|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,409 Year: 3,666/9,624 Month: 537/974 Week: 150/276 Day: 24/23 Hour: 0/4 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Uniformitarianism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5866 days)  Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
Hello Razd,
Again sorry for the delay. Let us take a look...
Razd writes: Then you should also accept... Why should I accept the synonyms when I clearly used the word interpret? The might be similar, yet do not have the meaning I meant to portray. This is a petty attempt at debate. Please, does this argument really matter? Do you, just, have to be right?
Again, the basic difference is that we want to understand reality as shown by the evidence, rather than interpret it to suit our whim. We can interpret evidence to show that the earth is flat, but when we understand the evidence we know that it shows the earth is an oblate spheroid. We can interpret evidence to show that astrology is valid, yet I believe we can agree that this is not scientific, and thus that because we can interpret evidence to mean what we want it to, that doesn't make the result scientific or any more real than a flat earth or astrology. This is the fundamental difference between the scientific approach and the creationist\IDologist approach: scientists are interested in understanding what the evidence really means, what is real, what is true, while creationists\IDologists are interested in making the evidence fit their story. Part of that attempt is to portray science as something it is not, such as saying it is only a theory, it is only an interpretation, and implying that there are other concepts just as valid, just as tested. I highlighted both paragraphs, because as a whole this is very true. I agree that I (a creationist) would examine the evidence to fit the model of creation. However, if you honestly believe that the Theory of Evolution has not done the same then you are truly delusional. From homology to embryology to those missing links, the theory of evolution and common ancestory has failed. Because it tried to fit the evidence within the confines of the theory. If you want to classify creationists in this group, you might as well add evolutionists. Also, your very subtle maneuver of grouping evolutionism with science is remarkably well conceived. Perhaps if I didn't know any better I might think that evolutionism is a fact. Perhaps, I will join you in a discussion about radiometric dating. Not now though.
The short answer is that Timmy's concept is not tested or validated the way that geology is. Geologists would test the erosion rates of different rocks and see what the evidence of slow erosion and fast erosion would look like in different strata, and then compare that with observations of the Grand Canyon. Nor would they assume a constant rate of erosion, as there are several different layers that - on a first assumption basis - would erode at different rates. To state\think that the geological conclusion that the Grand Canyon has eroded over considerable time is just an assumption based on a cursory observation is really rather insulting to geologists.  Well, I seemed to have struck a nerve. My assessment of geology maybe rudimentary, yet it reflects reality. Regardless of how geologists attain all their information on erosion rates and what-not, the fact remains that Timmy's idea is spot on in reference to uniformitarian geology of the grand canyon. The only thing insulting is your incessant evolutionist gibberish. 
Well if you were going to be scientific about it, rather than just have a philosophical conversation (the intellectual game of "what if" ideas: what if the Pilgrims had thanked the indians instead of their religion ... ), then you would propose a theory that would explain the existing evidence, make predictions of what you would see that would be different from the "standard model," and test those predictions. Well if I was going to be scientific about it, I wouldn't be here discussing these topics with you, now would I? Run back to this silly defensive position of "your not doing science," while I wonder how the shoe would fit. I haven't postulated any hypotheses, because you knit-picked every single thing I typed. When I do start with an hypothesis I will verify it, until then let's not get side tracked with school yard politics.
That is the impression that creationists give with their ad hoc statements portraying evolution as some philosophical overview that controls how people think. In my opinion, telling someone they are a purposeless ape-thing would fall under the category of controlling how someone would think. To deny this would be truly ad hoc and delusional. Go ahead down play it as a "conspiracy theory," but I won't be deceived.
