|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Fact versus Interpretation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, if you can only discuss this with geologists then get the geologists over here to discuss it. I'm not one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
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. Potentially you are correct. If all we had was the similarity then we hold our theory with much more tentativity. But we have more then that. We have correlating and relationship information of that rock with the rocks around it. With that information our confidence in the theory is increased. We will never know for sure (in the sense of "proven") and it will always be a theory that it used to be a marine environment. Such an explanation though is valid and is scientific because the data supports the theory and the theory explains ALL of the data. So called "theories" from flood geology often lack in one of those two cases. Either the data does not support the theory or the theory does not explain all the data and is therfore incomplete and inferior scientifically. The theory of common decent is similar. Just the existance of half bird half dino creatures in the past only gives us a certain degree of confidence in the theory that they are related by common decent. We need the evidence from genetics and the fossil [b]progression[b] to raise our confidence in the theory. Once again, since science is always tentative, we will never be able to prove that birds and dinos had a common ancestor. We just are very confident based on the evidence that our explanation is correct. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, Faith.
quote: Actually, this joke is exactly the type of sophomoric epistemic problems that creationists try to use to discredit the theory of evolution or the evidence for an old earth, which I suspect is Modulous' point. In fact:
quote: Now you are telling the exact same joke. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Faith writes:
And you know there is not enough evidence for "OE interpretation" because: 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." 1. You've looked at all the evidence and the how that evidence is shown to point to the "OE interpretation". 2. You fully understand the evidence presented at EvC. 3. "It's obvious". 4. All mainstream geologists are liars. 5. All scientists that show "evidence" or conclusions that run counter to your interpretation of the Bible are Satan-inspired demon-possesed lackeys of the liberal left. Are any of these close to the reasoning you used to make your judgement of the "imaginative interpretations" of the old earth conclusions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Well, if you can only discuss this with geologists then get the geologists over here to discuss it. I'm not one. But you are the one insisting that all of these geologist's interpretations are just-so stories. You called them unfalsifiable interpretations. This is demonstratably not true. The theoretical origin of rocks is perfectly and 100% falsifiable. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hey you can have all the confidence you want, but it would only be right to understand that what you are having confidence IN is the very meat of the debate here, and simply stating it as fact makes it impossible to raise questions about any of it.
I take back the idea that all the evidence has to be presented. No, it's just that these kinds of conjectural statements and treating them as fact needs to be avoided. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 03:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The theoretical origin of rocks is perfectly and 100% falsifiable. Fine, let's say that is so. Only a geologist would have the information necessary to SHOW that it is so. Meanwhile, if the theoretical origin of the rocks is presented in the casual way I illustrated, as if it were undeniable fact that there was such and such a "depositional landscape" at such and such a multiple millions of years remove, then discussion is simply impossible with creaionists, who of course dispute that very interpretation. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 03:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nonsense.
I see no point in trying to discuss anything if this is where you take it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are arguing with a ridiculous straw man. You haven't understood one word of what I was saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Probably just as well, Faith.
"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Meanwhile, if the theoretical origin of the rocks is presented in the casual way I illustrated, as if it were undeniable fact that there was such and such a "depositional landscape" at such and such a multiple millions of years remove, then discussion is simply impossible. In the context of the discussion the distinction was unnecessary. The questions being asked were what are the layers of the GC and how did they get there. No one was asking, "How do you know that these rocks are old." If someone did ask that I am sure there would have been someone to point at the appropriate thread and respond with the reason why. If you notice the way the discussion is continuing in that thread there is more of an effort to try to get the sequence of how the rocks were created which applies to either an old or young earth scenario. The principles of superposition and cross cutting apply in either case. If you don't know what I mean by this I would be happy to go into more detail. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ratel Inactive Member |
I'm not really trying to present you with any BS, I'm just trying to figure out what sort of evidence you are willing to accept.
I'll start out with this- if we come across a deposit consisting of lava and ash, would you agree that this area was at one point in time once covered by a volanic eruption? Or is this conclusion conjectural in your view?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As long as they are sticking to the physical facts on that thread, it's interesting to read. I simply recognized an opportunity to demonstrate the difference between that purely scientific kind of discussion and the interpretive scenarios that show up here and there.
I have no problem with superposition and cross cutting. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 04:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, it is not conjectural. Please reread Message 4. I really do believe that what I identify as conjectural is clearly conjectural and what I identify as empirical science is empirical science. I don't see that there should be much confusion after all that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Calm faith, calm...
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. I was suggesting that there may be evidentiary support for much of what you questioned, only the citations given did not get into those details. The purpose of the cites did not seem to be how geologists concluded some material belonged to a certain paleoenvironment. Yes it is an honest question to ask how they came to such a conclusion. But its not fair to act as if there is no answer to that question, based on papers regarding the general nature of strata. holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024