Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


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 46 of 144 (295668)
03-15-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ratel
03-15-2006 4:49 PM


Re: Let's try to examine one of these issues
Actually, I think even in the case of the find of an ash-buried city, the fact that it was found this way is important to the story, and as a matter of fact it isn't usually left out the way the steps on the way to the "desert environment" are often left out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ratel, posted 03-15-2006 4:49 PM Ratel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Silent H, posted 03-15-2006 6:47 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 47 of 144 (295680)
03-15-2006 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
03-15-2006 4:24 PM


conjecture vs simplified description
I think it is perfectly fair to point out that they are treating conjecture as fact without offering support no matter where it is found.
1) You have NOT substantiated that assignments are mere conjecture. That would require discussing how geologists made the assignment. If it was based on nothing or very little evidence then it would be conjecture. I would agree with you. But you have not shown that.
2) What you have shown is commentary which discusses a wholly separate subject than how geologists assign paleo-environments. I do not think it is fair to take comments out of context in order to treat something as unsupported conjecture.
For example if the police announce that they have arrested a suspect for murder, and describe the crime as they believe it happened, it is not correct for me to say they only have conjecture because all the evidence (and how they handled it) was not in the description of their theory regarding the incident. Only by asking/investigating what evidence they have for that scenario do we then get the ability to argue conjecture.
Happens all the time, particularly with the fanciful illustrations of supposed life in the distant past, usually of dinosaurs but also of supposed pre-humans. THAT's what the layman has to swallow.
I agree that there is some dramatic license taken with imagery of the past, as well as descriptions of how things behaved in the past. That is not the same as discussing what event or environment produced a formation. The latter is normally based on signatures that are unique to an environment, and would require an explanation for its presence if it had NOT had contact with that environment.
You are correct that scientists are likely to be brief and less explanatory to layman, but that sort of makes sense doesn't it? It is easier to discuss the theoretical scenario/model, than discuss all the evidence and how it was analyzed. How would a layman understand what that meant? Or how interested would they be?
If they are interested there usually is data they can access. Is there a reason that this is unfair?

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 33 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 4:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 6:30 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 48 of 144 (295681)
03-15-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Silent H
03-15-2006 6:27 PM


Re: conjecture vs simplified description
Maybe I'm just getting too old for this. My point was AS USUAL very simple AND obvious. It should be obvious upon reading through the examples, so really, I just have nothing more to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Silent H, posted 03-15-2006 6:27 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2006 6:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 03-15-2006 6:53 PM Faith has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 144 (295682)
03-15-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
03-15-2006 6:30 PM


Re: conjecture vs simplified description
My point was AS USUAL very simple AND obvious.
And also, as usual, very wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 6:30 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 50 of 144 (295688)
03-15-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
03-15-2006 5:43 PM


Re: Let's try to examine one of these issues
What do you think of the idea that the Carboniferous Period was a "landscape" all covered with black carbon, in which trees grew and animals roamed?
That would be a rediculous scenario. It is a good thing that no one is suggesting that is what the Carboniferous was like. In fact if it was it would totally refute the standard geological explanation for the formation of coal.

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 45 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 5:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 7:42 PM Jazzns has replied

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


Message 51 of 144 (295693)
03-15-2006 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
03-15-2006 6:01 PM


Re: Let's try to examine one of these issues
and as a matter of fact it isn't usually left out the way the steps on the way to the "desert environment" are often left out.
Do you really believe that geologists do not explain how they identify desert environmental deposits? That they do not have criteria and are trying to hide this fact?

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 46 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 6:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 7:40 PM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 52 of 144 (295697)
03-15-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
03-15-2006 6:30 PM


Re: conjecture vs simplified description
My point was AS USUAL very simple AND obvious.
Yes, if all scientists had were statements like the ones you showed, then it would be conjecture. However in other places where they discuss the topic of identifying depositional environment, they discuss how this is done.
My point about this is simple and obvious. You are expecting something more from your cited quotes than is necessary for what they were, and then using that to argue what science has in toto.
That is unless you are changing the stated goal of this topic from "interpretation" to "discussion for layman". Yes layman do not get full details, but the details are out there if layman look for them.
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-16-2006 12:55 AM