Nope. This may come as a shock to you, but the young earth model could be true and evolution would still be valid. This is because the argument creationists have is not with evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- but with the concept of common descent and the evidence for a single common ancestor population rather than a multitude of (as yet undefined number or level of development) of first ancestors. No shock there, define evolution in the broadest most general way so that evolutionism can get away with stating that evolution is a fact and that the theory explains this fact. Bah! If you want to debate semantics and the dynamic usage of words it only shows your true desire to skirt the real issues instead of knit-picking every tiny thing and "rather than interpret it to suit our whim" we should seek out the hard questions. Every forum I have ever been on and every discussion I have ever had, there are always differing definitions of evolution. I well understand this. I'm not against change. I am against an poorly supported idea and claim that we evolved from a common ancestor. Since no limits can be determined, it wouldn't be fair for you to assume evolution as it would not be equally as fair for me to assume variations within a kind in a debate context.
Gosh, I'm whelmed by the load of evolutionary biology that is forced on geologists to understand their field! So many different course combinations could be taken without a single one involving fossils (such scary things) that this really makes my point: I used evolution theory very broadly, notice how the definition contracts and expands almost on a writers whim. Hmm...
Yes. It is rather a rational concept don't you think? whereas thinking that reality can be subjective or that there can be two or more "objective" realities is really, in essence, believing in fantasy -- isn't it? Well, I would say we agree.
Not "liking" the rest of my post is one way to avoid reality, isn't it? What a cozy world you have, where you only need deal with issues you "like" eh? Do you think you can run away from reality? Obviously not as fast as you. P.S. The rest of your post was worthless to our immediate discussion as you seem to haven't comprehended my lack of desire to get caught up in an off topic discussion. "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days)  Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Why should I accept the synonyms when I clearly used the word interpret? The might be similar, yet do not have the meaning I meant to portray. This is a petty attempt at debate. Please, does this argument really matter? Do you, just, have to be right? Perhaps I did not phrase it as well as I could have. If you accept the dictionary as the sole source of meaning of terms, then you should also accept the thesaurus as a source of connotations for the meanings of the words, connotations gained from common usage. Does it really matter that terminology and usage is not necessarily as clear as it can be? You are the one complaining about my use use of communication analogies, of saying that evidence "talks" yet you need the same basic analogy to use "interpret" in your argument. The issue is about understanding each other more than anything else. See Message 60 for more. You may also be interested in the Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?, which in spite of the title is more about what logic is and how it can be used.
I highlighted both paragraphs, because as a whole this is very true. I agree that I (a creationist) would examine the evidence to fit the model of creation. However, if you honestly believe that the Theory of Evolution has not done the same then you are truly delusional. From homology to embryology to those missing links, the theory of evolution and common ancestory has failed. Because it tried to fit the evidence within the confines of the theory. If you want to classify creationists in this group, you might as well add evolutionists. Sorry I don't buy the "you think like I think because I can only think of one way to think" argument. Accusing evolution (or science in general) of doing things the "creationist way" does not make it so. It may hold is some specific instances with some specific people, as that is certainly human nature in creationist types, and we should not, rationally, expect better in all scientists.
Ernst Haeckel can be accused of doing this kind of thing but in the end his theory was discarded because it was contradicted by the evidence, and he was discredited personally when it was determined that the drawings were falsified. Against this splashy occasional example of bad science is the quiet pursuit of good science by millions of scientists that don't make headlines because they don't falsify data or force evidence to fit concept. But the real question in this whole issue is what is the final arbiter of truth in science (and yes, you are arguing against all of science not just evolutionary biology, when you equate geology with "evolutionist"). The final arbiter in science is the test of theory against fact, evidence, reality. When there is a conflict between fact and theory such that the theory cannot be true the theory is discarded or revised until it can be true, then it is tested again. And again. And again. What is the evidence that this is actually true for science? Falsified theories that are actually discarded. Hoaxes that are uncovered and discredited. There are many such items in all branches of science - from evolution to physics to chemistry to astronomy to paleontology, etc. etc. etc. ... Can you name one science that has not discarded any falsified theories or a hoax? Can you name one that still uses a falsified theory or a hoax? (and not the usual PRATTs please ...  ). Haeckel is an excellent example of how falsified theories AND hoaxes are discarded in science in general and evolution in particular. The final arbiter for creationists and IDologists is conformance to preconception of reality, making the evidence fit the model and ignoring anything that can't be made to fit. Testing of concepts for being true is not desired or necessary to affirm conformance to belief. They don't care about reality. What is the evidence that this is actually true for creationism\IDology? The fact that falsified concepts and hoaxes are never discarded but are endlessly recycled. This is why they get called PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times). The fact that they use outright falsehood regularly to the point that it should be really embarrassing for any honest creationist. If creationism were true why does it need to use falsified concepts, hoaxes and falsehoods (is any of it true?).
