Summations Only

1) Dating produces facts. Facts are one form of evidence.2) I can't think flexibly enough to ignore huge masses of data. I certainly wouldn't want to.3) A scientific theory is defined as the single best explanation for a given set of facts. Creationism is the exact opposite. It is the distorted facts that can be cobbled together to support an a priori religious belief.Why would anyone who was not already a believer be convinced by the ridiculous "evidence" that creationists cobble together in an effort to validate their beliefs? The dates for the scablands are arrived at by scientific methods. The date for the global flood is not. It is arrived at by various interpretations of old tribal myths, and ranges from a consensus of about 4,350 years ago to an outlandish 252 million years ago. And the funny thing is, there is no evidence for any of those interpretations! They are all made up from belief, not evidence.But, if we accept the consensus opinion on the date of the (nonexistent) flood at 4,350 years ago, then that is about a third the age of the scablands floods. In other words, the scablands came long before the date of the imaginary flood and had nothing to do with any such myths.And we see evidence for the scablands, but you and others go to great length to try and manufacture--unsuccessfully--evidence for a global flood. To no avail, as there simply isn't any.If you really look at your claims, you have the flood occurring at dozens of different ages depending on the needs of the moment, with no evidence for any of those claims. What a joke!

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

​

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

​

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

​

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

​

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

​

Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

​

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

​

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not be able to play"

​

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

​

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

​

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

​

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

​

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

​

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

​

Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

​

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

​

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

​

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.

​

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

​

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.

If you would read that list of definitions, and learn something, you would do a lot better in scientific discussions.As it is, you are using a number of those terms incorrectly.

Please read -- and try to understand -- the definitions of "proof" and "theory" again.

Debating with Faith reminds me of the old quotation:

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

​

George Bernard Shaw

Rational debate is fruitless with those who either deny reality, or whose grasp of reality is nil. Scientific debate with those same folks is impossible.So as far as this thread is concerned, I'm headed for the sidelines--though I may do some Faith-style commentary on occasion.

There have been a number of such cases, but tree-rings, varves and similar annular phenomena are even better.So, of course, the hard-core creationists have to deny, misrepresent, ignore or otherwise abuse the evidence or the method so they feel they don't have to accept it.Its funny to watch: we have Luddites among us to this very day!

And once again you don't know what you're talking about.

Creation "science" at work."Woodmorappe" (the pen name of Jan Peczkis, a grade school teacher) is not exactly the most authoritative commentator on matters of science.

We know why you don't deal with radiometric dating--because it disproves some of your religious beliefs.Unfortunately for you, that doesn't make these dating methods go away, and it doesn't make them unverifiable.You can stick your head in the sand all you want but that doesn't alter reality in any way. Reality is out there whether you say Yea or Nay.

This is wrong.You are trying to make us believe, as you obviously do, that all those fossils in stratified rock are the same age, that is, 4,350 years ago, and are attributable to the biblical flood.That is such a ridiculous idea for so many reasons that only someone who is totally oblivious to evidence could accept it.

Dating, particularly radiometric dating, is the death-knell for the young earth belief. That's why YECs just can't accept it, and have to deny, misrepresent, obfuscate or just plain ignore all of the evidence that shows their beliefs are incorrect. Mostly they just can't deal with what the dating shows.We have seen ample evidence of this in several threads during the past few months.

--Poor Mindspawn was sent screaming into the night, unable to accept the evidence that RAZD provided to him.

​

--Faith has resorted to absolute denial of the evidence that virtually everyone else in the world can clearly see in an effort to support her beliefs.

And dating also dooms all the various scenarios that YECs come up with to try and explain a global flood. The bible puts that flood at about 4,350 years ago but there is no evidence to support a global flood at that date. So, they just hunt back in time a few years, a few thousand years, a few hundred thousand years, a few million years, or what the heck, a couple of hundred million years and pick something--anything--that might be misrepresented as a global flood. And then they run with it, ignoring all the problems that extreme dating creates! Problems? Well, such as placing the global flood some 250 million years ago, as some do, means placing modern humans back to that date. Unfortunately for them, the evidence for modern humans only goes back some 200,000 years.So, dating alone is enough to bust the YEC beliefs. No wonder they are so adamant that scientists are just making things up.But as we have seen from Faith's posts, it isn't scientists who are just making things up...

Perhaps your problem is that your simple points are just plain wrong.

And we shouldn't have to establish the already understood reality that the time frame you are citing for all of these events is absolutely incorrect.And the already understood (by most everyone but you) time frame absolutely refutes the young earth belief and the attempts to find a date for the global flood somewhere other than the 4,350 years ago date that biblical scholars agree upon.So, if you're worried about "understood expectations," you better start with time itself, not tectonic activities.Until you can disprove the current scientific understanding of earth's age, and the way that timeline is established, your beliefs and claims are unsupported.And so far, creationist's, and your, attempts to do so have fallen woefully short.I could say your efforts are like those of Denver's against Seattle this evening, but Denver put up a good effort and managed to score points...Edited by Coyote, : speeling