|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Fact versus Interpretation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They can make up any scenario they want, and do. What is needed are some specific predictions that can then be tested. But JAR, a specific prediction has been made and tested and PASSED. It was your proposition that there should be a single layer of coal and it merely turns out there's more than one, which is even better for the Flood. The FLOOD PASSES JAR'S TEST!!!! This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 10:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Would you like to step through the layers and evidence one layer at a time and see if it makes sense? You already showed it makes sense!! A layer of COAL you said. Well, it EXISTS!! MORE than one even, a WEALTH of evidence for the Flood. Further investigation would be off topic here, I'm afraid, but I'll be watching the GC thread for a discussion of the Carboniferous. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 10:37 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Would you like to put it to the test and step through the layers one at a time and see if your figment can stand up to the evidence? Now now JAR, you know that by your OWN test the Flood PASSED. Now you want to make up some stuff to prove your own test wrong because it passed. Tch tch, just admit the Flood SCORED!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You just helped me establish this evidence you claim is nonexistent, dear Jar. Thank you.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 10:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This thread isn't supposed to be too much about the Flood, Ratel, and while there are some speculations by creationists about how to explain those phenomena, I agree, they are hard to explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You just helped me establish this evidence you claim is nonexistent, dear Jar. Thank you.
The coal example seems an excellent vehicle for pursuing the thread's topic. This thread is about interpretation, and I think Jar is indicating an interest in exploring the reasons for your difference in interpretation. I can already see one possible reason. Jar believes your flood scenario requires a single global layer of coal. I think you've interpreted this to mean one or more layers of coal, but that's not what he meant. He said in Message 59 that "there should be an identifiable layer all over the world with a band of coal that was all laid down at the same time." You haven't identified any such band that I'm aware of, so your comments like "Your scenario proves the Flood. Nice going!" are puzzling. For the flood we don't need one layer or many layers, but the "Carboniferous Period" does exist as presumably A layer in the geological column, no matter how it happens to be distributed across the earth, and that is what I meant. His notion that there HAS TO BE just one layer OR ANY PARTICULAR FORMATION for that matter, is just the usual evo strawmanning of flood geology, anyway. But the existence of the Carboniferous Period, however it is distributed, IS great evidence for the flood which would have provided ample conditions for coal formation -- AND would possibly have transported already formed coal deposits as well.
You may want to explore with Jar whether he's right to conclude that your flood scenario implies a world-wide coal layer of the same age, because if he's correct then it would present a significant problem for your viewpoint, since no such layer has ever been found. The Carboniferous Period is conspicuously present. And it does constitute a LAYER in most places where it is found. What jar thinks the flood "implies" beyond this is not something I care to explore. The Carboniferous Period layer or layers does very nicely for the purpose, and does give the evidence he says doesn't exist. Certainly he can rationalize it away. Of course.
Interpretations of fact and the implications of theory are what I thought this thread would be about, so I think exploring this is very appropriate for this thread. No, this thread was supposed to be about the SPECIFIC examples I gave in the beginning about what is a fact versus what is an interpretation. I consider my examples to be quite sufficient to get across the point and all the caviling raised since then is just too discouraging to deal with. Just once I'd like to see anyone at EvC just GET something as simple and obvious as that. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 12:57 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What I was trying to say needs no such investigations. It is quite clear on the face of it, holmes. I identified all those examples so that a person could get what I mean.
I am not saying they had no evidence for their conjectures, in fact I believe I said more than once that of course they do. The whole point is that what is conjecture is nevertheless frequently presented to nonscientists as if it were fact. This is actually more often encountered in presentations of the scenarios of supposed ancient life that develop from the ToE. I believe the examples illustrate just fine what I wanted to illustrate and that ought to be sufficient. If it's not, it's just another case of evc miscommunication and it's not worth the energy it takes to keep trying to deal with it. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 09:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Receding waters from a massive flood could have carved all the strange shapes seen throughout the Southwest -- something to do with the direction the water took over the terrain, and something to do with the hardness or softness of various parts of the landscape. Of course the very thin tall shapes have been sculpted a great deal by yearly weathering and erosion since the flood, which probably left them in a much sturdier condition than we see now.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 09:11 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are right, I ignored the paper. It is completely irrelevant to what I had to say. What I said is sufficient on the face of it, and that's that. Take it or leave it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 09:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is NOT the obligation of the average layperson to check things out that scientists say. And I used to try to check out the evidence for evolution as a matter of fact. Before I was a Christian. It's nothing but propaganda. And I don't think the scientists are trying to deceive anyone either. That's just all they have, this big fat imaginative fantasy.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 11:47 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't care. I have exactly the same feeling. What's the use indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I gave so many examples specifically in order to demonstrate what I mean. If they are not clear there is nothing more to say. I do not understand the furor and it's too dispiriting to try to deal with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Crash, there are a million ways to TEST those results and that is why they are accepted in courtrooms. They've BEEN tested. There have to have been countless comparisons of DNA samples belonging to living people to show its correspondence to relatedness.
In the case of the ToE and OE there is no opportunity to test an interpretation because it's all about one-time events in the distant past. It may seem very reasonable from the evidence, from a certain appearance of a rock, say, to guess that it went through the stresses of mountain building or started life on a sea shore millions of years ago, but since ALL you have is your guess about this one time ancient event, it should never be called fact. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2006 05:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It HAS BEEN tested millions of times with KNOWN people and situations.
It is NOT "exactly the same thing" at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How do you test whether or not a rock was formed in mountain building or a marine or desert environment? I KNOW how you HYPOTHESIZE that it was, I want to know how you CONFIRM your hypothesis.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2006 10:23 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024