Also, your very subtle maneuver of grouping evolutionism with science is remarkably well conceived. Perhaps if I didn't know any better I might think that evolutionism is a fact. What is evolutionism? Really. Can you find a definition that includes geology? All I have done is to "maneuver" some reality into the discussion of what "evolutionism" is and not let a creationist use it to demonize all of science while pretending to only attack evolution (such as in saying "The only thing insulting is your incessant evolutionist gibberish") when actually talking about geology and evidence or concepts that have nothing to do with evolution. When you use the term "evolutionist" in regard to arguments about geology YOU are conflating evolution with science. I'm just being honest in what you are actually talking about.
Well, I seemed to have struck a nerve. Naive and absurd statements have a tendency to strike nerves of sensible common reason. Especially if one should know better.
My assessment of geology maybe rudimentary, yet it reflects reality. Regardless of how geologists attain all their information on erosion rates and what-not, the fact remains that Timmy's idea is spot on in reference to uniformitarian geology of the grand canyon. Yet the evidence shows that your assessment is so rudimentary you apparently don't know what reality is: you think the drainage of a great flood is a better explanation of the canyon, without realizing how totally absurd this is ... without even considering uniformitarianism and different rates of erosion. The difference would be so striking that even Timmy would notice.
Well if I was going to be scientific about it, I wouldn't be here discussing these topics with you, now would I? Run back to this silly defensive position of "your not doing science," while I wonder how the shoe would fit. I haven't postulated any hypotheses, because you knit-picked every single thing I typed. When I do start with an hypothesis I will verify it, until then let's not get side tracked with school yard politics. So I take it you don't want to get into geology enough to develop an alternative theory for the formation of the Grand Canyon, determine differences that would occur if it were true instead of the "standard model" used in geology and then test those predictions against the facts in the canyon. That would be doing research that applies to the thread topic wouldn't it? You'd rather repeat your assertion that a child at the rim of the Grand Canyon knows better.
In my opinion, telling someone they are a purposeless ape-thing would fall under the category of controlling how someone would think. To deny this would be truly ad hoc and delusional. Go ahead down play it as a "conspiracy theory," but I won't be deceived. Then don't listen to creationists, for they are the ones telling you this. It's one of their favorite falsehoods. Certainly nobody on the Clergy Letter Project List would tell you that. But if you really want to discuss this issue, then start another topic, you've wandered far enough into standard anti-evolution rhetoric that has nothing to do with geology in general and uniformitarianism in specific.
No shock there, define evolution in the broadest most general way so that evolutionism can get away with stating that evolution is a fact and that the theory explains this fact. Bah! Yet you can verify that this is actually the way evolution is taught, studied and used in the field of biology. Now this is off-topic here, but you can continue this discussion at the MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? if you want to.
I used evolution theory very broadly, notice how the definition contracts and expands almost on a writers whim. Hmm... Yes, it's shocking when you use it to include geology and the facts show your error in thinking.
P.S. The rest of your post was worthless to our immediate discussion as you seem to haven't comprehended my lack of desire to get caught up in an off topic discussion. But you already have -- nothing in your post is about geology, it is a rant against evolution, and this means you are not going to address any issues related to geology in general and uniformitarianism in particular. Rants against evolution, with silly assertions about the way science functions, claims of being insulted by arguments are not geology. That's a basic problem with creationism - it's hard to find evidence to support a belief at odds with reality.