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 48 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 6:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 7:40 PM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 53 of 144 (295721)
03-15-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Silent H
03-15-2006 6:53 PM


Re: conjecture vs simplified description
The point about these conjectures is that they aren't just conjectures of the sort we always build on observations or evidence, they are complete imaginative fantasy scenarios that cannot be tested at all. Yes they are built upon observed phenomena, or "evidence" but because they are just these scenarios they really should never be spoken of in the terms of finality they usually are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 03-15-2006 6:53 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by LinearAq, posted 03-15-2006 9:21 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 54 of 144 (295723)
03-15-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Silent H
03-15-2006 6:47 PM


Re: Let's try to examine one of these issues
I haven't proposed anything in the way of motivations. I don't assume anything underhanded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Silent H, posted 03-15-2006 6:47 PM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 55 of 144 (295724)
03-15-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Jazzns
03-15-2006 6:38 PM


Re: Let's try to examine one of these issues
I know, it IS ridiculous, but I did actually find this site that appeared to be quite serious, that depicted such a landscape. I haven't been able to find it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Jazzns, posted 03-15-2006 6:38 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Jazzns, posted 03-15-2006 8:38 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 56 of 144 (295737)
03-15-2006 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
03-15-2006 7:42 PM


Re: Let's try to examine one of these issues
If you ever find it again I would love to see it. I just hope you know that mainstream geology does not believe that coal was created on the surface.
Where paleo "landscapes" come in with regards to coal is actually very interesting. We know coal come from organic material and there are grades of coal that eventually start looking like peat. Yet we can go into a swamp today and drill down and find peat that eventually start looking like coal the farther you drill down.
While it might be your opinion that coal is created from some dump of consolidated plant material during the flood, the transition from peat to coal that we can see today is what mainstream geology uses to construct the theory that coal beds were once lush swampland. Of course that is not the only evidence that points toward a swamp environment but it is the most simple.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-15-2006 06:38 PM

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 55 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 7:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 8:57 PM Jazzns has not replied

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


Message 57 of 144 (295738)
03-15-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Jazzns
03-15-2006 8:38 PM


Re: Let's try to examine one of these issues
While it might be your opinion that coal is created from some dump of consolidated plant material during the flood, the transition from peat to coal that we can see today is what mainstream geology uses to construct the theory that coal beds were once lush swampland. Of course that is not the only evidence that points toward a swamp environment but it is the most simple.
Seems to me that coal would have been produced in similar conditions wherever, but that the Flood would have provided beaucoup similar conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Jazzns, posted 03-15-2006 8:38 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 9:22 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 58 of 144 (295739)
03-15-2006 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
03-15-2006 7:40 PM


Re: conjecture vs simplified description
Faith writes:
The point about these conjectures is that they aren't just conjectures of the sort we always build on observations or evidence, they are complete imaginative fantasy scenarios that cannot be tested at all. Yes they are built upon observed phenomena, or "evidence" but because they are just these scenarios they really should never be spoken of in the terms of finality they usually are.
I feel like the biggest dummy alive but I have to ask. What is it about these scenarios that make them "complete imaginative fantasy"?
What is it about them that puts them in the category of "cannot be tested at all"?
I look and I look...yet I cannot follow the logic you are using to make this judgement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 7:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 9:38 PM LinearAq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 59 of 144 (295740)
03-15-2006 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
03-15-2006 8:57 PM


Finally something that can be tested.
Seems to me that coal would have been produced in similar conditions wherever, but that the Flood would have provided beaucoup similar conditions.
Great. Then if you are right Faith, there should be an identifiable layer all over the world with a band of coal that was all laid down at the same time.
If that band, that layer (like the K-T Boundary layer) is there, then it might suport the Flood. If it's not there, then you can throw out your theory of coal formation.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 8:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 9:34 PM jar has replied

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


Message 60 of 144 (295743)
03-15-2006 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
03-15-2006 9:22 PM


AND THE FLOOD PASSES THE TEST!!!!
Great. Then if you are right Faith, there should be an identifiable layer all over the world with a band of coal that was all laid down at the same time.
Well, imagine THAT, the CARBONIFEROUS layer!! There you have it!!
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 09:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 9:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 9:48 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