock (protosediments) at the island arc;
3. Collision (accretion)of island arc onto North American continent, metamorphism, and possibly igneous intrusions soon after;
4. Some time later 'mountain building'/uplift (more metamorphism?) began in the vicinity of the arc accretion (possibly due to deep seated structural sutures developed during accretion);
5. Erosion of mountain range which cuts across both metaseds and igneous intrusions;
6. Deposition of Grand Canyon supergroup.
ALL the above is interpretive but it is not treated as interpretive or as if there could be any other thoughts about it. In the process of describing this scenario, various physical facts (deposition of volcanid and marine sedimentary rocks; igneous intrusion) are alluded to, but they are not in themselves discussed, only the supposed way they contributed to the scenario is focused on.
Ilg et al. (1996) appear to suggest that metamorphism occurred while the island arc was still in the marine environment and possibly due to collision. Uplift of the island arc system to sea level exposed the surficial volcanic environment to marine (wave?) erosion and continued uplift eventually exposed the metamorphosed core. They don't mention any mountain-building episode. When the island arc system was eroded far enough, eventually marine sediments were able to be deposited atop the erosional surface.
All the above is speculative but at least the reasoning is given.
===================================================
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 10:33 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 10:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 9:51 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by LinearAq, posted 03-15-2006 12:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 8 by Ratel, posted 03-15-2006 12:15 PM Faith has replied
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-15-2006 1:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 144 (295502)
03-15-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-15-2006 9:51 AM


quote:
On the thread about Scientific Fact versus Interpretation there appeared to be enough information for me to try to point out what bugs me the most about how historians present their views, confusing their facts with their interpretations of the facts.
I'll give you an example. Henry VIII was king of England. That isn't a fact, but an interpretation of the evidence, yet it is presented as a fact.
When most people say 'fact' they mean that there is enough corroborating evidence for it to be unreasonable to not accept it. It is always healthy to be tentative in conclusions, but it is unnecessary to continuously reaffirm the tentatitivity of knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 9:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 2:39 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 143 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-22-2006 5:34 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 6 of 144 (295505)
03-15-2006 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-15-2006 9:51 AM


Fact versus Theory
Your problem seems simply that fact is being used in the description of a particular theory of how the GC strata were formed. When I use the term theory in this sense I am talking about scientific theory.
The facts by themselves are rather dry because they don't tell us how or why the rocks got there. Determining the geologic history of an area uses many theories of geology that are time tested and thus "theories" in the scientific sense.
Your beef is with the theory. The problem is that if you don't like said theory then you need to come up with another one that explains the "how and why" of those layers better and justify why it is better scientifically. Until you do then existing theory wins.
If you are not talking about science then really there is no discussion. You can have your opinion about why the theory is wrong all day but it does not stand up objectivly against the existing theory.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 9:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 2:45 PM Jazzns has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 7 of 144 (295530)
03-15-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
03-15-2006 10:24 AM


Re: Posts moved from Grand Canyon thread
Faith writes:
Conjecture presented as absolute fact: This layer averages about 1,700 to 2,000 million years old
What do you mean by conjecture? It appears that you are saying the statement is made up or is wild speculation.
What makes this "conjecture" rather than a conclusion drawn from evidence that was not presented in the statement (ie...radiometric dating)?
All of the following is pure interpretation :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later, the Vishnu protolith (original rock) was folded and metamorphosed during a mountain building event into schist (i.e., the Vishnu Schist). After the main phase of mountain building, the Vishnu was intruded by at least two generations of magma - mafic and granitic phases. The mountain range was then eroded (and we know this because the Zoroaster Granite does not intrude any of the overlying sedimentary rocks) down to small rolling hills (I think), and soon after covered by a transgressing sea which deposited limestone, shale, sandstone, and even volcanic lava (somewhat hard to explain during a flood).
Anyway later, the sea eventually retreated and exposed the Precambrian sediments to erosion. ...Later another series of marine transgressions and regressions during the Paleozoic occurs and these we see clearly in the GC.
Just in the Precambrian rocks do we see lithologic relationships that point to deep time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least some of the physical facts involved are appealed to, but basically all the above is nothing but imaginative speculation presented as if it were fact.
What expertise do you bring to the table to make you the arbiter of what are "imaginative speculations" and what are fact-based conclusions?
What facts are you using to determine that the explanations presented are not reasonable and evidence-based but rather "imaginative speculation"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 10:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 2:46 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
Ratel
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 144 (295531)
03-15-2006 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
03-15-2006 10:24 AM


Let's try to examine one of these issues
Hmmm, maybe if one of the geologists could pick one of these examples Faith has given and explain the rationale behind it? What could be the other explanations for these features, are they viable, or are the present interpretations inescapable?
A question for Faith- if the sorts of sedimentary and other deposits seen in the fossil record have been observed forming elsewhere, in the modern day, in very specific environments would this constitute sufficient evidence for you to accept that the representations we see in the fossil record of the same deposit are in fact remains of such, or would this also be merely conjectural?
For a purely hypothetical example, if geologists were to find remains of a meandering river system with a deltaic deposit at the end of it, consisting of rocks formed from the sorts of sediments found in a river, with fossils of critters and plant life known to live in rivers, would this be sufficient to take the identity of this structure out of the realm of speculation for you? Or does anything from prehistoric times necessarily exist in an impenetrable veil of unknowability?
A simpler one- if geologists come across strata consisting of lava rock and ash, is it mere conjecture for them to state that they are looking at the results of a volcanic eruption, or is this also beyond the pale?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 10:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 2:48 PM Ratel has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 144 (295560)
03-15-2006 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
03-15-2006 10:24 AM