Perhaps, I will join you in a discussion about radiometric dating. Not now though. That would at least be relatively on topic. Message 1:
The only assumption we make today is that physical and chemical laws are constant, which is properly called actualism. By inductive reasoning and analogy, the study of geologic processes action today provides up with powerful clues to their past action, but we do not assume that those processes always acted with the same rates and intensities. There is confusion about what is meant by "catastrophic" processes and by a lack of appreciation of the vastness of geologic time. Geologists today routinely accept sudden, violent, and even certain unique events as perfectly consistent with contemporary earth theory. Only by substituting the term actualism for the ambiguous uniformitarianism can misconceptions be minimized. ... So uniformitarianism is out, actualism is in. We assume the evidence tells\shows\demonstrates\witnesses the truth of reality. If there is only one reality it is a matter of understanding it, not interpreting it. So can you find any evidence that the physical and chemical laws have not been constant? Any evidence that radioactive rates have changed at some time in the past? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : subtitle Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : topic Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days)  Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5866 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
"Anti-Evolution"
Apparently your a P.C. fascist. While reading your replies, it becomes obvious that your subtle plays at discrediting anything that disagrees with your "reality" is your objective. You bandy around semantics and obfuscate language to aid in your mental maze, of which if I stayed the course undoubtedly would never escape.
Sorry I don't buy the "you think like I think because I can only think of one way to think" argument. Was I making an argument?
Accusing evolution (or science in general) of doing things the "creationist way" does not make it so. Again, misrepresenting what I clearly said. Accusing evolution? I thought evolution was "the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation." Again, using elastic definitions of words. Accusing science in general? 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study It is very obvious your are in the game of misrepresenting your perceived opponents. There is no enemy here, only an enthusiastic student. You make straw man arguments at whim at attach vicious accusations. Shame on you.
What is the evidence that this is actually true for science? Falsified theories that are actually discarded. Hoaxes that are uncovered and discredited. There are many such items in all branches of science - from evolution to physics to chemistry to astronomy to paleontology, etc. etc. etc. ... Can you name one science that has not discarded any falsified theories or a hoax? Can you name one that still uses a falsified theory or a hoax?  I thought you would know better...this is a red herring. So what that "science" discards some hoaxes or that some falsified theories are removed? How long did it take? As far as Ernst Haeckel is concerned it wasn't such an open and closed case as you would mislead readers to believe. Remnants of his biogenetic "law" still persist: Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia . And btw, the theory of evolution is LONG overdue for the trash heap.
The final arbiter in science is the test of theory against fact, evidence, reality. When there is a conflict between fact and theory such that the theory cannot be true the theory is discarded or revised until it can be true, then it is tested again. And again. And again. You type these obscure references to basic scientific methodology, and seemingly expect me to fit the Evolution Theory and Uniformitarianism with basic science method as a socket and plug. Thanks, but no thanks I rather not be seduced into your "reality."
The final arbiter for creationists and IDologists is conformance to preconception of reality, making the evidence fit the model and ignoring anything that can't be made to fit. Creation science starts with basic assumptions, yes I agree. As does any science; without assuming that reality is stable enough to test against, there would be no "science." I have been reading into the creation literature for a while, and I have been constantly backing it up with frequent trips to talkorgins.org, and I have become convinced that the debate is much more than an open and closed case as you would have any one reading to believe. Your debate skills are admirable, yet your incessant dogmatic belief and love for the Theory of Evolution and anything thereof relating is asinine and repugnant.
The fact that falsified concepts and hoaxes are never discarded but are endlessly recycled. The "fact?" Is this some sort of semantic banter? Is there some definition I need to read up on before I call you a liar? What do you mean by falsified? Is there some definition I need to read up on before I call you out to display some evidence?
