Here's a reminder from that article Roxrkool posted way back there:
Geological Reasoning: Geology as an Historical and Interpretive Science Geology was also seen as having a host of problems that undercut its claims to knowledge: incompleteness of data, because of the gaps in and the poor resolution of the stratigraphic record; the lack of experimental control that is possible in the laboratory-based sciences; and the great spans of time required for geologic processes to take place, making direct observation difficult or impossible.
Somebody back down the thread a ways made a big deal out of the "was" in that paragraph, but in context there's no implication that this view of Geology has changed, certainly there's no reason it could or would have changed, it is what it is, and the author doesn't say anything to change it. In fact all the author is interested in is taking the interpretive and historical science of Geology and deriving a philosophy from it.
Both Percy and I pointed out and proved that the author was speaking of erroneous views such as yours, and went on to argue quite persuasively that those views are wrong. That quote is not evidence against the usefulness and veracity of geology.
All I want noticed here is that Geology, the part that's about the unwitnessed past, IS historical and interpretive, which is a different kind of science than the laboratory-based sciences, and because of that it has apparently had a reputation among NON-CREATIONISTS for being short on its claims to knowledge. If a non-Creationist can acknowledge that, why can't everybody here?
Reputations don't matter. Evidence matters.
You keep on telling we can't know what happened in the past and we''ll continue to do what you say we can't.
Elizabeth has a very good post on the faux distinction that Ham and Faith are pushing: Historical vs Observational Science. Of course Faith won't have a chance of understanding it.
when you are dealing with the unwitnessed past you cannot ever have certainty about your theories, which should always therefore be couched in the language of hypothesis instead of treated as Fact and crammed down the throats of people who have a different idea about the unwitnessed past.
To a certain extent that's true of all science; all theories are provisional. But historical science theories are no more provisional than any other theories. No matter how many times you assert otherwise or how uncomfortable it makes you feel, we can learn and have learned a lot about the past.
Go read the thread Why the Flood Never Happened. We've done the Grand Canyon to death on that thread and I'm not going to repeat it here just for you just because you missed it.
what a thoroughly underwhelming answer. you seriously can't expect to hand-wave away counter evidence to your claims like that. just because you talked a lot in some other thread doesn't mean that you can plant your flag and declare victory in this one. and you can't expect someone to not bring up obvious counter evidence just because you're tired of explaining yourself.
Actually she is repeating it for you here... all she did in that thread was handwaving and fantasizing.
Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
There is no morality in evolution/science.
Falsified by observation.
I often wonder why creationists deny the obvious fact that atheists are moral (and there's some evidence that they are more moral then theists) and refuse to consider the scenarios by which it may have evolved.
So don't blame any lack of morality on atheism or religion or any scientific theory. Blame it on the immoral people.
I often wonder why creationists deny the obvious fact that atheists are moral
In a uniform, prescribed way? Tell me more.
No, not in a uniform prescribed way. In somewhat varying ways just like religionists, and not prescribed formally but in a manner created by evolution and society.
(and there's some evidence that they are more moral then theists)
Let's see that evidence. Not just a few cherry picks, but uniform, prescribed ways that they are more moral, and the source from where they derive that morality.
See above. There is no uniformity in any group's morality, there's variation, and prescribed ways are not necessary. The source is evolution and society.
Lay those scenarios on me, and I'll consider them. I've never noticed them put fourth on forums such as these before.
Way off topic, but I've seen it lots of places, such as here
Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
where do you think non-theists get their morals? The same evolutionary process that DID NOT give any morals to animals?
Yes. Although many animals show signs of morality, especially our cousins. Different species are different. We seem to be the most intelligent and maybe the most moral. So what?
How anyone seriously thinks prisoners can be trusted to answer questions truthfully is beyond me. Doesn't it make sense that prisoners are going to claim to be Christian in hopes of getting off easier because of it? That many of them could be skilled enough to fake out the chaplains that contribute to these findings?
I didn't claim it was definitive. But you obviously didn't read the link. they didn't ask the prisoners.
...on Thursday he announced that his Creation Museum's proposed Noah's Ark theme park, including a 510-foot replica of the Biblical vessel, had against all odds secured a last-minute $62 million municipal bond offering. The miracle was God's, he said, but Nye also had something to do with it
quote:Mike Zovath, the Ark project coordinator, said the minimum amount was sold, which constituted most of the bonds, and AiG purchased some. They did not provide exact figures.
I am not clear on this... is AIG being denied 501(c) status or are they only being denied incentives to build the park? It does seem as if the park should qualify for 501(c) status.
AIG is a 501(c3) which may discriminate. The Ark Park is a separate for-profit legal entity which may not. Hambo tried a pretty obvious end run; advertising for a CAD draftsperson to be hired by AIG (and therefore had to meet their standards) but who would be loaned to Ark Park and would work exclusively for Ark park.
Now I've listened to a discussion between Ham and his lawyer on the subject here and get a better idea of what it's about. Apparently one of the reasons they chose to build their Ark Park in Kentucky was the tax incentive program that would rebate sales taxes they collect as the park is operating. They were accepted for this rebate as a projected tourist attraction that is expected to bring in quite a bit of revenue for the state, and then the state changed their mind based on some idea that since they want to hire only people who share their understanding of the ark they are disqualified. The lawyer says that's a violation of the law that allows any organization to hire in accord with their viewpoint to preserve their identity.
Your lawyer needs to go back to school. Only certain certified non-profit organizations are allowed to ignore US discrimination laws in hiring no matter what they think their "identity" is. Ask your friend if a for-profit organization with an all-white "identity" can refuse to hire other races.
Ark Park is a for-profit enterprise that is subject to the anti-discrimination laws.
Please see post above. It's about something they qualified for as any tourist attraction might, for a rebate offered by the state to any such tourist attraction that brings money into the state. They qualified and then they were disqualified on religious grounds, which is the state's wrongly discriminating against them.
They qualified until AIG tried a pathetic and transparent scheme to avoid the fact that Ark Park may not discriminate in hiring, just like any for-profit entity. Tourist attraction or other.
He DID apply as a for-profit tourist attraction as any other such attraction would and qualified for the rebate on that basis. The project is under AIG which hires only Christians, which ought to be well known.
In law the Ark Park is not under AIG and (again in law) has no relationship with AIG. That's the whole point.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