Re: Posts moved from Grand Canyon thread
There is a lot that geologists can know about the sheer physical presentation of the rocks, but when they go on with their interpretation of how it was formed in such and such an environment in such and such a time period they have stepped outside science into sheer speculation, yet they often don't make that distinction.
This is not exactly a fair assessment, especially based on the information provided to you. While some of it is theoretical in nature, a model based on current knowledge, that is different than "sheer speculation".
In particular you seem to have problems with geologists discussing environments of formation. Yet you have not provided any geologic discussion on how environments are determined. It is not like geologists scratch their chins and then come up with some ad hoc theory of what "might have been". Environments are usually determined based on items which are distinctive/identifiable as part of environments today.
As an analogy fingerprints and dna have been found to be specific to individuals. Would a prosecution's case be "sheer speculation" to you if they have fingerprints and dna which match the defendent?
If you have a question on specific environmental assignation, and methods geologists use to make such an assignation, maybe you should ask for more information on it.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 10:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 2:50 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 10 of 144 (295582)
03-15-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
03-15-2006 10:51 AM


PulEEZE let's not hassle out such obvious stuff
I'll give you an example. Henry VIII was king of England. That isn't a fact, but an interpretation of the evidence, yet it is presented as a fact.
When most people say 'fact' they mean that there is enough corroborating evidence for it to be unreasonable to not accept it. It is always healthy to be tentative in conclusions, but it is unnecessary to continuously reaffirm the tentatitivity of knowledge.
Well, Moddy, I will rapidly get bored with this thread if this is the way it's going to go.
Henry the VIII WAS King of England. That IS a fact. And if we have to raise the question, even have whole threads at this late date in the EvC controversy, in order to establish how we can be sure that is a fact, then I say this whole debate enterprise is a pathetic joke (which of course I think anyway).
In the collection of my posts in Message 4 I was very clear what I regard as sheer interpretation and for anyone to disagree with that strikes me as so bizarre I'd say there is no hope for communication whatever.
There is NOT enough evidence for it to be unreasonable not to accept the OE interpretation (OR the common-descent-of-all-life-from-common-ancestor-back-in-the-Primordial-Ooze interpretation either). What I have identified as interpretation is clearly imaginative interpretation that has no way of being verified or falsified -- the whole tipsy scheme of long-lived "environments."
But at least for the sake of discussion, although you may think all those interpretations are as sound as fact, the proper thing to do would be to acknowledge the distinction I am making, as it is certainly logical, and I think reasonable (it certainly doesn't exclude the likes of Henry the Eighth from being a fact) and politely spare us creationists the endless certainties that we know perfectly well aren't certainties.
See, I think my pointing out the distinction was necessary, and that nobody here otherwise was going to recognize it.
But hey, if everybody wants to stay in their blurry unverifiable unfalsifiable untestable ToE and OE delusion then carry on among yourselves. I'll just ignore you.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2006 10:51 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jazzns, posted 03-15-2006 2:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 03-15-2006 2:56 PM Faith has replied
 Message 19 by LinearAq, posted 03-15-2006 2:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 80 by Modulous, posted 03-16-2006 1:56 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2006 10:30 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 11 of 144 (295583)
03-15-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jazzns
03-15-2006 10:58 AM


Re: Fact versus Theory
My objection is that the theory is not treated as theory but as set in concrete, that the facts that support it are often -- usually -- not even identified at all.
It's a HUGE leap to get from noticing some features in a rock that are similar to those in rocks you know to have been formed in a marine environment, to treating as fact the idea that it had to have been formed in a particular marine environment millions of years ago.
It's a HUGE leap to get from noticing that a particular fossil has features reminiscent of both reptiles and birds, to treating as fact the idea that it descended from the one and is ancestor to the other.
But as I just said to Modulous, there's no discussion possible as long as you insist on it.
OK by me though, as that's always really been the case here.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 03:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 03-15-2006 10:58 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jazzns, posted 03-15-2006 2:56 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 12 of 144 (295584)
03-15-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by LinearAq
03-15-2006 12:13 PM


Re: Posts moved from Grand Canyon thread
What expertise do you bring to the table to make you the arbiter of what are "imaginative speculations" and what are fact-based conclusions?
A good clear logical mind that knows when I'm being fed a bunch of BS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by LinearAq, posted 03-15-2006 12:13 PM LinearAq has not replied

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


Message 13 of 144 (295586)
03-15-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Ratel
03-15-2006 12:15 PM


Re: Let's try to examine one of these issues
Solid presentation and discussion of the evidence backing up a particular conjecture is of course a good way to answer me. All this other BS denying that my distinction is apt is useless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Ratel, posted 03-15-2006 12:15 PM Ratel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Ratel, posted 03-15-2006 3:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 14 of 144 (295587)
03-15-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
03-15-2006 2:39 PM


Re: PulEEZE let's not hassle out such obvious stuff
that has no way of being verified or falsified
A number of OE theories used to construct rox's scenarious are perfectly falsifiable.
The theory is that limestone is of marine origin. If we find a bunch of limestone that contains a mix marine and dinosaur fossils then this theory would be falsified.
All of the theories that rox used are falsifiable in the same manner. Competing theories might also exist to explain the same data. It just so happens that currenly none exist that pass scientific rigor.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 2:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 2:52 PM Jazzns has replied

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


Message 15 of 144 (295589)
03-15-2006 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
03-15-2006 1:10 PM


Re: Posts moved from Grand Canyon thread
Just stop complaining about the distinctions I made, which are perfectly clear and reasonable, and realize that the conjectures can't be presented as flat fact but need LOTS of evidentiary support if there is any real intention of discussing the central issues in the EvC debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-15-2006 1:10 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 03-15-2006 4:03 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