What is evolutionism? Really. Can you find a definition that includes geology? You like to misrepresent definitions and reality so much, I thought I would participate with adding my own word. Evolutionism is the belief in particles to people evolution, including common ancestory and not without an old universe. Because, I have never met anyone that believes in evolution as origins that doesn't believe in an old universe and subsequently an old earth. So Geology and evolution are married in this sense, regardless of expressions of science.I think a quote from Bruce is necessary, "...It's like a finger pointing a way to the moon, don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly Glory" You concentrate so much on semantical gibberish that you have missed and misconstrued what I meant (on several occasions), this is not my fault rather your lack of understanding (willfully or not).
Yet the evidence shows that your assessment is so rudimentary you apparently don't know what reality is: you think the drainage of a great flood is a better explanation of the canyon, without realizing how totally absurd this is ... without even considering uniformitarianism and different rates of erosion. The difference would be so striking that even Timmy would notice. Another great example of making a mountain out of a mole hill. Accusing me of not knowing what reality is? I live here too pal. But thanks for the confidence boost. And yes, I absolutely think that a Flood Event catastrophe (not be confused with your ignorant definition of a world wide flood) is more plausible than a uniformitarian process that results from millions of years. As for Timmy, Sorry I don't buy the "you think like I think because I can only think of one way to think" argument.
So I take it you don't want to get into geology enough to develop an alternative theory for the formation of the Grand Canyon, determine differences that would occur if it were true instead of the "standard model" used in geology and then test those predictions against the facts in the canyon. That would be doing research that applies to the thread topic wouldn't it? You'd rather repeat your assertion that a child at the rim of the Grand Canyon knows better. Oh how you now me so well. Astonishing. In fact, I am in the process of developing upon an alternative theory for the popular view of the formation of the Grand Canyon and many other Uniformitarian riddled geological structures. You'd rather poison the well than actually engage in a productive discussion; a discussion where you don't use so many logical fallacies.
Then don't listen to creationists, for they are the ones telling you this. It's one of their favorite falsehoods. Certainly nobody on the Clergy Letter Project List would tell you that. Is this a joke? I don't care whose bed catholicism climbs in with, but please refrain from using such outright ignorant arguments. Catholicism is a long way off from Biblical Creation. Pathetic attempt at persuasion.
No shock there, define evolution in the broadest most general way so that evolutionism can get away with stating that evolution is a fact and that the theory explains this fact. Bah! Yet you can verify that this is actually the way evolution is taught, studied and used in the field of biology. You must think I have a master's degree in stupid, huh? Of course that's how it's taught! Wouldn't be possible to get away with it logically if it wasn't. Again, no surprise.
But you already have -- nothing in your post is about geology, it is a rant against evolution, and this means you are not going to address any issues related to geology in general and uniformitarianism in particular. Rants against evolution, with silly assertions about the way science functions, claims of being insulted by arguments are not geology. That's a basic problem with creationism - it's hard to find evidence to support a belief at odds with reality. Clever, attack and retreat. You misrepresented so much of what I said, you think I was just going to ignore it? You try to poison the well with remarks like, "Rants against evolution, with silly assertions about the way science functions," that is a complete misrepresentation of anything that I typed. Your sentiments are ludicrous.
So uniformitarianism is out, actualism is in. No, uniformitarianism is still in you would just like to misrepresent reality...again. Actualism - Wikipedia this has nothing to do with Geology. Because you can't just start re-defining things as counter arguments come against your beliefs. The only argument you can muster is one from semantics. Avoid the controversy by putting up semantical speed bumps. Uniformitarianism is the term that refers to Lyell’s idea that geological processes have not changed throughout Earth’s history. Which ultimately is an idea forced upon an idea of an old earth. The two have become inseparable, unless you enforce semantical speed bumps to confound opposition. "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"Anti-Evolution" Apparently your a P.C. fascist. If you don't want me to label replies to your posts as "rants against evolution" then don't talk about evolution on a geology thread, talk about the geology. Nothing "PC" about it. It's that simple.
I thought you would know better...this is a red herring. So what that "science" discards some hoaxes or that some falsified theories are removed? How long did it take? As far as Ernst Haeckel is concerned it wasn't such an open and closed case as you would mislead readers to believe. Remnants of his biogenetic "law" still persist: Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia . And btw, the theory of evolution is LONG overdue for the trash heap. There is nothing obscure or subtle about the issue of what is the final arbiter of truth nor is it a red herring. You have already agreed that for creationism it is a preconceived belief. You claim science is the same -- it isn't, and your denial of the evidence that it is different does not change the reality. How long it takes is irrelevant -- how long did it take to go from geocentric universe to our modern understanding? Does that affect the validity of the current understanding? Remnants exist of Haeckel's theory exist, because those remnants are true. Didn't you read the wikipedia article that explained this? The parts that are false have been discarded. You have not shown an invalidated theory that has not been discarded.
You type these obscure references to basic scientific methodology, and seemingly expect me to fit the Evolution Theory and Uniformitarianism with basic science method as a socket and plug. Thanks, but no thanks I rather not be seduced into your "reality." There is nothing obscure about the fact that the a basic element of the scientific method is to discard theories that are invalidated or falsified by evidence of reality. Your attempt to label things obscure that are part of science are amusing, for they can only be obscure to someone who does not understand science very well.
Creation science starts with basic assumptions, yes I agree. As does any science; without assuming that reality is stable enough to test against, there would be no "science." I have been reading into the creation literature for a while, and I have been constantly backing it up with frequent trips to talkorgins.org, and I have become convinced that the debate is much more than an open and closed case as you would have any one reading to believe. Your debate skills are admirable, yet your incessant dogmatic belief and love for the Theory of Evolution and anything thereof relating is asinine and repugnant. We start with the assumption that evidence is real and true to reality -- what do you start with? I've never gotten anything more than "accepting the bible as true" as a basic assumption of creationism (and starting with an assumption is not science: you need a theory and something to test that will differentiate that theory from other concepts, and without that you don't have a "creation science"). Is there any other assumption made in creationism? We are supposedly talking about geology on this thread, or about science in general (a more universal application of uniformitarianism). Curiously you keep raising evolution not me. Insults are nothing more than ad hominem logical fallacies and do not replace actually dealing with the arguments. Sometimes the truth is "asinine and repugnant" and hard to take when you first come into contact with it. That can't be helped when your purpose is to find out the truth rather than live in fantasy land.
The "fact?" Is this some sort of semantic banter? Is there some definition I need to read up on before I call you a liar? What do you mean by falsified? Is there some definition I need to read up on before I call you out to display some evidence? Let me word this a little differently: it is easy to demonstrate that false concepts are repeated on creationist sites even after they have been shown to be false, and there is no effort in the creationist camp to weed out such information at any known level. Do a google on "Lucy's Knee" if you want an example, or look at Lucy - fact or fraud?, where this issue can be discussed in greater detail if you like. The evidence is that creationist websites do not care about truth.
You like to misrepresent definitions and reality so much, I thought I would participate with adding my own word. Evolutionism is the belief in particles to people evolution, including common ancestory and not without an old universe. Because, I have never met anyone that believes in evolution as origins that doesn't believe in an old universe and subsequently an old earth. So Geology and evolution are married in this sense, regardless of expressions of science. I think a quote from Bruce is necessary, "...It's like a finger pointing a way to the moon, don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly Glory" Again with the rant against evolution. You can assert this, but you cannot show that this is the way that evolution is taught, studied and used by evolutionists. The basic problem here is that if you are in a conversation involving your "evolution" (= particles to people evolution, including common ancestory and not without an old universe) with a biologist's evolution (= change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation), then you are not talking about the same thing. You can see this happening when you say things like "the theory of evolution is LONG overdue for the trash heap." -- if you mean the concept of evolution as "particles to people evolution, including common ancestory and not without an old universe" then you are not saying this applies to the concept of evolution as " change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" -- you are not talking about the same thing, not meaning the same thing, you are talking about a straw man. If you want to discuss this further you can go to Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.. This applies to all sciences -- it is very simple: when you are talking about a science you use the terminology used in that science or you are NOT talking about that science, but some misunderstanding, fantasy or delusion you have about that science. As a corollary, when you are having any conversation where you want to communicate clearly and be understood you will make an effort ensure you are using the same common definitions of the terms used in your conversation. As another corollary, when your purpose is to obscure, obfuscate, and confuse the issues, then using different definitions is an easy thing to do. You wanted an example of creationist sites perpetuating false information, and one of the best examples of this is the consistent, pervasive and unnecessary false portrayal of what evolution really involves. If creationism is true then why do creationist sites need to lie about what evolution is?
I have never met anyone that believes in evolution as origins that doesn't believe in an old universe and subsequently an old earth. So Geology and evolution are married in this sense, regardless of expressions of science. No, they are "married" in the sense of using the evidence we have to understand reality. The fact that they (and all other sciences) come to understand the same reality is not a big surprise: it would be shocking if they didn't. But you are confusing the evidence of reality with the theories involved to further our understanding of reality. The earth IS old, that is a fact for geology, physics, astronomy, biology, paleontology, archeology, etc ... and they come to the SAME conclusion from different investigations of reality with independent evidence. The geologist, the physicist, the astronomer, the biologist, the paleontologist and the archaeologist do not make up the evidence or the dates that they get for objects, they measure the evidence that shows one thing is older than another thing, and use the results in making and testing theories. One of the basic assumption they use to derive actual dates from that evidence is that " physical and chemical laws are constant" (Message 1). There is no evidence that this is a false concept.
And yes, I absolutely think that a Flood Event catastrophe (not be confused with your ignorant definition of a world wide flood) is more plausible than a uniformitarian process that results from millions of years. In fact, I am in the process of developing upon an alternative theory for the popular view of the formation of the Grand Canyon and many other Uniformitarian riddled geological structures. Perhaps you should start a thread on your "Flood Event catastrophe" if you think (1) you have a solid grasp of reality AND (2) it is more plausible than the geological understanding of what has happened there. Or post on Was there a worldwide flood?.
Is this a joke? I don't care whose bed catholicism climbs in with, but please refrain from using such outright ignorant arguments. Catholicism is a long way off from Biblical Creation. Pathetic attempt at persuasion. They are not all catholics. The point - what you have not answered is that they have no problem with living with faith and evolution. The people that tell you there are problems are not evolutionists nor christians per se but creationists who want you to believe what they say. Where's your skeptic meter?
No, uniformitarianism is still in you would just like to misrepresent reality...again. Actualism - Wikipedia this has nothing to do with Geology. Because you can't just start re-defining things as counter arguments come against your beliefs. The only argument you can muster is one from semantics. Avoid the controversy by putting up semantical speed bumps. Then respond to the OP about this, that is where that quote comes from, it's not my misrepresentation at all. What we are discussing here (supposedly) is whether "physical and chemical laws are constant" (Message 1), not evolution, not flood fantasy. To argue that they have changed one needs to present some information\evidence\substantiation and not just assert that things are different. If you feel you MUST talk about evolution then go to one of the threads I have linked to for further discussion and stop taking this thread off topic.
RAZD, message 62 writes: We assume the evidence tells\shows\demonstrates\witnesses the truth of reality. If there is only one reality it is a matter of understanding it, not interpreting it. So can you find any evidence that the physical and chemical laws have not been constant? Any evidence that radioactive rates have changed at some time in the past? This is not semantics or obscure -- it is what the debate is about: science doing science and creationism trying to undo science in order to fit reality into their preconceived universe. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minnemooseus Member  Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
